in quite simplistic terms, there is an argument which attempts to prove God's existence, absolutely, on the grounds of man's conception of 'perfection.' this 'ontological proof' is as follows: i postulate that there is a perfect being and since i am not that perfect being there must be one somewhere in the universe, so that perfect being must be God.
to me, this argument is on par with the fool who demands that because he imagines pigs with the capabilities of flight, they must exist. in this universe, in any other universe parallel to this one, pigs do not fly. and why don't they fly? because it is not in their nature to. just as it is not in my nature as a human being to know absolutely everything. all things being as they are, they are not as they are not meant to be. were pigs able to fly then we would not have to imagine them doing so. likewise, the argument that God exists merely because i can imagine 'perfection' does very little to prove His existence in an absolute manner.
also, what is meant by man's conception of 'perfection.' i daresay it varies quite dramatically from fellow to fellow. the man who dreams of a universe in which pigs fly might consider that universe to be perfect, however perfection is dependent upon imperfection to distinguish itself against. that is, were there a universe in which pigs flew and that was the only universe in existence, the man who dreams of pigflight would not consider it perfection, he would merely accept it as reality. so perfection may mean a great many things, but it does not prove that any of those things absolutely have to exist out of necessity, this is all just wishful thinking and nonsense.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
the individual. the collective. and orthodoxy.
"no man is an island."
nor is he a city, a state, or entire continent; and with that the statement is rendered an illogical self-defeating waste of breath. for the very word 'collective' presupposes multiple separate individuals. as for orthodoxy, it is 'a belief or orientation agreeing with conventional standards ' according to dictionary.com. this sort of ideological laziness is what makes robots and slaves of men. that one should merely accept the conventional and the 'standard' erected by those long before him is, in this writer's opinion, the worst mistake a person can make. the courage to bravely forge one's own trail and beliefs is now unheard of. integrity is thrown away for the sake of subjectivity and remaining neutral so as to not offend. yet, it is the man who stands in the face of the world and chooses to believe as he does who stands not only alone, but against the collective. he pays no mind to the illusory towers of orthodoxy and the conventional standards. he is his own standard. his conviction the result of reaching conclusions on his own without the dependency upon a system to fill in the blanks for him. he lets them lie blank. the mystery intrigues him, gives cause to his existence. the pursuit of more and more truth & knowledge. who can know all there is? what a sad state that person must live in.
when each man realises his status as an island he is forced with the decision to either accept responsibility for his home or he may reject it and instead surrender to foreign powers of control in exchange for the comfort he holds above truth. the defiant island-man must live for himself, the care of his island, the state of his affairs, he is no longer able to blame another for his shortcomings and failures.
in a world of overconnectivity, run by cables and technology, the island-man embraces the benefits these technologies afford without allowing his being to become dependent upon such potential vices. they remain virtue by their recognition as tools and not as necessities. he reaches across the ocean which separates each consciousness from the others and communicates with others, let they, each of them, remain as they are.. islands. separate. it is only in this realisation that they may eventually form a true community. for what is a love which demands that each person bow before the other's control? it can only lead to utter ruin. but two, who remain individually so, may freely and completely love one another without sacrificing their integrity and becoming dependent children.
[think] for yourself.
[act] of your own volition.
[change] your world.
being an island is not such a sad state of affairs afterall.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
against religion.
Matthew 15
8 'This people honours Me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from Me. 9 But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of Men.' 10 And after He called the multitude to Him, He said to them, 'Hear, and understand. 11 Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.' 12 Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?" 13 But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up." 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.
Lips = external service to the superficial. Lips send words out of the body for the benefit of appearances to others.
Heart = the deeply rooted inner center of a person's soul, consciousness, being.
There are countless examples in which man, utilizing his own creativity and industry, has created for himself such clever institutions and devices which produce effects not previously accounted for in his plan. Weapons, which man initially created to attack with, were used by others to attack and eventually kill him. Governments, which were conceived so as to provide liberty, freedom and justice for all within their borders, but eventually came to rule over their citizens with a rod of iron. And religion, the great hopes of men to appease their gods, gain their favour and create a formulaic systematic approach to attaining eternal salvation, ultimately led believers not to the object of their belief, but to belief in the exclusive method of their belief itself.
Constant reinterpretations of religious belief have done little to change the problem, instead they continually mask the fallacies of religion in a new facade. They are but a new sheep-skin to clothe the same old wolf within. Words like revolution and relevancy flood the religious advertising market, perpetually selling the same product under a different name and label.
Of course there are elements of truth buried within the elaborate institutions of religious belief systems, but if one is able to separate those truths from the religion, it is safe to say that truth is not owned by a particular group of exclusive believers.
'Do not kill' is one of the ten commandments initially given to the Israelites via Moses via God, yet a great many people not associated with any religious system would agree that killing is wrong. We do not consider 'do not kill' a distinctly jewish truth, it is universal. And likewise, if morality can be found independently of religion, it may be said that morality does not belong to religion.
Since God and religion are not inextricably intertwined, it is safe to say that belief in the former does not demand belief nor participation in the latter. If one knows the source and subsequently cuts away the middle-man, one is still able to interact directly with the source without the added formality of dealing with the demands of the middle-man. If I owe a man a debt, i do not need to pay someone else in order for that person to then deliver the money I owe to the man it is owed. Yet, with increasing regularity, the lives of the religious not only reflect the lives of the irreligious, but they seem to outdo the irreligious in their own irreligiousity. That is to say, in the affairs of romantic love, sexual promiscuity and marriage, the striking statistic is not how much better the lives of the religious are, but how much worse they are by comparison. It is now postulated that over half of all religious marriages end in divorce.
Given the failure to lead believers towards ethical lifestyles, religion seems more like the political ideal of communism, in that it works perfectly in theory and is ultimately desirable as the best society, yet it is inevitably malpracticed. Ironically, in the communist system, religion is often one of those institutes that is black-listed and done away with. Though some may claim this to be communism's premier inherent flaw, societies that endorse religion also fail. The reason for this, it seems, is that idealism is perfectly suited to the ideal, yet its shortcomings all too exposed in the practical. Religion, not being a practical institution, also fails in its human execution of the ideals it promotes. It is the case of one talking a great deal of great talk that is ultimately impossible to act out in great action, and what is it that seems to make up for pragmatic inadequacy? More great speeches about the potential religion possesses.
It seems rather clear to me that the worst starting point for any institution are claims to have arrived at its destination prematurely. That is to say, in theory, religion has been developed to the best extent that is exhibits the ultimate in morality and faith. Yet the very notion that we are constantly becoming seems to nullify this ideal of arrival. Is the ultimate pursuit of religion that transforming of one into the best sort of person, or that rendering of worship and service one should present unto God? If the former then religion has very little to do with the God it proclaims to believe in and more to do with the people that form its various denominations. If the latter, one is perfectly able to carry out these tasks without a religious systematic ideology altogether. For how is it claimed that man should live? In justice, goodness and modesty. These are not ideals possessed by singular religious institutions, they are universal. And how does one live out these ethical ideals? By not over idealizing them and therefore rendering them impossible in the pragmatic sense.
To serve is an action, it requires no great speeches or sermons, it is merely a question of either doing or not doing. Is love between Christians to be considered the only true love? Surely not. Doctrines and creeds are not prerequisites for love. Compassion. Genuine kindness. Selflessness. The Christian 'fruits of the spirit' are not only exhibited by Christians, for there exist countless tales of exploits carried out, in action, by those outside of religious association. Are these acts less moral given their irreligious agents? If yes, then the ethical is not universal and is relative to one's convictions alone. Surely religious association is not a prerequisite for exhibiting moral behaviour.
What if the greatest event in history was turned into the cause for the very thing it was meant to fight against? What if the great Hero of that event was now championed as leader of the very movement he rivaled? The countless attacks on the religious leaders and establishment of His day make it all too clear that Jesus was working to subvert religion, and not merely revolt with the hopes of starting a new religion. What if later writers had used this great Hero in order to begin their own institution in the pursuit of, what may have originally been, an ethical lifestyle? The irony of Christianity lies in the truth that while, originally, it was thought that Christ came to overthrow the Roman empire, Christianity and the Roman empire eventually merged into the infamous Holy Roman empire. I need not go into great length in establishing the truth that the Holy Roman empire was not holy at all, but in fact, a gross historical reminder of the dangerous potential for evil that exists within man-made religious systems. Given the nature of institutions and their idealism mixed with the inevitable corruptibility of man, it is not the institutions which change man, but man which distorts whatever ideals those institutions originally implied. As result of this historical pattern, it seems that the institutions exist as arbitrary illusions of progression. True change comes as the result of action alone.
The ethical, however, is such that it is impossible once transgressed against. That is to say, an offense against an infinite being is an infinite offense. Once I have crossed the line, there is no return. I may not live a perfect moral life, and therefore the ethical points to the need for salvation. Yet, how does salvation come? In order to make amends for the wrong committed, there must be a substitute.
It has somehow been engrained in our consciousness, and we have subsequently been conditioned by it, that God and religion are one. As a result of this deception, a misreading of my intentions here will be inevitable. I am not out to kill God or to argue against him, that is not the purpose or nearly at all the scope of this essay, instead I am interested here only in testing the hypothesis that religion is unnecessary in belief, because it is not the cause of nor object of a belief in God.
It is all too easy to become dependent upon the religious system, and those that find themselves within the dogmatic trenches of the so-called spiritual warfare find it very difficult to question the nature of their fight, especially those who are the enemy and those who are allies. I am speaking, of course, of the countless expressions of religious fundamentalism which have led to, and caused, some of the worst events in human history. From the inquisition to the crusades to the modern-day bombings of abortion clinics and terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. The religious system is such that it is vague enough for members to be dependent upon guidance from a 'pastor' or 'spiritual leader' and also direct enough to be absolute. One is either a part of the religion or one is on the outside, often looked down upon with pity or, in some cases, outright hatred.
How does one separate their belief in God from the confines of a religious system? I do not pretend to be an expert in world religions and therefore must limit my answers to their applications to the Christian religious system. Christianity is so cleverly named that it seems impossible to separate it from the faith one may have in Christ, since it implies 'follower' or 'disciple' of Christ. Yet, there are many dogmatic traditions within the religious institution of Christianity which seem founded not on the teachings and life of Christ, but more on the life and teachings of the propagandist Paul and other early church heroes. A careful study of the Christian sacred texts, namely the new testament, seem to present a dualism between the loving, accepting Christ and the dogmatic orator Paul. The ironic truth about Paul is that he was first a part of the old religious system which Jesus criticized and then immediately following his conversion began an entirely new religious system, set up and churches and oversaw their development, keeping a careful eye on them so as to make sure they understood his teachings and did not stray from them.
The Roman Catholic church has always been quick to point out a particular verse in the book written by the author Matthew. In the sixteenth chapter, verse 18, Jesus states: "And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." This verse has, for years, been constantly used to affirm the authority of the religious institution and the dogmatic traditions of fundamentalist Christians & Catholics. Both, however, seem mistaken in their rendering of the text. The new testament was written in greek, not latin, and the word most often translated as 'church' in the greek is 'ekklesia.' This unique word has a number of possible definitions, among them the words 'assembly' or 'group' could be accurate translations. In fact, the greek word for church is actually a part of the origin of the english word, in greek it is 'kyrianos.' This greek word is translated directly as meaning 'church.' So why didn't Matthew use 'kyrianos' in the text of Jesus' speech? Perhaps Jesus did not intend to build a church based solely on the foundation of Peter the disciple. Perhaps Jesus' intention was for believers, independently believing Christ to be who He claimed to be, to live together in assembly, in groups and together, ask tough questions about life. To seek out the truth in every situation. To knock in search of finding God in their lives. Not another religious system.
8 'This people honours Me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from Me. 9 But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of Men.' 10 And after He called the multitude to Him, He said to them, 'Hear, and understand. 11 Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.' 12 Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?" 13 But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up." 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.
Lips = external service to the superficial. Lips send words out of the body for the benefit of appearances to others.
Heart = the deeply rooted inner center of a person's soul, consciousness, being.
There are countless examples in which man, utilizing his own creativity and industry, has created for himself such clever institutions and devices which produce effects not previously accounted for in his plan. Weapons, which man initially created to attack with, were used by others to attack and eventually kill him. Governments, which were conceived so as to provide liberty, freedom and justice for all within their borders, but eventually came to rule over their citizens with a rod of iron. And religion, the great hopes of men to appease their gods, gain their favour and create a formulaic systematic approach to attaining eternal salvation, ultimately led believers not to the object of their belief, but to belief in the exclusive method of their belief itself.
Constant reinterpretations of religious belief have done little to change the problem, instead they continually mask the fallacies of religion in a new facade. They are but a new sheep-skin to clothe the same old wolf within. Words like revolution and relevancy flood the religious advertising market, perpetually selling the same product under a different name and label.
Of course there are elements of truth buried within the elaborate institutions of religious belief systems, but if one is able to separate those truths from the religion, it is safe to say that truth is not owned by a particular group of exclusive believers.
'Do not kill' is one of the ten commandments initially given to the Israelites via Moses via God, yet a great many people not associated with any religious system would agree that killing is wrong. We do not consider 'do not kill' a distinctly jewish truth, it is universal. And likewise, if morality can be found independently of religion, it may be said that morality does not belong to religion.
Since God and religion are not inextricably intertwined, it is safe to say that belief in the former does not demand belief nor participation in the latter. If one knows the source and subsequently cuts away the middle-man, one is still able to interact directly with the source without the added formality of dealing with the demands of the middle-man. If I owe a man a debt, i do not need to pay someone else in order for that person to then deliver the money I owe to the man it is owed. Yet, with increasing regularity, the lives of the religious not only reflect the lives of the irreligious, but they seem to outdo the irreligious in their own irreligiousity. That is to say, in the affairs of romantic love, sexual promiscuity and marriage, the striking statistic is not how much better the lives of the religious are, but how much worse they are by comparison. It is now postulated that over half of all religious marriages end in divorce.
Given the failure to lead believers towards ethical lifestyles, religion seems more like the political ideal of communism, in that it works perfectly in theory and is ultimately desirable as the best society, yet it is inevitably malpracticed. Ironically, in the communist system, religion is often one of those institutes that is black-listed and done away with. Though some may claim this to be communism's premier inherent flaw, societies that endorse religion also fail. The reason for this, it seems, is that idealism is perfectly suited to the ideal, yet its shortcomings all too exposed in the practical. Religion, not being a practical institution, also fails in its human execution of the ideals it promotes. It is the case of one talking a great deal of great talk that is ultimately impossible to act out in great action, and what is it that seems to make up for pragmatic inadequacy? More great speeches about the potential religion possesses.
It seems rather clear to me that the worst starting point for any institution are claims to have arrived at its destination prematurely. That is to say, in theory, religion has been developed to the best extent that is exhibits the ultimate in morality and faith. Yet the very notion that we are constantly becoming seems to nullify this ideal of arrival. Is the ultimate pursuit of religion that transforming of one into the best sort of person, or that rendering of worship and service one should present unto God? If the former then religion has very little to do with the God it proclaims to believe in and more to do with the people that form its various denominations. If the latter, one is perfectly able to carry out these tasks without a religious systematic ideology altogether. For how is it claimed that man should live? In justice, goodness and modesty. These are not ideals possessed by singular religious institutions, they are universal. And how does one live out these ethical ideals? By not over idealizing them and therefore rendering them impossible in the pragmatic sense.
To serve is an action, it requires no great speeches or sermons, it is merely a question of either doing or not doing. Is love between Christians to be considered the only true love? Surely not. Doctrines and creeds are not prerequisites for love. Compassion. Genuine kindness. Selflessness. The Christian 'fruits of the spirit' are not only exhibited by Christians, for there exist countless tales of exploits carried out, in action, by those outside of religious association. Are these acts less moral given their irreligious agents? If yes, then the ethical is not universal and is relative to one's convictions alone. Surely religious association is not a prerequisite for exhibiting moral behaviour.
What if the greatest event in history was turned into the cause for the very thing it was meant to fight against? What if the great Hero of that event was now championed as leader of the very movement he rivaled? The countless attacks on the religious leaders and establishment of His day make it all too clear that Jesus was working to subvert religion, and not merely revolt with the hopes of starting a new religion. What if later writers had used this great Hero in order to begin their own institution in the pursuit of, what may have originally been, an ethical lifestyle? The irony of Christianity lies in the truth that while, originally, it was thought that Christ came to overthrow the Roman empire, Christianity and the Roman empire eventually merged into the infamous Holy Roman empire. I need not go into great length in establishing the truth that the Holy Roman empire was not holy at all, but in fact, a gross historical reminder of the dangerous potential for evil that exists within man-made religious systems. Given the nature of institutions and their idealism mixed with the inevitable corruptibility of man, it is not the institutions which change man, but man which distorts whatever ideals those institutions originally implied. As result of this historical pattern, it seems that the institutions exist as arbitrary illusions of progression. True change comes as the result of action alone.
The ethical, however, is such that it is impossible once transgressed against. That is to say, an offense against an infinite being is an infinite offense. Once I have crossed the line, there is no return. I may not live a perfect moral life, and therefore the ethical points to the need for salvation. Yet, how does salvation come? In order to make amends for the wrong committed, there must be a substitute.
It has somehow been engrained in our consciousness, and we have subsequently been conditioned by it, that God and religion are one. As a result of this deception, a misreading of my intentions here will be inevitable. I am not out to kill God or to argue against him, that is not the purpose or nearly at all the scope of this essay, instead I am interested here only in testing the hypothesis that religion is unnecessary in belief, because it is not the cause of nor object of a belief in God.
It is all too easy to become dependent upon the religious system, and those that find themselves within the dogmatic trenches of the so-called spiritual warfare find it very difficult to question the nature of their fight, especially those who are the enemy and those who are allies. I am speaking, of course, of the countless expressions of religious fundamentalism which have led to, and caused, some of the worst events in human history. From the inquisition to the crusades to the modern-day bombings of abortion clinics and terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. The religious system is such that it is vague enough for members to be dependent upon guidance from a 'pastor' or 'spiritual leader' and also direct enough to be absolute. One is either a part of the religion or one is on the outside, often looked down upon with pity or, in some cases, outright hatred.
How does one separate their belief in God from the confines of a religious system? I do not pretend to be an expert in world religions and therefore must limit my answers to their applications to the Christian religious system. Christianity is so cleverly named that it seems impossible to separate it from the faith one may have in Christ, since it implies 'follower' or 'disciple' of Christ. Yet, there are many dogmatic traditions within the religious institution of Christianity which seem founded not on the teachings and life of Christ, but more on the life and teachings of the propagandist Paul and other early church heroes. A careful study of the Christian sacred texts, namely the new testament, seem to present a dualism between the loving, accepting Christ and the dogmatic orator Paul. The ironic truth about Paul is that he was first a part of the old religious system which Jesus criticized and then immediately following his conversion began an entirely new religious system, set up and churches and oversaw their development, keeping a careful eye on them so as to make sure they understood his teachings and did not stray from them.
The Roman Catholic church has always been quick to point out a particular verse in the book written by the author Matthew. In the sixteenth chapter, verse 18, Jesus states: "And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." This verse has, for years, been constantly used to affirm the authority of the religious institution and the dogmatic traditions of fundamentalist Christians & Catholics. Both, however, seem mistaken in their rendering of the text. The new testament was written in greek, not latin, and the word most often translated as 'church' in the greek is 'ekklesia.' This unique word has a number of possible definitions, among them the words 'assembly' or 'group' could be accurate translations. In fact, the greek word for church is actually a part of the origin of the english word, in greek it is 'kyrianos.' This greek word is translated directly as meaning 'church.' So why didn't Matthew use 'kyrianos' in the text of Jesus' speech? Perhaps Jesus did not intend to build a church based solely on the foundation of Peter the disciple. Perhaps Jesus' intention was for believers, independently believing Christ to be who He claimed to be, to live together in assembly, in groups and together, ask tough questions about life. To seek out the truth in every situation. To knock in search of finding God in their lives. Not another religious system.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
that scandalous love.
Perhaps one of the single greatest misunderstandings of an historical event is the collective religious interpretation of the passion of the Christ. The belief that Christ's death as God for God was the key to making available salvation for all men who believe. It is foundational in the Christian religious system and it's doctrines that God sacrificed His Son, who was also God, in order to redeem a condemned mankind. Each year millions celebrate Good Friday in remembering the crucifixion of Christ. The celebration continues on Easter Sunday when the resurrection is remembered; churches filled to overflowing with eager would-be candidates for salvation.
In all of this hubbub and rememberance, the truth that Christ was a man is often overlooked and/or marginalized by the religious establishment. Yet, God, by virtue of His divine nature, is not capable of dying, and therefore it had to be the man that suffered in His stead. Furthermore, the scandal of this great passion is that a single man stood, alone, in the place of many and took the wrath of God upon His shoulders. It is a tale of promethean significance. God the Son, as a man, standing in front of God the Father and offering Himself up for the sake of the guilty. As if Isaac, even after hearing the voice of the angel speaking to Abraham, grabs hold of his father's hand and drives the knife into his own chest, for the sake of his father. Jesus, in the place of every man, woman and child, stands in defiance to the justice of His Father which demands an infinite sacrifice for the infinite offenses committed against Him.
Illustrating His humanity, the writer Mark includes in his gospel the request of Jesus to His Father that the hour might pass Him by; that the cup might be taken from Him. Three times does He ask. Three times He pleads but always surrenders His will to the Father's. Later in the story, as Jesus hangs on the cross in agony, He cries out to His Father those all too human words, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" God the Son, Jesus Christ is forsaken by God the Father and condemned. After uttering a loud cry and breathing His last breath, Christ, a human being, dies.
That Christ suffered a painful death is exponentially intensified by His innocence. Furthermore, the scandal of this passionate tale is underscored by the fact that God, in accepting the sacrifice of Christ, condemns an innocent man and forsakes the most righteous of His creatures to ever walk the face of His creation. Ironically, the symbolism in what follows immediately after Christ's death, that is the tearing of the veil in the temples, reveals the subsequent history of Christianity over the next two thousand years to be an exercise in completely missing the point, in that no longer were ritual sacrifices or traditional religious rites necessary for Man to touch the Divine.
The unorthodox rabbi who healed the sick and taught the people about the kingdom of heaven, stood in direct contrast to the religious leaders who screamed for His death. That His life and its teachings were then taken and interpreted by the propagandist Paul illustrates the ignorance of Man and his insatiable pride in pursuing comfort. The perfect realization of human potential in Christ is distorted into the model of religious living and distributed as a commodity for alleviating guilt. Eventually the Christian Religious regime grows to take over most of the known world via the Holy Roman Empire, oppressing millions, their self-justification arising from Paul's distorted understanding of Christ's defiance.
So there are three scandals, that scandalous love of Christ in offering Himself up as a human for the rest of humanity, that scandalous wrath of God the Father in forsaking His very Son, the full realization of human potential, to death, and the scandal of Christianity which distorts the message of Christ in order to produce a systematic theology by which the religious leaders retain their authority over their fellow men. One scandal is to be applauded, the other above human judgement, the third is to be condemned.
In all of this hubbub and rememberance, the truth that Christ was a man is often overlooked and/or marginalized by the religious establishment. Yet, God, by virtue of His divine nature, is not capable of dying, and therefore it had to be the man that suffered in His stead. Furthermore, the scandal of this great passion is that a single man stood, alone, in the place of many and took the wrath of God upon His shoulders. It is a tale of promethean significance. God the Son, as a man, standing in front of God the Father and offering Himself up for the sake of the guilty. As if Isaac, even after hearing the voice of the angel speaking to Abraham, grabs hold of his father's hand and drives the knife into his own chest, for the sake of his father. Jesus, in the place of every man, woman and child, stands in defiance to the justice of His Father which demands an infinite sacrifice for the infinite offenses committed against Him.
Illustrating His humanity, the writer Mark includes in his gospel the request of Jesus to His Father that the hour might pass Him by; that the cup might be taken from Him. Three times does He ask. Three times He pleads but always surrenders His will to the Father's. Later in the story, as Jesus hangs on the cross in agony, He cries out to His Father those all too human words, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" God the Son, Jesus Christ is forsaken by God the Father and condemned. After uttering a loud cry and breathing His last breath, Christ, a human being, dies.
That Christ suffered a painful death is exponentially intensified by His innocence. Furthermore, the scandal of this passionate tale is underscored by the fact that God, in accepting the sacrifice of Christ, condemns an innocent man and forsakes the most righteous of His creatures to ever walk the face of His creation. Ironically, the symbolism in what follows immediately after Christ's death, that is the tearing of the veil in the temples, reveals the subsequent history of Christianity over the next two thousand years to be an exercise in completely missing the point, in that no longer were ritual sacrifices or traditional religious rites necessary for Man to touch the Divine.
The unorthodox rabbi who healed the sick and taught the people about the kingdom of heaven, stood in direct contrast to the religious leaders who screamed for His death. That His life and its teachings were then taken and interpreted by the propagandist Paul illustrates the ignorance of Man and his insatiable pride in pursuing comfort. The perfect realization of human potential in Christ is distorted into the model of religious living and distributed as a commodity for alleviating guilt. Eventually the Christian Religious regime grows to take over most of the known world via the Holy Roman Empire, oppressing millions, their self-justification arising from Paul's distorted understanding of Christ's defiance.
So there are three scandals, that scandalous love of Christ in offering Himself up as a human for the rest of humanity, that scandalous wrath of God the Father in forsaking His very Son, the full realization of human potential, to death, and the scandal of Christianity which distorts the message of Christ in order to produce a systematic theology by which the religious leaders retain their authority over their fellow men. One scandal is to be applauded, the other above human judgement, the third is to be condemned.
Monday, November 5, 2007
moral law.
(these are merely fragments of something i have been working on of late. keep in mind they're rather random and somewhat unorganized still, the reason for posting them is to perhaps induce some form of conversation regarding these topics.)
if there is no objectivity in morals, the very idea of there existing a moral law behind the universe would be no more than mere concept and ideal for mutual comfort within a society. the golden rule would only apply insofar as it produced pleasure and not pain. it would be mere utilitarianism. yet if pleasure were the ultimate aim, it would contradict with the very 'morals' one ought to conduct thesmselves according to in it's pursuit. so what is the purpose of living according to the moral law? is it simply subjective good behaviour? while the byproducts of morality would be beneficial to society as a whole, can the ends also be the means to that end as well?
or is it that the entire purpose behind there being a law is to illuminate and attempt to contain our moral deficiencies? what other intrinsic purpose does the law possess? is it possible that we have developed the map of the road towards a more perfected state of society? the moral law serves a two-fold purpose much like a compass. first to give a bearing on one's position and second to point the way to one's destination.
given the historical timeline of human existence and our cultural 'progressions' it would seem that though we may not have progressed in many ways, it would seem that we have become more and more cognitive of our deficiencies, perhaps it is time we, instead of being bogged down in our own deficiencies, focused on the flipside of moral law, the good.
created in the image of a creator, it follows that there is inextricable value inside each and every person, regardless of religious creeds and denominational affiliation. the moral law cannot be owned by a specific cultural group without implying it's subjective implications.
do "evil" people exist? or are they merely people comitting acts of "evil?"if we are inherently evil and cannot help ourselves, it should seem faulty programming on the part of the designer. since i cannot cognitively blame my acts of "evil" on a creator, i must take responsibility for them, but also must acknowledge the possibility of not commiting the acts of "evil" in the first place. the truth that people do commit acts of "evil" does not devaule the intrinsic "good" that is within us as result of our reflecting the 'imageo dei.'
yet, even further, does morality itself exist independently of God? can it?if the two are inextricably intertwined, it should follow then that without God, man could not act in such ways that were morally 'right.' yet, they must be able to if they reflect the image of their creator within them.
if there is no objectivity in morals, the very idea of there existing a moral law behind the universe would be no more than mere concept and ideal for mutual comfort within a society. the golden rule would only apply insofar as it produced pleasure and not pain. it would be mere utilitarianism. yet if pleasure were the ultimate aim, it would contradict with the very 'morals' one ought to conduct thesmselves according to in it's pursuit. so what is the purpose of living according to the moral law? is it simply subjective good behaviour? while the byproducts of morality would be beneficial to society as a whole, can the ends also be the means to that end as well?
or is it that the entire purpose behind there being a law is to illuminate and attempt to contain our moral deficiencies? what other intrinsic purpose does the law possess? is it possible that we have developed the map of the road towards a more perfected state of society? the moral law serves a two-fold purpose much like a compass. first to give a bearing on one's position and second to point the way to one's destination.
given the historical timeline of human existence and our cultural 'progressions' it would seem that though we may not have progressed in many ways, it would seem that we have become more and more cognitive of our deficiencies, perhaps it is time we, instead of being bogged down in our own deficiencies, focused on the flipside of moral law, the good.
created in the image of a creator, it follows that there is inextricable value inside each and every person, regardless of religious creeds and denominational affiliation. the moral law cannot be owned by a specific cultural group without implying it's subjective implications.
do "evil" people exist? or are they merely people comitting acts of "evil?"if we are inherently evil and cannot help ourselves, it should seem faulty programming on the part of the designer. since i cannot cognitively blame my acts of "evil" on a creator, i must take responsibility for them, but also must acknowledge the possibility of not commiting the acts of "evil" in the first place. the truth that people do commit acts of "evil" does not devaule the intrinsic "good" that is within us as result of our reflecting the 'imageo dei.'
yet, even further, does morality itself exist independently of God? can it?if the two are inextricably intertwined, it should follow then that without God, man could not act in such ways that were morally 'right.' yet, they must be able to if they reflect the image of their creator within them.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
war.
throughout this blog, do keep in mind that my definition for war is as follows: the planned & systematic killing employed as a means of resolving a dispute / conflict.
war is objectively wrong.
further, as a follower of Christ i cannot support war.
i can, of course, support the men and women of the armed forces*
(*this will be explained later on in the entry)
i believe that they way of Jesus is a way of peace. and no, i do not consider myself a pacifist in the universal sense that i would do nothing, but i do believe in the ethic of non-violence. the words of Jesus speak quite plainly in regards to this topic: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "love your neighbor as yourself," "those who seek to save their lives will lose them and those who seek to lose their lives will save them," "those who live by the sword die by the sword," "if someone strikes you on the one cheek turn your other cheek to them as well" etc..
now i know that some of you actually read your bibles and study it and will of course want to quote the statement of Jesus "i did not come to bring peace, but a sword.." and i must state first that please remember to read your bible verses in context, secondly this verse is talking more about the truth that when people live the way Jesus teaches, literally their families will become divided, even Jesus' own family illustrates the truth of this. also you may quote the verse in luke three where the centurions ask (as regards their profession as soldiers) "what should we do?" and the response is something along the lines of not extorting money from people, etc. yet, in response to that, i look at who gives the response and no, it is not Jesus, but john the baptist. i don't follow him. (though eating honey and locusts.. wow, respect is given. mad props!)
so let's look at some of the arguments for war, mainly these four:
- war as a neccesary evil.
- war as self-defense.
- war as defense of the innocent.
- war as a divine commandment.
first, war as a neccesary evil offers no problem to my argument that war is evil. obviously, a neccesary evil is still evil. but further than that this does not provide any real justification for war as the sole or first answer to resolving a conflict. to prevent an evil, we should commit an evil? may it never be. furthermore i would state that evil is not something of a graded scale. that is to say i do not consider certain acts to be more evil than others. if i lie to a friend over something trivial it is still an evil offense. the word used to describe this act would be "sin."
secondly, war as an act of self-defense. if i were punched by someone and punched back because i believed they would punch me again, i am still punching (active.. attacking) the person and responding to evil with evil. that is to say "an eye for an eye" which is what we have heard, but Jesus teaches not to resist an evil person. attacking, even out of self-defense, is still attacking. it is not justified as morally right simply because one was attacked. this is redemptive violence and escalates in cycle until it destroys the very people that started the conflict. i.e. a slap in the face would eventually lead to entire nations at war and millions of people dying, etc. "since you did this me.. i am going to do this to you." seeking retribution through violence is not the proper response to violence. because then someone will have to seek retribution through violence upon the person first seeking retribution through violence.
thirdly, war as defense of the innocent. part of this argument is refuted by argument number one, war as a neccesary evil. since when we speak of protecting or defending the innocent, we presume to stop an evil from being committed against them. yet, furthermore i must state that i find it highly arrogant to presuppose that one can objectively judge as to who is, in fact, "innocent" and who is not. and it offers no justification that war is needed and is the sole action that can be taken to prevent evil. furthermore, even when wars have been fought for the sake of preventing an evil, they ultimately have failed because the evils were still committed regardless to their violent response. do unto others as you would have them do unto you. as a christian, i believe that we are all guilty and are deserving of judgement. i heard a contemporary theologian's view on war to prevent evil stated like this.. "sometimes loving my neighbour (enemy) means killing him." that scares and frustrates me. and nowhere in the scriptures, especially the words of Jesus, do i read anything that even hints at justification of killing on the grounds that it is a loving act.
fourthly, war as a divine commandment. before speaking of the tanakh and war in the jewish historical context, i must pose this question: is the commandment of Allah that muslims take part in holy war morally justified? because if one is to state that war is right when their god commands them to take part in it, one has to allow for the other gods as justifying their people in war as well. ultimately a commandment from any god that causes a person to commit an act is unfalsifiable. that is to say, it cannot be proven or disproven. such subjective suspensions of the ethical (right and wrong) are often used to justify the most evil of human atrocities. i am sure if you think back a few years, you will remember hearing of the woman who packed her three children into a car and drove it into a river while she jumped out. later on she claimed that it was the result of a commandment from god she had received. i will state here that regardless of the proclaimed "justification" for these acts, they remain evil. and though there may be suspensions of the ethical, those suspensions do not abolish the ethical altogether. in fact, if such suspensions do occur, i would argue that the very fact that the actions they invoke are evil is a fair gauge of the faith within the actor. the actions remain wrong, but their belief that they shall be vindicated in the eyes of their god is commendable. certainly if abraham had actually killed his son, we would look upon him a) as a horrible human, but b) as an even greater hero of faith.
so even these arguments fail to truly justify war as ever being the "right" course of action. and furthermore i must mention my efforts and hopes towards demilitarisation and disarmament. (do you we really need that limited stockpile of 2,500 nuclear warheads anyways?) the idea that soldiers (war-riors) can be used to administer peace presents a logical contradiction. (i would not have a child-molestor be in charge of a daycare. this analogy isn't the greatest but i believe you to be smart enough to understand the point.. if war is the occupation of the soldier, and peace is the opposite of war, then it is contrary to the occupation of the soldier to administer peace.)
so many more thoughts on this topic. so please comment, i know you didn't agree with everything. challenge it. let's wrestle. i love debate and conversation with people who don't think like i do. it causes even more thought. also, if you'd like to learn more about countries (so far 30) that have disbanded their military and thrown out their stockpiled weapons, message me or comment.
war is objectively wrong.
further, as a follower of Christ i cannot support war.
i can, of course, support the men and women of the armed forces*
(*this will be explained later on in the entry)
i believe that they way of Jesus is a way of peace. and no, i do not consider myself a pacifist in the universal sense that i would do nothing, but i do believe in the ethic of non-violence. the words of Jesus speak quite plainly in regards to this topic: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "love your neighbor as yourself," "those who seek to save their lives will lose them and those who seek to lose their lives will save them," "those who live by the sword die by the sword," "if someone strikes you on the one cheek turn your other cheek to them as well" etc..
now i know that some of you actually read your bibles and study it and will of course want to quote the statement of Jesus "i did not come to bring peace, but a sword.." and i must state first that please remember to read your bible verses in context, secondly this verse is talking more about the truth that when people live the way Jesus teaches, literally their families will become divided, even Jesus' own family illustrates the truth of this. also you may quote the verse in luke three where the centurions ask (as regards their profession as soldiers) "what should we do?" and the response is something along the lines of not extorting money from people, etc. yet, in response to that, i look at who gives the response and no, it is not Jesus, but john the baptist. i don't follow him. (though eating honey and locusts.. wow, respect is given. mad props!)
so let's look at some of the arguments for war, mainly these four:
- war as a neccesary evil.
- war as self-defense.
- war as defense of the innocent.
- war as a divine commandment.
first, war as a neccesary evil offers no problem to my argument that war is evil. obviously, a neccesary evil is still evil. but further than that this does not provide any real justification for war as the sole or first answer to resolving a conflict. to prevent an evil, we should commit an evil? may it never be. furthermore i would state that evil is not something of a graded scale. that is to say i do not consider certain acts to be more evil than others. if i lie to a friend over something trivial it is still an evil offense. the word used to describe this act would be "sin."
secondly, war as an act of self-defense. if i were punched by someone and punched back because i believed they would punch me again, i am still punching (active.. attacking) the person and responding to evil with evil. that is to say "an eye for an eye" which is what we have heard, but Jesus teaches not to resist an evil person. attacking, even out of self-defense, is still attacking. it is not justified as morally right simply because one was attacked. this is redemptive violence and escalates in cycle until it destroys the very people that started the conflict. i.e. a slap in the face would eventually lead to entire nations at war and millions of people dying, etc. "since you did this me.. i am going to do this to you." seeking retribution through violence is not the proper response to violence. because then someone will have to seek retribution through violence upon the person first seeking retribution through violence.
thirdly, war as defense of the innocent. part of this argument is refuted by argument number one, war as a neccesary evil. since when we speak of protecting or defending the innocent, we presume to stop an evil from being committed against them. yet, furthermore i must state that i find it highly arrogant to presuppose that one can objectively judge as to who is, in fact, "innocent" and who is not. and it offers no justification that war is needed and is the sole action that can be taken to prevent evil. furthermore, even when wars have been fought for the sake of preventing an evil, they ultimately have failed because the evils were still committed regardless to their violent response. do unto others as you would have them do unto you. as a christian, i believe that we are all guilty and are deserving of judgement. i heard a contemporary theologian's view on war to prevent evil stated like this.. "sometimes loving my neighbour (enemy) means killing him." that scares and frustrates me. and nowhere in the scriptures, especially the words of Jesus, do i read anything that even hints at justification of killing on the grounds that it is a loving act.
fourthly, war as a divine commandment. before speaking of the tanakh and war in the jewish historical context, i must pose this question: is the commandment of Allah that muslims take part in holy war morally justified? because if one is to state that war is right when their god commands them to take part in it, one has to allow for the other gods as justifying their people in war as well. ultimately a commandment from any god that causes a person to commit an act is unfalsifiable. that is to say, it cannot be proven or disproven. such subjective suspensions of the ethical (right and wrong) are often used to justify the most evil of human atrocities. i am sure if you think back a few years, you will remember hearing of the woman who packed her three children into a car and drove it into a river while she jumped out. later on she claimed that it was the result of a commandment from god she had received. i will state here that regardless of the proclaimed "justification" for these acts, they remain evil. and though there may be suspensions of the ethical, those suspensions do not abolish the ethical altogether. in fact, if such suspensions do occur, i would argue that the very fact that the actions they invoke are evil is a fair gauge of the faith within the actor. the actions remain wrong, but their belief that they shall be vindicated in the eyes of their god is commendable. certainly if abraham had actually killed his son, we would look upon him a) as a horrible human, but b) as an even greater hero of faith.
so even these arguments fail to truly justify war as ever being the "right" course of action. and furthermore i must mention my efforts and hopes towards demilitarisation and disarmament. (do you we really need that limited stockpile of 2,500 nuclear warheads anyways?) the idea that soldiers (war-riors) can be used to administer peace presents a logical contradiction. (i would not have a child-molestor be in charge of a daycare. this analogy isn't the greatest but i believe you to be smart enough to understand the point.. if war is the occupation of the soldier, and peace is the opposite of war, then it is contrary to the occupation of the soldier to administer peace.)
so many more thoughts on this topic. so please comment, i know you didn't agree with everything. challenge it. let's wrestle. i love debate and conversation with people who don't think like i do. it causes even more thought. also, if you'd like to learn more about countries (so far 30) that have disbanded their military and thrown out their stockpiled weapons, message me or comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
