I finished Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching the other day and given that I'd never had any experience with the work before I was a bit befuddled. The commentary and notes in the Penguin edition were enlightening in that they stated that some of the sections were intentionally vague to allow for interpretation. That said, I probably need quite a bit more commentary reading to get me to any level of competency with the text. That said, there were a few passages that really stood out to me.
The first one that stood out to me is ironic given that it is the night of the election. The rhetoric of Trump resounding in my ears regardless of my wishes might have made this one stand out to me.
From IX -
"There may be gold and jade to fill a hall
But there is none who can keep them.
To be overbearing when one has wealth and position
Is to bring calamity upon oneself" (Tzu, 13).
Firstly, it mirrors the Biblical passage Matthew 6:19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal". It would seem that the wisdom of ancient China and the wisdom of Jesus have a bit of universality of it. But this reflection came later, initially I thought of Trump. As Trump seems to be coming in with a bunch of surprising victories it seems that wisdom might not always be factually based...
From XIII - Taoism seems to have a dualistic philosophy
"The reason I have great trouble is that I have a body. When I no longer have a body, what trouble have I?" (Tzu, 17).
From XVIII - Again, my reading might have been shaded by current events, particularly the election of 2016 when this passage stuck out to me.
"When cleverness emerges
There is great hypocrisy" (Tzu, 22).
Frankly, the overbearingness of wealth and power seemed perfectly suited to Trump, but this passage seems to fit both Clinton and Trump perfectly.
From XXIII - It seems that Lao Tzu has a bit of nominative determinism about him as well in his philosophy.
"A man of the way conforms to the way; a man of virtue conforms to virtue; a man of loss conforms to loss. He who conforms to the way is gladly accepted by the way; he who conforms to virtue is gladly accepted by virtue; he who conforms to loss is gladly accepted by loss" (Tzu, 28).
From XLII - Addition by subtraction - a bit of wisdom from ancient minimalists?
"Thus a thing is sometimes added to by being diminished and diminished by being added to" (Tzu, 49).
From XLIV - Again some mirroring of Jesus' words in Matthew 6
"Know contentment
And you will suffer no disgrace" (Tzu, 51).
Matthew 6:28-34 has a bit of contentment and a lack of disgrace in it.
Paul talks about contentment in Philippians 4:12-13
Hebrews 13:5 also preaches contentment.
From XLVI - Contentment is preached again. This was a very good saying/poem.
"There is no disaster greater than not being content" (Tzu, 53).
From LVI - Just a good thought
"One who knows does not speak; one who speaks does not know" (Tzu, 63).
A lot of the sayings in this book are good, solid wisdom that is hard to argue against. The one that I found most foreign to my thinking and one that I couldn't quite get along with was the thought of following tradition and not breaking new ground. "Let your wheels move only along old ruts" (Tzu, 63). This thought was expressed numerous times in the book and I simply can't fit that into my thinking without fundamentally changing my thought process. That said, as I stated above, I'm so unfamiliar with this text I might be reading into it something that it wasn't intending.
From LXIII -
"Lay plans for the accomplishment of the difficult before it becomes difficult; make something big by starting with it when small. Difficult things in the world must needs have their beginnings in the easy; big things must needs have their beginnings in the small. Therefore it is because the sage never attempts to be great that he succeeds in becoming great" (Tzu, 70).
This is just sound, practical wisdom.
LXXIV seems to me (again pardon my misrepresentation if I'm reading it wrong) to be a questioning of capital punishment. "In chopping wood on behalf of the master carpenter, there are few who escape hurting their own hands instead" (Tzu, 81).
From LXXVII -
"It is the way of heaven to take from what has in excess in order to make good what is deficient. The way of man is otherwise. It takes from those who are in want in order to offer this to those who already have more than enough" (Tzu, 84).
This is a pretty damning indictment of the greediness of man.
From LXXVIII - That's just an example pretty excellent writing to end this part.
"Straightforward words
Seem paradoxical" (Tzu, 85).
From LXXXI - It seems that Lao Tzu could have easily stepped in to back Plato up against the Sophists...
"Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good" (Tzu, 88).
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Saturday, February 13, 2016
365 Day Bible Catch Up Matthew 10 - 14
Matthew 10
Jesus gives power to his 12 disciples to heal and drive out demons. These are the twelve - Simon-Peter, Andre, James & John, Philip & Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot.
Jesus sent them out like sheep among wolves, instructing them to be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves. He told them to freely give because they had been given freely.
He warned them that there mission would be tough and they would be arrested. He told them not to worry about what to say because the Spirit of the Father will speak through them. He warned "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved" (Matthew 10:22).
Matthew 11
The disciples went out into Israel to perform the work Jesus had instructed them to do. Jesus went on to preach in Galilee. John the Baptist was in prison and sent his disciples to go and ask Jesus if he was the one who was to come. Jesus replied to go back and report what you see, the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear and the dead rise.
Jesus then proclaims that John the Baptist was the greatest of all men born to woman, but less than the least in the kingdom of Heaven. He told the crowds that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come. That was an interesting verse:
"And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear" (Matthew 11:14-15).
Jesus proclaims the truth, but acknowledges that there are some who would be unwilling to accept this truth. He denounced the generation because they are fickle. John was fasting and the people said he had a demon. Jesus wasn't fasting and they called him a glutton.
Jesus denounces the cities where he performed most of his miracles because they had not repented. He stated that the gentile cities in the area, if he had performed his miracles there, would have already repented.
Jesus offers rest to the weary.
Matthew 12
Jesus' disciples are then decried by the Pharisees for picking up grain and eating it on the Sabbath. Jesus rebukes them because they do not understand the words 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'. He then reminds the Pharisees that David and his men ate consecrated bread and that the Priests of the Temple work on the Sabbath but they are innocent. Jesus then healed a man's hand on the Sabbath. The Pharisees plotted how to kill Jesus.
Jesus then drove out a demon and the Pharisees tried to convince everyone he drives out demons by the power of the devil. Jesus denounces this and warns everyone that they will be forgiven of all sins except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
12:35 "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him". Lord, help me to store good things in me.
Jesus calls those asking for signs wicked. He had already performed signs and they did not believe. Jonah preached in Nineveh and they repented, but God's own people won't repent when someone greater than Jonah is here.
12:43-45 "When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left'. When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation". This is an interesting thing to think about. Jesus is out here at the moment casting out demons, healing people, sweeping up the house and putting it in order. But, they aren't fully accepting him in and the house remains unoccupied. The driven out spirits are unable to find rest and come back to find their old house unoccupied and return with their buddies to make things worse. I've had a few unclean spirits in my time Lord, sweep out and put my house in order. But, live in it so that the unclean spirits won't find it unoccupied and leave me off worse than I was before.
12:46-50 is a hard little passage, a 'difficult verse'. Jesus doesn't go to his mother and brothers who want to speak to him, instead he points out whoever does the will of the Father is his brother, mother and sister. It seems a bit harsh on his family.
Matthew 13 - The Parables
Parable of the sower
The seed that fell upon the path was eaten by the birds. These are those who hear the message of the kingdom but don't understand it.
The seed that fell upon the rock places grew quickly, but was scorched by the sun. These are those who accept the message of the kingdom with joy but quickly fall away at the first sight of trouble.
The seed that fell among the thorns was choked out. These are those who hear the message, but 'the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.'
The seed that fell on good soil grows and produces a crop. These are those who hear the message and understands it and produces a crop.
Parable of the Weeds
A farmer plants good seed, but his enemy plants weeds in the same field. When the crop starts to grow the servants ask if they should rip up the weeds. The farmer says, no, wait until harvest then the weeds and the crop can be separated, otherwise removing the weeds might damage the growing crop.
I hadn't thought of this now, but the harvester is not the servants, but the farmer. I think that the Church has often sought to rip up the weeds, maybe even in good intentions, but this has damaged the roots of the crop. It isn't my job to weed the field. The angels will harvest and throw the weeds into the fire at the end of the age.
Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Yeast
-The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed. Small when planted, but it grows to become a tree.
-The kingdom of heaven is like yeast, mixed into flour and worked throughout the whole dough.
Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl
-The kingdom of heaven is like hidden treasure. A man finds it and sells everything he has to buy the field where he found it.
- The kingdom of heaven is like a great pearl, when the merchant finds it, he sells everything he has to buy it.
Parable of the Net
- The kingdom of heaven is a net, it will catch all kinds of fish, both good and bad. When it is brought ashore the angels will collect the good fish and the bad will be thrown away. Thus, the wicked will be separated from the righteous.
13:52 "He said to them, 'Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old". What are the old and new treasures?
Jesus did not do miracles in his hometown because of their lack of faith. Lord, let me have faith so you will not refuse to do your miracles.
Matthew 14
John the Baptist is beheaded and Jesus is told of his death. Jesus withdrew to a solitary place, but crowds followed him.
The disciples wanted to send the crowds away, but Jesus told his disciples to feed them with only five loaves of bread and two fish. Jesus fed around 5,000 men plus women and children with that food after praying to God.
Jesus then walked out on the water to his disciples, throughly terrifying the disciples in the process. Peter then walked out on the water to meet him, but became afraid and began to sink. Jesus saved him and walked him out to the boat where the disciples bowed down and declared him to truly be the Son of God.
Jesus then healed all those who came to him on the other side of the lake.
Jesus gives power to his 12 disciples to heal and drive out demons. These are the twelve - Simon-Peter, Andre, James & John, Philip & Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot.
Jesus sent them out like sheep among wolves, instructing them to be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves. He told them to freely give because they had been given freely.
He warned them that there mission would be tough and they would be arrested. He told them not to worry about what to say because the Spirit of the Father will speak through them. He warned "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved" (Matthew 10:22).
Matthew 11
The disciples went out into Israel to perform the work Jesus had instructed them to do. Jesus went on to preach in Galilee. John the Baptist was in prison and sent his disciples to go and ask Jesus if he was the one who was to come. Jesus replied to go back and report what you see, the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear and the dead rise.
Jesus then proclaims that John the Baptist was the greatest of all men born to woman, but less than the least in the kingdom of Heaven. He told the crowds that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come. That was an interesting verse:
"And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear" (Matthew 11:14-15).
Jesus proclaims the truth, but acknowledges that there are some who would be unwilling to accept this truth. He denounced the generation because they are fickle. John was fasting and the people said he had a demon. Jesus wasn't fasting and they called him a glutton.
Jesus denounces the cities where he performed most of his miracles because they had not repented. He stated that the gentile cities in the area, if he had performed his miracles there, would have already repented.
Jesus offers rest to the weary.
Matthew 12
Jesus' disciples are then decried by the Pharisees for picking up grain and eating it on the Sabbath. Jesus rebukes them because they do not understand the words 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'. He then reminds the Pharisees that David and his men ate consecrated bread and that the Priests of the Temple work on the Sabbath but they are innocent. Jesus then healed a man's hand on the Sabbath. The Pharisees plotted how to kill Jesus.
Jesus then drove out a demon and the Pharisees tried to convince everyone he drives out demons by the power of the devil. Jesus denounces this and warns everyone that they will be forgiven of all sins except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
12:35 "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him". Lord, help me to store good things in me.
Jesus calls those asking for signs wicked. He had already performed signs and they did not believe. Jonah preached in Nineveh and they repented, but God's own people won't repent when someone greater than Jonah is here.
12:43-45 "When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left'. When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation". This is an interesting thing to think about. Jesus is out here at the moment casting out demons, healing people, sweeping up the house and putting it in order. But, they aren't fully accepting him in and the house remains unoccupied. The driven out spirits are unable to find rest and come back to find their old house unoccupied and return with their buddies to make things worse. I've had a few unclean spirits in my time Lord, sweep out and put my house in order. But, live in it so that the unclean spirits won't find it unoccupied and leave me off worse than I was before.
12:46-50 is a hard little passage, a 'difficult verse'. Jesus doesn't go to his mother and brothers who want to speak to him, instead he points out whoever does the will of the Father is his brother, mother and sister. It seems a bit harsh on his family.
Matthew 13 - The Parables
Parable of the sower
The seed that fell upon the path was eaten by the birds. These are those who hear the message of the kingdom but don't understand it.
The seed that fell upon the rock places grew quickly, but was scorched by the sun. These are those who accept the message of the kingdom with joy but quickly fall away at the first sight of trouble.
The seed that fell among the thorns was choked out. These are those who hear the message, but 'the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.'
The seed that fell on good soil grows and produces a crop. These are those who hear the message and understands it and produces a crop.
Parable of the Weeds
A farmer plants good seed, but his enemy plants weeds in the same field. When the crop starts to grow the servants ask if they should rip up the weeds. The farmer says, no, wait until harvest then the weeds and the crop can be separated, otherwise removing the weeds might damage the growing crop.
I hadn't thought of this now, but the harvester is not the servants, but the farmer. I think that the Church has often sought to rip up the weeds, maybe even in good intentions, but this has damaged the roots of the crop. It isn't my job to weed the field. The angels will harvest and throw the weeds into the fire at the end of the age.
Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Yeast
-The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed. Small when planted, but it grows to become a tree.
-The kingdom of heaven is like yeast, mixed into flour and worked throughout the whole dough.
Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl
-The kingdom of heaven is like hidden treasure. A man finds it and sells everything he has to buy the field where he found it.
- The kingdom of heaven is like a great pearl, when the merchant finds it, he sells everything he has to buy it.
Parable of the Net
- The kingdom of heaven is a net, it will catch all kinds of fish, both good and bad. When it is brought ashore the angels will collect the good fish and the bad will be thrown away. Thus, the wicked will be separated from the righteous.
13:52 "He said to them, 'Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old". What are the old and new treasures?
Jesus did not do miracles in his hometown because of their lack of faith. Lord, let me have faith so you will not refuse to do your miracles.
Matthew 14
John the Baptist is beheaded and Jesus is told of his death. Jesus withdrew to a solitary place, but crowds followed him.
The disciples wanted to send the crowds away, but Jesus told his disciples to feed them with only five loaves of bread and two fish. Jesus fed around 5,000 men plus women and children with that food after praying to God.
Jesus then walked out on the water to his disciples, throughly terrifying the disciples in the process. Peter then walked out on the water to meet him, but became afraid and began to sink. Jesus saved him and walked him out to the boat where the disciples bowed down and declared him to truly be the Son of God.
Jesus then healed all those who came to him on the other side of the lake.
Friday, February 12, 2016
365 Day Bible Catch Up (Matthew 5 - 9)
Matthew 5:27-48
A couple verses stand out.
First, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell" (Matthew 5:29-30). What a strong verse. I've always wondered if this is to be taken literally. I mean, in all honesty there is nothing worse than being thrown into hell. If any part of you is doing something that warrants damnation than surely losing a body part is less worse than being thrown into hell. But, is this to be taken as an absolute literal command? I don't know, this is one of those difficult verses.
The part about the eye for an eye is easier to swallow and obviously meant literally. "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" (Matthew 5:41-42). Give freely of yourself to those who ask. And not just to your friends or brothers. Even the wicked and pagans do that.
Matthew 6
6:1-4 is something that American Christians really need to understand. Don't do your 'righteous acts' in front of people for a reward. Give your gifts in secret, then the Father who sees what you're doing will reward you.
6:5-15 is chalk full of things that are important. Obviously, there is the Lord's prayer. This is well trodden and written about so I'll gloss over it for now. What stands out to me is the words before it.
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him" (Matthew 6:5-8).
There is a lot here so bear with me. First, let's use the context of contemporary America. Depending upon where you live, you live in a post-religious society or a still relatively religious society. Here in the south I live where Christianity is still the norm and fairly prevalent in even the secular society. So, men praying on the streets might get some praise and they would have their reward in full. But, in other sections of America, when men pray on the streets they are derided as fools, or crazy. So I think taken in context that matches Jesus' day we have to take these verses in relation to the Christian community. At this point, I must admit I could be extremely wrong and ask for forgiveness if I am. I think some of the religious prayers and babbling that Jesus is condemning here shines through in modern, post-denominational churches that I've visited. These are where people get up in frenzy and pray and pray to be admired by their peers rather than raising a prayer to God. Of course, I'm not in a position to judge a man's heart so, I could be totally off base. But, this is how these verses stick to me at the moment.
I think some of the most pressing verses of this chapter to me come from verses 19-21. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". I struggle with this. I definitely store treasures here on earth and need to refocus my attention to store treasures in heaven. Verse 21 is so on point when it states where your treasure is, so there too is your heart. I need to take 6:33 to heart "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well".
Matthew 7
What is the meaning of Matthew 7:6?
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces".
7:12 sums up the Law and the Prophets - "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".
A tree and its fruit is an interesting passage. "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit" (7:18). We are known by our fruit. But, if a good tree cannot bear bad fruit what of when Christians mess up? What about me when I screw up and have a disaster fall on my head? Am I a bad tree?
Matthew 8
- Jesus heals a man with leprosy. But, he tells the healed man not to tell anyone.
The Faith of The Centurion:
"When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Matthew 8:10-12.
I always think about this story and the story where Jesus will not, initially help the Samaritan woman. He says its not proper to take food from the children to give to the dogs and yet the woman persists. Jesus was definitely Jewish, but he was expanding what it meant to be a part of the kingdom of Heaven with the Centurion and seemingly restricting it initially with the Samaritan woman. I know I've heard that Jesus was testing the woman's faith, or possibly the faith of his disciples. And if that's the case I guess it's consistent. But, it is sometimes strange to see Jesus' logic.
- Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law
- Jesus heals many and drove out the demons of the demon-possessed.
- The story of the pigs is also an odd one. Two demon-possessed men come up to Jesus and the demons ask if the Son of Man has come to torture them before the appointed time. Then Jesus gives the demons their wish and sent them into a herd of pigs, who subsequently died by drowning. The townsfolk came out and pleaded for Jesus to leave their region. What does this story mean? Are the townsfolk to blame for valuing their possessions (the pigs) more than their souls?
Matthew 9
- Jesus heals a paralytic and causing a major controversy by forgiving the sins of the paralyzed man.
- Jesus eats with Matthew, sinners and tax collectors
- Jesus raises a girl from the dead and heals a sick woman
- Jesus heals two blind men and tells them not to tell anyone about it (but they do anyway)
"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd" (Matthew 9:36). Jesus has compassion for the helpless.
A couple verses stand out.
First, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell" (Matthew 5:29-30). What a strong verse. I've always wondered if this is to be taken literally. I mean, in all honesty there is nothing worse than being thrown into hell. If any part of you is doing something that warrants damnation than surely losing a body part is less worse than being thrown into hell. But, is this to be taken as an absolute literal command? I don't know, this is one of those difficult verses.
The part about the eye for an eye is easier to swallow and obviously meant literally. "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" (Matthew 5:41-42). Give freely of yourself to those who ask. And not just to your friends or brothers. Even the wicked and pagans do that.
Matthew 6
6:1-4 is something that American Christians really need to understand. Don't do your 'righteous acts' in front of people for a reward. Give your gifts in secret, then the Father who sees what you're doing will reward you.
6:5-15 is chalk full of things that are important. Obviously, there is the Lord's prayer. This is well trodden and written about so I'll gloss over it for now. What stands out to me is the words before it.
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him" (Matthew 6:5-8).
There is a lot here so bear with me. First, let's use the context of contemporary America. Depending upon where you live, you live in a post-religious society or a still relatively religious society. Here in the south I live where Christianity is still the norm and fairly prevalent in even the secular society. So, men praying on the streets might get some praise and they would have their reward in full. But, in other sections of America, when men pray on the streets they are derided as fools, or crazy. So I think taken in context that matches Jesus' day we have to take these verses in relation to the Christian community. At this point, I must admit I could be extremely wrong and ask for forgiveness if I am. I think some of the religious prayers and babbling that Jesus is condemning here shines through in modern, post-denominational churches that I've visited. These are where people get up in frenzy and pray and pray to be admired by their peers rather than raising a prayer to God. Of course, I'm not in a position to judge a man's heart so, I could be totally off base. But, this is how these verses stick to me at the moment.
I think some of the most pressing verses of this chapter to me come from verses 19-21. "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". I struggle with this. I definitely store treasures here on earth and need to refocus my attention to store treasures in heaven. Verse 21 is so on point when it states where your treasure is, so there too is your heart. I need to take 6:33 to heart "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well".
Matthew 7
What is the meaning of Matthew 7:6?
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces".
7:12 sums up the Law and the Prophets - "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".
A tree and its fruit is an interesting passage. "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit" (7:18). We are known by our fruit. But, if a good tree cannot bear bad fruit what of when Christians mess up? What about me when I screw up and have a disaster fall on my head? Am I a bad tree?
Matthew 8
- Jesus heals a man with leprosy. But, he tells the healed man not to tell anyone.
The Faith of The Centurion:
"When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Matthew 8:10-12.
I always think about this story and the story where Jesus will not, initially help the Samaritan woman. He says its not proper to take food from the children to give to the dogs and yet the woman persists. Jesus was definitely Jewish, but he was expanding what it meant to be a part of the kingdom of Heaven with the Centurion and seemingly restricting it initially with the Samaritan woman. I know I've heard that Jesus was testing the woman's faith, or possibly the faith of his disciples. And if that's the case I guess it's consistent. But, it is sometimes strange to see Jesus' logic.
- Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law
- Jesus heals many and drove out the demons of the demon-possessed.
- The story of the pigs is also an odd one. Two demon-possessed men come up to Jesus and the demons ask if the Son of Man has come to torture them before the appointed time. Then Jesus gives the demons their wish and sent them into a herd of pigs, who subsequently died by drowning. The townsfolk came out and pleaded for Jesus to leave their region. What does this story mean? Are the townsfolk to blame for valuing their possessions (the pigs) more than their souls?
Matthew 9
- Jesus heals a paralytic and causing a major controversy by forgiving the sins of the paralyzed man.
- Jesus eats with Matthew, sinners and tax collectors
- Jesus raises a girl from the dead and heals a sick woman
- Jesus heals two blind men and tells them not to tell anyone about it (but they do anyway)
"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd" (Matthew 9:36). Jesus has compassion for the helpless.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
365 Day Bible 5
365 Day Bible Day 5 (25 days late, need to speed up)
Genesis 11 - 13:4
The Tower of Babel has always fascinated me. I wondered why God was so concerned with man making a great tower or city. I guess in reading it it's the men's intentions and purposes for building it - to make a name for themselves that is the great sin. But, God confused their speech and the people spread out.
Again we have a genealogy of people living huge amounts of time. Shem, 500 years; Arphaxad, 403 years; Shelah, 403 years; Eber, 430 years; Peleg, 209 years; Reu, 207 years; Serug, 200 years; Nahor, 119 years. I know that whether or not these are actual dates are of no real consequence to the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ via Abraham, but it baffles me nonetheless. Nahor then was the father of Terah and Terah the father of Abraham.
Abraham (and his nephew Lot) were from Ur of the Chaldeans. Abraham (named Abram at the moment) married Sarai, a barren woman. Terah (who lived to 205 years old) took his sons, including Abram and his nephew Lot on a journey to Canaan, but stopped in Haran. Why?
God then speaks to Abram in chapter 12 and promises him a blessing. Abram heeds the call and took along Lot to go to Canaan when he was 75 years old. Abram kept moving, kept hearing from God and kept listening, building altars to the Lord along the way.
Abram went down to Egypt during a time of famine and had Sarai lie to everyone and say that she was his sister. Through this lie Abram wasn't killed and acquired wealth. But when the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Sarai, Abram was told to get up and leave. Abram traveled some more and settled in between Bethel and Ai and called on the name of the Lord.
Matthew 5:1-26 (The Beatitudes)
The first 12 verses read like a list I need to pray daily. Teach me to be poor in spirit, to be meek, to hunger and thirst for righteousness, to be merciful, to be pure in heart, to be a peacemaker.
5:6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be filled". How cool is that? If you take the time to aim yourself towards righteousness God will make sure that you get there.
5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." Lord, I need purification in my heart because I don't always see you.
The salt part suddenly scares me. If salt loses its saltiness though it's of no use. It can only be thrown out and trampled by men. That's again seeing Jesus in not a whimsy-flimsy sort of light that often he gets portrayed as.
5:20 "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven". Again, Jesus is preaching about righteousness. What is this righteousness he is preaching?
What are we to make of Jesus' thoughts on the Law? Nothing will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Does the resurrection accomplish everything?
5:21-26 bears out what Christ says about the blessed. Blessed are the meek, the merciful and the peacemakers. Those who aren't meek, merciful or a peacemaker will suffer the judgment he talks about in these verses.
Psalm 5
Some of Psalm 5 has those difficult verses with David calling for men to be called guilty by God and for them to have a downfall and be banished from God. But as always this is tempered with a call for God to protect those who take refuge in Him.
Verse 3 stands out to me. "In the morning, O Lord, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait in expectation". This is my prayer Lord, that I learn to pray like this. Teach me to have faith enough to lay my requests at your feet and wait in expectation.
Proverbs 1:24-28
Wow, here again we have a difficult verse. Lord, teach me not to reject your calls, your discipline so that I am not so far gone that you will not answer when I do call.
Genesis 11 - 13:4
The Tower of Babel has always fascinated me. I wondered why God was so concerned with man making a great tower or city. I guess in reading it it's the men's intentions and purposes for building it - to make a name for themselves that is the great sin. But, God confused their speech and the people spread out.
Again we have a genealogy of people living huge amounts of time. Shem, 500 years; Arphaxad, 403 years; Shelah, 403 years; Eber, 430 years; Peleg, 209 years; Reu, 207 years; Serug, 200 years; Nahor, 119 years. I know that whether or not these are actual dates are of no real consequence to the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ via Abraham, but it baffles me nonetheless. Nahor then was the father of Terah and Terah the father of Abraham.
Abraham (and his nephew Lot) were from Ur of the Chaldeans. Abraham (named Abram at the moment) married Sarai, a barren woman. Terah (who lived to 205 years old) took his sons, including Abram and his nephew Lot on a journey to Canaan, but stopped in Haran. Why?
God then speaks to Abram in chapter 12 and promises him a blessing. Abram heeds the call and took along Lot to go to Canaan when he was 75 years old. Abram kept moving, kept hearing from God and kept listening, building altars to the Lord along the way.
Abram went down to Egypt during a time of famine and had Sarai lie to everyone and say that she was his sister. Through this lie Abram wasn't killed and acquired wealth. But when the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Sarai, Abram was told to get up and leave. Abram traveled some more and settled in between Bethel and Ai and called on the name of the Lord.
Matthew 5:1-26 (The Beatitudes)
The first 12 verses read like a list I need to pray daily. Teach me to be poor in spirit, to be meek, to hunger and thirst for righteousness, to be merciful, to be pure in heart, to be a peacemaker.
5:6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be filled". How cool is that? If you take the time to aim yourself towards righteousness God will make sure that you get there.
5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." Lord, I need purification in my heart because I don't always see you.
The salt part suddenly scares me. If salt loses its saltiness though it's of no use. It can only be thrown out and trampled by men. That's again seeing Jesus in not a whimsy-flimsy sort of light that often he gets portrayed as.
5:20 "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven". Again, Jesus is preaching about righteousness. What is this righteousness he is preaching?
What are we to make of Jesus' thoughts on the Law? Nothing will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Does the resurrection accomplish everything?
5:21-26 bears out what Christ says about the blessed. Blessed are the meek, the merciful and the peacemakers. Those who aren't meek, merciful or a peacemaker will suffer the judgment he talks about in these verses.
Psalm 5
Some of Psalm 5 has those difficult verses with David calling for men to be called guilty by God and for them to have a downfall and be banished from God. But as always this is tempered with a call for God to protect those who take refuge in Him.
Verse 3 stands out to me. "In the morning, O Lord, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait in expectation". This is my prayer Lord, that I learn to pray like this. Teach me to have faith enough to lay my requests at your feet and wait in expectation.
Proverbs 1:24-28
Wow, here again we have a difficult verse. Lord, teach me not to reject your calls, your discipline so that I am not so far gone that you will not answer when I do call.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
365 Day Bible 3 & 4
Day 3 of the 365 Day Bible (still have some catching up to do).
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
365 Day Bible Day 2
Day 2 (still playing catch-up)
Genesis 3-4
The Fall of Man in Genesis 3- Why did God make the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did God make the Tree of Life? Genesis 3 offers us the first look of the Problem of Evil in Scriptures. Why was the serpent crafty? Why did he defy God? Why did Eve mis-remember or lie about the tree in the middle of the garden and embellish what God had said? Eve, even in that innocent state at the least erred, if not fibbed. Who is to blame for the fall of man?
Was it God for setting Adam and Eve up to fail? Was it the serpent for seducing Eve? Was it Eve for eating the apple and seducing Adam? Was it Adam to succumbing to Eve and eating the apple? It just occurred to me, though I've probably thought of it before or so I'm not mis-remembering or fibbing, it's probably more accurate to state that it has been pointed out to me before that the problem of free will and the problem of evil are intricately related.
Why did God create the universe in the way He did? We may posit guesses, theories and plausible scenarios, but our answers will only reach probability standards and internally consistency. The fact of the matter is that the world is as it is because God created it as such (allowing a transcendental argument that presupposes that the Christian God did create the world, that I have no personal qualms with accepting on various levels that I'll not go into at the moment). But, as for the creation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whether this is a literal or metaphorical creation, a topic for another discussion) demands that God created the world as such to involve Free Will. Thus, sin, though not inevitable, is at least possible in the world that God created. The Problem of Evil comes about because we ask who is the author of evil. In a world that is created by God where evil is at least possible don't we have to accept that God is the ultimate author of evil? I tend to lean towards St. Augustine's way of dealing with the existence of evil as I sort of had a eureka moment when I learned of his theory. Evil is not something that exists independently and is really only the diminishing of the good. Thus, God who cannot be diminished at all can never be evil. Thus, we can rule God out as the author of evil.
But, we needn't get too deep into this as it really doesn't concern Genesis 3 only that it absolves God from any guilt in the scenario. God shows whose to blame as he doles out punishment. The serpent is cursed. The woman has her pain in childbearing greatly increased and Adam and the ground is cursed because of his role in the event.
Even after punishment though God takes care of Adam & Eve making them garments of skin.
Cain and Abel are then born to Adam and Eve in exile from the Garden. Cain offered "some" of his fruits and Abel offered "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock". The Lord looked on Abel with favor for his offering, but not on Cain. Cain became angry. Then God says something interesting, combining a comforting and a warning - "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it".
That verse, 4:7 strikes some fear in me. I can vividly picture sin crouching at my door seeking to have me. Lord, help me master it.
Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God, but once again God even punishment doesn't totally destroy Cain, marking him so that nobody kills him.
This is where I start to get intrigued and thinking about the whole Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel and why is Cain scared stating, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me". If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their first children, and now that Abel is dead, who is Cain afraid of coming across when he is wandering? Who is his wife that he lay with in the next verse? Now I guess is as good of a place as any for me to posit my working and probably incredibly inaccurate thoughts on Creation, Adam & Eve and who the heck Cain is scared of.
First, with regard to the Genesis account of Creation and its literal/metaphorical interpretation. Actually, let's back up a second before I go into this. Firstly, anything and everything in Scriptures is relevant to our daily walk with God. But, if it doesn't deny the salvation through Jesus Christ or anything heretical about the nature of God, I think a debate can be had on certain things - one of which is Creation. Secondly, as long as there is no disagreement on how one is redeemed, which is through Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as one's Lord and Savior, and on the Triune God of Christianity being the sole God, one can be called a Christian. I am sure that when I get to Heaven I will be surprised who I see and who I don't see. God's redemptive powers are greater than my conception of them. Lastly, I do not think it to be edifying the faithful or a good look to the un-believing for Christians to come to blows, literal or metaphorical about things related to faith. Where there is disagreement, let there be discussion unless discussion leads to heresy or disharmony. If there are in those rare spots places where Christians can disagree on points of theology that are not related to Christ, his redeeming ways or on the Trinity then let us simply do good works to show our faith. But when it comes to Creation, I am not a literalist. I don't think we can take the Biblical account of Genesis 1-2 and turn it into a scientific treatise because that is not what it was intended to be.
As for my take on Creation, I see no reason why a Darwinian account of evolution is incompatible with a Scriptural worldview. I see this because I don't think the Bible is a scientific textbook. Now, Darwinian evolution has the power to describe the process of how the earth came into being, but not the why or the intent of creation. I believe that when God set into motion the events of creation that would eventually lead to this point and to the final point in history, He did so in the full knowledge of the fall of man and that his creation act included the two seminal points in redeeming man - the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the second coming. They were woven into the fabric of creation because he had foreknowledge that man would fall and in the ultimate act of love and sacrifice he chose to create and redeem nonetheless. Why did God create in such a way that included Free Will? Again, this is one of those questions we can only posit theories to that approximate internal consistency because we cannot know the full mind of God.
Now, we come to Adam and Eve and some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. I think at some point in the distant past, when man was emerging out of East Africa, God chose, much in the way he chose Abraham, a certain man and placed him in the Garden to fulfill the purpose which God had set for man at the onset of creation - "to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Through Adam naming the creatures of the garden, God gave him dominion over those in the garden. While I don't take creation as literal, I take the Garden of Eden and Adam as literal, as well as Eve being formed for Adam by God specifically as literal, historical events.
Now comes the question of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life and the serpent. This I vacillate back and forth on. On the one hand, if God set up a guard at the entrance to the Garden so that Adam & Eve couldn't return to the garden it would suggest that both trees are literal. But, on the other hand, the sin/fall of man could very well have been Adam & Eve exercising their free will in a way that resulted in sin and the story could be metaphorical and just Adam & Eve choosing to live their way instead of God's way. I'm not sure - to be honest, I'm not really sure about any of this; it's just my personal thoughts.
Cain & Abel is most definitely now entering a literal phase. I think that once Adam & Eve have been banished from paradise they are aware of other people throughout their little corner of the world. Cain being banished from his home territory would mean coming across other groups of humans who might not be overly receptive to someone wandering into their territory where they hunt and gather. Why do I think that Adam & Eve and their sons knew of other human beings in the vicinity of them? The wife of Cain, without the Biblical mention of Adam & Eve having a daughter makes me think that Cain (and probably Abel) acquired a wife from another band of humans in the general vicinity to where Adam & Eve were living. But, this could all be wrong. Lord, I pray for two things. First, that I don't get to caught up in intellectualizing your Word and thus, not gleaning the eternal truths from it by drowning out your voice. Second, that I don't lead myself or anyone else astray from you in thinking or writing these things.
To finish up today's reading in Genesis I have two things that puzzle me
1) Lamech. What is Lamech saying when he makes his declaration to his two wives?
2) Adam & Eve's third son Seth has a son called Enosh: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord". What does that mean? The Lord spoke to Adam & Eve, and to Cain (presumably to Abel). But had the fall caused enough rift that the Lord was pulling back and so the roles reversed to where man was beginning to call on the name of the Lord instead of the other way around?
Matthew 3
John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching in the desert and drawing crowds. He chastised the Pharisees and the Sadducees who seemed to be relying on their heritage as descendants of Abraham for salvation. "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (3:8) he warned them, continuing "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10).
Lord, hear my prayer - Help me to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I repent of my sins and yet I am bearing no fruit. I continue to go to my sins often, even after repenting. I repent again. Help me to bear fruit.
The first words of Jesus in the New Testament come from Matthew 3:15 "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". While the formation of the Scriptures as it is now may not be chronological in the order that events happened or were even recorded, I find it interesting to English readers of the Scriptures that Jesus' first words are essentially 'let's do it to fulfill all righteousness'. With that John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and God declares from Heaven who Jesus is - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". Righteousness pleases God.
Psalm 2
2:11 - "Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling"
2:12b - "Blessed are all who take refuge in him"
Lord, may I serve you and rejoice you and take refuge in you.
Proverbs 1:7-9
1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Lord, let this be yet another beginning of knowledge. Teach me not to despise your discipline. Hear my prayer Lord.
Genesis 3-4
The Fall of Man in Genesis 3- Why did God make the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did God make the Tree of Life? Genesis 3 offers us the first look of the Problem of Evil in Scriptures. Why was the serpent crafty? Why did he defy God? Why did Eve mis-remember or lie about the tree in the middle of the garden and embellish what God had said? Eve, even in that innocent state at the least erred, if not fibbed. Who is to blame for the fall of man?
Was it God for setting Adam and Eve up to fail? Was it the serpent for seducing Eve? Was it Eve for eating the apple and seducing Adam? Was it Adam to succumbing to Eve and eating the apple? It just occurred to me, though I've probably thought of it before or so I'm not mis-remembering or fibbing, it's probably more accurate to state that it has been pointed out to me before that the problem of free will and the problem of evil are intricately related.
Why did God create the universe in the way He did? We may posit guesses, theories and plausible scenarios, but our answers will only reach probability standards and internally consistency. The fact of the matter is that the world is as it is because God created it as such (allowing a transcendental argument that presupposes that the Christian God did create the world, that I have no personal qualms with accepting on various levels that I'll not go into at the moment). But, as for the creation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whether this is a literal or metaphorical creation, a topic for another discussion) demands that God created the world as such to involve Free Will. Thus, sin, though not inevitable, is at least possible in the world that God created. The Problem of Evil comes about because we ask who is the author of evil. In a world that is created by God where evil is at least possible don't we have to accept that God is the ultimate author of evil? I tend to lean towards St. Augustine's way of dealing with the existence of evil as I sort of had a eureka moment when I learned of his theory. Evil is not something that exists independently and is really only the diminishing of the good. Thus, God who cannot be diminished at all can never be evil. Thus, we can rule God out as the author of evil.
But, we needn't get too deep into this as it really doesn't concern Genesis 3 only that it absolves God from any guilt in the scenario. God shows whose to blame as he doles out punishment. The serpent is cursed. The woman has her pain in childbearing greatly increased and Adam and the ground is cursed because of his role in the event.
Even after punishment though God takes care of Adam & Eve making them garments of skin.
Cain and Abel are then born to Adam and Eve in exile from the Garden. Cain offered "some" of his fruits and Abel offered "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock". The Lord looked on Abel with favor for his offering, but not on Cain. Cain became angry. Then God says something interesting, combining a comforting and a warning - "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it".
That verse, 4:7 strikes some fear in me. I can vividly picture sin crouching at my door seeking to have me. Lord, help me master it.
Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God, but once again God even punishment doesn't totally destroy Cain, marking him so that nobody kills him.
This is where I start to get intrigued and thinking about the whole Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel and why is Cain scared stating, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me". If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their first children, and now that Abel is dead, who is Cain afraid of coming across when he is wandering? Who is his wife that he lay with in the next verse? Now I guess is as good of a place as any for me to posit my working and probably incredibly inaccurate thoughts on Creation, Adam & Eve and who the heck Cain is scared of.
First, with regard to the Genesis account of Creation and its literal/metaphorical interpretation. Actually, let's back up a second before I go into this. Firstly, anything and everything in Scriptures is relevant to our daily walk with God. But, if it doesn't deny the salvation through Jesus Christ or anything heretical about the nature of God, I think a debate can be had on certain things - one of which is Creation. Secondly, as long as there is no disagreement on how one is redeemed, which is through Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as one's Lord and Savior, and on the Triune God of Christianity being the sole God, one can be called a Christian. I am sure that when I get to Heaven I will be surprised who I see and who I don't see. God's redemptive powers are greater than my conception of them. Lastly, I do not think it to be edifying the faithful or a good look to the un-believing for Christians to come to blows, literal or metaphorical about things related to faith. Where there is disagreement, let there be discussion unless discussion leads to heresy or disharmony. If there are in those rare spots places where Christians can disagree on points of theology that are not related to Christ, his redeeming ways or on the Trinity then let us simply do good works to show our faith. But when it comes to Creation, I am not a literalist. I don't think we can take the Biblical account of Genesis 1-2 and turn it into a scientific treatise because that is not what it was intended to be.
As for my take on Creation, I see no reason why a Darwinian account of evolution is incompatible with a Scriptural worldview. I see this because I don't think the Bible is a scientific textbook. Now, Darwinian evolution has the power to describe the process of how the earth came into being, but not the why or the intent of creation. I believe that when God set into motion the events of creation that would eventually lead to this point and to the final point in history, He did so in the full knowledge of the fall of man and that his creation act included the two seminal points in redeeming man - the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the second coming. They were woven into the fabric of creation because he had foreknowledge that man would fall and in the ultimate act of love and sacrifice he chose to create and redeem nonetheless. Why did God create in such a way that included Free Will? Again, this is one of those questions we can only posit theories to that approximate internal consistency because we cannot know the full mind of God.
Now, we come to Adam and Eve and some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. I think at some point in the distant past, when man was emerging out of East Africa, God chose, much in the way he chose Abraham, a certain man and placed him in the Garden to fulfill the purpose which God had set for man at the onset of creation - "to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Through Adam naming the creatures of the garden, God gave him dominion over those in the garden. While I don't take creation as literal, I take the Garden of Eden and Adam as literal, as well as Eve being formed for Adam by God specifically as literal, historical events.
Now comes the question of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life and the serpent. This I vacillate back and forth on. On the one hand, if God set up a guard at the entrance to the Garden so that Adam & Eve couldn't return to the garden it would suggest that both trees are literal. But, on the other hand, the sin/fall of man could very well have been Adam & Eve exercising their free will in a way that resulted in sin and the story could be metaphorical and just Adam & Eve choosing to live their way instead of God's way. I'm not sure - to be honest, I'm not really sure about any of this; it's just my personal thoughts.
Cain & Abel is most definitely now entering a literal phase. I think that once Adam & Eve have been banished from paradise they are aware of other people throughout their little corner of the world. Cain being banished from his home territory would mean coming across other groups of humans who might not be overly receptive to someone wandering into their territory where they hunt and gather. Why do I think that Adam & Eve and their sons knew of other human beings in the vicinity of them? The wife of Cain, without the Biblical mention of Adam & Eve having a daughter makes me think that Cain (and probably Abel) acquired a wife from another band of humans in the general vicinity to where Adam & Eve were living. But, this could all be wrong. Lord, I pray for two things. First, that I don't get to caught up in intellectualizing your Word and thus, not gleaning the eternal truths from it by drowning out your voice. Second, that I don't lead myself or anyone else astray from you in thinking or writing these things.
To finish up today's reading in Genesis I have two things that puzzle me
1) Lamech. What is Lamech saying when he makes his declaration to his two wives?
2) Adam & Eve's third son Seth has a son called Enosh: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord". What does that mean? The Lord spoke to Adam & Eve, and to Cain (presumably to Abel). But had the fall caused enough rift that the Lord was pulling back and so the roles reversed to where man was beginning to call on the name of the Lord instead of the other way around?
Matthew 3
John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching in the desert and drawing crowds. He chastised the Pharisees and the Sadducees who seemed to be relying on their heritage as descendants of Abraham for salvation. "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (3:8) he warned them, continuing "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10).
Lord, hear my prayer - Help me to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I repent of my sins and yet I am bearing no fruit. I continue to go to my sins often, even after repenting. I repent again. Help me to bear fruit.
The first words of Jesus in the New Testament come from Matthew 3:15 "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". While the formation of the Scriptures as it is now may not be chronological in the order that events happened or were even recorded, I find it interesting to English readers of the Scriptures that Jesus' first words are essentially 'let's do it to fulfill all righteousness'. With that John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and God declares from Heaven who Jesus is - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". Righteousness pleases God.
Psalm 2
2:11 - "Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling"
2:12b - "Blessed are all who take refuge in him"
Lord, may I serve you and rejoice you and take refuge in you.
Proverbs 1:7-9
1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Lord, let this be yet another beginning of knowledge. Teach me not to despise your discipline. Hear my prayer Lord.
365 Day Bible Day 1
Day 1 of the 365 day Bible reading (of course it's Day 12 of the year, but I'm a procrastinator).
Genesis 1-2
When God creates the sea creatures and the birds, he blesses them and says "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth". When God creates the land creatures he says its good. When he creates man "in our image" he does so to "let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground". He gave man a duty and a purpose in the act of creation.
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them". Why does the author repeat God created man three times in a single phrase? What is the significance of the repetition?
After creating man for a purpose, he blesses them and gives them every seed-bearing plant as food.
God rested on the seventh day and made it holy - he set it apart for rest.
The creation of man coincided with him placing man in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
God named the "day" and the "night", the "sky", the "land" and the "seas, but Adam named all the animals. Is this significant? I remember vaguely from a college class that naming something in Hebrew culture gave ownership or stewardship, but is that true? I mean, it would make sense as man was created to work and subdue the earth.
Matthew 1-2
Mary was found to be pregnant with Jesus before being married by the Holy Spirit. Is this the first time that the Holy Spirit is mentioned specifically in the Bible?
Joseph became aware of this and was going to break it off with Mary, but an angel came to him and explained the situation. That would be an odd one to experience.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the Magi came to see him. They stopped in Jerusalem to find where the one who was to be the king of the Jews was born. They avoided going back through Jerusalem though because of King Herod.
Joseph is again visited by an angel, telling him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt because King Herod was going to try and kill Jesus. Joseph is once again visited by an angel and told that it was safe to return to Israel now that King Herod was dead.
Psalm 1
1:1-2 "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night". This is my prayer Lord, help me to delight in your law and meditate on it day and night.
Proverbs 1:1-6
The purpose of the Proverbs:
-to attain wisdom and discipline
-to understand words of insight
-to acquire a disciplined and prudent life
-to do what is right and just and fair
I need the Proverbs probably more than most things right now. I need to acquire a disciplined and prudent life. Help me Lord to achieve this end.
Genesis 1-2
When God creates the sea creatures and the birds, he blesses them and says "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth". When God creates the land creatures he says its good. When he creates man "in our image" he does so to "let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground". He gave man a duty and a purpose in the act of creation.
1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them". Why does the author repeat God created man three times in a single phrase? What is the significance of the repetition?
After creating man for a purpose, he blesses them and gives them every seed-bearing plant as food.
God rested on the seventh day and made it holy - he set it apart for rest.
The creation of man coincided with him placing man in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
God named the "day" and the "night", the "sky", the "land" and the "seas, but Adam named all the animals. Is this significant? I remember vaguely from a college class that naming something in Hebrew culture gave ownership or stewardship, but is that true? I mean, it would make sense as man was created to work and subdue the earth.
Matthew 1-2
Mary was found to be pregnant with Jesus before being married by the Holy Spirit. Is this the first time that the Holy Spirit is mentioned specifically in the Bible?
Joseph became aware of this and was going to break it off with Mary, but an angel came to him and explained the situation. That would be an odd one to experience.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem and the Magi came to see him. They stopped in Jerusalem to find where the one who was to be the king of the Jews was born. They avoided going back through Jerusalem though because of King Herod.
Joseph is again visited by an angel, telling him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt because King Herod was going to try and kill Jesus. Joseph is once again visited by an angel and told that it was safe to return to Israel now that King Herod was dead.
Psalm 1
1:1-2 "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord and on his law he meditates day and night". This is my prayer Lord, help me to delight in your law and meditate on it day and night.
Proverbs 1:1-6
The purpose of the Proverbs:
-to attain wisdom and discipline
-to understand words of insight
-to acquire a disciplined and prudent life
-to do what is right and just and fair
I need the Proverbs probably more than most things right now. I need to acquire a disciplined and prudent life. Help me Lord to achieve this end.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Draw The Circle - Get Ready
Draw the Circle starts out with Cornelius praying to God regularly. The first sentence convicts me because I don't pray to God with any sense of regularity. The story comes from Acts 10. Since Batterson's theme for the Day is Get Ready I'm trying to get myself ready. I am ready but I don't know how committed I am - not that I don't want to be committed, just that I don't have the discipline to always follow through on my commitments. I'm praying for discipline.
Batterson uses fairly typical modern church language, i.e. "And when you pray to God regularly, irregular things happen on a regular basis" (Batterson, 15). I have to fight the cynicism that naturally creeps up in it. Since my wife and I are doing this devotion together I have to redouble my efforts to keep her from following me down my natural inclination. The message is good, but it sounds very much pastoral, not in a good way, but in a Youth Pastor type of way that comes off as cheesy sound bytes after a game of laser tag at the Lock-In. That's my cynicism coming out. I'm praying for discipline. I'm praying to get out of the seat of mockers. Flowery language aside I am praying that God will take us (my wife and I) places we cannot even imagine. I want to get ready.
"If you establish a prayer routine, your life will be anything but routine... You don't need to seek opportunity. All you have to do is seek God. And if you seek God, opportunity will seek you" (Batterson, 19). Rhetorical games aside, I do in fact, chase opportunity. I might not always see my chase through to the logical conclusion, stopping either out of realization that the opportunity is a trap, getting sidetracked by another opportunity or becoming bored by the chase, but I chase opportunity nonetheless. I don't always seek God. I want to though. I want to seek Him. In that I need patience. I need discipline. I'm praying for discipline. Speaking of rhetorical games, I'm noticing I fall into patterns as well. My cynicism is hypocritical as well.
Batterson tells us that we must seek first his Kingdom; do God's will God's way. That is obviously biblical. I heard it in my sleep all last night - children singing "Seek ye first the kingdom of God" in round fashion. Thank you Psalty the Singing Song Book! I mean this both sarcastically and honestly. The song won't leave my head, which is a bit annoying. But alleluia! His words are written on my heart, even when my flesh belies it.
What I came away from this devotional is that I do desperately want to seek first the Kingdom of God. But, when Erin and I prayed last night I asked that she pray for me to know what seeking first the Kingdom of God looked like in my life practically. I want to get ready. I want to be ready. I pray the patience and discipline to be ready when he calls. I pray to know what seeking first the Kingdom of God looks like and that I have the wherewithal to do it.
On a side note in this passage it makes me think a little theologically. Not that I'm an expert, nor that it is important but I question the statement "If you're a non-Jewish follower of Jesus, your spiritual genealogy traces back to this genesis moment" (Batterson, 16), referring to Peter's role in the salvation of Cornelius.
My questions arise from the passage in Acts 10 itself. It begins with stating that Cornelius and his whole family were God-fearing and devout. Cornelius then has a vision from God and follows it. When Peter arrives at Cornelius' house Peter states "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-35). Peter then states that Cornelius knows the message God sent to the people of Israel and retells the short version of Jesus Christ. Then he confirms that he (and his companions) were witnesses of Christ Jesus. It was while Peter was speaking that the Holy Spirit came over the Gentiles. "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles" (Acts 10:45). My question is whether Acts 10 is about the Jewish followers needing to understand that Gentiles could be endowed with the Holy Spirit or whether it is about the fact that Gentiles could be endowed with the Holy Spirit. To my eyes it seems as if God was stripping away at the Jewish perception of who could be saved rather than opening the flood gates to the Gentiles. Is it not possible that salvation was opened to the Gentiles prior?
What about the faith of the Canaanite Woman? In Matthew 15 we see a Canaanite woman come to Jesus and ask for mercy from Jesus and for Jesus to heal her demon possessed daughter. Jesus tries to shoo her away stating that he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel (presumably the Jews). When Jesus tells her it isn't right that the children's bread be given to the dogs, but the woman persists that even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table. Jesus praises her faith and grants her prayer. Doesn't Matthew 15 show that salvation was at hand for all who had faith, not just the Jews?
What about the story of Ruth. When Orpah returns to Moab to her people and her gods (Ruth 1:15) Ruth claims your people will be my people and your God my God (Ruth 1:16). Ruth being a Moabite isn't a lost sheep of Israel, but a lost sheep of Moab. Her salvation through the remainder of the book, isn't that a portrait of salvation being extended to all humanity rather than just to the Jews?
Again, I don't profess to have answers, just thoughts on the spiritual genealogy of non-Jewish Christians going back exclusively to Cornelius. I may be wrong, but I am just thinking aloud.
Batterson uses fairly typical modern church language, i.e. "And when you pray to God regularly, irregular things happen on a regular basis" (Batterson, 15). I have to fight the cynicism that naturally creeps up in it. Since my wife and I are doing this devotion together I have to redouble my efforts to keep her from following me down my natural inclination. The message is good, but it sounds very much pastoral, not in a good way, but in a Youth Pastor type of way that comes off as cheesy sound bytes after a game of laser tag at the Lock-In. That's my cynicism coming out. I'm praying for discipline. I'm praying to get out of the seat of mockers. Flowery language aside I am praying that God will take us (my wife and I) places we cannot even imagine. I want to get ready.
"If you establish a prayer routine, your life will be anything but routine... You don't need to seek opportunity. All you have to do is seek God. And if you seek God, opportunity will seek you" (Batterson, 19). Rhetorical games aside, I do in fact, chase opportunity. I might not always see my chase through to the logical conclusion, stopping either out of realization that the opportunity is a trap, getting sidetracked by another opportunity or becoming bored by the chase, but I chase opportunity nonetheless. I don't always seek God. I want to though. I want to seek Him. In that I need patience. I need discipline. I'm praying for discipline. Speaking of rhetorical games, I'm noticing I fall into patterns as well. My cynicism is hypocritical as well.
Batterson tells us that we must seek first his Kingdom; do God's will God's way. That is obviously biblical. I heard it in my sleep all last night - children singing "Seek ye first the kingdom of God" in round fashion. Thank you Psalty the Singing Song Book! I mean this both sarcastically and honestly. The song won't leave my head, which is a bit annoying. But alleluia! His words are written on my heart, even when my flesh belies it.
What I came away from this devotional is that I do desperately want to seek first the Kingdom of God. But, when Erin and I prayed last night I asked that she pray for me to know what seeking first the Kingdom of God looked like in my life practically. I want to get ready. I want to be ready. I pray the patience and discipline to be ready when he calls. I pray to know what seeking first the Kingdom of God looks like and that I have the wherewithal to do it.
On a side note in this passage it makes me think a little theologically. Not that I'm an expert, nor that it is important but I question the statement "If you're a non-Jewish follower of Jesus, your spiritual genealogy traces back to this genesis moment" (Batterson, 16), referring to Peter's role in the salvation of Cornelius.
My questions arise from the passage in Acts 10 itself. It begins with stating that Cornelius and his whole family were God-fearing and devout. Cornelius then has a vision from God and follows it. When Peter arrives at Cornelius' house Peter states "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-35). Peter then states that Cornelius knows the message God sent to the people of Israel and retells the short version of Jesus Christ. Then he confirms that he (and his companions) were witnesses of Christ Jesus. It was while Peter was speaking that the Holy Spirit came over the Gentiles. "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles" (Acts 10:45). My question is whether Acts 10 is about the Jewish followers needing to understand that Gentiles could be endowed with the Holy Spirit or whether it is about the fact that Gentiles could be endowed with the Holy Spirit. To my eyes it seems as if God was stripping away at the Jewish perception of who could be saved rather than opening the flood gates to the Gentiles. Is it not possible that salvation was opened to the Gentiles prior?
What about the faith of the Canaanite Woman? In Matthew 15 we see a Canaanite woman come to Jesus and ask for mercy from Jesus and for Jesus to heal her demon possessed daughter. Jesus tries to shoo her away stating that he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel (presumably the Jews). When Jesus tells her it isn't right that the children's bread be given to the dogs, but the woman persists that even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table. Jesus praises her faith and grants her prayer. Doesn't Matthew 15 show that salvation was at hand for all who had faith, not just the Jews?
What about the story of Ruth. When Orpah returns to Moab to her people and her gods (Ruth 1:15) Ruth claims your people will be my people and your God my God (Ruth 1:16). Ruth being a Moabite isn't a lost sheep of Israel, but a lost sheep of Moab. Her salvation through the remainder of the book, isn't that a portrait of salvation being extended to all humanity rather than just to the Jews?
Again, I don't profess to have answers, just thoughts on the spiritual genealogy of non-Jewish Christians going back exclusively to Cornelius. I may be wrong, but I am just thinking aloud.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Community and II John
(Originally written December 13, 2010 in the Journal)
The Book of II John is a nice short little letter that hits on a few things that I hope that this blog will emphasize. First, it hits on the rewards of following God's commands and second, it hits on the community aspect of Christianity - something I think we are sorely missing in today's Church.
John writes that Jesus Christ, the Father's son will be with us in truth and love. He connects truth and love in the person of Jesus Christ. These two are inseparable and inextricably connected. And as we have the indwelling of Jesus Christ in us as Christians then we too have truth and love.
He also writes that he is writing an old command, one that we have had since the beginning - to love one another. What is love? Walking in obedience to God's commands. God is truth and God is love. By following God's commands we are walking in truth. But what are God's commands? "Love the Lord with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, love you neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40). If Jesus is the truth as John claims him to be in this short letter then his summary of the commandments to love God and to love one another is truth. We walk in truth and love when we obey God's commandments and what is our reward? Joy.
John writes also that seeing the dear lady's children walking in truth gives him great joy. Obviously as an apostle, John has walked with Jesus and spent his life dedicated to him. He receives joy through seeing others walk in truth. This leads me to point number two.
Christianity is about relationships, first to God and then to each other. What is the greatest commandment? Love the Lord your God with all your heart. What is the second commandment? Well, it is like the first, love your neighbor as yourself. The summary that Jesus gave points to the importance of community within Christianity. We need to love each other and establish a strong community of believers that exists aside from Sunday mornings. Love isn't a once a week type thing. Love permeates and spreads in us like yeast, causing us to rise. And then, what is the reward of loving one another? What is the reward of fostering this community that we are called to? Joy. The apostle John, one of the twelve men who walked with the living, breathing Jesus Christ was not done with joy when Jesus left. He got joy through seeing others, a new generation rising up in the name of Jesus Christ. Joy comes through community because Christ comes through community.
The Book of II John is a nice short little letter that hits on a few things that I hope that this blog will emphasize. First, it hits on the rewards of following God's commands and second, it hits on the community aspect of Christianity - something I think we are sorely missing in today's Church.
John writes that Jesus Christ, the Father's son will be with us in truth and love. He connects truth and love in the person of Jesus Christ. These two are inseparable and inextricably connected. And as we have the indwelling of Jesus Christ in us as Christians then we too have truth and love.
He also writes that he is writing an old command, one that we have had since the beginning - to love one another. What is love? Walking in obedience to God's commands. God is truth and God is love. By following God's commands we are walking in truth. But what are God's commands? "Love the Lord with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, love you neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40). If Jesus is the truth as John claims him to be in this short letter then his summary of the commandments to love God and to love one another is truth. We walk in truth and love when we obey God's commandments and what is our reward? Joy.
John writes also that seeing the dear lady's children walking in truth gives him great joy. Obviously as an apostle, John has walked with Jesus and spent his life dedicated to him. He receives joy through seeing others walk in truth. This leads me to point number two.
Christianity is about relationships, first to God and then to each other. What is the greatest commandment? Love the Lord your God with all your heart. What is the second commandment? Well, it is like the first, love your neighbor as yourself. The summary that Jesus gave points to the importance of community within Christianity. We need to love each other and establish a strong community of believers that exists aside from Sunday mornings. Love isn't a once a week type thing. Love permeates and spreads in us like yeast, causing us to rise. And then, what is the reward of loving one another? What is the reward of fostering this community that we are called to? Joy. The apostle John, one of the twelve men who walked with the living, breathing Jesus Christ was not done with joy when Jesus left. He got joy through seeing others, a new generation rising up in the name of Jesus Christ. Joy comes through community because Christ comes through community.
Monday, July 16, 2007
The Wanderer and His Shadow
(Originally written July 16, 2007 in Book 25)
The Wanderer and His Shadow (1880)
33: Elements of revenge
The word revenge is said too quickly. Men search for a single root and meaning to the word. But words are pockets into which many things have been put. Thus revenge is something very composite.
Revenge (in some cases) is merely an act of self preservation. When a thing harms us we must harm it back. We act without any wish to do harm but only to get away.
A second type of revenge involves time. We think no longer on ourselves but focus on our enemy. In this type of revenge further harm to us is forgotten to the point we almost always harm ourselves more in the act of revenge. This type of revenge is restoration. But in reality only one loss, the loss of honor can actually be restored.
Fear brings about self-preservation revenge. A lack of fear brings about restoration revenge.
One cannot take revenge against those he despises because if one he despises injures him he cannot have his honor injured by him. Those with honor are not concerned with those they see as unhonorably. Those he despises can neither accord him honor nor take it away.
"Everyone will revenge himself unless he is without honor or full of contempt or full of love for the person who has harmed and insulted him" (Nietzsche, 162).
Judicial punishment restores both private honor and the honor of society; thus, punishment is revenge.
Punishment despises to prevent further damage and to deter.
194: Dreams
On rare occasions where dreams achieve perfection they become symbolic chains of imagery in narrative poetic language. "We use up too much artistry in our dreams - and therefore often are impoverished during the day" (Nietzsche, 163).
202: Tourists
Tourists are stupid; they climb mountains like animals because one has forgotten to tell them that there are beautiful views on the way to the top.
203: Too much and too little
"All men now live through too much and think through too little" (Nietzsche, 163).
204: End and goal
Not every end is the goal.
208: How to have all men against you
"If anyone dared to say now, 'whoever is not for me, is against me', he would immediately have all men against him'. This does our time honor." (163). --> Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, Bush policy on terror.
249: Positive and Negative
"This thinker needs nobody to refute him: for that he suffices himself" (163)
Arrogant twit!
263: Way to equality
Exhaustion is the shortest way to equality and fraternity. Liberty is added eventually by sleep.
297: Not to wish to see too soon
One must surrender to the experience in order to acquire wisdom.
298: From the practice of wise men
To become wise one must wish to have certain experiences and run into the gaping jaws of them. Many wise men have been swallowed.
301: A testimony of love
To love someone is not to reflect on them too thoroughly
302: How one tries to improve bad arguments
Many men try to put personality into bad arguments to straighten them out like a man who throws a bowling ball and then makes gestures to straighten it.
That is funny, this is one of my favorites.
307: When taking leave is needed
You must take time away from what you would know, only after leaving can you truly know it.
317: Opinions and Fish
Possessing opinions is like possessing fish, if one has their own fish pond. One must go fishing and have some luck. Others are satisfied with fossils and have convictions in their heads.
322: Death
Death could make life sweet with levity. But apothecary souls have made it poison that makes all of life repulsive.
323: Remorse
Never give way to remorse; giving way to remorse adds a second stupidity to a first. "If you have done harm, see how you can do a good. If you are punished... bear the punishment with the feeling you are doing good - by deterring others from falling prey to the same folly. Every evildoer who is punished may feel that he is a benefactor of humanity" (165).
326: Don't touch!
Some people confuse problems worse with their meddling. Whoever can't hit the nail on the head should not hit it at all.
333: Dying for the "truth"
We should not be burnt for our opinions because we are unsure of them. We should change our opinions.
The Wanderer and His Shadow (1880)
33: Elements of revenge
The word revenge is said too quickly. Men search for a single root and meaning to the word. But words are pockets into which many things have been put. Thus revenge is something very composite.
Revenge (in some cases) is merely an act of self preservation. When a thing harms us we must harm it back. We act without any wish to do harm but only to get away.
A second type of revenge involves time. We think no longer on ourselves but focus on our enemy. In this type of revenge further harm to us is forgotten to the point we almost always harm ourselves more in the act of revenge. This type of revenge is restoration. But in reality only one loss, the loss of honor can actually be restored.
Fear brings about self-preservation revenge. A lack of fear brings about restoration revenge.
One cannot take revenge against those he despises because if one he despises injures him he cannot have his honor injured by him. Those with honor are not concerned with those they see as unhonorably. Those he despises can neither accord him honor nor take it away.
"Everyone will revenge himself unless he is without honor or full of contempt or full of love for the person who has harmed and insulted him" (Nietzsche, 162).
Judicial punishment restores both private honor and the honor of society; thus, punishment is revenge.
Punishment despises to prevent further damage and to deter.
194: Dreams
On rare occasions where dreams achieve perfection they become symbolic chains of imagery in narrative poetic language. "We use up too much artistry in our dreams - and therefore often are impoverished during the day" (Nietzsche, 163).
202: Tourists
Tourists are stupid; they climb mountains like animals because one has forgotten to tell them that there are beautiful views on the way to the top.
203: Too much and too little
"All men now live through too much and think through too little" (Nietzsche, 163).
204: End and goal
Not every end is the goal.
208: How to have all men against you
"If anyone dared to say now, 'whoever is not for me, is against me', he would immediately have all men against him'. This does our time honor." (163). --> Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, Bush policy on terror.
249: Positive and Negative
"This thinker needs nobody to refute him: for that he suffices himself" (163)
Arrogant twit!
263: Way to equality
Exhaustion is the shortest way to equality and fraternity. Liberty is added eventually by sleep.
297: Not to wish to see too soon
One must surrender to the experience in order to acquire wisdom.
298: From the practice of wise men
To become wise one must wish to have certain experiences and run into the gaping jaws of them. Many wise men have been swallowed.
301: A testimony of love
To love someone is not to reflect on them too thoroughly
302: How one tries to improve bad arguments
Many men try to put personality into bad arguments to straighten them out like a man who throws a bowling ball and then makes gestures to straighten it.
That is funny, this is one of my favorites.
307: When taking leave is needed
You must take time away from what you would know, only after leaving can you truly know it.
317: Opinions and Fish
Possessing opinions is like possessing fish, if one has their own fish pond. One must go fishing and have some luck. Others are satisfied with fossils and have convictions in their heads.
322: Death
Death could make life sweet with levity. But apothecary souls have made it poison that makes all of life repulsive.
323: Remorse
Never give way to remorse; giving way to remorse adds a second stupidity to a first. "If you have done harm, see how you can do a good. If you are punished... bear the punishment with the feeling you are doing good - by deterring others from falling prey to the same folly. Every evildoer who is punished may feel that he is a benefactor of humanity" (165).
326: Don't touch!
Some people confuse problems worse with their meddling. Whoever can't hit the nail on the head should not hit it at all.
333: Dying for the "truth"
We should not be burnt for our opinions because we are unsure of them. We should change our opinions.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Notes on Aquinas' definition of evil
(Originally written April 19, 2007 in Book 25)
Whether evil is found in Things
Objections
A. Whatever is found in things is either something or a privation of something (non-being). Dionysius states, "evil is distant from existence and even more distant from non existence. Therefore, evil is not at all found in things.
B. Being and thing are convertible. If evil is a being in things it follows that evil is a thing which is contrary to what article 1 states.
C. Good unmixed with evil is greater good then good mixed with evil. God only makes what is best. Therefore, in things made by God there is no evil.
Evil consists in the fact that a thing fails in goodness.
Replies to objections
A. Evil is distant from simple being and from simple not-being. It is neither a habit nor a pure negation. It is a privation.
B. In a sense evil (such as blindness) can be called a thing, but it is only ignorance that leads men to conclude that. Therefore, evil has a positive existence.
C. God makes what is best in whole, but parts can fail in goodness. Many good things would not exist if God had not chosen to make good out of evil and evil had not existence.
Whether evil is in god as in its subject?
Objections
A. Good is something that exists. Therefore, Evil is not in good as its subject.
B. Evil is not a being. Good is a being. Non-being does not require being as its subject. Therefore, evil does not require good as its subject.
C. One contrary is not the subject of another. Good and evil are contraries. Therefore, Evil is not in good as in its subject.
D. The subject of evil is evil. If evil is in good as its subject then good is evil.
Augustine states evil exists only in good.
Not every absence of good is evil. A negative absence of good is not evil, otherwise what does not exist would be evil. Only the absence of good in a privative sense is evil.
Replies to the objections
A. Evil does to exist in things as a part or as a natural property of any existing thing.
B. Not-being does not require a subject. Privation is a negation in a subject. only the privation is evil.
C. Good enters into every genus. Thus, one good can coexist with the privation of another good.
D. The prophet is not claiming that good and evil cannot coexist only that woe to those who call a good evil and an evil good.
Whether evil corrupts the whole good?
Objections
A. One contrary is wholly corrupted by another. Good and evil are contraries. Therefore, evil corrupts the whole good.
B. Augustine: evil hurts in as much as it takes away good. Good is uniform. Therefore, good is wholly taken away by evil.
C. Evil takes away good. Evil continually takes away from good. Evil can only not fully consume good if that good is infinite. No created good things are infinite. Therefore, evil wholly consume good.
Augustine: evil cannot wholly consume the good.
Good is threefold:
1. One kind of good can be wholly destroyed by evil (i.e. sight is wholly destroyed by blindness)
2. One kind of good is neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil
3. One kind of good is diminished by evil, but is not wholly taken away
Replies to objections
A. The good which is opposed to evil is wholly taken away, but other goods are not wholly removed. (Blindness may steal sight but the blind man can still hear)
B. Good, by its relation to different things, is not wholly diminished by evil
C. If evil diminishes quantitatively it can never diminish fully (half of a half of a half... is never equal to zero)
Whether evil is adequately divided into pain and fault (pain means penalty)
Objections:
A. Every defect is a kind of evil. All creatures possess the defect of not being able to preserve their own existence, which is neither pain nor a fault. Therefore, evil is not adequately divisible into pain and fault.
B. In irrational creatures there is neither pain nor fault, but are nonetheless corrupted and defective. Therefore, not all evil is pain or fault.
C. Temptation is an evil, but not a fault or pain. Therefore, evil is not sufficiently divided into pain and fault.
D. Augustine: a thing is evil because it hurts. Whatever hurts is penal. Therefore, every evil is pain.
Evil is the privation of good, consisting in perfection and act.
Act is twofold:
1. The form and integrity of a thing
2. The operation of a thing
Evil is twofold:
Blindness - subtraction of the form
Sin - withdrawal of the due operation
Evil like blindness is pain. Evil like sin is fault. Pain evil is in all creatures. Sin evil is only in those creatures of a rational nature (those with a will).
Replies to the objections
A. Evil is the privation of a good, not merely the negation of a good. Thus, not every defect of good is an evil.
B. Pain and fault divide evil that is found in voluntary things, not all evil.
C. Temptation is evil of fault in the tempter, not the tempted.
D. Pain involves injury of self. Fault involves injury to another.
Whether pain has the nature of evil more than fault has?
Objections
A. Fault is to pain what meet is to reward. Reward has more good than merit. Therefore, pain has more evil than fault.
B. The greater evil is opposed to the greater good. Pain is opposed to the good of the agent. Fault is opposed to the good of action. An agent is a greater good than an action. Therefore, pain is worse than fault.
C. Pain consists of the forfeiting of the vision of God. Fault does not. Therefore, pain is a greater evil than fault.
Divine wisdom inflicts pain to prevent fault.
One becomes evil by the evil of fault, not by the evil of pain.
God is the author of the evil of pain, but not the author of the evil of fault.
Replies to the objections
A. Pain is brought about to avoid fault. Thus, fault is worse than pain.
B. What is destroyed by fault is the more perfect good of the agent.
C. One may be deprived resulting in pain and fault in some way.
Summa Continued
The Case of Evil (Question 49)
1. Whether good can be the cause of evil?
2. Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?
3. Whether there be any supreme evil, which is the first cause of all evils?
Whether good can be the cause of evil?
Objections:
A. Matthew 7:18 "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit"
B. One contrary cannot be the cause of another. Evil is the contrary to good.
C. A deficient effet can only proceed from a deficient cause.
D. Dionysius claims evil has no cause.
Augustine states "there is no possible source of evil except good"
Evil in some way has a cause.
Evil has a material cause, but no formal cause. It is a privation of a form.
Evil has no final cause.
Evil has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.
Evil only has an accidental cause, thus good is the cause of evil.
Replies to the objections:
A. A good will does not produce a morally bad act. The movement of an evil will is caused by a rational creature, which is good. Thus, good is the cause of evil.
B. Good does not cause that evil which is contrary to itself.
C. Fault follows from the will acts on the defect
D. Evil has no direct cause
Whether the supreme good, God is the cause of evil?
Objections:
A. Amos 3:6 "Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hat not done?"
B. Good is the cause of evil. God is the cause of good. Therefore, Evil is from God.
C. The cause of danger and safety is the same thing. God is the cause of safety. Therefore, God is the cause of all evil
Augustine: God is not the author of evil because He is not the cause of lending to not-being.
God has no defect. Thus any evil resulting from defect cannot be reduced to God as its cause.
The evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reducible to God as the cause. In creating somethings God must destroy others. But God does not will destruction for destructions sake.
God is the author of evil which is penalty (pain), but not the author of evil which is fault.
Replies to the Objections
A. Amos 3:6 refers to evil of pain not evil of fault.
B. Whatever possesses of being has a cause reducible to God, but evil the privation of being cannot be reduced to anything that has Being (God).
C. God does not fail in doing what is necessary for the safety of all.
Whether there be one supreme evil which is the cause of every evil?
Objections
A. Contrary effects have contrary causes
B. If one contrary is in nature the other is. The supreme good is in nature. Therefore, there is a supreme evil opposed to it as the cause of every evil.
C. Good and better are considered to what is best. Thus, for evil and worse to exist they must be considered against some supreme evil.
D. If some supreme evil did not exist, evil would only exist in some, but not the many.
E. The evil of the effect is reduced to the evil of the cause. We cannot proceed to an infinite regress of evil causes. There must be one first evil as the cause of every evil.
The supreme good is the cause of every being. As such there cannot be any principle opposed to it as the cause of evils.
Nothing can be essentially bad.
Evil only lessens a good. It cannot fully consume it.
Replies to the objections
A. All contraries must come to one first common cause.
B. Evil is opposed to that good which has some potentiality, but not to the supreme good, who is pure act.
C. Privation removes a perfection. Evil and worse are not judged against a supreme evil, but in their relation to the supreme good.
D. No being is evil by participation, but in the privation of participation. Thus, it is not reducible to any essential evil.
E. Evil can only have an accidental cause
F. There is no infinite regress. All evils are reduced to some good which causes evil accidentally.
Whether evil is found in Things
Objections
A. Whatever is found in things is either something or a privation of something (non-being). Dionysius states, "evil is distant from existence and even more distant from non existence. Therefore, evil is not at all found in things.
B. Being and thing are convertible. If evil is a being in things it follows that evil is a thing which is contrary to what article 1 states.
C. Good unmixed with evil is greater good then good mixed with evil. God only makes what is best. Therefore, in things made by God there is no evil.
Evil consists in the fact that a thing fails in goodness.
Replies to objections
A. Evil is distant from simple being and from simple not-being. It is neither a habit nor a pure negation. It is a privation.
B. In a sense evil (such as blindness) can be called a thing, but it is only ignorance that leads men to conclude that. Therefore, evil has a positive existence.
C. God makes what is best in whole, but parts can fail in goodness. Many good things would not exist if God had not chosen to make good out of evil and evil had not existence.
Whether evil is in god as in its subject?
Objections
A. Good is something that exists. Therefore, Evil is not in good as its subject.
B. Evil is not a being. Good is a being. Non-being does not require being as its subject. Therefore, evil does not require good as its subject.
C. One contrary is not the subject of another. Good and evil are contraries. Therefore, Evil is not in good as in its subject.
D. The subject of evil is evil. If evil is in good as its subject then good is evil.
Augustine states evil exists only in good.
Not every absence of good is evil. A negative absence of good is not evil, otherwise what does not exist would be evil. Only the absence of good in a privative sense is evil.
Replies to the objections
A. Evil does to exist in things as a part or as a natural property of any existing thing.
B. Not-being does not require a subject. Privation is a negation in a subject. only the privation is evil.
C. Good enters into every genus. Thus, one good can coexist with the privation of another good.
D. The prophet is not claiming that good and evil cannot coexist only that woe to those who call a good evil and an evil good.
Whether evil corrupts the whole good?
Objections
A. One contrary is wholly corrupted by another. Good and evil are contraries. Therefore, evil corrupts the whole good.
B. Augustine: evil hurts in as much as it takes away good. Good is uniform. Therefore, good is wholly taken away by evil.
C. Evil takes away good. Evil continually takes away from good. Evil can only not fully consume good if that good is infinite. No created good things are infinite. Therefore, evil wholly consume good.
Augustine: evil cannot wholly consume the good.
Good is threefold:
1. One kind of good can be wholly destroyed by evil (i.e. sight is wholly destroyed by blindness)
2. One kind of good is neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil
3. One kind of good is diminished by evil, but is not wholly taken away
Replies to objections
A. The good which is opposed to evil is wholly taken away, but other goods are not wholly removed. (Blindness may steal sight but the blind man can still hear)
B. Good, by its relation to different things, is not wholly diminished by evil
C. If evil diminishes quantitatively it can never diminish fully (half of a half of a half... is never equal to zero)
Whether evil is adequately divided into pain and fault (pain means penalty)
Objections:
A. Every defect is a kind of evil. All creatures possess the defect of not being able to preserve their own existence, which is neither pain nor a fault. Therefore, evil is not adequately divisible into pain and fault.
B. In irrational creatures there is neither pain nor fault, but are nonetheless corrupted and defective. Therefore, not all evil is pain or fault.
C. Temptation is an evil, but not a fault or pain. Therefore, evil is not sufficiently divided into pain and fault.
D. Augustine: a thing is evil because it hurts. Whatever hurts is penal. Therefore, every evil is pain.
Evil is the privation of good, consisting in perfection and act.
Act is twofold:
1. The form and integrity of a thing
2. The operation of a thing
Evil is twofold:
Blindness - subtraction of the form
Sin - withdrawal of the due operation
Evil like blindness is pain. Evil like sin is fault. Pain evil is in all creatures. Sin evil is only in those creatures of a rational nature (those with a will).
Replies to the objections
A. Evil is the privation of a good, not merely the negation of a good. Thus, not every defect of good is an evil.
B. Pain and fault divide evil that is found in voluntary things, not all evil.
C. Temptation is evil of fault in the tempter, not the tempted.
D. Pain involves injury of self. Fault involves injury to another.
Whether pain has the nature of evil more than fault has?
Objections
A. Fault is to pain what meet is to reward. Reward has more good than merit. Therefore, pain has more evil than fault.
B. The greater evil is opposed to the greater good. Pain is opposed to the good of the agent. Fault is opposed to the good of action. An agent is a greater good than an action. Therefore, pain is worse than fault.
C. Pain consists of the forfeiting of the vision of God. Fault does not. Therefore, pain is a greater evil than fault.
Divine wisdom inflicts pain to prevent fault.
One becomes evil by the evil of fault, not by the evil of pain.
God is the author of the evil of pain, but not the author of the evil of fault.
Replies to the objections
A. Pain is brought about to avoid fault. Thus, fault is worse than pain.
B. What is destroyed by fault is the more perfect good of the agent.
C. One may be deprived resulting in pain and fault in some way.
Summa Continued
The Case of Evil (Question 49)
1. Whether good can be the cause of evil?
2. Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?
3. Whether there be any supreme evil, which is the first cause of all evils?
Whether good can be the cause of evil?
Objections:
A. Matthew 7:18 "a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit"
B. One contrary cannot be the cause of another. Evil is the contrary to good.
C. A deficient effet can only proceed from a deficient cause.
D. Dionysius claims evil has no cause.
Augustine states "there is no possible source of evil except good"
Evil in some way has a cause.
Evil has a material cause, but no formal cause. It is a privation of a form.
Evil has no final cause.
Evil has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.
Evil only has an accidental cause, thus good is the cause of evil.
Replies to the objections:
A. A good will does not produce a morally bad act. The movement of an evil will is caused by a rational creature, which is good. Thus, good is the cause of evil.
B. Good does not cause that evil which is contrary to itself.
C. Fault follows from the will acts on the defect
D. Evil has no direct cause
Whether the supreme good, God is the cause of evil?
Objections:
A. Amos 3:6 "Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hat not done?"
B. Good is the cause of evil. God is the cause of good. Therefore, Evil is from God.
C. The cause of danger and safety is the same thing. God is the cause of safety. Therefore, God is the cause of all evil
Augustine: God is not the author of evil because He is not the cause of lending to not-being.
God has no defect. Thus any evil resulting from defect cannot be reduced to God as its cause.
The evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reducible to God as the cause. In creating somethings God must destroy others. But God does not will destruction for destructions sake.
God is the author of evil which is penalty (pain), but not the author of evil which is fault.
Replies to the Objections
A. Amos 3:6 refers to evil of pain not evil of fault.
B. Whatever possesses of being has a cause reducible to God, but evil the privation of being cannot be reduced to anything that has Being (God).
C. God does not fail in doing what is necessary for the safety of all.
Whether there be one supreme evil which is the cause of every evil?
Objections
A. Contrary effects have contrary causes
B. If one contrary is in nature the other is. The supreme good is in nature. Therefore, there is a supreme evil opposed to it as the cause of every evil.
C. Good and better are considered to what is best. Thus, for evil and worse to exist they must be considered against some supreme evil.
D. If some supreme evil did not exist, evil would only exist in some, but not the many.
E. The evil of the effect is reduced to the evil of the cause. We cannot proceed to an infinite regress of evil causes. There must be one first evil as the cause of every evil.
The supreme good is the cause of every being. As such there cannot be any principle opposed to it as the cause of evils.
Nothing can be essentially bad.
Evil only lessens a good. It cannot fully consume it.
Replies to the objections
A. All contraries must come to one first common cause.
B. Evil is opposed to that good which has some potentiality, but not to the supreme good, who is pure act.
C. Privation removes a perfection. Evil and worse are not judged against a supreme evil, but in their relation to the supreme good.
D. No being is evil by participation, but in the privation of participation. Thus, it is not reducible to any essential evil.
E. Evil can only have an accidental cause
F. There is no infinite regress. All evils are reduced to some good which causes evil accidentally.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Just War v. Pacifism
(Originally written April 25, 2006 in 3 Subject)
Contemporary Issues of Philosophy
The morality of War
As a Christian do you feel war is right?
1. Violence
2. Obeying the government (Titus 3:1, Romans 13:3-5)
Rae:
War in the Old Testament
-Securing Israel's boundaries (2 Samuel 5:17-25)
-National Defense (1 Kings 20)
-Offensive Attacks (Joshua 6-12)
-Total Annihilation (Deuteronomy 25:17-19, 1 Samuel 15:1-3)
Does God's sanctioning of Israel's military action justify modern warfare?
-God chose Canaan for His people
-Canaan was very vulnerable to attack
-This vulnerability led to a necessary reliance on God
-Disobedience often resulted in war
The Spirit of Pacifism
-The Sermon on the Mount
-Forbidding resistance to evil
-Loving your enemies
-Jesus blesses the peacemakers
-Submitting to persecutors
-Submitting to the government, even that of Rome
However, there is no Biblical record of soldiers who had converted leaving the military for Pacifistic views
Major views:
Pacifism - Direct participation in war is completely wrong, indirect participation is sometimes wrong
Just war theory - participation in war is morally acceptable under certain criteria
Major Biblical support for Pacifism
-Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38-48)
-Paul's teachings on non-violence (Romans 12:19-21)
-Peter's doctrine of non-resistance (1 Peter 2:18-24)
Nonviolence vs. non-participation
-Pacifists fall into various levels of pacifism
-All fighting though is considered wrong in every level of pacifism
-Participation in work supporting conflict is and is not acceptable depending on the level of pacifism
Criticism of Pacifism
-If a murderer is in your home with you and your family do you let your family be murdered? Do you fight back and try to subdue the attacker? Do you try to save your family?
-What is the definition of violence?
-Duty to the state argument (Romans 13:1-7, the state 'wields the sword' to keep order and peace). Does our duty to the state outweigh our personal disposition towards violence?
Just War Theory
7 Traditional Criteria:
1) War must be prompted by a just cause
2) War must have a just intention
3) War must be engaged as a last resort
4) The war in question must be initiated by a formal declaration by properly constituted authorities
5) The war in question must be characterized by limited objections (not total annihilation or wholesale destruction)
6) The war must be conducted with appropriate means (force must be proportional to the threat)
7) The war must respect noncombatant immunity
Robert Fullinwider article:
-We should focus more on innocence when assessing validity of violence (terrorism).
-There is a division between combatants and non-combatants, those this distinction is a difficult one to determine in some circumstances.
-We must rethink our definition of terrorism.
-International law brings some order to international affairs.
-Private judgment of a state undermines international law.
-One must be able to justify their actions in a manner that is satisfactory.
Contemporary Issues of Philosophy
The morality of War
As a Christian do you feel war is right?
1. Violence
2. Obeying the government (Titus 3:1, Romans 13:3-5)
Rae:
War in the Old Testament
-Securing Israel's boundaries (2 Samuel 5:17-25)
-National Defense (1 Kings 20)
-Offensive Attacks (Joshua 6-12)
-Total Annihilation (Deuteronomy 25:17-19, 1 Samuel 15:1-3)
Does God's sanctioning of Israel's military action justify modern warfare?
-God chose Canaan for His people
-Canaan was very vulnerable to attack
-This vulnerability led to a necessary reliance on God
-Disobedience often resulted in war
The Spirit of Pacifism
-The Sermon on the Mount
-Forbidding resistance to evil
-Loving your enemies
-Jesus blesses the peacemakers
-Submitting to persecutors
-Submitting to the government, even that of Rome
However, there is no Biblical record of soldiers who had converted leaving the military for Pacifistic views
Major views:
Pacifism - Direct participation in war is completely wrong, indirect participation is sometimes wrong
Just war theory - participation in war is morally acceptable under certain criteria
Major Biblical support for Pacifism
-Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38-48)
-Paul's teachings on non-violence (Romans 12:19-21)
-Peter's doctrine of non-resistance (1 Peter 2:18-24)
Nonviolence vs. non-participation
-Pacifists fall into various levels of pacifism
-All fighting though is considered wrong in every level of pacifism
-Participation in work supporting conflict is and is not acceptable depending on the level of pacifism
Criticism of Pacifism
-If a murderer is in your home with you and your family do you let your family be murdered? Do you fight back and try to subdue the attacker? Do you try to save your family?
-What is the definition of violence?
-Duty to the state argument (Romans 13:1-7, the state 'wields the sword' to keep order and peace). Does our duty to the state outweigh our personal disposition towards violence?
Just War Theory
7 Traditional Criteria:
1) War must be prompted by a just cause
2) War must have a just intention
3) War must be engaged as a last resort
4) The war in question must be initiated by a formal declaration by properly constituted authorities
5) The war in question must be characterized by limited objections (not total annihilation or wholesale destruction)
6) The war must be conducted with appropriate means (force must be proportional to the threat)
7) The war must respect noncombatant immunity
Robert Fullinwider article:
-We should focus more on innocence when assessing validity of violence (terrorism).
-There is a division between combatants and non-combatants, those this distinction is a difficult one to determine in some circumstances.
-We must rethink our definition of terrorism.
-International law brings some order to international affairs.
-Private judgment of a state undermines international law.
-One must be able to justify their actions in a manner that is satisfactory.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Class notes on Sexual Morality
(Originally written March 14, 2006 in Book 1)
These are notes from Contemporary Issues of Philosophy on 03/14/06
Sexual morality
Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander - fundamental defiling things of humans
Galatians 5:19 "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality"
These are notes from Contemporary Issues of Philosophy on 03/14/06
Sexual morality
Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander - fundamental defiling things of humans
Galatians 5:19 "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality"
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Ethics in America?
(Originally written February 28, 2006)
Matthew 18:19-20: "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in Heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them"
Ethics in America: Do unto others
Two methodological principles:
1) Degrees (or levels of ethical responsibility)
2) Severity of Human need
Matthew 18:19-20: "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in Heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them"
Ethics in America: Do unto others
Two methodological principles:
1) Degrees (or levels of ethical responsibility)
2) Severity of Human need
Monday, February 20, 2006
More views on Creation
(Originally written on February 20, 2006)
Quiz
1) The notion that God created the world in six twenty-four hour days is connected with?
- Direct Creationism
2) In Genesis 1:27 how many times does the Hebrew word "barah" meaning "create" appear?
- Three
3) In the heavenly realm Satan's alter ego is?
- Michael
4) Who wrote the book Darwin's Black Box?
- Michael Behe
The cosmos is result of either impersonal + time + chance or Divine Creation
Divine Creation
- evidences in microsphere:
- "anthropic principle" - universe made in such a way that it is made to be conducive to human life
- evidences in microsphere:
"irreducible complexity" - the complexity of certain aspects of humanity makes it impossible for a gradual evolutionary process
Genesis & Evolution
Bible - Special creation of humanity as humanity
Theistic evolution?
Genesis 1-3 is not allegory or parable
3 Differentiations
Genesis 1:1 (ex nihilo) nothing becomes something
- Barah #1
Genesis 1:21 unconsciousness becomes conscious life
- Barah #2
Genesis 1:27 Conscious life becomes imago dei
- Barah #3
barah is used three times in verse 27, signifying that humanity is the pinnacle or apex of creation
Caveat: scientific theory is not equal to fact
The Bible states that:
1) God created, thus there is a time, a specific starting point for creation
2) The universe is not necessary, it is contingent upon something or someone. It is not independent, it is dependent on something
3) God of creation and God of redemption are the same (contrary to Marcion's heresy)
Angels
-Created beings, and self-existent spirits
-Spirits, not bodily (Matthew 22:30, Genesis 18:1)
Hierarchy of Angels
- Michael (Daniel 12:1, Jude 9, Revelation 12:7)
- Gabriel (Daniel 8:16, 9:21, Luke 1:19, 31-33)
Monad agents with the capacity to rebel
-Satan is a fallen angel (Revelation 12:7). Satan is not a self-existent spirit
A Faith for all Season Ch. 4
The starting point for answering these questions is comprehending the Bible. It is a foundational point, but experience and science should be used in addition to form a Christian worldview.
God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth
God created the world out of nothing (ex nihilo) simply by calling them into being
The universe is not eternal; only God is eternal.
A modern school of thought (process theology) believes that both God and the universe are eternally in developmental mode. This view ignores "in the beginning" and blurs the line between the creator and the created order.
The God of creation is the God of redemption. This is a belief that has been held by even the earliest Christians. The Nicene Creed and the Apostolic creed focus on the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, but begin by affirming that God created all things. These creeds affirmed that the God of creation is the God of redemption and combated the gnostic view of a lesser god (usually the god of the Old Testament) creating the world, but a supreme God redeeming us.
Why God Created the World
This question is really two separate questions. The first is for what purpose did God create the world? The second is what caused God to create the world as it is? To answer the first question, creation has been called a theatrum gloriae dei (theater of the glory of God). Humanity is the centerpiece of this theater. We were created for the purpose of demonstration of the glory of God and for enjoying God forever. Man's highest purpose, according to John Piper, is to "glorify God by enjoying him forever" (Dorman, 67).
All creation glorifies God, but only man can enjoy God because man is the only creation capable of worshipping God.
The second question is considered improper to ask by some. They state simply that God created the world because he wanted to. During the Reformation Martin Luther said that before God created the world he was "cutting the switches to punish those who ask such impertinent questions" (Dorman, 68). Calvin said that before God created the world he was "building a hell for the curious" (Institutes 1.14.1)
Jonathan Edwards believed that God was delighting in himself before creating the world and was therefore motivated to create something glorious. He contended that God has both necessary work and free work. It is necessary for God to fully delight in Himself, but creation isn't essential to God's happiness. Creation is a free act that is done through motivation of God's glory.
According to Edwards, benevolence motivated God to create. He defined benevolence as a joy that is found in meeting the needs of others, rather than having one's own needs met. This motivating benevolence can also be described as a love that condescends to meet the needs of unworthy beings (mercy). God is so secure in Himself that He can condescend to us and love what is unloveable. Mercy is God's greatest act of glory because mercy is a free act. Free acts of will are much more glorious than necessary acts.
Alternatives to the Biblical View of Creation
Greek Philosophy
Biblical view - ex nihilo
Plato's view - ex nihilo nihil fit
- Two self evident things: God and matter
- God formed matter to reflect his eternal ideas in creation
Aristotle
- Believed the same thing other than the universe had a beginning: when God formed the matter to like it
Ancient greek philosophy had a tendency to view this self-existent matter as intrinsically evil.
Quiz
1) The notion that God created the world in six twenty-four hour days is connected with?
- Direct Creationism
2) In Genesis 1:27 how many times does the Hebrew word "barah" meaning "create" appear?
- Three
3) In the heavenly realm Satan's alter ego is?
- Michael
4) Who wrote the book Darwin's Black Box?
- Michael Behe
The cosmos is result of either impersonal + time + chance or Divine Creation
Divine Creation
- evidences in microsphere:
- "anthropic principle" - universe made in such a way that it is made to be conducive to human life
- evidences in microsphere:
"irreducible complexity" - the complexity of certain aspects of humanity makes it impossible for a gradual evolutionary process
Genesis & Evolution
Bible - Special creation of humanity as humanity
Theistic evolution?
Genesis 1-3 is not allegory or parable
3 Differentiations
Genesis 1:1 (ex nihilo) nothing becomes something
- Barah #1
Genesis 1:21 unconsciousness becomes conscious life
- Barah #2
Genesis 1:27 Conscious life becomes imago dei
- Barah #3
barah is used three times in verse 27, signifying that humanity is the pinnacle or apex of creation
Caveat: scientific theory is not equal to fact
The Bible states that:
1) God created, thus there is a time, a specific starting point for creation
2) The universe is not necessary, it is contingent upon something or someone. It is not independent, it is dependent on something
3) God of creation and God of redemption are the same (contrary to Marcion's heresy)
Angels
-Created beings, and self-existent spirits
-Spirits, not bodily (Matthew 22:30, Genesis 18:1)
Hierarchy of Angels
- Michael (Daniel 12:1, Jude 9, Revelation 12:7)
- Gabriel (Daniel 8:16, 9:21, Luke 1:19, 31-33)
Monad agents with the capacity to rebel
-Satan is a fallen angel (Revelation 12:7). Satan is not a self-existent spirit
A Faith for all Season Ch. 4
The starting point for answering these questions is comprehending the Bible. It is a foundational point, but experience and science should be used in addition to form a Christian worldview.
God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth
God created the world out of nothing (ex nihilo) simply by calling them into being
The universe is not eternal; only God is eternal.
A modern school of thought (process theology) believes that both God and the universe are eternally in developmental mode. This view ignores "in the beginning" and blurs the line between the creator and the created order.
The God of creation is the God of redemption. This is a belief that has been held by even the earliest Christians. The Nicene Creed and the Apostolic creed focus on the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, but begin by affirming that God created all things. These creeds affirmed that the God of creation is the God of redemption and combated the gnostic view of a lesser god (usually the god of the Old Testament) creating the world, but a supreme God redeeming us.
Why God Created the World
This question is really two separate questions. The first is for what purpose did God create the world? The second is what caused God to create the world as it is? To answer the first question, creation has been called a theatrum gloriae dei (theater of the glory of God). Humanity is the centerpiece of this theater. We were created for the purpose of demonstration of the glory of God and for enjoying God forever. Man's highest purpose, according to John Piper, is to "glorify God by enjoying him forever" (Dorman, 67).
All creation glorifies God, but only man can enjoy God because man is the only creation capable of worshipping God.
The second question is considered improper to ask by some. They state simply that God created the world because he wanted to. During the Reformation Martin Luther said that before God created the world he was "cutting the switches to punish those who ask such impertinent questions" (Dorman, 68). Calvin said that before God created the world he was "building a hell for the curious" (Institutes 1.14.1)
Jonathan Edwards believed that God was delighting in himself before creating the world and was therefore motivated to create something glorious. He contended that God has both necessary work and free work. It is necessary for God to fully delight in Himself, but creation isn't essential to God's happiness. Creation is a free act that is done through motivation of God's glory.
According to Edwards, benevolence motivated God to create. He defined benevolence as a joy that is found in meeting the needs of others, rather than having one's own needs met. This motivating benevolence can also be described as a love that condescends to meet the needs of unworthy beings (mercy). God is so secure in Himself that He can condescend to us and love what is unloveable. Mercy is God's greatest act of glory because mercy is a free act. Free acts of will are much more glorious than necessary acts.
Alternatives to the Biblical View of Creation
Greek Philosophy
Biblical view - ex nihilo
Plato's view - ex nihilo nihil fit
- Two self evident things: God and matter
- God formed matter to reflect his eternal ideas in creation
Aristotle
- Believed the same thing other than the universe had a beginning: when God formed the matter to like it
Ancient greek philosophy had a tendency to view this self-existent matter as intrinsically evil.
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Structure of Christian Morality & Utilitarian Ethics
(Originally written February 9, 2006 in Book 21)
Class notes
The Structure of Christian Morality
The Hierarchy:
The Glory of God (The social weight that God carries) ->
The image of God in Humanity ->
The principle of the common Good (love your neighbor/do unto others) ->
Moral principles (justice, mercy, etc.) ->
Specific commands
The higher up in the hierarchy the more absolute it becomes. The lower in the hierarchy the more subjective possibilities arise.
Since there is a hierarchy of morality are there levels of evil?
Yes, Moses had different punishments in his law.
Jesus speaks of the "weightier matters" in Matthew 23:27
Some contest this view based on the fact that God is infinitely holy and all sin offends him equally.
Topic 3
I. Plato (early 4th century B.C.)
Virtue = performing 'function' well
A. Internally a virtuous person is one whose internal parts are working well (harmoniously). Reason controlling physical and emotional desires
B. Externally: one's role (function) in society
II. Aristotle (late 4th century BC)
-Student of Plato
-teacher of Alexander the Great
III. Augustine (late 4th/early 5th century AD)
IV. Thomas Aquinas (13th century)
V. Thomas Hobbes (17th century)
VI. David Hume (18th century)
VII. Immanuel Kant (18th century)
VIII. John Stuart Mill (19th century)
S&P Ethics
Can non-consequentialists satisfactorily handle conflicting rights and principles
1) Deliverances of moral common sense still have to be examined critically
2) Non-consequentialists shouldn't rest contently until they figure out the differences in their prima facie principles
Utilitarianism Once More
Act Utilitarianism - only moral obligation is the maximization action of happiness for everyone concerned and every action is judged by how well it lives up to the standard
Rule Utilitarianism - utilitarian code should be applied to moral codes as a whole but not to an individual's actions
The optimal moral code must take into account what rules can reasonably be taught and obeyed, as well as the costs of calculating those rules in people
What will the optimal code look like?
Pluralistic, prima facie
Criticism of rule Utilitarianism
1) Act utilitarians maintain that a utilitarian who cares about happiness should be willing to violate rules in order to maximize happiness
2) Non-consequentialists still balk at seeing morality determined by their consequences
Class notes
The Structure of Christian Morality
The Hierarchy:
The Glory of God (The social weight that God carries) ->
The image of God in Humanity ->
The principle of the common Good (love your neighbor/do unto others) ->
Moral principles (justice, mercy, etc.) ->
Specific commands
The higher up in the hierarchy the more absolute it becomes. The lower in the hierarchy the more subjective possibilities arise.
Since there is a hierarchy of morality are there levels of evil?
Yes, Moses had different punishments in his law.
Jesus speaks of the "weightier matters" in Matthew 23:27
Some contest this view based on the fact that God is infinitely holy and all sin offends him equally.
Topic 3
I. Plato (early 4th century B.C.)
Virtue = performing 'function' well
A. Internally a virtuous person is one whose internal parts are working well (harmoniously). Reason controlling physical and emotional desires
B. Externally: one's role (function) in society
II. Aristotle (late 4th century BC)
-Student of Plato
-teacher of Alexander the Great
III. Augustine (late 4th/early 5th century AD)
IV. Thomas Aquinas (13th century)
V. Thomas Hobbes (17th century)
VI. David Hume (18th century)
VII. Immanuel Kant (18th century)
VIII. John Stuart Mill (19th century)
S&P Ethics
Can non-consequentialists satisfactorily handle conflicting rights and principles
1) Deliverances of moral common sense still have to be examined critically
2) Non-consequentialists shouldn't rest contently until they figure out the differences in their prima facie principles
Utilitarianism Once More
Act Utilitarianism - only moral obligation is the maximization action of happiness for everyone concerned and every action is judged by how well it lives up to the standard
Rule Utilitarianism - utilitarian code should be applied to moral codes as a whole but not to an individual's actions
The optimal moral code must take into account what rules can reasonably be taught and obeyed, as well as the costs of calculating those rules in people
What will the optimal code look like?
Pluralistic, prima facie
Criticism of rule Utilitarianism
1) Act utilitarians maintain that a utilitarian who cares about happiness should be willing to violate rules in order to maximize happiness
2) Non-consequentialists still balk at seeing morality determined by their consequences
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Why Study Ethics?
(Originally written January 31, 2006)
Book Notes
Moral Choices: Preface Ch. 1
Publishers Preface
Ethics and morality are increasingly difficult to teach in the 21st century.
Chapter 1
Why Study Ethics?
If there were no consequences would a person want to be moral? "Plato concluded that being moral was inherently valuable, apart form any additional benefits it produced or harm that it enabled a person to avoid" (11).
"One of the principal reasons for being moral is that it is central to most concepts of human fulfillment. For the Christian, being moral is critical to a life that seeks to honor God" (11).
Being moral is inherently good because it is part of the foundation of a person's ability to success.
It is unlikely that a civilization could continue without moral values like fairness, justice, truthfulness and compassion.
Ethics are important because they give direction to people and societies.
Today there is a breakdown in morality among young people and students.
Moral questions are at the root of all of life's most important issues.
Morality is concerned with the questions of right and wrong; the ability to discern between them and justify the choice.
Moral choices are faced every day
Ethics provide the basis on which to make moral choices.
"The basis on which you make moral choices is often as important as the choices themselves" (12).
Big topics of debate stem from the fundamental differences opinion on where ultimate moral authority comes from. Some believe it is a man made institution while others hold that moral authority stems from a higher power.
Society has a sense of bewilderment over some moral issues.
Many of these are due to technology's advancement outpacing society's ability to determine the moral parameters of them.
More people are taking an interest in Ethics today than ever for a number of reasons:
1) Technology's creation of issues
2) Declining morals in society
3) The lack of business ethics and scandals
4) The failure of value-neutral education. "Some even suggest that such value neutrality is impossible" (13).
Rae believes that morality comes from the character of God.
God provides these morality laws:
1) In the Bible (special revelation)
2) Out of the Bible (general revelation)
Morality refers to the actual content of right and wrong, whereas ethics is the process of determining what is right and wrong.
4 Categories of ethics:
1) Descriptive ethics - sociological discipline that attempts to describe the morals of society
2) Normative ethics - discipline that attempts to produce moral norms or rules. Basically it prescribes moral behavior
3) Metaethics - discipline that investigates the meaning of moral language. Also considers the justification of ethical theories and judgments
4) Aretaic ethics - category of ethics that focuses on the virtues produced in people, not the morality of specific acts.
Making a moral judgment involves four considerations:
1) The action itself
2) The motive behind the action
3) The consequence of the action
4) The character of who performs the action
Character - the tendency of a person to act in a predictable way over time
Two types of Ethical systems:
1) Action-oriented systems
2) Virtue-based systems
Under these two major divisions there are three subcategories
1) Deontological systems
2) Teleological systems
3) Relativism
Deontological systems - are systems based on principles in which actions, or character, or intentions are inherently right or wrong. Three types:
1) Divine command theory
2) Natural Law
3) Ethical rationalism
Teleological systems (ends justify the means) - are systems based on the end result produced by an action. If the action produces more beneficial consequences than harmful ones then it is moral. If not, then it is immoral. The primary form of teleological ethics is utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism holds that the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest numbers is the moral action.
Ethical egoism - another form of teleological ethics which maintains that the moral act is whatever is in a person's own best interest.
Relativism is an ethical system in which right and wrong are not absolute and unchanging but they are relative to one's culture or one's own personal preferences.
Social and Person Ethics: "The nature of Morality
Definition of ethics:
1) Individual character, including what it means to be a good person
2) The social rules that govern and limit our conduct, especially morality.
Definition of morality: the ultimate rules concerning right and wrong
Morality refers to what is right and wrong, good and bad; ethics is the study and assessment of those standards.
Moral standards are different than other standards because they concern behavior that is of serious consequence to human welfare.
Moral standards take priority over other standards. We take moral standards, judgments as more conclusive when put up against non-moral standards.
Moral standards' soundness depends on the adequacy of the reasons that justify them.
Unlike other standards, moral standards are not decided by an authoritative body.
Etiquette - The norms of correct conduct in polite society.
In etiquette the terms, "good, wrong, right and bad" are judgments, not ethics.
The terms legal and moral are not interchangeable.
1) An action can be illegal, but morally right
2) An action that is legal can be immoral.
Professional codes are ethical codes within a given field or profession.
These codes are not an end all scope of morality and some of the ethics of that code are not moral standards. Some of the ethics of the code are not necessarily morally right.
Our moral principles come from many different sources: upbringing, our surrounding people, behavior, explicit and implicit standards of our culture, our own experiences and our critical reflection on those experiences all shape what we see as moral.
The philosophical goal of finding the origin of morals is to see if a moral standard can stand up to critical tests.
Some say morals are synonymous with religion while others argue for the doctrine of ethical relativism.
All religions provide its believers with certain moral instructions, values and commitments.
Religion involves not only formal systems of worship, but also prescriptions for social relationships.
An example of this is the Golden Rule, which is found in all the great religions of the world:
Hinduism - "Good people proceed while considering that what is best for others is best for themselves" (Hitopadehsa)
Judaism - "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Leviticus)
Christianity - Matthew 7:12, What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others
Confucianism: Analects 15:23
Islam - "No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself" (Traditions)
Although these religious ideals are very inspiring, they are difficult to translate into precise policy instructions.
Religious bodies occasionally articulate positions on more specific political, educational, economic and medical issues. These help mold public opinion on matters as diverse as abortion, euthanasia, nuclear weapons and national defense.
"Morality needn't rest on religion" (8)
Many people believe that morality must be based on religion for two reasons:
1) Without religion people would have no incentive to be moral
2) Only religion can provide moral guidance
3) Morality is based on the commands of God
Often people act morally simply because they are accustomed to acting that way or because it is in their character to act so.
"We are often motivated to do what is morally right out of concern for others or just because it is right" (8) [Untrue, humanity is very selfish by nature]
Other reasons for acting or living morally good lives include:
1) approval of peers
2) the need to appease our conscience
3) drive to avoid punishment
"Atheist generally live lives as moral and upright as those of believers" [Sad but true]
The moral instruction of the world's great religions are general and imprecise.
The divine command theory states that if something is wrong it is only wrong because God commands us not to do it. (Most philosophers and theologians reject this view)
It is impossible to justify a moral principle by only appealing to religion.
Ethical relativism does not hold that religion supplies moral principles. They are supplied by what a particular society believes.
This creates an atmosphere that allows for something to be right in one place and wrong in another.
There is no moral absolute outside of cultural context in ethical relativism.
There is no and can be no non-ethnocentric standard by which to judge actions in ethical relativism.
Ethical relativism undermines any moral criticism of other societies as long as their actions conform to their own standards.
There is no such thing as ethical progress in ethical relativism. Morality changes, but it does not get better or worse.
It is impossible for people to criticize principles or practices accepted in their own society in ethical relativism. All that can happen is people can be criticized for not living up to the moral standards of their society.
Ethical relativism makes reformers of society immoral persons for calling out injustices.
The more ethical relativism is examined, the more obvious it becomes that it is flawed.
Accepting and practicing on a moral principle involves consideration of a desire to follow that principle for its own sake, the likelihood of feeling guilty of not following it, and a tendency to evaluate the conduct of others according to that principle.
It would be difficult to believe that a person held a moral principle if they continue to violate that principle with no ill effects on their conscience.
Conscience is a complex psychological development of people internalizing moral values that were instilled in them as young children.
The problem with conscience is it is not always morally right.
Sometimes doing what is morally right and doing what is in your base interest come into conflict.
"Morality serves to restrain our purely self-interested desires so we can all live together" (12).
Normally following our own moral principles is in our best interest, however if following moral principles is motivated by expecting a payoff is not really moral.
Deciding to follow your self-interest or deciding to follow your moral principles when they come into conflict depend on the strength of those entities.
The paradox of hedonism is that people who always follow their own self-interest principles tend to live less happy and less fulfilling lives.
Book Notes
Moral Choices: Preface Ch. 1
Publishers Preface
Ethics and morality are increasingly difficult to teach in the 21st century.
Chapter 1
Why Study Ethics?
If there were no consequences would a person want to be moral? "Plato concluded that being moral was inherently valuable, apart form any additional benefits it produced or harm that it enabled a person to avoid" (11).
"One of the principal reasons for being moral is that it is central to most concepts of human fulfillment. For the Christian, being moral is critical to a life that seeks to honor God" (11).
Being moral is inherently good because it is part of the foundation of a person's ability to success.
It is unlikely that a civilization could continue without moral values like fairness, justice, truthfulness and compassion.
Ethics are important because they give direction to people and societies.
Today there is a breakdown in morality among young people and students.
Moral questions are at the root of all of life's most important issues.
Morality is concerned with the questions of right and wrong; the ability to discern between them and justify the choice.
Moral choices are faced every day
Ethics provide the basis on which to make moral choices.
"The basis on which you make moral choices is often as important as the choices themselves" (12).
Big topics of debate stem from the fundamental differences opinion on where ultimate moral authority comes from. Some believe it is a man made institution while others hold that moral authority stems from a higher power.
Society has a sense of bewilderment over some moral issues.
Many of these are due to technology's advancement outpacing society's ability to determine the moral parameters of them.
More people are taking an interest in Ethics today than ever for a number of reasons:
1) Technology's creation of issues
2) Declining morals in society
3) The lack of business ethics and scandals
4) The failure of value-neutral education. "Some even suggest that such value neutrality is impossible" (13).
Rae believes that morality comes from the character of God.
God provides these morality laws:
1) In the Bible (special revelation)
2) Out of the Bible (general revelation)
Morality refers to the actual content of right and wrong, whereas ethics is the process of determining what is right and wrong.
4 Categories of ethics:
1) Descriptive ethics - sociological discipline that attempts to describe the morals of society
2) Normative ethics - discipline that attempts to produce moral norms or rules. Basically it prescribes moral behavior
3) Metaethics - discipline that investigates the meaning of moral language. Also considers the justification of ethical theories and judgments
4) Aretaic ethics - category of ethics that focuses on the virtues produced in people, not the morality of specific acts.
Making a moral judgment involves four considerations:
1) The action itself
2) The motive behind the action
3) The consequence of the action
4) The character of who performs the action
Character - the tendency of a person to act in a predictable way over time
Two types of Ethical systems:
1) Action-oriented systems
2) Virtue-based systems
Under these two major divisions there are three subcategories
1) Deontological systems
2) Teleological systems
3) Relativism
Deontological systems - are systems based on principles in which actions, or character, or intentions are inherently right or wrong. Three types:
1) Divine command theory
2) Natural Law
3) Ethical rationalism
Teleological systems (ends justify the means) - are systems based on the end result produced by an action. If the action produces more beneficial consequences than harmful ones then it is moral. If not, then it is immoral. The primary form of teleological ethics is utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism holds that the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest numbers is the moral action.
Ethical egoism - another form of teleological ethics which maintains that the moral act is whatever is in a person's own best interest.
Relativism is an ethical system in which right and wrong are not absolute and unchanging but they are relative to one's culture or one's own personal preferences.
Social and Person Ethics: "The nature of Morality
Definition of ethics:
1) Individual character, including what it means to be a good person
2) The social rules that govern and limit our conduct, especially morality.
Definition of morality: the ultimate rules concerning right and wrong
Morality refers to what is right and wrong, good and bad; ethics is the study and assessment of those standards.
Moral standards are different than other standards because they concern behavior that is of serious consequence to human welfare.
Moral standards take priority over other standards. We take moral standards, judgments as more conclusive when put up against non-moral standards.
Moral standards' soundness depends on the adequacy of the reasons that justify them.
Unlike other standards, moral standards are not decided by an authoritative body.
Etiquette - The norms of correct conduct in polite society.
In etiquette the terms, "good, wrong, right and bad" are judgments, not ethics.
The terms legal and moral are not interchangeable.
1) An action can be illegal, but morally right
2) An action that is legal can be immoral.
Professional codes are ethical codes within a given field or profession.
These codes are not an end all scope of morality and some of the ethics of that code are not moral standards. Some of the ethics of the code are not necessarily morally right.
Our moral principles come from many different sources: upbringing, our surrounding people, behavior, explicit and implicit standards of our culture, our own experiences and our critical reflection on those experiences all shape what we see as moral.
The philosophical goal of finding the origin of morals is to see if a moral standard can stand up to critical tests.
Some say morals are synonymous with religion while others argue for the doctrine of ethical relativism.
All religions provide its believers with certain moral instructions, values and commitments.
Religion involves not only formal systems of worship, but also prescriptions for social relationships.
An example of this is the Golden Rule, which is found in all the great religions of the world:
Hinduism - "Good people proceed while considering that what is best for others is best for themselves" (Hitopadehsa)
Judaism - "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself (Leviticus)
Christianity - Matthew 7:12, What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others
Confucianism: Analects 15:23
Islam - "No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself" (Traditions)
Although these religious ideals are very inspiring, they are difficult to translate into precise policy instructions.
Religious bodies occasionally articulate positions on more specific political, educational, economic and medical issues. These help mold public opinion on matters as diverse as abortion, euthanasia, nuclear weapons and national defense.
"Morality needn't rest on religion" (8)
Many people believe that morality must be based on religion for two reasons:
1) Without religion people would have no incentive to be moral
2) Only religion can provide moral guidance
3) Morality is based on the commands of God
Often people act morally simply because they are accustomed to acting that way or because it is in their character to act so.
"We are often motivated to do what is morally right out of concern for others or just because it is right" (8) [Untrue, humanity is very selfish by nature]
Other reasons for acting or living morally good lives include:
1) approval of peers
2) the need to appease our conscience
3) drive to avoid punishment
"Atheist generally live lives as moral and upright as those of believers" [Sad but true]
The moral instruction of the world's great religions are general and imprecise.
The divine command theory states that if something is wrong it is only wrong because God commands us not to do it. (Most philosophers and theologians reject this view)
It is impossible to justify a moral principle by only appealing to religion.
Ethical relativism does not hold that religion supplies moral principles. They are supplied by what a particular society believes.
This creates an atmosphere that allows for something to be right in one place and wrong in another.
There is no moral absolute outside of cultural context in ethical relativism.
There is no and can be no non-ethnocentric standard by which to judge actions in ethical relativism.
Ethical relativism undermines any moral criticism of other societies as long as their actions conform to their own standards.
There is no such thing as ethical progress in ethical relativism. Morality changes, but it does not get better or worse.
It is impossible for people to criticize principles or practices accepted in their own society in ethical relativism. All that can happen is people can be criticized for not living up to the moral standards of their society.
Ethical relativism makes reformers of society immoral persons for calling out injustices.
The more ethical relativism is examined, the more obvious it becomes that it is flawed.
Accepting and practicing on a moral principle involves consideration of a desire to follow that principle for its own sake, the likelihood of feeling guilty of not following it, and a tendency to evaluate the conduct of others according to that principle.
It would be difficult to believe that a person held a moral principle if they continue to violate that principle with no ill effects on their conscience.
Conscience is a complex psychological development of people internalizing moral values that were instilled in them as young children.
The problem with conscience is it is not always morally right.
Sometimes doing what is morally right and doing what is in your base interest come into conflict.
"Morality serves to restrain our purely self-interested desires so we can all live together" (12).
Normally following our own moral principles is in our best interest, however if following moral principles is motivated by expecting a payoff is not really moral.
Deciding to follow your self-interest or deciding to follow your moral principles when they come into conflict depend on the strength of those entities.
The paradox of hedonism is that people who always follow their own self-interest principles tend to live less happy and less fulfilling lives.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Notes on 1 John and Revelation
(Originally written January 25, 2006)
Roles of God in Salvation
Father = Election
Son = Redemption/forgiveness of sins
Holy Spirit = Secures the believers' future inheritance, blessings = glorified bodies
What can we learn from I John 1:1-4
- we can have fellowship with believers and with God and Jesus
- letter is about the word of life eternal
-note emphasis on sensory perception of the word
1 John 1:5-10 Belief and Practice must be wedded
vv. 5-10 concern what will be true orthodox beliefs
vv. 6, 8, & 10 are directed against the teaching of the heretics
Confession steps
1) call it sin
2) call it forgiven
3) call on God for help
Heretics
- claimed to walk with God but did not
- claimed they had no sin to be cleansed
Why was I John written?
- To expose false teachers who are leading true believers astray (2:26)
- To give true Christians assurance of their salvation
Non-Biblical Gnostic dualism led to five errors:
1) human body is evil, soul is good
2) salvation is escape from body
3) Denied Christ's true humanity in two ways:
-Docetism: Christ only appeared to have a body
-Cerenthianism: the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at baptism and left before he died
4) Asceticism
5) Licentiousness
What is the sin that leads to Death in 1 John 5:16
1) Either referring to physical death that is caused by sin (Old Testament and I Corinthians 11). God ending a life so as the man is brought home rather than damned to hell.
2) A person who stayed in the community but then were heretics and left the community of believers.
Introduction to Revelation
Apokalypsis (Greek) means the uncovering, laying bare, Metaphorically it means a revealing
Revelation = Prophetic Apocalyptic Literature
-Apocalyptic Literature - starts in post-exilic Jewish writing
-Contains dreams, spiritual realm, savior from despair
Prophetic Apocalyptic - incorporates Apocalyptic literature with prophecy of Israel
Symbolic language has real implication
Revelation is a prophetic red book.
Unholy Trinity
Satan - Red Dragon
Antichrist - The Beast
False Prophet - The other beast
Four Interpretive Approaches to the Book of Revelation (or Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)
1) Idealist approach (NIV Study Bible likes this)
-Theological poem depicting between good and evil
-No events will actually happen
-Expressions of basic principles of how God acts
Weaknesses of Idealist approach
-Continues the allegorical approach
-No historical fulfillment
2) Preterist Approach
-Contents are factual/historical
-Everything in it except visions in Chapters 21 and 22 was fulfilled by the time John wrote
Weaknesses of Preterist approach
-the decisive victory never happened
-view cannot fit all the events of Revelation chapters 2-19 into the year AD 64-70 or AD 64-96.
3) Historicist Approach
- Revelation chapters 2-19/20 is a forecast of the course of history down to present day
- Revelation sketches the history of Western Europe from the Popes to Charlemagne to Napoleon to Hitler
Problems with the historicist approach
-Totally subjective
-No significance to first century readers
4) The Futurist Approach
-Major emphasis is on the future final victory of God over evil
-Many believe that from 4:1 on is future
-Letter to 7 churches are something held to represent the predominant types of churches in successive stages of church history
-John being taken up into heaven is symbolic of rapture
Major Weakness
- Most of the book was irrelevant for those whom it was addressed
- Little comfort to the original readers who would have to wait for 7 ages of the Church for Christ to return
Revelation 3:14-22
Church at Laodicea: Self-Satisfied Church
Hot/Cold/Lukewarm: Popular view vs. Correct view
Hot: Believer (popular) Medicinal (correct)
Cold: Unbeliever (popular) Refreshing (correct)
Lukewarm: Indifferent (popular) Miserable (correct)
Laodicea had to import water from other places:
1) was a hot spring that by the time the water got there it was lukewarm
2) was a cold water source [Colosse] but by the time it got to Laodicea it was lukewarm.
The water was no longer medicinal or refreshing, it was miserable.
(John knew his readers!)
Perceived Anti-Christs: George III, Napoleon, Reagan, Roman Popes, Mussolini, Hussein, Hitler, Gorbachev
Central passage for the Millennium: Revelation 20:4-6
Christ speaks of two ages
1) Present age
2) Age to come
Views on Millennialism:
1) Amillennialism: there will be no millennium
- The saints are reigning with Christ now in heaven
- Eternity begins at the second coming
- Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled spiritually in the Church
2) Postmillennialism: Jesus returns after the millennium to reign with the saints
- Satan is bound now
- World won to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel and will experience a "wonderful" period of peace
- Church prepares the world for the second coming of Christ
3) Premillennialism: Christ returns to earth before the millennium
-Millenium is a time when God fulfills the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants with Israel
-Church shares in new covenant promises, but God is not finished with Israel yet.
Premillennialists debate the Rapture
Pre-tribulation Rapture/Seven Year Tribulation (Chapters 6-19)/Post-tribulation rapture
Roles of God in Salvation
Father = Election
Son = Redemption/forgiveness of sins
Holy Spirit = Secures the believers' future inheritance, blessings = glorified bodies
What can we learn from I John 1:1-4
- we can have fellowship with believers and with God and Jesus
- letter is about the word of life eternal
-note emphasis on sensory perception of the word
1 John 1:5-10 Belief and Practice must be wedded
vv. 5-10 concern what will be true orthodox beliefs
vv. 6, 8, & 10 are directed against the teaching of the heretics
Confession steps
1) call it sin
2) call it forgiven
3) call on God for help
Heretics
- claimed to walk with God but did not
- claimed they had no sin to be cleansed
Why was I John written?
- To expose false teachers who are leading true believers astray (2:26)
- To give true Christians assurance of their salvation
Non-Biblical Gnostic dualism led to five errors:
1) human body is evil, soul is good
2) salvation is escape from body
3) Denied Christ's true humanity in two ways:
-Docetism: Christ only appeared to have a body
-Cerenthianism: the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at baptism and left before he died
4) Asceticism
5) Licentiousness
What is the sin that leads to Death in 1 John 5:16
1) Either referring to physical death that is caused by sin (Old Testament and I Corinthians 11). God ending a life so as the man is brought home rather than damned to hell.
2) A person who stayed in the community but then were heretics and left the community of believers.
Introduction to Revelation
Apokalypsis (Greek) means the uncovering, laying bare, Metaphorically it means a revealing
Revelation = Prophetic Apocalyptic Literature
-Apocalyptic Literature - starts in post-exilic Jewish writing
-Contains dreams, spiritual realm, savior from despair
Prophetic Apocalyptic - incorporates Apocalyptic literature with prophecy of Israel
Symbolic language has real implication
Revelation is a prophetic red book.
Unholy Trinity
Satan - Red Dragon
Antichrist - The Beast
False Prophet - The other beast
Four Interpretive Approaches to the Book of Revelation (or Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)
1) Idealist approach (NIV Study Bible likes this)
-Theological poem depicting between good and evil
-No events will actually happen
-Expressions of basic principles of how God acts
Weaknesses of Idealist approach
-Continues the allegorical approach
-No historical fulfillment
2) Preterist Approach
-Contents are factual/historical
-Everything in it except visions in Chapters 21 and 22 was fulfilled by the time John wrote
Weaknesses of Preterist approach
-the decisive victory never happened
-view cannot fit all the events of Revelation chapters 2-19 into the year AD 64-70 or AD 64-96.
3) Historicist Approach
- Revelation chapters 2-19/20 is a forecast of the course of history down to present day
- Revelation sketches the history of Western Europe from the Popes to Charlemagne to Napoleon to Hitler
Problems with the historicist approach
-Totally subjective
-No significance to first century readers
4) The Futurist Approach
-Major emphasis is on the future final victory of God over evil
-Many believe that from 4:1 on is future
-Letter to 7 churches are something held to represent the predominant types of churches in successive stages of church history
-John being taken up into heaven is symbolic of rapture
Major Weakness
- Most of the book was irrelevant for those whom it was addressed
- Little comfort to the original readers who would have to wait for 7 ages of the Church for Christ to return
Revelation 3:14-22
Church at Laodicea: Self-Satisfied Church
Hot/Cold/Lukewarm: Popular view vs. Correct view
Hot: Believer (popular) Medicinal (correct)
Cold: Unbeliever (popular) Refreshing (correct)
Lukewarm: Indifferent (popular) Miserable (correct)
Laodicea had to import water from other places:
1) was a hot spring that by the time the water got there it was lukewarm
2) was a cold water source [Colosse] but by the time it got to Laodicea it was lukewarm.
The water was no longer medicinal or refreshing, it was miserable.
(John knew his readers!)
Perceived Anti-Christs: George III, Napoleon, Reagan, Roman Popes, Mussolini, Hussein, Hitler, Gorbachev
Central passage for the Millennium: Revelation 20:4-6
Christ speaks of two ages
1) Present age
2) Age to come
Views on Millennialism:
1) Amillennialism: there will be no millennium
- The saints are reigning with Christ now in heaven
- Eternity begins at the second coming
- Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled spiritually in the Church
2) Postmillennialism: Jesus returns after the millennium to reign with the saints
- Satan is bound now
- World won to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel and will experience a "wonderful" period of peace
- Church prepares the world for the second coming of Christ
3) Premillennialism: Christ returns to earth before the millennium
-Millenium is a time when God fulfills the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants with Israel
-Church shares in new covenant promises, but God is not finished with Israel yet.
Premillennialists debate the Rapture
Pre-tribulation Rapture/Seven Year Tribulation (Chapters 6-19)/Post-tribulation rapture
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)