Let's discuss the next step in our discussion on God. Jesus of Nazareth. Who is he, what is he known for, and what were his claims? For starters, what can we agree on?
Jesus is known as a moral teacher -- some would even go so far as to say that he was a GREAT moral teacher. He taught the importance of forgiveness and that we ought to respect all walks of life. He showed the importance of acting justly, treating people as we would like to be treated, and that we ought to love eachother just as he loved us ("Just as he loved us?" what a loonie -- if he is merely a mortal.). Once we look at his theology, we can view more evidence that points to the fact that, if we cannot accept his divinity, he might be just another wacko from Waco.
He claimed to forgive sins -- sins that people did to other people, before he even met them, sins that were really none of his business! He claimed that he would be raised from the dead; he lamented over Jersalem by saying, "I keep on sending you prophets and wise men" -- like, if he were just a mortal, where did he get off saying that? Some other audacious claims of his are that if we don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, we will have no life within us, because, he says, his flesh is true food(?) and his blood is true drink(?)!! He even claimed to have been before Abraham, greater than Abraham, "before Abraham was, I am." On that note, he did the unspeakable. Not only did he say the unutterable name of God, he even claimed ownership over it! The name in question is, "I am." For a Jew, as he was, to claim this name, to claim ownership over this name, God's name, is punishable with death. The divine name was to be said once a year, in the tablernacle, and only by the High Priest -- sometimes, it was so intense for the High Priests to say the unutterable name that some would even die from the intensity of it! Besides, who can claim ownership over a name other than the "owner" of a particular name anyway?? I can only say that I am Kevin. If I were to say that I am Steve, then I would be a liar. Only the Great I Am can claim that He is who is. Even the name "I Am" implies someone who is without begining or end. So, for Jesus to claim "I Am" as his name was either an act of sheer lunacy, that is, a death wish, or it was an act of intentional deciet, or he realy is who he says he is.
Think about it. Lets say that we find all the great spiritual gurus of all time, and ask them of their nature. Let's take Buddha, and ask him if he was "the son of Brahmah," what would he say? He might say something like, "My son, you are still in the vale of illusion"; if we were to ask Socretes if he was Zeus he may reply with roaring laughter. Lets take Confucious and ask him if he were "heaven," to which he may reply, "Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste." Lastly, if we were to ask Mohammed if he were Allah, he may tear his clothes and then chop off our heads.
What happened when they asked Jesus if he were greater than Abraham? He simply replied, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am." The divine name, picked by God Himself, and Jesus claims ownership over it. Out of all the other religious gurus and moral teachers, Jesus, time, and time again, claimed to be something more that just a man -- he claimed to be God Himself, the Uncaused Cause.
I am going to stop this post here and ask a question (before it gets waaaay too long): when we are confronted by the claims of Jesus the Christ, how do we react? Do we pick and choose between what makes us feel good and what makes us uncomfortable? Certainly, to think of Jesus of Nazareth as God can be a very unsettling thing.
***** Side note: I gleaned some of the above information from an essay written by C.S. Lewis entitled, "What are we to make of Jesus Christ?"
June 26, 2006
April 29, 2006
The God
When discussing the possibility of a God, the one argument that seems to strike a cord with me is the argument of the uncaused cause. Although there are some people who seem to claim that all causes are caused, that there is no uncaused cause, I don't quite understand how someone comes to this assumption (but I am sure that they may be thinking the same about my position). However, if there were a cause that did not need to be caused, that is, had no need to have been begun or set in motion by something else, it would seem that this cause would have to be perfect, that is, lacking nothing. To claim that something is the source of all "causes" would also imply that this something is perfect, that it is the source of the universe, life, and existence. This perfect thing would have to be totally sufficient, that is, not in need of anything else to keep it from not existing, it must be able to sustain itself. Therefore, it would have to be outside of time, eternal since its be-ing would not have been caused, and outside of our understanding of what it means to exist. This thing would just "be." It seems fair to say that this perfect, self-sustaining, and eternal cause would be what we mean when we think of "the God." Whether this God is Hydrogen, or a personal being, is a topic worthy of further discussion. For now, however, it doesn't seem to make a difference if our "God" is Hydrogen or a personal being, we know that whatever it is, this God is the eternal, perfect, and self-sustaining cause behind all things.
I will post more about his, but if anyone other than myself, my mother, and my wife is reading this, chew on it for a while.
I will post more about his, but if anyone other than myself, my mother, and my wife is reading this, chew on it for a while.
February 2, 2006
The Looming 21st Century
The past 20th century has seen a lot of turmoil. We have lived through wars, terrorism, natural disaters, crises in faith, insurgence of atheism, extreme adaptations of feminism, a decrease in morality, and a general loss of respect for women -- not to forget a loss of respect for the elderly, the disabled, and the vulnerable (infants and children). We have also seen the deaths of many influential voices such as: G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Mahatma Ghandi, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul II. Although we may have failed to acknowledge their accomplishments, their impact upon our society will continue to ripple for centuries to come.
The past 20th century has also seen many advances. We witnessed the first radio, television, computer, satellite, rocket ship, VCR, and cell-phone; we cannot forget the first man to the moon, the hand-held calculator, the walk-man and disk-man, as well as the development of DVDs and the insurgence of the "game-boy." Our technological advances have gone beyond anything that anyone could have imagined, and they continue to excel more than we could have hoped.
What do I expect form the 21st century, and why do I concider it to be 'looming'? I expect us to advance in ways that would continue to have a greater impact on how we live our lives. I expect that we will become more technologically advanced than even our greatest thinkers could have ever imagined. However, the future still seems to hover over us like a rising storm. As a society, our accomplishments happened so fast that we seem to have forgotten our past failures that have destroyed the lives of countless men and women. Failures that could have been avoided had we taken the time to listen.
We have developed so quickly that we seem to have ignored the counsels of the prophets of the 20th century, such as: G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Mahatma Ghandi, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul II. We have sneered at their admonishments to respect all human life; we have held them in contempt as they warned us of the dangers of neglecting traditional moral norms. If we continue to have disdain for those who attempt to discipline us, our arrogance will lead us back to where the 20th century first started: a century born into turmoil.
The past 20th century has also seen many advances. We witnessed the first radio, television, computer, satellite, rocket ship, VCR, and cell-phone; we cannot forget the first man to the moon, the hand-held calculator, the walk-man and disk-man, as well as the development of DVDs and the insurgence of the "game-boy." Our technological advances have gone beyond anything that anyone could have imagined, and they continue to excel more than we could have hoped.
What do I expect form the 21st century, and why do I concider it to be 'looming'? I expect us to advance in ways that would continue to have a greater impact on how we live our lives. I expect that we will become more technologically advanced than even our greatest thinkers could have ever imagined. However, the future still seems to hover over us like a rising storm. As a society, our accomplishments happened so fast that we seem to have forgotten our past failures that have destroyed the lives of countless men and women. Failures that could have been avoided had we taken the time to listen.
We have developed so quickly that we seem to have ignored the counsels of the prophets of the 20th century, such as: G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Mahatma Ghandi, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul II. We have sneered at their admonishments to respect all human life; we have held them in contempt as they warned us of the dangers of neglecting traditional moral norms. If we continue to have disdain for those who attempt to discipline us, our arrogance will lead us back to where the 20th century first started: a century born into turmoil.
January 2, 2006
"wisdom"
Christianity is not compatible with eastern mysticism. The popular western interpretation is that we can pick and choose whatever we want from whichever religion, or philosophy, that makes us feel good. Being "spiritual" (or a plurality of beliefs) is "in," while being "religious" (or stuck to one point of view) is not.
First of all, for some reason, people think that they are wise, new-thinkers who are paving the way for a spiritual revolution. However, in reality, this plurality is nothing new (Muhammud left Mecca because he disagreed with the people's relativistic faith -- amalgomating all religions into one worship). What makes Christianity incompatable with eastern thought is that when Jesus spoke of truth, HE was the Truth; when Jesus spoke of the way to heaven (the way to the Father), HE was the Way; when Jesus spoke of God, He was speaking about Himself ("before Abraham was, I am," is just one among many other refrences to His own divinity.). For some reason, "modern" thinkers are either ignorant of Jesus' claims to divinity, or they choose to ignore them. Eastern mysticism believes in a plurality of faiths, that all are true, and that it would be silly and ignorant to claim that only one is true. Well, Jesus must be ignorant and silly because He said that HE was THE TRUTH and that HIS CHURCH would last forever and that unless you eat His body and drink His blood, you will HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU.
"I believe that even Father is too limited." Please don't take this as a personal attack against anyone -- especially truevyne -- but who are we to say that "Father" is "too limited"? Jesus calls God "Father," and, in the Old Testament, God calls Himself "Father" -- He has revealed Himself to us as "Father."
Have we, as a society, become so arrogant that we can tell God who He is, or who He ought to be? Have we become so foolish as to claim authority over our Creator and tell Him how He should speak to us, or how He ought to have spoken to us? It is about time that we gave our heads a shake and we woke up to the reality that we cannot make religion into a tea party; we need to wake up to the reality that we can't tell God how He ought to be. We have to quit playing the guru and quit pretending that we are wise simply because we use Hindu terms with our Christian thought -- when in fact, there was never anything more arrogant, ignorant, and foolish!!
First of all, for some reason, people think that they are wise, new-thinkers who are paving the way for a spiritual revolution. However, in reality, this plurality is nothing new (Muhammud left Mecca because he disagreed with the people's relativistic faith -- amalgomating all religions into one worship). What makes Christianity incompatable with eastern thought is that when Jesus spoke of truth, HE was the Truth; when Jesus spoke of the way to heaven (the way to the Father), HE was the Way; when Jesus spoke of God, He was speaking about Himself ("before Abraham was, I am," is just one among many other refrences to His own divinity.). For some reason, "modern" thinkers are either ignorant of Jesus' claims to divinity, or they choose to ignore them. Eastern mysticism believes in a plurality of faiths, that all are true, and that it would be silly and ignorant to claim that only one is true. Well, Jesus must be ignorant and silly because He said that HE was THE TRUTH and that HIS CHURCH would last forever and that unless you eat His body and drink His blood, you will HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU.
"I believe that even Father is too limited." Please don't take this as a personal attack against anyone -- especially truevyne -- but who are we to say that "Father" is "too limited"? Jesus calls God "Father," and, in the Old Testament, God calls Himself "Father" -- He has revealed Himself to us as "Father."
Have we, as a society, become so arrogant that we can tell God who He is, or who He ought to be? Have we become so foolish as to claim authority over our Creator and tell Him how He should speak to us, or how He ought to have spoken to us? It is about time that we gave our heads a shake and we woke up to the reality that we cannot make religion into a tea party; we need to wake up to the reality that we can't tell God how He ought to be. We have to quit playing the guru and quit pretending that we are wise simply because we use Hindu terms with our Christian thought -- when in fact, there was never anything more arrogant, ignorant, and foolish!!
December 8, 2005
Being Pastoral
I heard that a reporter once asked the late Pope John Paul II what his favorite scripture verse was, to whom he immediately replied, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
John Paul II was an amazing man; I have gotten the priviledge of seeing him twice. Although I am not normally very emotional, almost everytime he spoke, or glanced up from his notes during a speech, I was just about moved to tears. He was such a reflection of our Father in heaven, such a vessel of God's immense love, that seeing him those few times had truly solidified my relationship with God.
"You will know the truth and the truth shall set you free." It's interesting to hear this scripture verse in contrast to the current trends of society. The trends that say we cannot know truth and that truth is subjective to each person's experiences. People seem to have definitively stated the relativity of truth while being ignorant of the fact that their very own objections to objective truth is, in fact, objectively stated. It seems to me that their argument is intended to point the finger against the Catholic church and its stand for the truth. It is worth noting that everytime a Pope has spoken against particular decisions that society makes, and outlines concequences that will follow their actions, no matter how loud the "free-thinkers" mock the "archaic" and "out of touch" Popes, every single one of the Popes' predictions come into fruition.
Be that as it may, that is not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is people, within the Church, denying, watering-down, or ignoring particular truths for the sake of "being pastoral." Namely: inclusive language.
Sure, when scripture mentions words like "brothers" and "men," it more than often refers to both genders. However, when it comes to referring to God, we cannot assume that it really means, "gods" or "goddesses" or even "her." On this point, our liberty as creative thinkers needs to respect the Author's rights. Who is the author of sacred scripture? The Holy Spirit, aka: God.
A popular argument for gender-inclusive language regarding the Divine is that scripture was written by males, for males; hence, the countless references to God revealing himself as "Father" and spoken of with male pronouns. This includes Jesus' declaration that we ought to pray to God as "Father" during his discourse on a hill (the sermon on the mount).
Thier argument, however, presents many problems. First of all, the idea that scripture is a constrution by men for men, is in direct contrast with the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture. In a nutshell, the doctrine states that when scripture is read within its proper context and in light of Church teachings (the traditons from the fathers of the Church), it is without error. It is important to note that the Bible is not a grammer or a science textbook, so don't get any strange ideas about telling your teacher that he is wrong simply because he teaches something that isn't mentioned in the Bible (like evolution). This doctrine is based on the premise that the Holy Spirit himself is the author of the sacred texts; that he inspired the writers to write whatever He wanted in the scriptures. So, ther is nothing in the scriptures that God did not want in them. Hence the problem of sexism. Why would God be condoning anything that is contrary to His Law of love? Therefore, I would say that an argument that states that the Bible is laced with sexism (i.e. written by men, for men), is more of an argument against the inerrancy of scripture and Christianity in general (due to its many scriptural roots).
Now, I want whomever is reading this to know that I am merely summing up the doctrine, for a thorough examination of what the Catholic Church teaches on the inerrancy of scripture, check out some of the links that I have listed on the right-hand side. Some of them are easier to read/understand than others so, pick whichever suits you best.
John Paul II was an amazing man; I have gotten the priviledge of seeing him twice. Although I am not normally very emotional, almost everytime he spoke, or glanced up from his notes during a speech, I was just about moved to tears. He was such a reflection of our Father in heaven, such a vessel of God's immense love, that seeing him those few times had truly solidified my relationship with God.
"You will know the truth and the truth shall set you free." It's interesting to hear this scripture verse in contrast to the current trends of society. The trends that say we cannot know truth and that truth is subjective to each person's experiences. People seem to have definitively stated the relativity of truth while being ignorant of the fact that their very own objections to objective truth is, in fact, objectively stated. It seems to me that their argument is intended to point the finger against the Catholic church and its stand for the truth. It is worth noting that everytime a Pope has spoken against particular decisions that society makes, and outlines concequences that will follow their actions, no matter how loud the "free-thinkers" mock the "archaic" and "out of touch" Popes, every single one of the Popes' predictions come into fruition.
Be that as it may, that is not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is people, within the Church, denying, watering-down, or ignoring particular truths for the sake of "being pastoral." Namely: inclusive language.
Sure, when scripture mentions words like "brothers" and "men," it more than often refers to both genders. However, when it comes to referring to God, we cannot assume that it really means, "gods" or "goddesses" or even "her." On this point, our liberty as creative thinkers needs to respect the Author's rights. Who is the author of sacred scripture? The Holy Spirit, aka: God.
A popular argument for gender-inclusive language regarding the Divine is that scripture was written by males, for males; hence, the countless references to God revealing himself as "Father" and spoken of with male pronouns. This includes Jesus' declaration that we ought to pray to God as "Father" during his discourse on a hill (the sermon on the mount).
Thier argument, however, presents many problems. First of all, the idea that scripture is a constrution by men for men, is in direct contrast with the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture. In a nutshell, the doctrine states that when scripture is read within its proper context and in light of Church teachings (the traditons from the fathers of the Church), it is without error. It is important to note that the Bible is not a grammer or a science textbook, so don't get any strange ideas about telling your teacher that he is wrong simply because he teaches something that isn't mentioned in the Bible (like evolution). This doctrine is based on the premise that the Holy Spirit himself is the author of the sacred texts; that he inspired the writers to write whatever He wanted in the scriptures. So, ther is nothing in the scriptures that God did not want in them. Hence the problem of sexism. Why would God be condoning anything that is contrary to His Law of love? Therefore, I would say that an argument that states that the Bible is laced with sexism (i.e. written by men, for men), is more of an argument against the inerrancy of scripture and Christianity in general (due to its many scriptural roots).
Now, I want whomever is reading this to know that I am merely summing up the doctrine, for a thorough examination of what the Catholic Church teaches on the inerrancy of scripture, check out some of the links that I have listed on the right-hand side. Some of them are easier to read/understand than others so, pick whichever suits you best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
