"Never has ear heard or eye seen
Any other god taking part of
Those who wait for him.
Thou dost welcome him who rejoices to do what is right,
Who remembers thee in thy ways,
Though thou wast angry, yet we sinned,
In spite of it we have done evil from of old,
We all became like a man who is unclean
And all our righteous deeds like a filthy rag;
We have all withered like leaves
And our iniquities sweep us away like the wind."
Isaiah 64: 4-6.
I see this Isaiah verse get quoted a lot, in terms of a blanket statement on humanity. We all have, at any point in time or history, righteous deeds like a filthy rag. No ifs, ands, or buts. It applies to everyone, even today. If you're unsaved, then all your deeds are filthy rags.
But does the verse itself support that blanket statement, or is it speaking about a point in time? And all deeds done filthy rags, regardless of the deeds themselves?
It seems more that the verse is speaking of a particular point in time. I'm no expert on the book of Isaiah, and I believe scholars say that it contains more than one author that was all eventually grouped under one name. I also believe that portions of Isaiah were written in a time of huge conflict, with Israel either attacked or overrun by invaders. Such an occurrence would most likely be interpreted as no longer being in God’s favor, and so wouldn't the Israelites start examining their own behavior? Wouldn't such examination produce verses such as these?
As for all deeds as filthy -- let's say a non-Christian helps the widow, the orphan, feeds the poor and so forth. There are quite a few Bible verses that say such actions are just and righteous. So it can't be every single deed across the board.
However, the verse itself seems to narrow the kinds of deeds. First, the people are doing what is evil in God's sight. Evil acts would be ignoring the helpless, for starters. Or chasing after false gods, or indulging in gluttony, or just living a non-good life. So wouldn't there be a natural connection between someone doing evil, and thus the deeds becoming like filthy rags? Not only that, but if the deeds truly are as filthy rags, then the deeds can no longer count towards any sort of righteousness. The verse almost reads as sarcasm. If the deeds are in fact filthy, then they cannot also be righteous. The two words contradict one another by their very definition. Rather, the speaker of the verse seems to demonstrate a realization that the deeds performed are not in fact righteous. Which means the deeds cannot be those like helping the helpless.
So does anything in this verse support the idea that all deeds of any unsaved people are filthy? Or does the verse focus more on specifics, as to why the deeds are filthy?
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Congratulations! You're adopted!!
I was involved in a discussion on another blog, in which I claimed that God is humanity's Father from birth. I justified this with sections such as the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus tells the entire crowd that God is their Father. The person discussing the matter with me claimed that God is only one's Father after one is "saved." You are then adopted into God's family.
I find the latter view interesting, simply on how adoption works. When a child is adopted, there are two parents involved in the process. Parent A is the parent who gave birth to the child. Parent B is the parent who then adopts and raises the child, and legally is entitled to all rights and decisions regarding said child. However, Parent A and Parent B are never the same person (to my knowledge. Someone with a better familiarity with the law might want to chime in). I know that Parent A could lose parental rights, but if s/he has the opportunity to regain those rights, it's not considered adoption, which is "to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child."
So, if God must adopt us in order for us to be children, that makes God parent B. Who, then, is parent A? Who is God adopting us from? I'm fairly certain the standard answer here would be Satan or the world or the flesh or possibly a combination of all three.
But what does that mean? The very act of creation is attributed to God and only God. Satan didn't create us, nor the world, nor even “the flesh”. If we are here, it's because God has decided that we should be born in this particular time. If God didn't decide to embark on the act of creation, we wouldn't be here.
Yet somehow, that doesn't make God a parent, nor does that give humanity the right to consider God a Father (the other blogger's perspective). But why not? That is part of what makes a parent an actual parent – s/he played a role in your creation.
Only, per this viewpoint, that’s not enough. You must choose to be adopted into God’s family (assuming a non-Calvinist viewpoint here), and then you can call God Father.
Okay. We still come back to the idea of who was our original, or first, parent? If you go with the idea of something not-God, then that calls into question how much “ownership” God has over us, and how much right God then has to demand any sort of obedience or allegiance, if He’s not even the Creator in the first place.
If we take this metaphorically, and say that Satan is our Father until said adoption takes place, then at what point did Satan become our Father? Clearly not in the aspect of creation.
I find the latter view interesting, simply on how adoption works. When a child is adopted, there are two parents involved in the process. Parent A is the parent who gave birth to the child. Parent B is the parent who then adopts and raises the child, and legally is entitled to all rights and decisions regarding said child. However, Parent A and Parent B are never the same person (to my knowledge. Someone with a better familiarity with the law might want to chime in). I know that Parent A could lose parental rights, but if s/he has the opportunity to regain those rights, it's not considered adoption, which is "to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child."
So, if God must adopt us in order for us to be children, that makes God parent B. Who, then, is parent A? Who is God adopting us from? I'm fairly certain the standard answer here would be Satan or the world or the flesh or possibly a combination of all three.
But what does that mean? The very act of creation is attributed to God and only God. Satan didn't create us, nor the world, nor even “the flesh”. If we are here, it's because God has decided that we should be born in this particular time. If God didn't decide to embark on the act of creation, we wouldn't be here.
Yet somehow, that doesn't make God a parent, nor does that give humanity the right to consider God a Father (the other blogger's perspective). But why not? That is part of what makes a parent an actual parent – s/he played a role in your creation.
Only, per this viewpoint, that’s not enough. You must choose to be adopted into God’s family (assuming a non-Calvinist viewpoint here), and then you can call God Father.
Okay. We still come back to the idea of who was our original, or first, parent? If you go with the idea of something not-God, then that calls into question how much “ownership” God has over us, and how much right God then has to demand any sort of obedience or allegiance, if He’s not even the Creator in the first place.
If we take this metaphorically, and say that Satan is our Father until said adoption takes place, then at what point did Satan become our Father? Clearly not in the aspect of creation.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
A Year with C.S. Lewis
I received 'A Year with C. S. Lewis: Daily Readings from his Classic Works' as a Christmas present. It was from a friend who knew that I was reading religious books, and so picked this one because it really made her think. She's an evangelical, and I've heard from her, and others, that CS Lewis is a great reader. He's often recommended by devout Christians. I think they're under the impression that if non-Christians read it, it'll be completely convincing?
Not quite. Here are some of my impressions, based on what I've read.
Exploration #1: "All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that 'God is love.' But they seem not to notice that the words 'God is love' have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, He was not love." Page. 41
This doesn't seem to take into account the very character of God. First, we go with the idea that God is omniscienct. Ergo, God is all-knowing. Therefore, can there ever be an instance where God does not 'know' of His creation?
This gets even trickier when the concept of time comes into play. If part of creating the universe includes the creation of time, then God is not bound by time. God created time. So God is 'outside' of time. What occurs to us in a linear fashion would occur to God all at once. To God, Henry the VIII is king while simutaneously, I'm typing on this computer. God doesn't have to 'wait' for something to occur like we do.
So why couldn't God, if always knowing of us, and having creating time, have also constantly be in a relationship with the humans He creates? Constantly love His creation? God's love would always be directed outwards, to those whom He created. Does the world need to be 'made' in order for God to love outwards? In order for God to be love?
As it is, Lewis explores this idea: "All times are eternally present to God. Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His multi-dimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly, forever toadying, lying, and lusting as a schoolboy, forever in that moment of cowardice or insolence as a subaltern? Pg. 75
As soon as you remove God from being constrained by time, and give God that type of knowledge, the idea that there must be more than one 'Person' in God is no longer applicable.
Exploration #2: "We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if he was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if he really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceint univalled by any other character in history." Page 49.
Okay, I'm only aware of two instances in the New Testament where Jesus specifically announces forgiveness. The first is Mark 2: 1-12. There, Jesus says to the paralyzed man, 'My son, your sins are forgiven.' The laywers says that its blasphemy, and only God can forgive sins. Jesus knows what they're thinking, and asks if its easier to say 'sins are forgiven' or 'Stand up, take your bed, and walk? But to convince you that the Son of Man has the right on earth to forgive sins .' The man does.
Luke 5: 17-26. Same situation. Jesus says, "Man, your sins are forgiven," the lawyers and Pharisees say its blasphemous, only God can forgive, and Jesus asks the same thing as in Mark, says that the Son of Man has the right, and so forth."
A few things about what Lewis says. Matthew 28:18 has Jesus saying that all authority on heaven and earth has been given to him. Given. It would have to be 'given' by God. Wouldn't that authority include the 'right to forgive sins?' Wouldn't Jesus, since he is one with the Father and the Father dwells in him, know who God forgives, and thus announce it for God?
Exploration #3: "Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even his enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that he is 'humble and meek' and we believe him; not noticing that, if he were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of his sayings." Page 49.
Okay. Let's say I'm the smartest person at math in the world. It's an obvious fact. If this is true, would it be prideful or wrong of me to acknowledge that? To tell people that I'm the smarest person at math in the world? So in the case of Jesus, if God did choose him as the Messiah, and part of being that Messiah is a light unto the world, or the bread of life ... how does that not make Jesus humble or meek if both are simple facts? It would be neither 'silliness' nor 'conceit.' It's simply what God designated Jesus to be. Jesus is the Messiah, and as the Messiah, plays a pretty big role. How is it not humble or not meek to declare that? If judgement is left up to the Son of Man, then stating that is stating a fact.
Exploration #4: The Trilimma. Arguments against that have been done to death.
Exploration #5: "Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possiblel any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -- of creatures that worked like machines -- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other ..." Pg. 57.
So, if evil must be possible so that goodness or love are worth having, what about God? Doesn't this mean it must be possible for God to do evil? Except if God is perfect, and abhors sin, then God cannot possess the ability to even contemplate evil. Not only that, but is anyone else bothered by the fact that he's essentially saying it wouldn't be worth creating something that can only do good? Could only be good? That somehow, lacking the ability to do evil means that one is a robot? (Again, I wonder what that makes God). I mean, there are thousands of ways in which to express goodness. To only express good makes one a robot?
The other thing this would call into question is the idea of 'freedom.' THe idea here seems to be that God won't 'force' someone to choose Him. However, force only comes into play if God is going against what the person wants. If a person willingly chooses God, then the person is not forced.
But the force itself only comes into play if a person has the ability to either want to choose God, or want to choose against God. To choose against God is to choose against good. So the person has the ability to choose evil or good. If the person is created to only have the ability to choose good, to only want to do good, then the person would never be forced to choose God. The person's free will would always align with good, and thus voluntarily always choose God.
So what Lewis is saying is that the whole thing is worthless unless we also have the ability to choose evil? It just seems very odd that an entity that is all good, abhors evil, would rather create something with the capability of doing evil instead of a being that can do only good. It's like He'd be going against everything in His nature to create that.
I'm only into the month of February, in terms of reading the book. I'm not sure I'll be able to finish, just because I'm finding it frustrating. It's praised left and right, and yet I'm finding it ... not that complex. At all. It's another one of those things written for those who already believe, and with every new entry I read, my reaction is, "Seriously? This is the best you've got?"
My friend did hope it would make me think. Which it's doing, only not in the way she was probably expecting.
Not quite. Here are some of my impressions, based on what I've read.
Exploration #1: "All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that 'God is love.' But they seem not to notice that the words 'God is love' have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons. If God was a single person, then before the world was made, He was not love." Page. 41
This doesn't seem to take into account the very character of God. First, we go with the idea that God is omniscienct. Ergo, God is all-knowing. Therefore, can there ever be an instance where God does not 'know' of His creation?
This gets even trickier when the concept of time comes into play. If part of creating the universe includes the creation of time, then God is not bound by time. God created time. So God is 'outside' of time. What occurs to us in a linear fashion would occur to God all at once. To God, Henry the VIII is king while simutaneously, I'm typing on this computer. God doesn't have to 'wait' for something to occur like we do.
So why couldn't God, if always knowing of us, and having creating time, have also constantly be in a relationship with the humans He creates? Constantly love His creation? God's love would always be directed outwards, to those whom He created. Does the world need to be 'made' in order for God to love outwards? In order for God to be love?
As it is, Lewis explores this idea: "All times are eternally present to God. Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His multi-dimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly, forever toadying, lying, and lusting as a schoolboy, forever in that moment of cowardice or insolence as a subaltern? Pg. 75
As soon as you remove God from being constrained by time, and give God that type of knowledge, the idea that there must be more than one 'Person' in God is no longer applicable.
Exploration #2: "We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if he was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if he really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceint univalled by any other character in history." Page 49.
Okay, I'm only aware of two instances in the New Testament where Jesus specifically announces forgiveness. The first is Mark 2: 1-12. There, Jesus says to the paralyzed man, 'My son, your sins are forgiven.' The laywers says that its blasphemy, and only God can forgive sins. Jesus knows what they're thinking, and asks if its easier to say 'sins are forgiven' or 'Stand up, take your bed, and walk? But to convince you that the Son of Man has the right on earth to forgive sins .' The man does.
Luke 5: 17-26. Same situation. Jesus says, "Man, your sins are forgiven," the lawyers and Pharisees say its blasphemous, only God can forgive, and Jesus asks the same thing as in Mark, says that the Son of Man has the right, and so forth."
A few things about what Lewis says. Matthew 28:18 has Jesus saying that all authority on heaven and earth has been given to him. Given. It would have to be 'given' by God. Wouldn't that authority include the 'right to forgive sins?' Wouldn't Jesus, since he is one with the Father and the Father dwells in him, know who God forgives, and thus announce it for God?
Exploration #3: "Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even his enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that he is 'humble and meek' and we believe him; not noticing that, if he were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of his sayings." Page 49.
Okay. Let's say I'm the smartest person at math in the world. It's an obvious fact. If this is true, would it be prideful or wrong of me to acknowledge that? To tell people that I'm the smarest person at math in the world? So in the case of Jesus, if God did choose him as the Messiah, and part of being that Messiah is a light unto the world, or the bread of life ... how does that not make Jesus humble or meek if both are simple facts? It would be neither 'silliness' nor 'conceit.' It's simply what God designated Jesus to be. Jesus is the Messiah, and as the Messiah, plays a pretty big role. How is it not humble or not meek to declare that? If judgement is left up to the Son of Man, then stating that is stating a fact.
Exploration #4: The Trilimma. Arguments against that have been done to death.
Exploration #5: "Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possiblel any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -- of creatures that worked like machines -- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other ..." Pg. 57.
So, if evil must be possible so that goodness or love are worth having, what about God? Doesn't this mean it must be possible for God to do evil? Except if God is perfect, and abhors sin, then God cannot possess the ability to even contemplate evil. Not only that, but is anyone else bothered by the fact that he's essentially saying it wouldn't be worth creating something that can only do good? Could only be good? That somehow, lacking the ability to do evil means that one is a robot? (Again, I wonder what that makes God). I mean, there are thousands of ways in which to express goodness. To only express good makes one a robot?
The other thing this would call into question is the idea of 'freedom.' THe idea here seems to be that God won't 'force' someone to choose Him. However, force only comes into play if God is going against what the person wants. If a person willingly chooses God, then the person is not forced.
But the force itself only comes into play if a person has the ability to either want to choose God, or want to choose against God. To choose against God is to choose against good. So the person has the ability to choose evil or good. If the person is created to only have the ability to choose good, to only want to do good, then the person would never be forced to choose God. The person's free will would always align with good, and thus voluntarily always choose God.
So what Lewis is saying is that the whole thing is worthless unless we also have the ability to choose evil? It just seems very odd that an entity that is all good, abhors evil, would rather create something with the capability of doing evil instead of a being that can do only good. It's like He'd be going against everything in His nature to create that.
I'm only into the month of February, in terms of reading the book. I'm not sure I'll be able to finish, just because I'm finding it frustrating. It's praised left and right, and yet I'm finding it ... not that complex. At all. It's another one of those things written for those who already believe, and with every new entry I read, my reaction is, "Seriously? This is the best you've got?"
My friend did hope it would make me think. Which it's doing, only not in the way she was probably expecting.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Lords 'n' Gods.
"'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One; and you shall love the Lord your God ...' This is known as the Shema, from the Hebrew word for 'Hear' with which it opens. As so often in Paul, the text he alludes to one minute is the text he will then develop the next minute ...
... "We know, he says, that no idol has any real existence (Galations 4: 8-11), and that there is no God but one. That is Jewish-style monotheism, ranged classically against pagan polytheism ... In contrast, he says, to the many 'gods' and 'lords' of the pagan world, for us, he says, 'there is but one God - the Father, from who are all things and we unto Him - and one Lord - Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him." To feel the full force of this, we need to set it out side by side with the text Paul has in mind:
The Lord Our God One God - the Father ...
The Lord is One One Lord - Jesus Christ ...
(Deut. 6:4) (1 Corinthians 8:6)
--N. T. Wright, in "What Saint Paul Really said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?"
As is evident by the quote, Wright sees 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a way of demonstrating that Jesus is God, and the Trinity is valid. He pulls from the Shema, with the concept of the Lord our God is One.
The interesting thing about the Corinthians chapter itself is that Paul seems to set up a distinction. He starts out that saying a false god has no existence, and there is only one God. There may be so-called gods, in heaven or on Earth. In fact, there are several 'gods and 'lords,' yet for Christians, there is one God, and one Lord. He doesn't really use the phrase, "the Lord our God."
To pull from some other Bibles:
"Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, through whom we live." New King James Version.
"Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." English Standard Version.
"But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life." New Living Translation.
"There is only one God the Father, that everything comes from him, and that he wants us to live for him. Also, they say that there is only one Master -- Jesus the Messiah -- and that everything is for his sake, including us." The Message.
None of these verses combine the idea of God with Jesus. They specify that there is one God, one alone -- the Father. This is the God who created everything there is. The Creator Himself. There is also one Lord, Jesus Christ, who/which was the method as to how God created, and how God provides life. While the verses do make sure to show that there is only one of us, there is also a hierarchy set up here. God creates, and the tool is Jesus/the Logos. Jesus isn't made an independent creator, or even on equal standing here. Otherwise, why not just say, "the Lord our God is the Father and Jesus Christ, the one through whom all things came to be?" Or something along those lines. And this would make sense, if Jesus is seen as the incarnante Logos, and in Genesis, God created through speaking. Through words.
Or why not just leave it with there are many gods in the pagan world? Why say gods and lords? The use of the word 'lords' did not always indicate some sort of God. 'Lord' could also stand for Master or Superior in a human sense. Or of something more powerful than humans, but not as powerful as the Hebrew God.
Thoughts?
... "We know, he says, that no idol has any real existence (Galations 4: 8-11), and that there is no God but one. That is Jewish-style monotheism, ranged classically against pagan polytheism ... In contrast, he says, to the many 'gods' and 'lords' of the pagan world, for us, he says, 'there is but one God - the Father, from who are all things and we unto Him - and one Lord - Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him." To feel the full force of this, we need to set it out side by side with the text Paul has in mind:
The Lord Our God One God - the Father ...
The Lord is One One Lord - Jesus Christ ...
(Deut. 6:4) (1 Corinthians 8:6)
--N. T. Wright, in "What Saint Paul Really said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?"
As is evident by the quote, Wright sees 1 Corinthians 8:6 as a way of demonstrating that Jesus is God, and the Trinity is valid. He pulls from the Shema, with the concept of the Lord our God is One.
The interesting thing about the Corinthians chapter itself is that Paul seems to set up a distinction. He starts out that saying a false god has no existence, and there is only one God. There may be so-called gods, in heaven or on Earth. In fact, there are several 'gods and 'lords,' yet for Christians, there is one God, and one Lord. He doesn't really use the phrase, "the Lord our God."
To pull from some other Bibles:
"Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, through whom we live." New King James Version.
"Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." English Standard Version.
"But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life." New Living Translation.
"There is only one God the Father, that everything comes from him, and that he wants us to live for him. Also, they say that there is only one Master -- Jesus the Messiah -- and that everything is for his sake, including us." The Message.
None of these verses combine the idea of God with Jesus. They specify that there is one God, one alone -- the Father. This is the God who created everything there is. The Creator Himself. There is also one Lord, Jesus Christ, who/which was the method as to how God created, and how God provides life. While the verses do make sure to show that there is only one of us, there is also a hierarchy set up here. God creates, and the tool is Jesus/the Logos. Jesus isn't made an independent creator, or even on equal standing here. Otherwise, why not just say, "the Lord our God is the Father and Jesus Christ, the one through whom all things came to be?" Or something along those lines. And this would make sense, if Jesus is seen as the incarnante Logos, and in Genesis, God created through speaking. Through words.
Or why not just leave it with there are many gods in the pagan world? Why say gods and lords? The use of the word 'lords' did not always indicate some sort of God. 'Lord' could also stand for Master or Superior in a human sense. Or of something more powerful than humans, but not as powerful as the Hebrew God.
Thoughts?
Monday, January 28, 2008
What we deserve.
I've been involved in a few discussions the past few days, and a common theme was in all of them: we have rebelled, and deserve hell/eternal punishment. In my view, this is the same as saying we don't deserve love, since hell would be the absence of God, and thus love as well. In other contexts, it's that all of creation deserves death.
One of the reasons this view angers me is because I don't see where lines can get drawn between eternal deserts and temporal ones. For instance, if we deserve nothing but hell, then wouldn't that also mean that starving people don't deserve help? Or food? That the Holocaust victims not only deserved to die, but deserved to die in the manner that they did?
That abuse victims in fact deserved to be abused? That rape was deserved? Murder? Hurricane Katrina? I mean, if we deserve nothing but eternal torment, which is pretty much the absolute punishment, wouldn't we in turn deserve the temporal sufferings as well?
Yet, for the most part, I don't see Western civilization acting this way. If a woman is abused, we tell her she doesn't deserve that, and should leave. People are raising awareness in terms of AIDS, poverty, genocide -- and a prevailing idea behind all of that is that such suffering is not only not deserved, but actually deserves our mercy. Our compassion. Our help.
But people can turn around and say that those same people, if they reject Jesus, deserve to suffer eternally? I just don't see how the two can be compatible.
The anger truly stems from the horror I feel behind this idea. If someone feels that we all deserve hell, then how am I suppose to trust that person to respond to the suffering s/he sees on a daily basis? Why would I trust that person to be moved with compassion, to help my family? Or the world?
I'm sure the response to this entails that one feels compassion because one is saved, or one is nudged by God, or responds to such pleas because God rescued them. I don't say that dismissively, but it doesn't remove the intial problem that if you truly, truly think that every single person does not deserve an iota of love ... then why be outraged at evil? Why be so outraged at how unjust the situation is? If a rape victim is told that she brought the rape on herself, how can this be argued against when we deserve something much worse? How can you deserve hell and not deserve rape?
One of the reasons this view angers me is because I don't see where lines can get drawn between eternal deserts and temporal ones. For instance, if we deserve nothing but hell, then wouldn't that also mean that starving people don't deserve help? Or food? That the Holocaust victims not only deserved to die, but deserved to die in the manner that they did?
That abuse victims in fact deserved to be abused? That rape was deserved? Murder? Hurricane Katrina? I mean, if we deserve nothing but eternal torment, which is pretty much the absolute punishment, wouldn't we in turn deserve the temporal sufferings as well?
Yet, for the most part, I don't see Western civilization acting this way. If a woman is abused, we tell her she doesn't deserve that, and should leave. People are raising awareness in terms of AIDS, poverty, genocide -- and a prevailing idea behind all of that is that such suffering is not only not deserved, but actually deserves our mercy. Our compassion. Our help.
But people can turn around and say that those same people, if they reject Jesus, deserve to suffer eternally? I just don't see how the two can be compatible.
The anger truly stems from the horror I feel behind this idea. If someone feels that we all deserve hell, then how am I suppose to trust that person to respond to the suffering s/he sees on a daily basis? Why would I trust that person to be moved with compassion, to help my family? Or the world?
I'm sure the response to this entails that one feels compassion because one is saved, or one is nudged by God, or responds to such pleas because God rescued them. I don't say that dismissively, but it doesn't remove the intial problem that if you truly, truly think that every single person does not deserve an iota of love ... then why be outraged at evil? Why be so outraged at how unjust the situation is? If a rape victim is told that she brought the rape on herself, how can this be argued against when we deserve something much worse? How can you deserve hell and not deserve rape?
Friday, January 18, 2008
Ye shall know the truth ...
.... and the truth shall make you free. John 8: 32.
I've been contemplating this passage for a while, given how cause-effect its said up. If one knows the truth, one is not free. So in reversing that, if someone is not free, then the person does not know the truth.
One of the concepts behind hell is that its filled with people who willingly went there, as God won't force them to go anywhere against their will. A fellow blogger once explained this mindset as that we all know what the truth is, it's just that a majority of us are willfully and willingly rejecting this truth.
Based on the quote above, is it possible to willfully reject the truth? Knowledge of truth equals freedom, and if someone is free, is there anything left in them to willfully reject the truth?
I think there are ways to superficially know the truth, and really know the truth. The superficial way is like teaching a child to say 2 + 2 =4. They know this is the truth because an adult said it was the truth. But they don't understand the concepts behind taking two things and two things, and making four. They have a superficial knowledge.
The other way is someone who fully understands the concepts behind the math. Now, someone can still willfully reject that, but I'm not sure we could say the person is making a rational choice. If it's not a rational choice, can we still say the person has knowledge of the truth?
Branted, we need context with the John quote. Chapter eight of John starts with the woman caught in adultery, and then gets into the comparison between the Pharisees and Jesus. We have Jesus announcing that he will be going his way, yet the Pharisees will try and follow and not be able to, as they are of this world, and he is not. Yet they also seem confused, as verse 27 says that they don't understand he was speaking of the Father. After Jesus saying that the truth brings freedom, the Pharisees again are shown as not understanding, and that they were never in bondage to any man. Jesus says that whoever commits a sin is the servent of sin, and if the son has made one free, then one is free.
In an interesting note, we have Jesus saying that he knows they are of Abraham's seed, and yet his word has no place in them, as he does what he's seen from his FAther, and they do what they've seen from their Father. They protest that Abraham is their Father, yet Jesus says that if they were Abraham's children, they'd do the works of Abraham. Yet he also just said they are of Abraham's seed.
They are now seeking to kill a man who has told them the truth -- so is Jesus in fact saying that they do know the truth? I'm not sure, because he seems to mean that in just describing what his words are. These are the very words that the Pharisees are not understanding, because they can't "hear" them (vs 43). He then goes and says that Pharisees are the children of the devil, and so follow their father. This very father who was a murderer from the beginning, and cannot speak truth, as "there is no truth in him." He can only speak of his lies, of which he is the father. And so when Jesus says the truth, the Pharisees don't believe him. So the Pharisees are shown as those who believe a lie as the truth, and because they see that as the truth, they in turn don't believe Jesus, as it doesn't match to "the truth." Can we then say that the Pharisees are shown as willfully rejecting what they know to be true?
So I'm not sure we can say that hell is full of people who have willfully rejected the truth, in the sense that they know, completely, it was the truth. Knowledge of truth equates to freedom. If we can really reject the truth, then do we comprehend it in the first place? In a rational fashion?
I've been contemplating this passage for a while, given how cause-effect its said up. If one knows the truth, one is not free. So in reversing that, if someone is not free, then the person does not know the truth.
One of the concepts behind hell is that its filled with people who willingly went there, as God won't force them to go anywhere against their will. A fellow blogger once explained this mindset as that we all know what the truth is, it's just that a majority of us are willfully and willingly rejecting this truth.
Based on the quote above, is it possible to willfully reject the truth? Knowledge of truth equals freedom, and if someone is free, is there anything left in them to willfully reject the truth?
I think there are ways to superficially know the truth, and really know the truth. The superficial way is like teaching a child to say 2 + 2 =4. They know this is the truth because an adult said it was the truth. But they don't understand the concepts behind taking two things and two things, and making four. They have a superficial knowledge.
The other way is someone who fully understands the concepts behind the math. Now, someone can still willfully reject that, but I'm not sure we could say the person is making a rational choice. If it's not a rational choice, can we still say the person has knowledge of the truth?
Branted, we need context with the John quote. Chapter eight of John starts with the woman caught in adultery, and then gets into the comparison between the Pharisees and Jesus. We have Jesus announcing that he will be going his way, yet the Pharisees will try and follow and not be able to, as they are of this world, and he is not. Yet they also seem confused, as verse 27 says that they don't understand he was speaking of the Father. After Jesus saying that the truth brings freedom, the Pharisees again are shown as not understanding, and that they were never in bondage to any man. Jesus says that whoever commits a sin is the servent of sin, and if the son has made one free, then one is free.
In an interesting note, we have Jesus saying that he knows they are of Abraham's seed, and yet his word has no place in them, as he does what he's seen from his FAther, and they do what they've seen from their Father. They protest that Abraham is their Father, yet Jesus says that if they were Abraham's children, they'd do the works of Abraham. Yet he also just said they are of Abraham's seed.
They are now seeking to kill a man who has told them the truth -- so is Jesus in fact saying that they do know the truth? I'm not sure, because he seems to mean that in just describing what his words are. These are the very words that the Pharisees are not understanding, because they can't "hear" them (vs 43). He then goes and says that Pharisees are the children of the devil, and so follow their father. This very father who was a murderer from the beginning, and cannot speak truth, as "there is no truth in him." He can only speak of his lies, of which he is the father. And so when Jesus says the truth, the Pharisees don't believe him. So the Pharisees are shown as those who believe a lie as the truth, and because they see that as the truth, they in turn don't believe Jesus, as it doesn't match to "the truth." Can we then say that the Pharisees are shown as willfully rejecting what they know to be true?
So I'm not sure we can say that hell is full of people who have willfully rejected the truth, in the sense that they know, completely, it was the truth. Knowledge of truth equates to freedom. If we can really reject the truth, then do we comprehend it in the first place? In a rational fashion?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Tagged.
I was tagged by Mystery of Iniquity. However, I'm going to have to cheat on this, as most questions are limited to one response. And I'm the only person that ever had to be told, by her eye doctor, to stop reading for a month. The doctor couldn't believe she had to say it, but I had to let the the eye muscles relax ...
I wasn't able to do it.
1 - One book that changed your life
Well-done history books. It really brings to life "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
2 - One book that you've read more than once
Too many to count. Anything on my bookshelf, I've read at least three times.
3 - One book you’d want on a desert island
A "book" that was in computer format, connected to an Internet that worked, and would let me connect to the entire library known to the existence of mankind. In English. After all, if I can make the last page in a book go right to the first page in another book on the computer screen, then it can all be considered one book. :)
4 - Two books that made you laugh
The Eyre Affair: A Thursday Next Novel by Jasper Fforde.
Most David Eddings books.
5 - One book that made you cry
My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. And Where the Red Fern Grows by Wilson Rawls.
6 - One book that you wish you had written
I'd like to go with the Harry Potter books here, as JK Rowling has an incredible imagination. However, I don't think she's the best writer. She's a great storyteller, has a great grasp of character: but she uses way too many adverbs.
Or To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
7 - One book that you wish had never been written
Any book that picks up where "great works of literature" left off. I'm looking at *you,* all you Jane Austin sequels.
8 - Two books you’re currently reading
The Good Good Pig, by Sy Montgomery
Those Who Save Us, by Jenna Blum
9 - One book you've been meaning to read
Um ... no such thing as just "one." I have at least ten theology books I've been meaning to read, a few science ones, seven books checked out from the library that I must read in the next two weeks, so ... maybe I'll just go with "I mean to read anything I haven't yet read."
Anyone who wants to do this, consider yourself tagged.
I wasn't able to do it.
1 - One book that changed your life
Well-done history books. It really brings to life "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
2 - One book that you've read more than once
Too many to count. Anything on my bookshelf, I've read at least three times.
3 - One book you’d want on a desert island
A "book" that was in computer format, connected to an Internet that worked, and would let me connect to the entire library known to the existence of mankind. In English. After all, if I can make the last page in a book go right to the first page in another book on the computer screen, then it can all be considered one book. :)
4 - Two books that made you laugh
The Eyre Affair: A Thursday Next Novel by Jasper Fforde.
Most David Eddings books.
5 - One book that made you cry
My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. And Where the Red Fern Grows by Wilson Rawls.
6 - One book that you wish you had written
I'd like to go with the Harry Potter books here, as JK Rowling has an incredible imagination. However, I don't think she's the best writer. She's a great storyteller, has a great grasp of character: but she uses way too many adverbs.
Or To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
7 - One book that you wish had never been written
Any book that picks up where "great works of literature" left off. I'm looking at *you,* all you Jane Austin sequels.
8 - Two books you’re currently reading
The Good Good Pig, by Sy Montgomery
Those Who Save Us, by Jenna Blum
9 - One book you've been meaning to read
Um ... no such thing as just "one." I have at least ten theology books I've been meaning to read, a few science ones, seven books checked out from the library that I must read in the next two weeks, so ... maybe I'll just go with "I mean to read anything I haven't yet read."
Anyone who wants to do this, consider yourself tagged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)