Notes on Confessions Book XII

Confessions
St. Augustine

Book XII

Ch. 1

God promises the truth even in hard tasks.

Ch. 2

Earth is inferior to the heavens, the unseen, non-corporeal heavens.

Ch. 3

There was nothing before creation.

Ch. 4

The problem of religious language is written into Genesis. Our words are insufficient to explain pre-creation so we call it "void", or "abyss", or "formless".

Ch. 5

The mind struggles with the insufficiency of language to visualize pre-creation.

Ch. 6

The human mind does not have the context to imagine the true nothingness before creation.

Ch. 7

God created everything out of nothing.

Ch. 8

God made the unformed matter out of nothing. Then He shaped the matter into things.

Ch. 9

God's creations of intellectual substructures in which creation exists are not coeternal with God.

Ch. 10

"I was death to myself; in thee I have revived"

Ch. 11

God is eternal, alone has immortality, is unchangeable and, "thy will is not altered by temporal processes"

Only sin, which is an action that leads away from God is not from God.

Ch. 12

God did not leave everything formless.

Ch. 13

Augustine backs up his theories by interpreting the order of creation in Genesis.

Ch. 14

Augustine acknowledges that not everyone will buy his theory. Even believers might not conform to his theories on this.

Ch. 15

God is eternal. His will is eternal.

Ch. 16

God is the one supreme and true Good.

Augustine argues his point as being merited by conclusions flowing from premises other Christians must accept as valid.

Ch. 17

Augustine argues that the language of Genesis lends itself to a deeper philosophical meaning that is in line with his theories when viewed allegorically.

Ch. 18

Augustine argues that an allegorical understanding of Scripture is valid and profitable.

Augustine also notes that the truth in the Scriptures, while not relative, is reachable by various intellects and various perspectives and that it doesn't profit Christianity to argue about perspectives of the truth if those perspectives are of the truth indeed.

Ch. 19

Augustine asserts all things that exist are created by God and that is something all Christians agree on, even if they don't all believe Augustine's allegorical understanding of the phrase, "heaven and earth", meaning the things unseen, spiritual Creation and the visible, corporeal Creation.

Ch. 20

Augustine relates a number of interpretations of what is meant by, "in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth"

Ch. 21

Augustine relates an number of interpretations of the meaning of the phrase, "the earth was invisible and unformed and darkness was over the abyss"

Ch. 22

Augustine argues that the waters over which the spirit of the Lord hovered cannot be anything unmade; they were made by God though it isn't explicitly written in Genesis

Ch. 23

Augustine makes a distinction between asking what is the truth of the text and what Moses was trying to convey to his audience.

Ch. 24

Augustine argues that the truth of Scripture, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is clear and distinct. God created everything. He will firmly hold that truth. All other interpretations of the truth he will consider, but not hold firm as the interpretation is not as clear as the divine revelation.

Ch. 25

The theological arguments should not occur out of pride. When disagreements on interpretation happen, move beyond them and love thy neighbor.

Ch. 26

It's ok to have deeper meanings, further meanings within Scripture as long as they are true meanings.

Ch. 27

People understand more of the Scripture as they grow.

Ch. 28

Some see Scripture no longer as a nest as beginners do, but as a shady thicket harboring fruits deep inside it.

Ch. 29

Augustine explains matter comes before form in a non-sequential way in creation. Matter comes prior to form as a tune is formed simultaneously as the sounds that constitute it. The tune is prior to the sounds because it arranges the notes and the notes form the tune.

Ch. 30

Truth should bring concord, not discord.

The Scriptures were written primarily to minister for the light of truth and to increase the fruitfulness of the readers.

Ch. 31

Augustine argues that Moses knew the deep truths of what he wrote because it was revealed through him.

He also mentions he prefers to give credence to multiple interpretations so as not to exclude any bit of truth.

Ch. 32

Augustine prays for truth and to not be deceived in his understanding of the Truth

A correction of my earlier self

It is interesting in reading some of earlier writings from 2006. It shows how I've changed my mind, what I thought was important then vs. what I consider important now and just an overall development of my thinking process. For example in 2006 I was staunchly beholden to a literal Seven-Day Creationist approach in understanding Genesis. I railed against evolution and was "pained" in an early attempt at apologetics to find that my arguments couldn't rule out evolution. Now, I don't think that evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive and not a vey important part of Christian theology. Likewise, I railed against the ontological argument for the existence of God. Now, I find myself more convinced by it then any other argument for the existence of God. On that however, my twenty-two year old self did admit that he didn't like the ontological argument possibly because he didn't understand it. It's just funny and enlightening to reflect on my past thought process and view it from a point further down the road.

365 Day Bible Catch Up (Proverbs 1-4)

Catching up in Proverbs now...

1:29-33

-Because they did not accept rebuke or advice, because they hated knowledge and chose not to fear the Lord they will eat the fruit of their ways.

1:32 "For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them" - What a terrifying verse. I know I have been guilty of complacency on more than one occasion. Lord, help me to cease to be complacent.

But, luckily, 32 is counterbalanced with 33: "but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm".

Proverbs 2

1-5: If you look for it, if you search for it like its valuable (like silver or a hidden treasure) then you will find it. You will find the fear of the Lord and the knowledge of God.

10 - Wisdom will enter your heart
11 - Discretion will protect you

2:19 is somewhat distressing considering my history. "None who go to her return or attain the paths of life". Her being the wayward wife with her seductive words.

Proverbs 3

3:3-4 "Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man". I need to really bind these things and write them on the tablet of my heart. Let this soak in Lord.

3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight". Let this soak in as well. I need to really not lean on my own understanding (a thing I am consistently guilty of).

Here in Proverbs 3 we see a little literal? allegorical? metaphorical? account of creation:

3:19-20 "By wisdom the Lord laid the earth's foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place; by his knowledge the deeps were divided, and the clouds let drop the dew". Genesis doesn't use any of this wordage and yet it makes sense on both a literal and allegorical/metaphorical account.

In light of rereading and typing my notes on Rand and her views on altruism, I can say that it is truly opposite to the Biblical approach to ethics. Proverbs 3:27-28 "Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act. Do not say to your neighbor, 'Come back later; I'll give it tomorrow' - when you have it with you". Rand talks about altruistic ethics being hypothetical, asking, 'Should I act if a man is hanging on by his fingernails off a ledge' or 'Should I pull the person from a moving car'. If it is in you power, then act. That is the ethics we are to practice.

God mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble. Another point against the prideful ethics of Rand. (Proverbs 3:34).

Proverbs 4

How important is wisdom? 4:7 "Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding" or "Whatever else you get, get understanding".

Proverbs 4:14-17 warns against walking in the wicked's ways -

"Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evil men. Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. For they cannot sleep till they do evil; they are robbed of slumber till they make someone fall. They eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence".

It's like wickedness is an addiction. You get hooked and pulled in further and further until you cannot sleep without doing evil. It gets so bad that they get trapped in it. 4:19 "But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble". Why did you do that? I don't know it just happened. Nothing in particular triggered it. It just happened. How many times has that (paraphrase) happened to me? Break my chains Lord.

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.

The Atomists: Leucippus & Democritus

History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972

Chapter IX - The Atomists

Leucippus
-circa 440 BC
-influenced by Parmenides & Zeno
-questionable/shadowy historical figure

Democritus
-circa 420 BC
-much more concrete of an historical figure than Democritus
-from Thrace
-Contemporary of Socrates

Atomism was an attempted solution and synthesis of monism and pluralism

Everything is composed of indestructible atoms. The atoms are in constant motion, with the first motion seeming to have been a random motion. The collisions of the atoms formed vortices and then created the physical-visible world.

Atomists were strict determinists - everything happened in accordance with natural laws. There was no chance in their system, despite that being the most common argument leveled against them in the ancient world.

"The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause" (Russell 66-67).

As an aside, Russell makes an interesting point about causation on page 67. He points out that both teleology and pure mechanical causation systems can only be applied within reality and not to reality as a whole. If either are applied to reality as a whole they end with an infinite regress or at some arbitrary beginning of reality. While, he is his normal harsh self to those who might have a bent toward teleology his words make me think. "But if a man is so obstinately teleological as to continue to ask what purpose is served by the Creator, it becomes obvious that his question is impious. It is, moreover, unmeaning, since, to make it significant, we  should have to suppose the Creator created by some super-Creator whose purposes He served" (Russell, 67). That made me think of two things: first, the religions of the ancient world who believed in a dualism that had a benevolent and a malevolent creator. But, also the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son in authoring and completing creation. Allow me a moment to slip into some thought without taking this as my definitive belief as to regards the nature of creation.

Genesis 1:26 always made me pause when I read it and thought about the radical notion of monotheism often associated with the ancient Hebrews. Why would a radically monotheistic religion write of God saying "Let us make man in our image"? Of course, it could be like the 'royal we', but then when paired with John 1 it makes sense in a trinitarian understanding. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-4). When reading that little paragraph from Russell I suddenly saw that even Russell's logic is binding and correct we have creator and Super-Creator whose purposes He served. What does Christ teach throughout His ministry on earth? That He is doing the will of the Father. If the Father created all things through Christ (the Word) and nothing was made without Christ (the Word) then it stands that the teleological underpinnings are at least internally consistent. But, I digress and return to the pre-Socratic matter at hand, the Atomists.

Leucippus was a thinker of his time - he was concerned with the seemingly irrefutable arguments of Parmenides and the obvious fact that motion occurred. To the Greek thought one had to accept that Parmenides was right and no motion occurred or there had to be a void for motion to occur in. To combine Monism and Pluralism he added the void in which motion could occur. Aristotle sums his theory up nicely "The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away" (Russell, 68-69).

Even the Atomists had to admit though that Parmenides' arguments against the void were logically inscrutable. Parmenides would say that if there is a void than there is a void and that void is not nothing because even in nothing there is air; thus there is no void and motion is impossible. This mixture of logic and empirical observation caused a lot of problems in Greek thought and the Atomists simply chose to ignore the argument and state basically that there is motion and thus, a void, even if we can't quite put our fingers on it.

FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS

In essence, Democritus claimed each atom was a Parmenidean One, indivisible and indestructible, never changing. Atoms collide to create everything. "There are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some may have no sun or moon, some several. Every world has a beginning and an end. A world may be destroyed by collision with a larger world" (Russell, 71-71).\

-Life came from the primeval slime
-there is some fire in every living thing, but most in the brain or the breast
-thought is a kind of motion (and thus can cause motion elsewhere)

"Like Locke, Democritus held that such qualities as warmth, taste, and colour are not really in the object, but are due to our sense-organs, while such qualities as weight, density and hardness are really in the object" (Russell, 72)

-Democritus denied an immaterial soul (it was made of atoms), denied purpose in the universe, and didn't believe in the popular religion of the time.

Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001

Chapter 20 - Leucippus

-It is nearly impossible to separate the teachings of Leucippus from his pupil, Democritus
-possibly from Elea or Miletus

The one quote that is readily attributed to him is "No thing happens in vain, but all things for a reason and by necessity" (Barnes, 202). This shows the determinist nature of his thought.

Chapter 21 - Democritus

"He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers" (Barnes, 203). This is impressive because not a single of his writings have survived intact and much of his work is fragmented.

Future Modern Ancient Greeks

"Some suppose that the strange things which happen in the world gave us the conception of the gods. Democritus seems to be of this opinion; for he says that men in the distant past, remarking the events of the upper air- thunder and lightning, thunderbotls and conjunctions of stars, and eclipses of sun and moon - were frightened, thinking gods to be their cause - Sextus Empiricus" (Barnes, 220).

Life after death: "Many of the old thinkers, among them the natural scientist Democritus in his writings about Hades, have collected stories of those who are thought to have died and then come to life again - Proclus (Barnes, 222).
"
Really, I tend to ask,,, Is joy and absence of joy "the boundary advantage and disadvantage" (Barnes. 227).

Porphyry makes him out to be a vegetarian, not eating flesh by necessity but being pious. Those that are living badly, unwisely and un-piously aren't actually living, but dying slowly.

A quote: " Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything" (Barnes, 230) - probably good advice from Democritus to me...

In his ethical work he points out that "from the same sources from which good things come to us we may also draw bad" and that "for men, bad things spring from good when they do not know how to manage the good or to preserve them resourcefully".

His ethics had its end in contentment and joy - "It is best for a man to live his life with as much contentment and as little grief as possible; this will come about if he does not take his pleasure in mortal things" (Barnes, 233).

His ethics have an ascetic tone - "Desire for money, if it is not limited by satiety, is far heavier than extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater needs" (Barnes, 237). "It is fitting for men to take account of their souls rather than of their bodies; for a perfect soul corrects wickedness of body, but strength of body without reasoning makes the soul no better at all" (Barnes, 249). But, he isn't totally ascetic - "A life without a feast is a long road without an inn" (Barnes, 238). He seems to be of the mind, moderation is the best way to happiness and that happiness is a state of mind you can choose. "Fortunate is he who is content with moderate goods, unfortunate he who is discontent with many" (Barnes, 247).

In a funny quote that sums up every man from every generation he says, "More men are good by practice than by nature" (Barnes, 240).

"When bad men gain office, the more unworthy they are the more heedless they become and the more they are filled with folly and rashness" (Barnes, 242). Is Democritus anticipating Trump????? Of course he is, because he states, ""anyone who kills any highwayman or pirate is not punishable, whether he does it by his own hand, by issuing an order or by casting a vote" (Barnes, 243). Anticipation is key, homies! Hence he says, "It is hard to be ruled by an inferior"! Amen brother,

Democritus' ethic was ruled by personal shame - feel shame before others and do wrong no more before others than before yourself, your shame should keep you from doing wrong.

His social ethics are interesting and strangely corresponding to Christ's view of wealth. He doesn't rail against acquiring wealth or condemn being wealthy, much like Christ's view. They both simply claim that the love of wealth interferes with the life you ought to live. While Democritus and Christ differ on what that life is, they both agree money ain't everything. "A man enslaved to money will never be just" (Barnes, 249).

Notes on Genesis 1-10

(Originally written April 26, 2007 in Book 16)

Back to the Basic, the foundation

The Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV)

Creation, Adam & Eve and the Fall of Man

1:1 Heavens and Earth
1:2 Earth was without form and void.
- What does form mean? Purpose? Shape?
1:3 Light created
1:4 Light called good, light separated from darkness
1:5 Light called day, darkness called night
- Naming implies ownership. God owes night and day. There can be no dualism here where day is good and night is evil because God owns both.
1:6 Day 2: separates the water from the earth and sky
1:7 God makes sky
1:8 Day 2 ends
1:9 God makes dry land
1:10 God names land "Earth" and the waters "seas"
-Ownership of Earth and seas
1:11 God creates vegetation
1:12 God calls the vegetation good
1:13 End of Day 3
1:14 God creates the stars to serve as signs
-Important note: God creates signs
1:15 The stars give light to the earth
1:16 od specifically purposes the Sun and the moon and the stars
1:17 Purpose of the stars to give light upon the earth
1:18 God calls the stars good
1:19 End of day 4
1:20 God creates fish (sea creatures) and birds (air creatures)
1:21 God calls both the sea creatures and air creatures good
1:22 God gives them purpose/meaning: "Be fruitful and multiply"
1:23 End of Day 5
1:24 God creates land creatures
1:25 God calls the land creatures good
1:26 God sets out to create man in His own image. Man's purpose is to have dominion over the creatures of earth
- "Let us make man in our image" implies a multiplicity in God
1:27 God creates man and woman
1:28 God blesses man and gives him purpose: "Fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over all the creatures"
1:29 God gives all the plants yielding seeds and fruit to man as food
1:30 God gives the plants to all animals to eat
1:31 Everything God created he calls very good. End of Day 6

2:1 Creation of Everything was complete
-Does this rule out evolution, or at least macro evolution?
2:2 God rested on the 7th day
2:3 God blessed the 7th Day
2:4 Recount of creation
2:5 Day 1: Heaven and earth, but no plants, no rain, no man
2:6 There was only a mist from the earth to water the whole ground
2:7 God formed man from the dust of the ground an breathed life in to him
- This definitely rules out man from the evolutionary cycle
2:8 God plants the Garden of Eden and puts man there
2:9 The tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil are planted in the garden with all the other trees
2:10 The River that flowed out of Eden watered the garden and divided into four Rivers
2:11 Pishon flows around the whole land of Havilah. Havilah contains gold.
- What does Pishon mean?
- What does Havilah mean?
- What are the implications of gold existing?
2:12 The gold of Havilah is good. Bdellium and onyx stone are there
- What is the significance of Gold, Bdellium and onyx?
2:13 The rive Giron flows around the whole land of Cush
2:14 The Tigris flows east of Assyria and the 4th river is the Euphrates.
2:15 God gives man purpose in the Garden of Eden: to till and keep it
-Man's existence in paradise was not void of purpose or duty
2:16 The LORD commanded man to eat freely of every tree in the garden
2:17 The LORD commanded man to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil because in the day that you eat of it you shall die.
2:18 God decides that it is not good for man to be alone and decides to make a helper fit for him
2:19 God brings all the creatures to Adam to see what he will call them
- Man's naming of the creatures implies ownership
2:20 There was no suitable helper among all the creatures
2:21 God caused man to have a deep sleep and removed a rib from him
2:22 From man's rib God formed woman and brought her to Adam
2:23 Man calls woman, "woman" because she is the bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh
2:24 Man and woman becomes one flesh
- Institution of marriage by God
- Implicit denial of homosexuality
2:25 Man and Woman are naked, but not ashamed

3:1 The serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature. He asked the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?"
3:2 The woman replied we may eat of any tree
3:3 But, God said you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die
- The is the first human distortion of God's commands by man. Notice that it is a building on of God's law, not a detraction. This is an interesting point. She tends towards legalism rather than hedonism. What is the significance here?
3:4 The serpent said, "you will not die"
- This is the first refutation or denial of God's claims. It is the first lie.
3:5 The serpent says you won't die, but your eyes will be opened and become like God.
- Now the lie is emboldened by an enticement
- The serpent makes the false claim that downing good and evil is what makes God God
3:6 The woman saw the tree was good for food and was a way to become wise. Thus she ate from it and gave some to her husband who ate.
- There is a conscious decision for the woman to eat and then a conscious decision for the man to eat. Two separate sins.
3:7 They became aware of their nakedness and sewed fig leaves together to make clothes
- The innocence is lost
3:8 Man and woman hide from God who is walking in the garden.
3:9 The LORD calls out to the man and woman
3:10 Man said he hid from God because he was afraid and naked
- First sense of fear
3:11 God accuses man of eating from the tree he was not supposed to eat from.
3:12 The man blames the woman (and God for giving him the woman) for giving him the fruit
- First blasphemy of God
3:13 God asks the woman what have you done? The woman blames the serpent
3:14 God curses the serpent worse than any other animal and forces him to slither on his belly
3:15 God instills enmity between women and serpents
3:16 God curses the woman in child brith by greatly multiplying the pain
-This is interesting that He will increase the pain but not create pain in child birth. Thus, not all pain can be called Evil.
God instills a desire in woman for her husband and places him in charge of her
3:17 God curses the ground as a result of man's sin
3:18 God demands that the ground will bring forth thorns and thistles but that man will nonetheless eat the plants of the field.
3:19 God states that man will return from where he came. man is of dust and will return to dust.
3:20 God called the woman Eve because she was the mother of all living
3:21 The LORD made garments of skin for Adam and Eve and clothed him
- First killing
3:22 God declares that man has become like one of us knowing good and evil and must be stopped from eating of the tree of life and living forever.
3:23 Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden of Eden
3:24 God placed the cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the tree of life from man

4:1 Adam and Eve had sex and Cain was born. She proclaimed that she bore a man by the help of the Lord
- Even after sinning and banishment Eve still acknowledges God and His help
4:2 She then bore Abel. Abel became a sheep herder and Cain became a farmer
4:3 Cain brought an offering to the Lord of fruit
4:4 Abel brought the firstlings of his flock and the fat ones as an offering to the Lord. The Lord accepted Abel's offering
4:5 Cain's offering was not accepted. Cain became very angry.
4:6 The Lord asked why Cain was angry
4:7 The Lord says if you do well you will be accepted, but if you do not do well sin will over take you. He tells Cain that sin desires for him, but that he must master sin.
4:8 Cain lures Abel into the field and murders him
- First murder, significantly different then the 1st killing (Gen. 3:21)
4:9 The Lord asks Cain where his brother is and Cain retorts, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"
4:10 The Lord replies, "the voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground"
4:11 The Lord says now you are cursed from the ground
4:12 Cain is diminished to a fugitive and a wanderer of the the earth
4:13 Cain states that his punishment is more than he can bear
4:14 Cain fears that he will be killed since he wanders and is hidden from God
4:15 The Lord marked Cain so that no man would kill him
4:16 Cain left the Presence of the Lord and dwelt in Nod, east of Eden
- This whole situation is intriguing. Despite the banishment from the garden and a murder God has direct contact with Cain. When did this direct contact stop and why?
4:17 Cain took a wife and had a son, Enoch. Cain built a city called Enoch.
4:18 Enoch begat Irad. Iran begat Me-hulja-el. Me-hulja-el begat Me-thu'sha-el. Me-thu'sha-el begat Lamech.
4:19 Lamech had two wives: Adah and Zilla
-first instance of polygamy
4:20 Adah bore Jabal to Lamech. Jabal is the father of those who dwell in tents and have cattle.
4:21 Adah also bore Jubal who became the father of those who play the lyre and pipe.
4:22 Zillah bore Tubal-Cain who was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron
4:23 Lamech said to his wives: I have slain a man for wounding me. I have killed a young man for striking me.
4:24 He said if Cain is avenged seven-fold, Lamech is avenged seventy-seven fold.
4:25 Adam and Eve had Seth. Eve said Seth is appointed by God because Cain slew Abel.
4:26 Seth had a son, Enosh. At this time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

Genealogies
5:1 "This is the book of the generations of Adam"
- Is this separate from the first four chapters? When God created man he made him in the likeness of God
5:2 God blessed and named them
5:3 At 130 years old Adam had Seth. Seth was in the likeness of Adam
- Adam is in the image of God. Seth in the image of Adam. Is Seth then in the image of God equal to being in the image of God or less?
5:4 Adam had other sons and daughters
5:5 Adam lived 930 years and died
5:6 Seth was 105 years old when he had a son, Enosh
5:7 Seth had other sons and daughters
5:8 Seth lived 912 years and died
- Some say that it is ridiculous to assume this is literal. Others say it is unfair that they live that long. Why did God delay death so long back then? Why is the curse so much harsher now? But, God said that man will fear death all of his life. If we live longer then we fear death longer. Maybe our short lifespans are an act of mercy, not an act of curse.
5:9 Enosh was 90 years old when he had a son, Kenan
5:10 Enosh had many other sons and daughters
5:11 Enosh lived 905 years and died
5:12 Kenan was 70 years old when he had a son, Ma-hal'alel
5:13 Kenan had many other sons and daughter
5:14 Kenan lived 910 years and died
5:15 When Ma-hal'alel lived 65 years when he had a son, Jared
5:16 Ma-hal'alel had other sons and daughters
5:17 Ma-hal'alel lived 895 years and died
- Quick recap Adam - Ma-hal'alel 4,092 years
5:18 Jared had a son, Enoch, when he was 162.
5:19 Jared had other sons and daughters
5:20 Jared lived 962 years and died
- Adam to Jared: 4,892 years
5:21 Enoch had a son, Methuselah, when he was 65
5:22 Enoch had other sons and daughters
5:23 Encoh lived 365 years and then walked with God
5:24 God took Enoch, he did not die
- Adam to Enoch 5,192 years
5:25 Methuselah had Lamech when he was 187 years old
5:26 Methuselah had other sons and daughters
5:27 Methuselah lived 969 years
- Adam to Methuselah: 5,974 years
5:28 Lamech was 182 years old when he had Noah
5:29 Noah is named because he is the one who will bring relief from our work
5:30 Lamech had other sons and daughters
5:31 Lamech lived 777 years and died
- Adam to Lamech: 6,569 years
5:32 Noah had Shem, Ham and Japheth at 500 years old
- Adam to Noah 7,069

Noah & The Flood

6:1 Men began to multiply and daughters were born to them
6:2 "The sons of God saw that the daughters of man were fair and they took to wife such of them as they chose"
- This has been used very oddly, like to prove the intercourse between angels and women. I think this is merely God-fearing men taking up non-God fearing wives.
6:3 The Lord said that man's days are numbered 120 years
- Is this no one will live past 120 years or when the flood will occur, or are years not literal here and the end of earth will come about in 120 'years'.
6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days
- What are the Nephilim? The children of the sons of God and the daughters of men were the "mighty men that were of old, the men of renown"
- What does this mean?
6:5 The LORD saw the wickedness of men in those days and saw that their imaginations were always an evil.
6:6 The LORD was sorry that He even made man.
6:7 The Lord decided to blot out man
6:8 Noah however, found favor with the Lord
6:9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
6:10 Noah had 3 sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth
6:11 Earth was corrupt and full of violence
6:12 All flesh had corrupted their way on the earth
6:13 God told Noah he was going to destroy the flesh and the earth
6:14 God commanded Noah to make an ark
6:15 Length of the Ark: 300 cubits, Breadth of the Ark: 50 cubits, Height of the Ark: 30 cubits
6:16 Make the Ark with three decks
6:17 God tells Noah that a flood will kill everything on Earth
6:18 But Noah and his family will be safe by God's covenant with Noah
6:19 Also a male-female of every living thing will be sound on the ark
6:20 Two of every animal will come to Noah and to be kept alive
6:21 God tells Noah to store every sort of food for the flood
6:22 Noah did everything that God commanded

7:1 God commands Noah and his family to enter the Ark
7:2 7 pairs of all clean animals are to be taken into the art and 1 pair of all unclean animals too.
7:3 7 pairs of the birds are also to be taken into the ark
7:4 The flood of rain for 40 days and 40 nights will come in 7 days and blot out all life on earth.
7:5 Noah did all that God commanded of him
7:6 Noah was 600 years old when the flood came
- 7,169 years between Adam and Flood
7:7 Noah and his sons and his sons' wives went into the ark to be saved
7:8 The animals followed Noah into the ark
7:9 Male and female animals followed Noah
7:10 After 7 days, the flood came upon the earth
7:11 The fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heaven were opened
7:12 Rain fell upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights
7:13 The flood began the day that Noah and his family entered the ark
7:14 The flood began the day that the animals entered the ark
7:15 Everything that was supposed to enter the ark went in according to its kind
7:16 The LORD shut them all in
7:17 The waters increased for 40 days and nights
7:18 The ark floated on the surface of the water
7:19 Even the mountains were covered by water
7:20 The mountains were covered then by 15 cubits deep
7:21 Everything on the earth died
7:22 Whatever had breath died
7:23 Only Noah and those who were with him survived
7:24 The waters were on the earth for 150 days

8:1 God remembered Noah and everything on the ark. He caused a wind to subside the waters.
8:2 The fountains of the deep were closed; the rain stopped
8:3 After 150 days the water had receded
8:4 The ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat.
8:5 After ten months the tops of the mountains were visible
8:6 Noah opened the window of the ark
8:7 He sent out a raven
8:8 Then he sent out a dove
8:9 The dove returned because it had nowhere to rest
8:10 After 7 days he sent the dove out again
8:11 It returned with an olive branch
8:12 He waited another 7 days and sent the dove out again, but it did not return
8:13 Noah removed the covering of the ark and found that it was dry on the surface
8:14 After another month the ground was fully dry
8:15 God spoke to Noah
8:16 God said to Noah take your family and leave the ark
8:17 God told him to release the animals so they could be fruitful and multiply
8:18 Noah left the ark with his family
8:19 Everything left the ark
8:20 Noah built an altar and made sacrifices to the LORD
8:21 Upon smelling the odor God vowed never to curse the ground again because of man or to destroy every living creature
- God says that the imagination of men's heart is evil from his youth
- God smelled and maybe anthropomorphic isn't as bad as it is expected
8:22 He promised that so long as the earth exists the seasons and day and night will not cease

9:1 God blessed Noah and his sons and told them to be fruitful and multiply the earth
9:2 He told them that every living creature will fear man and be delivered unto them
9:3 God gives them everything that exist as food
- The first condoning of meat-eating
9:4 God says not to eat flesh when it is still alive, no eating of blood
9:5 This is a sin that will require a reckoning
9:6 God warns that whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed because man is made in the image of God
9:7 God tells them to be fruitful and multiply the earth
9:8 God spoke to Noah and his sons
9:9 God establishes a covenant with them
9:10 God establishes a covenant with everything that came out of the ark
9:11 This covenant states that never again will God destroy the earth by flood
9:12 God gives them a sign of the covenant
9:13 The rainbow is the sign
9:14 When the rainbow is seen...
9:15 ... God will remember this covenant
9:16 It is an everlasting covenant between flesh and God
9:17 God tells Noah this is the sign of the covenant between God and all flesh that is on the earth
9:18 Shem, Ham and Japheth were the sons of Noah who got off the Ark. Ham was the father of Canaan.
9:19 From the sons of Noah the whole earth was peopled.
9:20 Noah tilled the soil and planted a vineyard
9:21 He drank wine and became drunk and laid naked in his tent
9:22 Ham, the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers
- This may mean that he raped him. Is this true?
9:23 Shem and Japheth covered Noah without looking at him naked
9:24 Noah awoke and knew what Ham (his youngest) had done to him
9:25 Noah cursed Canaan: "a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers"
9:26 Noah blessed Shem and said let Canaan be his slave
9:27 Noah played that Japheth would prosper and that Canaan would also be his slave.
9:28 After the flood Noah lived 350 years
9:29 Noah lived 950 years
- Adam to the death of Noah: 7,519 years

10:1 The generations of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth
10:2 Sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Jovan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras
10:3 Sons of Gomer: Ash, Kenaz, Riphath and Togar'mah
10:4 Sons of Javan: Eli'shah, Tarshish, Kittim and Do'danim
10:5 Japheth - They have their own lands, their own language and their own nations
10:6 Sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan
10:7 Sons of Cush: Seba, Hav'ilah, Sabtah, Ra'amah and Sab'teca. Sons of Ra'amah: Sheba and Dedan
10:8 Cush became the father of Nimrod, Nimrod was the first mighty man
10:9 Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord
10:10 Nimrod's kingdom was Ba'bel, Erech, and Accad, all in the land of Shiner
10:11 From there Nimrod went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Reho'both-Ir and Calah
10:12 Rosen between Nineveh and Calah is a great city
10:13-13 Egypt became the Father of Ludim, An'amim, Leha'bim, Naph-tu'him, Pathru'sim, Caslu'him (where the Philistines force from) and Caph'torim
10:15 Canaan begat: Sidon and Heth
10:16-18 Canaan is the father of: the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hives, the Arkoites, the Simites, the Arlvadites, the Zem'arites, and the Ha'mathites. The families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
10:19 The territory of the Canaanites extends from Sidon to Gaza to Admah to Lasha
10:20 These are the sons of Ham
10:21 Shem is the father of all the children of Eber
10:22 The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpach'shad, Lud and Aram
10:23 The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether and Mash
10:24 Arpach'shad begat Shelah. Shellac begat Eber
10:25 Eber's sons: Peleg and Joktan
10:26-29 The sons of Joktan: Almo'dad, Sheleph, Hazarma'reth, Jerah, Hador'am, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abim'a-el, Sheba, Ophir, Hav'ilah and Jobab.
10:30 The sons of Joktan occupy the territory from Mesha to the hill country of the east
10:31 These are the sons of Shem
10:32 These are the descendants of Noah, according to their nations. These spread abroad the whole art after the flood.

Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 1 (B)

(Originally written December 29, 2006 in Book 7)

Philosophy of Religion 3rd Edition
John H. Hick
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
1983

Little Bobby's Birth Date

It's about 6:30 AM and Kathi ought to be being prepped. It won't be long until there will be a new member added to the Thornton family. Luckily, this one will add some testosterone. Maybe it'll balance this house out.

(Philosophy of Religion continued)

Infinite, Self-Existent

Monotheistic faith finds its primary expressions in the commands, prayers, Psalms, prophecies, parables and teachings of the Bible.

The basis of Christianity has been philosophically elaborated throughout the history of Christian thought.

Christianity is more theological articulated than Judaism.

God is infinite or unlimited.

Paul Tillich stated that we ought not to state that God exists because existence is a limitation. The question of God's existence can neither be asked or answered. He held that God is being-itself, not a being.

Tillich maintains that God has a reality that is not the first or the highest, but a completely separate one that gives birth to all other reality.

The Medieval theologians (echoed by Tillich) stated that the creator and the created cannot be stated to exist in the same sense.

The Christian God is and has unlimited being and the divine attributes are ways in which the divine reality has being.

The 1st attribute is self-existence (aseity).

The concept of self-existence has two elements:
1) God has complete and absolute ontological independence
2) God is without beginning or end

Anselm pointed out that God's divine eternity is more than existence without beginning or end. "Indeed you exist neither yesterday nor tomorrow but are absolutely outside all time" (Hick, 8).

Creator

God is the creator of all things. He created everything ex nihilo.

The notion of creation ex nihilo contains two important corollary ideas:
1) The creation can never become the creator.
2) The created realm is absolutely dependent upon God

Aquinas held that the idea of creation does not necessarily rule out the possibility that the created universe may be eternal. But that the Biblical revelation rules out an eternal universe.

Augustine asserts that creation did not take place in time, but time was likewise a creation of God. If Augustine is correct then the relativity theory, which holds that space-time is internally infinite, is correct.

The Creation story is not regarded as a scientific description by "responsible religious thinkers". "It is seen rather as the classical mythological expression of faith that the whole natural order is a divine creation" (Hick, 10).

Origen saw the creation account as figurative.

Personal

God as a personal deity is deeply rooted in Jewish and Christian tradition. God is not an it. He is a divine thou.

Loving, Good

God's goodness, love and grace are virtually synonymous in the New Testament.

Love of God must be understood, but first the notion of the Greek eros and agape (types of love) must be understood.

Eros - desiring love, love evoked by the desirable qualities of the beloved. This love depends on the lovableness of its objects.

God's love for man in the New Testament is agape love.

Agape love is unconditional. It is not dependent upon the lovableness of the objects.

The ultimate of grace is the ultimate of power.

Medieval Notes, Including John Scotus

(Originally written December 7, 2006 in Book 11)

The History of Philosophy vol. 2

Chapter 5 - The Medieval Interval

Plato and Aristotle dominated the Classical period. Augustine and Aquinas dominated the Medieval period; but, lived 8 centuries apart. Augustine and Aquinas dealt with different problems, whereas Plato and Aristotle dealt with the same problems.

The Dark Ages

The barbarian conquering of Rome caused enormous stress. The barbarians were incapable of sustaining such a complex culture like Rome's.

The collapse of a uniform society caused man to primarily focus on staying alive.

The Classical philosophy was lost to Europe in the Dark Ages.

Literacy declined to the point that Charlemagne complained that the clergy did not know enough Latin to interpret the Scriptures.

The Church

Anything surviving from the Roman World in the Dark Ages was due to the Church.

Christianity made converts out of the pagan and Arian barbarians.

"By the end of the Dark Ages, Christianity was more widely spread and Orthodoxy more firmly entrenched than before the barbarian invasions began" (Jones, 142).

The Rise of the Papacy

The early Church was ruled by bishops, not by the Pope.

The doctrine of Papal primacy made the Pope the head of the Church and gave it temporal authority.

A Christian king was subject to the Pope.

Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century pulled papal primacy to its extreme. The power of the Popes stopped Europe from instituting a unified government until the rise of nationalism in the early Modern period.

Monasticism

While the Papacy drove the Church to become a secular power, the spiritual nature was preserved by two things:
1) Monasticism
2) The Friars

Monasticism began in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D.

Monasticism got its credibility from St. Benedict.

Humility was the top virtue in monastic life.

The monastic movement constantly reformed to maintain a spiritual primacy over a temporal primacy. Though it wasn't perfect it worked well enough.

The Friars of St. Francis

Francis of Assisi (1182-1226)

Francis of Assisi was a mystic reformer and founded the Order of the Friars Minor.

He was dedicated to poverty, simplicity and good works.

He achieved a large measure of success in inflaming the hearts of the average man with the love of God.

The main difference between now and the Dark Ages is that men in the Dark Ages were ready at any moment to be touched by the otherworldly.

Feudalism

Particularism began to grow in the fragmented ruins of the old Empire.

Men with property gained power as central governments were too weak to perform duties.

"Immunity" was granted to land owners by the central government which gave them the power of controlling their lands with no government interference.

Small peasant farmers would "commend" their lands to these large land owners. "Commendation" was the act of giving up one's land for protection and security. The ones who commended their lands would live on them and work them still, but they would no longer own the land.

Charlemagne (742-814) organized a strong central government and was crowned Emperor by the Pope. But his kingdom collapsed shortly after his death.

Feudalism was born out of the rapid commending process that followed the collapse of Charlemagne.

Authority and power and administration became inextricable from land ownership.

Medieval society was dominated by the concept of status, not the concept of citizenship.

The Middle Ages had a very fragmented society.

Chivalry

Chivalry was an ideal that emphasized private honor and public service.

Along with the Church and feudalism Chivalry marked the culture of the Middle Ages.

St. Louis, King of France

Louis IX was born in 1214 and set out to recapture Jerusalem in 1248. It failed, but he tried again in 1270.

Louis IX described chivalry as "upright" and "worthy".

Uprightness involved courage, modesty, charitableness, sobriety, faithfulness and justice.

Louis IX saw sin as a disease, much like Augustine.

Louis IX did not extend his notions of charity and humility to the Jews.

Louis IX distrusted education. As St. Francis, Louis IX was satisfied with simple faith.

Louis IX saw outward dignity as vital in society. His count was elaborate and attendants were lavishly dressed to show their rank.

Feudalism was so deeply entrenched in Louis IX's society that his closest friend and biographer, Sire de Joinville would not swear an oath of allegiance to Louis' family in the event he died in Crusade because Joinville was not his liegeman.

Art and Letters

Architecture

The 12th and 13th centuries were a period of great artistic blossoming.

Vaulted circling and stained glass windows marked the new Gothic style. The abbey church of St. Denis, the Cathedral of Noyon, Enlis, Paris, Rheims and the Sainte Chapelle are perfect examples of the Gothic style. The architecture reflected Christian piety.

Painting and Poetry

Painting and poetry moved from static, unmoving depictions to depictions of living, breathing men in nature.

It focused on the world, but their was still an otherworldly element: case in point - Dante.

The chasm between the otherworld and this world was removed. The two worlds were no longer bitter hostiles at war with each other.

Science

Bartholomew the Englishmen

Bartholomew was one of the most popular science writers of the Middle Ages.

He used Aristotle only in a way to describe it in a very confusing manner.

Science was mixed with heresy and old wives tales.

Aristotle and Medieval Science

It took time to assimilate Aristotle to science.

Men in the Middle Ages were more concerned with salvation, not with accumulating the facts.

Vincent Beauvais

Bartholomew and Vincent Beauvais were very unscientific.

The Universities

Some monastic and cathedral schools popped up after Charlemagne's renaissance.

The Universities slowly arose over Europe to satisfy the new hunger for knowledge slowly awakened over the 8th-11th centuries.

Philosophy during the Medieval Interval

The cultural problem for the 13th century philosopher was to find a place for these this-worldly ends in a scheme of life that still had a basically otherworldly orientation. The success of Aquinas lies in solving this central problem.

There was virtually no philosophical development in the 8 centuries between Augustine and Aquinas, save for Boethius, Isidore of Seville and John Scotus Erigena.

John Scotus Erigena

John Scotus Erigena (ca. 810-877) was born in Ireland. He studied Greek in an Irish monastery at a time when Greek was nearly lost in all the west.

He travels to France in 847 and taught at Paris in the palace school that Charlemagne founded.

He was involved in deep theological topics like Free Will and the Eucharist. He avoided the extreme forms of predestination, but went too far and was condemned as a Pealagian. His views were condemned in 855. Then his views on the Eucharist were condemned (he denied the Doctrine of Transubstantiation)

He decided to take a safer task of translating Greek into Latin.

John Scotus Erigena was deeply concerned with synthesis. As a Christian, Erigena must have a synthesis, an overarching philosophy that fit with the Catholic dogma.

Nature

John began with the nature of reality.

He believed that things fall into two classes:
1) Things that are
2) Things that are not

Things that are not have different modes, they are modes of non-being
1) Sinful man
2) Changing particulars
3) Potential being
4) Things that are "beyond our intellect"

Things that are are those things that we can comprehend.

John Scotus Erigena's divisions are influence by Plato (most of the texts he translated were neoplatonic ones)

Like Plato and the Neoplatonists, John identified the form of the Good with God.

God

According to John, God is "beyond being" and thus, not to be. John had a problem in attempting to reconcile Neoplatonic metaphysics and Christian dogma.

John held that there were two ways for finite minds to approach God:
1) An affirmative way
2) A negative way

The affirmative way consists of stating things like God is being, God is good, etc. These assertions are neither wholly true nor wholly false.

Every positive or affirmative statement about God must be supplemented by a negative statement.

Instead of stating the negative and positive about God as "God is being and not-being" he stated then like "God is super being"

John Scotus Erigena believed that God was truly Good, but to say that God was good was misleading because it wasn't the whole truth.

Creation

John Scotus Erigena started with a paradox in dealing with creation. If God made the world He must move, but how can He who is immutable move?

John asserted that the concepts of making and creation (like the concepts of being and goodness) applied to God in only a metaphorical sense.

He also asserted that the transcendence of the the Creator and the dependence of the creature (Two vitally important Church doctrines) were contradictory.

Theophanies

John held the world to be a "theophany" of God (an appearance of God). It is not an illusion, but the chosen method of God to reveal Himself to man. Human minds are a part of this theophany and thus their understanding is a part of God's theophany.

Knowledge is Illumination

"Everything that exists is an aspect of the divine nature reflected from some perspective or other" (Jones, 179).

Knowledge is fundamentally an act of grace by God in which He illumines our mind.

Four-Fold Division of Nature

While nature is truly one and beyond being, the human mind divides and classifies as was God's intention. There are four divisions of nature:
1) God - the nature that creates and is uncreated
2) The Platonic archetypes - the nature that creates and is created
3) The Physical World - the nature that does not create and is created
4) God - The nature that does not create and is not created

"God issues into the world and returns from it to Himself" (Jones, 180).

God is not conscious until he creates His mind. The archetypes are the divine images of God. They do not exist independently. They are the divine mind.

The archetypes (primordial causes) are the sources of the essences of the particulars in the physical world.

The primordial causes are: goodness, being, life, wisdom, truth, intelligence, reason, virtue, justice, health, greatness, omnipotence, eternity and peace. While we view them as a plurality, they are really a unity.

Anything that exists in the physical world that is describable as one of these primordial causes is so because it takes part (a finite part) in them.

The physical world has being by participating in the various primordial substances.

Is John's view Christian?

There are some Neoplatonic interpretations of nature that readily fit within the framework of Catholic Christianity.

John's metaphysics is a rational system, but is in danger of collapsing into subjectivism and mysticism.

The mystic elements were too strong for a Christian standard at his time. A private mystical basis was not the solution the Church as an institution was looking for.

John's fourth level (not-created and non-creating) seems to destroy individuality. Man's eternal salvation is done through a return to God by all souls. It is not exactly Kosher with the Church. It is blasphemy and heresy.

John's neoplatonism also renders sin and evil as unreal.

John also had to interpret the Scriptures rather loosely.

He also used the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite as an almost canonical authority. Unfortunately, St. Dionysius the Areopagite was later shown to be a fake.

The Neoplatonic Problem

Neoplatonic metaphysics and Christian Dogma are antagonistic. The problem was to include some deeply entrenched Neoplatonic ideals of the Middle Ages into Christianity.

The Controversy over Universals

The thinkers of the 11th century were logicians, not metaphysicians. They focused their energy on two very technical problems:
1) The status of universals
2) the relation between the spheres of faith and reason

It was desirable, if only for pragmatic reasons, to prove the Christian truths.

Reason was an indispensable weapon agains infidels and heretics.

Men of the Middle Ages basically agreed there were three modes of cognition
1) Revelation
2) Reason
3) Perception

The problem of universals and the scope of faith and reason was (and is) an interrelated problem.

St. Augustine's Philosophy and Theology

(Originally written July 22, 2006 in Book 5)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter IV - St. Augustine's Philosophy and Theology

To escape the madness of metaphysics and thoroughly infuriate myself by reading an attack on one of the greatest men in human history. Russell will only focus on what he considers important in Augustine:
1. Augustine's pure philosophy, especially his theory of time
2. Augustine's philosophy of history (developed in City of God)
3. Augustine's theory of salvation, against Pelagius

Pure Philosophy

Augustine is not preoccupied with pure philosophy, mostly he concerns himself with theology. But he shows immense talent in philosophy when he does.

Augustine was the first philosopher (of many) to speculate with a necessity of matching speculation and Scriptures.

Origen (an earlier Christian philosopher) differed from Augustine in that Origen kept Christianity and Platonism separate while Augustine grated Platonism into Christianity.

The most purely philosophical book is the 11th book of Confessions. Most contemporary Confessions end at Book 10 because that is where the biographical part ends.

Augustine remarks that the Genesis of account of creation (ex nihilo, out of nothing) was completely foreign to Greek thought. Greeks believed God formed preexisting matter. Christianity and Judaism holds God created matter, then simultaneously formed it. The Greek view of creation has reappeared since the dawn of Christianity and has led to pantheism.

Augustine asks if God created the world ex nihilo then why didn't he do it sooner? Augustine states that there was no sooner before creation because time was created at the same point as all creation.

God is eternal; He is timeless. In God there is no past or future, only eternal present.

"God's eternity is exempt from the relation of time; all time is present to Him at once" (Russell, 353).

When Augustine refers to time he has an intriguing relativistic theory. Time can only be measured as it is passing. The past and future is not really 'is', only the present really is. But there really is a past and future.

Augustine says that the past or future is considered at the present through memory or expectation.

He states that there are three times:
1. A present of things past (memory)
2. A present of things present (sight)
3. A present of things future (expectation)

He confesses to God that he is perplexed by time and asks for enlightenment. Without fully understanding time, see does believe that is subjective.

Time is in the human mind and time exists only because created beings exist.

Augustine's theory of time seems to anticipate at least three things;
1) Kant's theory of subjective time
2) Descartes' cogito
3) Descartes' reply to Gassendi's ambulo ergo sum.

"As a philosopher, therefore, Augustine deserves a high place" (Russell, 355).

The City of God

When Rome was sacked by the Goths in 410 the Roman pagans attributed the defeat to the abandonment of the ancient religions. The City of God was an answer to this accusation.

"Like some other very great books, it composes itself in the memory of those who have read it, into something better than at first appears in rereading" (Russell, 355).

Russell holds that the book contains "a great deal that hardly anyone at present day can accept" (Russell, 355).

Russell does hold that it remains inspirational today and can be restated in non-theological terms.
Linehan - Thus destroying the meaning and value of the book.

In the book Augustine states that worse things then the sacking of Rome occurred prior to the Christian age. He also said that Christianity kept the sacking from being as brutal as it could have been (the Goths were Christians).

He says that not all sins are punished on earth, thus the Last Judgment.

All that Christians endured virtuously would lead to their edification eventually.

Temporal losses for Christians does not cause loss of anything of value for them.

Nothing can interfere with the resurrection of the body.

Virginity lost through rape doesn't diminish chastity. Chastity is a virtue of the mind. Virginity and chastity can be lost even without the physical act. It can be lost in the mind.

Suicide is condemned by Augustine. Even if one commits suicide to avoid the loss of virginity it is still a sin. Apparently Lucretia (a woman in Rome) committed suicide for this reason.

He says that rape, if enjoyed, becomes sinful for the woman.

He condemns the pagan gods. He claims that it would be better to worship a virtuous man than a heathen god.

Christians have a constant sanctuary in the pilgrim City of God.

In this world, the city of earth and the city of heaven are intermingled.

Augustine holds Greek philosophers as partially right.

He holds that the philosophers could not overthrow the pagan gods because their moral instructions were weak due to the wickedness of their gods.

Augustine believed the heathen gods existed, but were devils.

He held astrology as to be both wicked and false. He proves this through the fortunes of twins who have the identical zodiac sign.

God has foreknowledge of man's sins, but God's foreknowledge does not cause man's sins.

Virtuosity does not bring unhappiness; even if Christians are unfortunate, they still can be happy.

Augustine holds Plato in higher regards than any other philosopher. Augustine credits Plato with a number of things:
1) Plato's belief that God was Spirit, not material.
2) Plato's belief that perception is not the source of truth.
3) Platonic logic and ethics are closest to Christianity

Augustine aslo credits Plotinus as being the best comprehender of Plato. Plotinus lived slightly before Augustine.

Augustine considered Aristotle lower than Plato, but better than all the others.

He condemned both Plato and Aristotle for believing that all the gods were good. He condemned the Stoics for condemning all passions because Christian passions can lead to virtue.

He held that Plutonists were right about God, wrong about gods and wrong in denying the Incarnation.

Augustine holds the Platonic view that the sensible world is inferior to the super-sensible world.

He believed that Knowledge of God comes only through Christ. Certain things can be learned through reason, but religious knowledge must come through Scriptures.

Time and space prior to creation should not be considered because it is pointless.

Everything blessed is eternal, but everything eternal is not blessed (hell and satan).

He denounces Origen's view of souls being put into bodies as punishment.

He believed the world was created in 6 days because 6 is a perfect number (i.e. equal to the sum of its factors).

He believed that there are good and bad angels, but bad angels do not have an essence contrary to God.

"God's enemies are not so by nature, but by will. The vicious will has no efficient cause, but only a deficient one; it is not an effect, but a defect" (Russell, 359).

He held the the world was less than 6,000 years old and history is not cyclical.

Sin caused death. If there were no sin there would be no death. Sin caused both physical and eternal death. Eternal death is damnation.

Bodies in heaven will be spiritual, but not spirits. They will be weightless. Men will have male bodies; women will have female ones. People who die in infancy will have adult bodies.

Adam's sin brought eternal death to all mankind; God's grace freed them from it.

Augustine contributes sin to the mind, contrary to flesh as Platonism and Manichaeism holds.

Sex in marriage is not sinful, provided procreation is the reason for it. Married men are virtuous if they love without lust. Sex, even in marriage is associated with shame because of Adam's sin. Lust is shameful because it is independent from the will. Sexual intercourse can occur without lust. "The need of lust in sexual intercourse is a punishment for Adam's sin, but for which sex might have been divorced from pleasure" (Russell, 360).

Asceticism dislikes sex because of its independence of the will. Virtue demands a complete control of the will over the body. This control does not suffice to make sex possible.

He denounced skepticism.

He held that virtue is inextricably connected with Christianity. Pagan virtue is too marred by the heathen gods to be true virtue.

He believes in predestination. All men deserve damnation, so any receiving salvation is merciful. The rest perish justly.

The influential part of the book is that the State can only be part of the City of God if it submits to the Church in all religious matters. The theocratic implications of Augustine's theory lasted until the Reformation.

Russell states that Marx used Augustine in socialism:
YHWH = Dialectical Materialism
The Messiah = Marx
The Elect = The Proletariat
The Church = The Communist Party
The Second Coming = The Revolution
Hell = Punishment of the Capitalists
The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth

The Pelagian Controversy

Pelagius was a Welshman and less fanatical than most of his contemporaries. He believed in free-will and questioned the doctrine of Original Sin. He believed that virtue occurs through man's own moral effort.

Augustine convinced Catholic Christianity to hold Pelagius as a heretic.

Augustine argued men were incapable of free-will after the Fall and that virtue was only acquired through God's grace. Augustine held that damnation proved God's justice and salvation proved His mercy. Both proved God's goodness.

Augustine's views were adopted by Calvin and had their root in Paul (especially in Romans).

"A great deal of what is most ferocious in the medieval Church is traceable to his sense of universal guilt" (Russell, 365).

Aristotle's Physics

(Originally written July 14, 2006 in Book 4)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter 23: Aristotle's Physics

The nature of a thing is its end, i.e. the nature of an acorn is to be an oak.

Aristotelian nature has a teleological implication.

Things with these teleological natures have an internal principle. It is their nature to become what their nature is.

Things not yet at their end (an acorn, not yet an oak) are their potential nature.

Motion is the prices of achieving one's potential.

Time is the motion of numeration.

There has always been motion and there will always be motion.

Without motion there is no time.

The earth is the center of the universe.

On earth everything is composed of combinations of the four elements. Everything in the heavens is composed of a fifth element.

Side note - "Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo had to combat Aristotle as well s the Bible in establishing the view that the earth is not the centre of the universe" (Russell, 207).

Linehan - Bad science based on poor Biblical interpretations does not negate the accuracy of the Bible, only disproves the theories based on bad Biblical interpretation. I can state that God created the world in seven, 24 hour days and then that could theoretically be disproved by science. The Biblical account of creation would not be discredited then, only my interpretation would.

Aristotelian physics is incompatible with Newton's First Law of Motion.

Also Aristotle's view of the heavenly bodies being indestructible and otherwise incorruptible obviously has to be abandoned.

The Wisdom and Values of 8,218 Days - Axiology

(Originally written June 30, 2006 in Book 2)

It has been awhile since I paid tribute to the man who got me interested in philosophy. It was Bertrand Russell's inexcusable attack upon God, Christianity and the beliefs that sustain me that drove me to philosophy. His folly, passed as wisdom, was the spark that ignited this fire that burns ever hotter in me. Russell was the catalyst that set me on the path to the second greatest thing that drives me. Well, that is a little lofty, and not quite true. Now I will examine myself for the values that guide me. This will answer the question that should plague every human being - Who Am I?

Who is Chris Linehan?

It is befitting my ethics and value system that I am named 'Christopher', which means 'Steadfast in Christ. That is my aim, my goal, my creed, my life. I can spout nonsense until the day I die and not have failed wholly if I live to the meaning of my name. All my philosophy can be proved wrong because I am inherently flawed. I am fallible and incapable of discerning what is truth in all matters (which is my quest for knowledge). For truth is difficult to come by and requires an ever growing and tireless ambition, but Truth is all around me. Truth is inside me, embedded for the war that rages always from the Fall until the Second Coming of Christ and the final unification of God and man. This is the Truth.

Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth, fully human yet paradoxically fully God. He was born of the virgin Mary, walked the earth in ministry to the wicked and self-proclaimed righteous. His ministry was seemingly cut short by the cross, but his death was a step in his glorious plan of redemption for the fallen, which is us. His atoning death was a vitally important step in the redemption of man. His ministry culminated when He rose again. His earthly ministry, atoning death, and conquering of the grave and death itself paved the way for all of us who came after Him. This gave us the chance at salvation if we only believe. And, I believe. After rising from the dead he rejoined his Father and the Holy Spirit in paradise, waiting to return in glory and defeat Satan once and for all. Upon his second coming all the saints of every age will join in his triumph and dwell with him forever in the New Heaven. This is Truth and Truth comes easily to us because it was hard fought by a God who needed nothing, but gave everything, that you and I and all men and women could be reconciled to this ever-loving God.

Above all else I am dedicated, motivated and sustained by God.

1. God is my highest value.

After a dedication to God as my highest value and aspiration, what defines me? Where do my loyalties fall next?

They fall in the category of relationships. First, there is the relationship with Truth, which is a personal relationship with God, who is Triune. Second only to the relationships with my creator, redeemer and sustainer is the relationships to whom He has blessed me with; my family and my friends. As with values as a whole, this too is hierarchical.

The most important relationship I have is between my fiancee and I. [As an aside on 1/20/2016, I encourage you to reread paragraph 2, especially where I state 'I am inherently flawed'. Then you will understand this paragraph a bit more like I do.] This is the ordained way of love that God has prescribed. Above all other men and women, I love______

After ______, my immediate family falls close behind. Then, my distant family (which now includes my wife-to-be's family). After that are my brothers and sisters in Christ, who are my family as well.

Values thus far,

1. God, and my relationship with Him
2. Fiancee/Wife, and my relationship with her
2b. My parents, brothers and sisters & those relationships
2c. My extended family (including my fiancee's family)
2d. My family in Christ

After the relationships to my family, first to _______, my beloved wife, then to my immediate family, then to my extended family, then to my family through Christ (of whom include most of the preceding categories) I have a loyalty to my fellow humans. They are all equals as they are all lost. The only difference between them and my family in Christ is that they are welcome in that family and have explicitly or implicitly rejected that welcome. They are all potential brothers and sisters in Christ. My loyalty to them comes with a responsibility to them. I must continue to welcome, invite, educate and love them in hopes of acquiring a new brother or sister in Christ. These are individuals, not incorporated collectives.

Thus, Values are:

1. God, and my relationship with them: a relationship with Truth.
2. ______ [1/20/16: I badly want to address _______ as either 'she who shall not be named' or lady Voldemort] and my relationship with her
2b. My immediate family and my relationship with them.
2c. My extended family and my relationships with them.
2d. My brothers and sisters in Christ and my relationship with them.
3. All individual humans and my responsibility to them and potential relationships with them.

The responsibility and duty I have because of the value of every individual human being that inherently lies in them in spite of their fallenness requires that I acquire tools. These tools are found in the Quest for Knowledge. There are many paths on this quest: medicine, history, sciences, humanities, art, must, mathematics, etc.  But all these paths are bound as a single street towards a single goal. They are interconnected by the avenue that either I have chosen or which has chosen me, which is philosophy. But as any rose called something else is a rose, all paths, when traveled straight and narrow, lead to Truth, which is a relationship with God.

Values again:

1. God, and my relationship with Him
2. Lady V, and my relationship with her
2b. My immediate family and my relationship with them
2c. My extended family and my relationship with them
2d. My brothers and sisters in Christ and my relationship with them
3. All individual men and women in the entire world and the responsibility I have to each and every one of them and the potential relationship I have with them that is capable of growing into 2d.
4. The Quest for Knowledge (only as a means to move 3 to 2d).

The Quest for Knowledge can never be used as an end in and of itself because that will only produce a temporary easing of the lust that is curiosity. It can never be used as a means to further selfish ambition, lest it become a tool of self-servitude. I vow to try not to erect an altar to myself as many learned individuals do. If I gain all knowledge but do not fulfill the responsibilities inextricably connected to the relationships I have than I am unfit to worship. Since I am flawed anyway I will never gain all knowledge and therefore should not be worshipped. Rarely does man worship man, but often does man idolize himself. THis is not the Quest for Knowledge - This is perversion of good.

The Quest for Knowledge leads us to conclusions. They create new loyalties and values that are both universal and subjective. Universal ones include nature and living organisms other than man. These both are God's creations and we are called to rule over them. It is our duty to be stewards of this earth and all who inhabit it. But subjective values, like Political Parties, nations, causes, art, music, passions and interests can be valuable subjectively. A person can choose art over music or music over art depending on whether they are audio or visual in inclination. But these are my values and they should be objective and universal (while the persons in the aforementioned hierarchy are subjective).

1. God and one's relationship to Him (Universal)
2. One's wife/husband and relationship to them
2b. One's immediate family and one's relationship to them
2c. One's extended family and one's relationship to them
2d. The body of Christ, which are your brothers and sisters in Christ.
3. Every individual in the world and one's responsibility to them and potential relationship with them.
4. One's Quest for Knowledge, whatever field it may be gives one the skills and tools necessary for fulfilling the responsibility to number 3.
5. To the world as a collective. This includes living organisms and the inanimate universe. The environment is important to all values (Save 1) and therefore is necessary to values as means to furthering (the existence/increase of categories 2-3).

Any other values can be attributed subjectively according to one's background, genetics, passions, interests, and likes, etc. But they cannot contradict the universal ones (aforementioned 5). Otherwise, they will further[add weight to, it's incredibly poor handwriting so I could just be guessing, but at the same time I'm getting fairly angry at Lady V and all of her detractors... sort of the self vs the other and the other's other self vs. the self sort of thing, but, I don't want to interrupt riveting self-taught, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing thought of a self-declared prodigy at 22 ] self-serving ambitions as a means to idolizing one's self. Idolizing one's self is disrespecting the valuable relationships in all the universals. Contradicting the universal values is not valuing something else. It is posturing one's self as the Truth. It is breaking the first commandment.

Noticing that I have excluded one's self from the universal values and subjective values is probably the first thing on your mind. I have omitted one's own self intentionally, not because one's self is not valuable, but because it is included in every category. God has no need for us, but loves us regardless. In order to embrace these ethics (the universal) one must first embrace God and create a relationship with Him. One cannot have any values or ethics if one does not exit. One's own value requires existence and existence implies value.

One finds one's own value in its utmost and highest form; in one's relationship with the creating, redeeming, Triune God. Next one finds one's own value in one's relationship to one's family. Families come in all shapes and sizes. The most important familial relationship is to one's spouse, which is a wife for a man or a husband to a woman. These relationships were put into place by God, so by finding one's own value in one's spouse is indirectly finding one's own value in God.

Not all men and women have spouses for a variety of reasons. One still finds one's own value in their blood relatives. God is a relational God; man is created in the image of God; therefore, man is relational. The closest relations are blood relatives and these extend far or not.

After family ties by blood there are family ties by the blood of Christ. These are extremely valuable because their value comes directly from their relationships with God and one's relationship to God and their relationship between the two brothers and sisters in Christ. This includes the Universal Church and particular churches. A quick note - if one's familial ties are ties to people who are not related through Christ, this category is higher than blood relations and even the relationship between spouses. Believers ought to marry believers, but do not divorce an unbeliever. Work ever harder to welcome them as a brother or sister in Christ. One should also work harder to invite blood relatives into the family of Christ, not because those individuals are universally more valuable than other nonbelievers, but because they are subjectively more valuable because of history and closeness.

All individuals are important and inherently valuable because all are made in the image of God. This makes all individuals inherently valuable. As Christ's family we are to continue His ministry in welcoming the world into reconciliation with Truth and God.

God performs the act of reconciliation but requires us (for our own sake, not his) to guide them in their path to God. We are merely trail guides on the path of reconciliation, which Christ blazed nearly 2,000 years ago,

I wonder to to fulfill our duty as trail guides, must we understand and know the trail? We do this on our own Quest for Knowledge. There are many different trails, but all lead to God if they are followed straight and narrow.

Each path is straight and narrow, but requires different types of knowledge to navigate. In order to guide along any part of the path one must know it fully. If a guide is lost then all are lost. A traveler can be lost and yet safe, if his or her guide knows the path. Philosophy is a path that is sort of the starting point of all paths to truth. It is no more nobler or great than any other path. The philosophical guides are measured as good guides as all guides are measured - on the effectiveness, and more importantly, their effort as a guide to Truth, which is God. Philosophers are merely guides of different paths at the same time. The Quest for Knowledge for philosophers is broader and requires more patience, but can equip them to be more versatile guides.

Regardless of the path, all paths lead to a great divide, which is the separation of man and God. This divide is bridged by the reconciliatory work of Christ. While there are many paths to Christ, it is only through Christ that one reaches Truth and God.

The Quest for Knowledge is an exploration of the physical and natural world; an introspection of self, a virtual compilation and assimilation of ideas, emotions and facts. It looks to the past, the present and the future and works with one aim - Truth, which is only reached in a relationship with God, through the bridge that is Christ.

The Quest gives us explicit and implicit knowledge, which guides us to the Scriptures that explicitly and implicitly formulate these values placed here as the universals, including the value of all God's creation. This is where we find explicit knowledge that demands placing value in nature and living organisms. Implicitly, without the revelation of the Scriptural account of the creation which places humans as stewards of the earth, we can know that these are important and valuable.

The path of one's subjective quest for knowledge is chosen because of genetic predispositions, environmental, socioeconomic and otherwise indeterminable circumstances. Our personalities are guides to which path to choose and then are further molded by that path, the experiences upon that path, and the guides who direct, educate and lead us on our quest, for better or for worse. THese personalities, histories, and subjective circumstances help determine what subjective values we place under the five universal natures.

In the five universal values and the few or many subjective values and the inherent value of ourselves we find in all other values form a comprehensive, coherent and cohesive ethical standard. If any subjective value clashes with a universal value than the subjective value is flawed. If one's own self is given value without relation to another value then it is idolatry and a scourge.

The standard and measure of all values is one's adherence to the duties in that relationship. All relationships are social by nature and this social factor is derived from the social nature of God, which is found in all men because they are created in the image of God. These relationships to individuals are all means to the ultimate purpose of value - finding pure, unadulterated, eternal joy in one's own maker, redeemer, and Truth. The ultimate purpose is to be close to God and the standard by which we measure our values is the God-like quality of them. If our values (universal or subjective) are God-like in nature and quality, the values are good and correct. If they are not God-like, then they are incorrect and evil. There are no amoral values.

The five universal values:
1) God, and one's relationship to him
2) Family and one's relationship to them
3) The individuals who make up the word and one's responsibility and potential relationship to them
4) One's subjective Quest for Knowledge
5) The natural world and one's responsibility and interaction with it are all.

when valued appropriately and acted upon are God-Like because they are derived from God Himself.

Obviously a relationship with God is derived from God. All familial relationships are derived from God by one way or the other. Spousal relationships were implemented y God, which gave rise to immediate familial relationships, which gave rise to extended familial relationships, and to be in a family with brothers and sisters in Christ are required to have a relationship with God in order to be in the family of God. Besides familial relationships, our relationships, actual or potential with ever ever individual in the world comes from two Biblical mandates and truths: 1) All men are created in the image of God and 2) The Great Commission. These obviously come from God if they com from the Bible. In addition to the relationship with them we have a duty via the Great Commission to help them to join the family of God.

We use what is at our disposal to facilitate the Great Commission, which we get on our subjective Quests for Knowledge. Knowledge is the means to accomplish the purpose of our Great Commission. We Quest to fulfill our duty to God, which is fulfilled through man. Lastly, our duty to nature is explicitly spelled out through Genesis. This is derived from God's word, which is obviously derived from God.

Thus, all five universal values meet the criteria of values. Values must be good, which means they are God-like in nature and quality. Values that are not God like are incorrect and evil and not values at all. They are forms of idolatry and contradict the first and highest value: God an one's relationship to Him. Any value that contradicts a universal value destroys cohesiveness and must be cast out.

Thus, in order for something to be a subjective value it must be good, which means God-Like. It must not contradict any universal value. If it is found not to contradict and to be God-like by measuring it up to the standard which God Himself. If it comes from God, either directly or indirectly, it will produce pure, unadulterated joy. This joy is eternal and while it can be muddled, it can never be completely stamped out. This leads us to know the purpose of values and ethics - to draw closer to God. This is only accomplished via Christ, which is reached via the Quest! (Circular?)

Yes but the alpha and omega is, was, and will be. Value is in all creation through God. We find that value through our relationship to God (directly & indirectly). It's always there and always has been there via God. But, we discover it only when we enter into a relationship with Him. (Circular?)

No, a salt shaker has salt in it, but we only discover it when we enter into a relationship with it, directly or indirectly. Directly we shake the salt. Indirectly, we eat the food with salt on it and know through inference there exists a salt shaker, even if we cannot see it. So it is with God.

God is the salt shaker. Value is the salt. Sometimes we see the salt (value) poured out through God in our own relationship with him. Sometimes we taste the salt (value) in other relationships, with who we (might be a hammer?) We can't see the shaker (God), but we can experience the salt (value). It isn't circular. It is what it is: 5 universal values - all stemming from God and countless subjective values stemming from God, working to form a diverse set of ethics with common characteristics, universally aimed at one ultimate purpose- chosen-ness to God and measured by God Himself!

Now I simply ask. How did this come from a reevaluation of Bertrand Russell??? Wow! I'm going to go fix some crabcakes and come back and open The History of Western Philosophy as I planned nearly two hours ago.