Posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
This Doesn't Count
However to anyone who is done with everything, Summer Vacation has just started. Have a great Summer and I hope we have a class together soon. But now Im exhausted and it time to go to bed.
The End if Nigh (7/24)
Is the Bible trustworthy? This is the question that William C. Placher addresses in “Is the bible true?” The goal of his essay is to say that the Bible is true without appealing to the fundamentalist or moderate side of the debate. Placher goes about this by providing examples, from other literary works, explaining misinterpretation in translation, and reasons that people do trust in the Bible.
Placher begins by providing us with two secondary truths that must be accepted if we accept that the bible is true. The first point is; if the Bible is true then what it means is true, and what it means is shaped by the genres in which it is written. The next secondary truth is; if we trust the Bible as truth then we must accept it as a guide for our lives and for our faith. As a guide for our lives it should shape our understanding of the world and our role in the world.
To understand the Bible it must be viewed as it was intended to be. To do this we must know and understand the genre in which it was written. All books are written in a genre that is specific to them if they are viewed out of context than the meaning and therefore the truth will be lost to that book. The other issue that Placher ties in with genre is the culture barrier. Different cultures not only have different languages but also have different concepts of social conditions. The difference in language obviously is affected during the translation. The different social views provide their own problems. The example Placher provides is that of slavery. He explains that the Jewish idea of slavery was that of an indentured servant; a temporary thing. The colonial American view and therefore most Americans view is that of a permanent ownership of one person over another. This misunderstanding can greatly affect how someone reads and interprets the Bible.
Placher finishes by providing reasons for putting trust into the Bible. First it is another test of faith. Also it consistently makes sense of the world. The most important reason for trusting the Bible is that Christians put their trust in God the source of the Bible.
To truly trust in the Bible a Christian must know the Bible. Christians must fully immerse themselves in the Bible knowing its language and its world. One verse should remind the reader of another and support it, so that there is always something to reference to. The problem with most people who read the Bible today is that they don’t truly know the Bible. Very few people put out the time and effort that it takes to understand such a complex book.
I agree that Knowing and trusting the Bible is a very difficult thing. No matter how much devotion a person could have to God to fully know the Bible seems to be an insurmountable goal. I believe this is why trust is so important with the Bible. Since very few If anyone has ever truly understood everything in the Bible, faith and trust become so important. This faith is what God appreciates and desires most.
Placher provides us with many reasons why people have trouble putting their trust in the Bible. For the most part these reasons are merely misunderstandings of the reading. So to understand and put trust in the Bible the reader must read deeper into the text and find the context and genre in which it is written. Plachers examples were very clear in explaining the reasons why people find it difficult to understand and trust the Bible.
I found Plachers reasoning in social and cultural misunderstandings the most helpful. When he explains the differences of the American view of slavery and the Jewish view of slavery he provided me with a difficulty that I had never heard before. The fact that there is not only the language barrier but also a cultural barrier to create misunderstandings provides even more problems in understanding the Bible.
I felt lead to believe there was more than just the two secondary claims. I feel that there is more to the arguments than is explained in this paper and that he just left the rest out. I feel that he did not provide a counter side to his opinions so the paper is somewhat one sided. Over all I like Plachers paper. He provided well thought out and helpful examples to support his thesis over a difficult subject.
Placher begins by providing us with two secondary truths that must be accepted if we accept that the bible is true. The first point is; if the Bible is true then what it means is true, and what it means is shaped by the genres in which it is written. The next secondary truth is; if we trust the Bible as truth then we must accept it as a guide for our lives and for our faith. As a guide for our lives it should shape our understanding of the world and our role in the world.
To understand the Bible it must be viewed as it was intended to be. To do this we must know and understand the genre in which it was written. All books are written in a genre that is specific to them if they are viewed out of context than the meaning and therefore the truth will be lost to that book. The other issue that Placher ties in with genre is the culture barrier. Different cultures not only have different languages but also have different concepts of social conditions. The difference in language obviously is affected during the translation. The different social views provide their own problems. The example Placher provides is that of slavery. He explains that the Jewish idea of slavery was that of an indentured servant; a temporary thing. The colonial American view and therefore most Americans view is that of a permanent ownership of one person over another. This misunderstanding can greatly affect how someone reads and interprets the Bible.
Placher finishes by providing reasons for putting trust into the Bible. First it is another test of faith. Also it consistently makes sense of the world. The most important reason for trusting the Bible is that Christians put their trust in God the source of the Bible.
To truly trust in the Bible a Christian must know the Bible. Christians must fully immerse themselves in the Bible knowing its language and its world. One verse should remind the reader of another and support it, so that there is always something to reference to. The problem with most people who read the Bible today is that they don’t truly know the Bible. Very few people put out the time and effort that it takes to understand such a complex book.
I agree that Knowing and trusting the Bible is a very difficult thing. No matter how much devotion a person could have to God to fully know the Bible seems to be an insurmountable goal. I believe this is why trust is so important with the Bible. Since very few If anyone has ever truly understood everything in the Bible, faith and trust become so important. This faith is what God appreciates and desires most.
Placher provides us with many reasons why people have trouble putting their trust in the Bible. For the most part these reasons are merely misunderstandings of the reading. So to understand and put trust in the Bible the reader must read deeper into the text and find the context and genre in which it is written. Plachers examples were very clear in explaining the reasons why people find it difficult to understand and trust the Bible.
I found Plachers reasoning in social and cultural misunderstandings the most helpful. When he explains the differences of the American view of slavery and the Jewish view of slavery he provided me with a difficulty that I had never heard before. The fact that there is not only the language barrier but also a cultural barrier to create misunderstandings provides even more problems in understanding the Bible.
I felt lead to believe there was more than just the two secondary claims. I feel that there is more to the arguments than is explained in this paper and that he just left the rest out. I feel that he did not provide a counter side to his opinions so the paper is somewhat one sided. Over all I like Plachers paper. He provided well thought out and helpful examples to support his thesis over a difficult subject.
The Allegory of the Cave
Below is a bit of my Essay so far, if you have any addition insight I would love to hear it.
The Matrix as a whole is truly a philosophically inspired film, with influences from many Pre-Socratic philosophers, world religions and scientific tendencies. Of these influences one can clearly take a look at the philosophy of Plato in accordance to Neo’s awakening; with its greatest allusion resting with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. In The Republic, Plato presents the possibility of the real world as an illusion. Plato calls us to imagine a cave in which individuals had been constricted within since birth. Within the cave, these individuals have been bound by the neck and they can look only straight. Possessing only a frontal focal point, these individuals peer out at the wall in front of them as the fire behind them coupled with the statues cast images of grandiose stature.
Because they have witnessed nothing more than these images since birth, the individuals perceived the shadows are their reality. As Plato continues he explains the faith of an individual who has been released from bondage a witnesses the world which we perceive for the first time. Blinded by the light and fearful of the sun this individual is met by the harsh “reality” of this new world. As he begins to live within the outside he embraces this world as “reality” and seeks to descend once more into the cave in order to share his insight with his fellow captives. The experience of this prisoner is a metaphor is definitely portrayed within the open sequence of the first Matrix film.
Awakened from a computer generated dream world, Neo becomes fully aware of the distinction between The Matrix and reality. Neo is literally pulled from the cave in the first film. Like the prisoner Neo possesses no understanding of this strange new world he has introduced to. He expresses difficulty adjusting to the new world, comprehending its existence and it is not until Morpheus explains the plight of the human race that Neo gains some insight to the situation. While this awakening was emphasized specifically in the first film of the trilogy, this theme of enlightenment becomes a reoccurrence in both Reloaded and Revolutions. The frequent visits to the Matrix within the Reloaded and Revolution mark a basic tenet of Plato’s Allegory. As insisted by Plato, once an individual is introduced to reality they are now compelled to take enlighten others. This is seen within the film as Neo take the responsible of “The One”, and the ultimate savior of humanity. Along with this sense of duty we see another parallel to the allegory as Neo and his companions are constantly faced with hostility. With each time Neo returns to the Matrix he is faced with hostility; hostility from the Smiths, Merovingian, The Twin, among others in the second film. The same experience is shared by the prisoner who has escaped from the cave.
The Matrix as a whole is truly a philosophically inspired film, with influences from many Pre-Socratic philosophers, world religions and scientific tendencies. Of these influences one can clearly take a look at the philosophy of Plato in accordance to Neo’s awakening; with its greatest allusion resting with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. In The Republic, Plato presents the possibility of the real world as an illusion. Plato calls us to imagine a cave in which individuals had been constricted within since birth. Within the cave, these individuals have been bound by the neck and they can look only straight. Possessing only a frontal focal point, these individuals peer out at the wall in front of them as the fire behind them coupled with the statues cast images of grandiose stature.
Because they have witnessed nothing more than these images since birth, the individuals perceived the shadows are their reality. As Plato continues he explains the faith of an individual who has been released from bondage a witnesses the world which we perceive for the first time. Blinded by the light and fearful of the sun this individual is met by the harsh “reality” of this new world. As he begins to live within the outside he embraces this world as “reality” and seeks to descend once more into the cave in order to share his insight with his fellow captives. The experience of this prisoner is a metaphor is definitely portrayed within the open sequence of the first Matrix film.
Awakened from a computer generated dream world, Neo becomes fully aware of the distinction between The Matrix and reality. Neo is literally pulled from the cave in the first film. Like the prisoner Neo possesses no understanding of this strange new world he has introduced to. He expresses difficulty adjusting to the new world, comprehending its existence and it is not until Morpheus explains the plight of the human race that Neo gains some insight to the situation. While this awakening was emphasized specifically in the first film of the trilogy, this theme of enlightenment becomes a reoccurrence in both Reloaded and Revolutions. The frequent visits to the Matrix within the Reloaded and Revolution mark a basic tenet of Plato’s Allegory. As insisted by Plato, once an individual is introduced to reality they are now compelled to take enlighten others. This is seen within the film as Neo take the responsible of “The One”, and the ultimate savior of humanity. Along with this sense of duty we see another parallel to the allegory as Neo and his companions are constantly faced with hostility. With each time Neo returns to the Matrix he is faced with hostility; hostility from the Smiths, Merovingian, The Twin, among others in the second film. The same experience is shared by the prisoner who has escaped from the cave.
Some Ramblings on Love
Within The Matrix, Love is viewed as a compelling force that allows the character to prosper despite how grim the situation may be. This love as viewed in The Matrix most likely resembles Phaedrus definition of love as inspiring lovers to earn the admiration through displaying “bravery on the battlefield” (178d-179b). In the Trilogy as a whole love acts as driving force behind each characters actions. In reference to the first movie, Morpheus is inspired by love to seek out Neo, train him and even sacrifice his life in order to allow Neo to escape from the pursuing Agent. Trinity displays love for Neo as she intimately kisses him in hopes of resurrecting the fallen hero; Neo also displays love for Morpheus as he sacrifices his safety as “The One” to rescue Morpheus.
In the second and third films Trinity, Morpheus and Neo once again express a love for one another as they continually risk their lives in hopes of prosperity of the other. Example of this lay in Trinity sacrificing her life to delay the agents in order to allow Neo to meet the Architect, Trinity flying The Logos to the Machine City in order to aid Neo stop the Machine, as well as Neo selecting his love for Trinity as opposed to rebooting the Matrix. However perhaps the most profound Love seen within the series is that of Neo as he sacrifices his life to defeat Agent Smith and ensure the prosperity of the human race.
In the second and third films Trinity, Morpheus and Neo once again express a love for one another as they continually risk their lives in hopes of prosperity of the other. Example of this lay in Trinity sacrificing her life to delay the agents in order to allow Neo to meet the Architect, Trinity flying The Logos to the Machine City in order to aid Neo stop the Machine, as well as Neo selecting his love for Trinity as opposed to rebooting the Matrix. However perhaps the most profound Love seen within the series is that of Neo as he sacrifices his life to defeat Agent Smith and ensure the prosperity of the human race.
The End if Nigh (6/24)
And all things come to an end. Well the year is over, I really never thought that a semester could go by so fast but here it is and Summer is currently right outside my front door. I have read all your Blogs and by far I have to say this class really forced to approach the world in a new light and constantly ponder as opposed to simply live in the world. What did I learn this year? Well first and foremost I was definitely indoctrinated with more information than my mind could process at time, however I do feel that by learning about the historical contexts of philosophy I have a better perception on the events of the time. As said in my second entry for my philosophy is a means of bettering yourself through learning about yourself. Ancient philosophers presented ideas and methods to combat naivety and ignorance. I feel that the world we live in is at a stand still. A lack of a flow of ideas for the masses, I feel that we believe we are comfortable with our lives as they are and that the problems of the world are too great for us to overcome ourselves. But in all honesty do you think that a problem will resolve itself if no one addresses it? More than anything what I learnt from the class was that anyone can be and should be a philosopher. We should question what we do not comprehend, we should ponder on the problems we are currently facing and make an effort to solve them. To me Aristotle Is a god among men, an individual who has developed a means of living a proper life. While I am heavily influenced by my faith and possess my own means of living my life, Aristotle provided a bible for the mass in the form of the Nicomachean Ethics . These philosophers are honestly heroes as they never ceased contemplation and were never satisfied with societies view. In conclusion I am going to keep working on my Matrix Paper and sleep for an entire day tomorrow. But I have had a great time with all of you this year and I really want to get to know you all more. To those who are graduating I challenge you to become a proactive member of society and seek solutions for the troubles we face in our lives. Spread bliss to all you meet and follow Aristotle’s list of virtues in order to live a happy life. To the rest of you we now hold the key to happiness and all the copies. Though not everyone possesses the amount of information we have obtained through Roochnik haha we can educate individuals in thinking and questioning. Good luck on the essays and I’ll be updating my blog with some more posts in terms of some theological/philosophical/biological information and my personal opinions.
Happy Reading, Chris
Happy Reading, Chris
The Cracked Mirror 2 (5/24)
When I reminisce on who I was in high school and how I have developed since then it is honestly amazing. In looking for answers within before going outside, I understand that my increased involvement in sports lead to the man I am today. Why is this important? Throughout the year we have studied "dead guys". Individuals with the upmost level of mental capacity, I have looked at their history in order to create my own philosophy. However at times in order to move forward you have to look back, thus I want to share a small bit of information to aid you all understand the person I was and the person I am.
Playing sports at CCA has meant everything to me. Not just for the pleasure of playing the game but also how it has formed me into the person that I am today. It built me not only physically tough; but mentally as well.
CCA athletics has taught me many lessons. I remember first going into high school and seeing our struggling football team. Winning isn’t everything but I joined a team that frequently got demolished. We worked hard and I learned to give 100% effort and to never give up hope. I never lost hope in our team and learned to have fun no matter what the score was. I always felt that if I gave my full effort it didn’t matter what the score was because I enjoyed what I was doing.
CCA athletics has always been in my life. Ever since I was in middle school when I first ran cross country I have enjoyed participating in athletics. Athletics gave me a place to meet friends and to release a lot of energy. Next year when I come back to watch the CCA games I won’t even recognize it because I have hardly ever just watched a game. I was always participating in some way.
I have given so much sweat and blood to the school that I can’t even imagine doing anything else. I have been injured countless times from a CCA sport. My first injury was a cut in my hand that required 8 stitches. I followed that with concussions, knee injuries, broken fingers and hands, and countless other minor aches and pains. Every scar and sore joint created a memory that will stay with me forever. The only way I could have possibly survived CCA sports was god’s will, and I thank him for watching over me.
I’ve seen coaches come and go at CCA; and each one has given me something to take away from that season. Coach Henneke taught me to face my fears and to use my talents to the full extent. Coach Harper showed me that giving up only cheats myself. Coach Jackson taught me to always have fun even when things looked hopeless. Coach Stanley and soccer showed me that I don’t have to be perfect, or the star to help the team. Coach Brainard and baseball taught me to have fun, and the value of friendship. Every season, coach, and game, gave me something to improve my life. I will never forget the games I played or the people that I experienced those sports with. The memories and lessons that CCA athletics has given me will always remain close to my heart; because they have truly made me a better person.
I will always treasure my time at CCA playing the sports that I loved with the friends and coaches that shaped my life. CCA will always remain close to me with every scar and every memory.
Playing sports at CCA has meant everything to me. Not just for the pleasure of playing the game but also how it has formed me into the person that I am today. It built me not only physically tough; but mentally as well.
CCA athletics has taught me many lessons. I remember first going into high school and seeing our struggling football team. Winning isn’t everything but I joined a team that frequently got demolished. We worked hard and I learned to give 100% effort and to never give up hope. I never lost hope in our team and learned to have fun no matter what the score was. I always felt that if I gave my full effort it didn’t matter what the score was because I enjoyed what I was doing.
CCA athletics has always been in my life. Ever since I was in middle school when I first ran cross country I have enjoyed participating in athletics. Athletics gave me a place to meet friends and to release a lot of energy. Next year when I come back to watch the CCA games I won’t even recognize it because I have hardly ever just watched a game. I was always participating in some way.
I have given so much sweat and blood to the school that I can’t even imagine doing anything else. I have been injured countless times from a CCA sport. My first injury was a cut in my hand that required 8 stitches. I followed that with concussions, knee injuries, broken fingers and hands, and countless other minor aches and pains. Every scar and sore joint created a memory that will stay with me forever. The only way I could have possibly survived CCA sports was god’s will, and I thank him for watching over me.
I’ve seen coaches come and go at CCA; and each one has given me something to take away from that season. Coach Henneke taught me to face my fears and to use my talents to the full extent. Coach Harper showed me that giving up only cheats myself. Coach Jackson taught me to always have fun even when things looked hopeless. Coach Stanley and soccer showed me that I don’t have to be perfect, or the star to help the team. Coach Brainard and baseball taught me to have fun, and the value of friendship. Every season, coach, and game, gave me something to improve my life. I will never forget the games I played or the people that I experienced those sports with. The memories and lessons that CCA athletics has given me will always remain close to my heart; because they have truly made me a better person.
I will always treasure my time at CCA playing the sports that I loved with the friends and coaches that shaped my life. CCA will always remain close to me with every scar and every memory.
A Cosmological Argument?
While this is not directly associated with philosophy I have been cruising the net reading while taking a break from writing the Essay. With that said one of the greatest aspects of this class which I feel I will retain for a life time is the notion of philosophical ideals vs. religious ideal. Lets face it philosophy has been around for centuries as with religion. Christianity bears the greatest comparisons to the philosophy of Aristotle, examples can be found in Aristotle's view of Virtue and the adoption of the 7 Cardinal Virtues and Sins. Aside from this comparison one area that is extremely intriguing in retrospect would be that of the origin of the world, the cosmological argument. This class has presented us with many origins and my religious and scientific background as well has presented several origins to our existence as well. But one thing that many various arguments that aim to prove or disprove is the likelihood of there being a God of theistic nature. In my head the true instance of the Cosmological Argument was found in the words of two ancient philosophers, Aristotle and Plato. Though these two were very well known, major strides in the argument were not made until the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries. I take great emphasis in the cosmological argument as one of my favorite theologians presents the most rationalized beliefs to the argument.
Thomas Aquinas developed the “argument from contingency”, siding with Aristotle in claiming that there has to be something that serves as an explanation for the earth's existence. He queried that the earth's existence couldn't be explained by another “contingent” being; thus there had to be something that created the earth that didn't have some sort of “proceeding” agent before it. By “contingent” beings, Aquinas was referring to beings that depend on someone or something else in order to exist.
It would then be logical for there to have been some sort of beginning to the chain of contingent beings, someone that doesn't depend on another in order to exist. This is Aquinas's first part of the Cosmological Argument.
One interesting part of this argument is that it is made upon an “empirical premise” (evidence that is based upon observational data). In this sense, since the argument was made on an observation about the world, it can be referred to as an “a posteriori” argument. This argument differs from a similar argument; “a priori”, which is begun with a concept. In Aquinas's second part of the argument, he states that many things in the world were obviously created by other things; therefore there must be some being out there that wasn't created by something else, by logic.
Finally, Aquinas's third part entailed that throughout the world, there are things that seem to have no purpose, and could easily not exist at all. Aquinas reasons that because of this, there has to be something that doesn't fail to exist and has always been. Many claim that even if these points made hold true, they do not serve to prove the existence of the “theistic God” of Christian theology. This can be defended by the fact that there two parts of the Cosmological Argument; one, that there exists a being that does not depend on anything to exist, and two, that this being has the features that the theistic God exhibits.
Thomas Aquinas developed the “argument from contingency”, siding with Aristotle in claiming that there has to be something that serves as an explanation for the earth's existence. He queried that the earth's existence couldn't be explained by another “contingent” being; thus there had to be something that created the earth that didn't have some sort of “proceeding” agent before it. By “contingent” beings, Aquinas was referring to beings that depend on someone or something else in order to exist.
It would then be logical for there to have been some sort of beginning to the chain of contingent beings, someone that doesn't depend on another in order to exist. This is Aquinas's first part of the Cosmological Argument.
One interesting part of this argument is that it is made upon an “empirical premise” (evidence that is based upon observational data). In this sense, since the argument was made on an observation about the world, it can be referred to as an “a posteriori” argument. This argument differs from a similar argument; “a priori”, which is begun with a concept. In Aquinas's second part of the argument, he states that many things in the world were obviously created by other things; therefore there must be some being out there that wasn't created by something else, by logic.
Finally, Aquinas's third part entailed that throughout the world, there are things that seem to have no purpose, and could easily not exist at all. Aquinas reasons that because of this, there has to be something that doesn't fail to exist and has always been. Many claim that even if these points made hold true, they do not serve to prove the existence of the “theistic God” of Christian theology. This can be defended by the fact that there two parts of the Cosmological Argument; one, that there exists a being that does not depend on anything to exist, and two, that this being has the features that the theistic God exhibits.
Unexplainable: Yet Another Rant
I just got done reading a religious argument in my church pamphlet, the premise of which dealt with science vs. religion. In my opinion science is mans way to describe and understand his surroundings. The world is rationalized through logic and reason and then categorized and explained through this invention of man. What if the mind and all that man has created with it became the standard of measuring reality? There is so much that the mind cannot even understand and comprehend, what would be done with those unexplained or spiritual things?
Problems arise when people allow the mind to become the soul determining factor in measuring reality. The first and most obvious problem is that man does not and cannot understand everything. Our knowledge grows exponentially but there is always more and eventually we will reach a limit to things that can be explained through science. Theories and hypothesis are starts but for those that cannot be physically proven there is no hope. The mind works through logic but to explain things of God’s nature, things that surpass mans realities and abilities logic fails man. To understand God only faith and trust can provide any way to measure his reality. Allowing the mind to become the only measure of reality leaves no room for the unexplainable thus any room for God.
Logic and reason are powerful tools of the mind but they can only explain so much. What cannot be experienced by the senses cannot be explained by the mind. Logic can explain the invisible but only as well as it can reason for its existence. Logic allows man to explain the wind but the wind can be felt and its effects seen. The wind may be invisible but it is explainable. How can the mind reason God? God cannot be seen or felt; tasted or smelled, not even heard how then can the mind use reason to rationalize God. Only through faith something independent of the minds logic and reason; something that actually goes against the basis of understanding allows man to understand God.
The standard of measuring reality cannot be only the mind. There is too much that is missed and left out that the mind cannot grasp. It would be a mistake to base all of life in the logic and reason of the mind. The mind is not the soul answer to explaining reality.
Balance is the answer to trying to understand reality. Give material to science and the immaterial to religion. Create a world where the two can coexist harmoniously and then all things can be explained. If both the mind and faith can share in explaining reality more will be explained and less would be left to question if there was only one.
I felt compelled to post this simply because I was already working on track. Anyways just added this so please post and comment.
Is the Bible trustworthy? This is the question that William C. Placher addresses in “Is the bible true?” The goal of his essay is to say that the Bible is true without appealing to the fundamentalist or moderate side of the debate. Placher goes about this by providing examples, from other literary works, explaining misinterpretation in translation, and reasons that people do trust in the Bible.
Placher begins by providing us with two secondary truths that must be accepted if we accept that the bible is true. The first point is; if the Bible is true then what it means is true, and what it means is shaped by the genres in which it is written. The next secondary truth is; if we trust the Bible as truth then we must accept it as a guide for our lives and for our faith. As a guide for our lives it should shape our understanding of the world and our role in the world.
To understand the Bible it must be viewed as it was intended to be. To do this we must know and understand the genre in which it was written. All books are written in a genre that is specific to them if they are viewed out of context than the meaning and therefore the truth will be lost to that book. The other issue that Placher ties in with genre is the culture barrier. Different cultures not only have different languages but also have different concepts of social conditions. The difference in language obviously is affected during the translation. The different social views provide their own problems. The example Placher provides is that of slavery. He explains that the Jewish idea of slavery was that of an indentured servant; a temporary thing. The colonial American view and therefore most Americans view is that of a permanent ownership of one person over another. This misunderstanding can greatly affect how someone reads and interprets the Bible.
Placher finishes by providing reasons for putting trust into the Bible. First it is another test of faith. Also it consistently makes sense of the world. The most important reason for trusting the Bible is that Christians put their trust in God the source of the Bible.
To truly trust in the Bible a Christian must know the Bible. Christians must fully immerse themselves in the Bible knowing its language and its world. One verse should remind the reader of another and support it, so that there is always something to reference to. The problem with most people who read the Bible today is that they don’t truly know the Bible. Very few people put out the time and effort that it takes to understand such a complex book.
I agree that Knowing and trusting the Bible is a very difficult thing. No matter how much devotion a person could have to God to fully know the Bible seems to be an insurmountable goal. I believe this is why trust is so important with the Bible. Since very few If anyone has ever truly understood everything in the Bible, faith and trust become so important. This faith is what God appreciates and desires most.
Placher provides us with many reasons why people have trouble putting their trust in the Bible. For the most part these reasons are merely misunderstandings of the reading. So to understand and put trust in the Bible the reader must read deeper into the text and find the context and genre in which it is written. Plachers examples were very clear in explaining the reasons why people find it difficult to understand and trust the Bible.
I found Plachers reasoning in social and cultural misunderstandings the most helpful. When he explains the differences of the American view of slavery and the Jewish view of slavery he provided me with a difficulty that I had never heard before. The fact that there is not only the language barrier but also a cultural barrier to create misunderstandings provides even more problems in understanding the Bible.
I felt lead to believe there was more than just the two secondary claims. I feel that there is more to the arguments than is explained in this paper and that he just left the rest out. I feel that he did not provide a counter side to his opinions so the paper is somewhat one sided. Over all I like Plachers paper. He provided well thought out and helpful examples to support his thesis over a difficult subject.
Problems arise when people allow the mind to become the soul determining factor in measuring reality. The first and most obvious problem is that man does not and cannot understand everything. Our knowledge grows exponentially but there is always more and eventually we will reach a limit to things that can be explained through science. Theories and hypothesis are starts but for those that cannot be physically proven there is no hope. The mind works through logic but to explain things of God’s nature, things that surpass mans realities and abilities logic fails man. To understand God only faith and trust can provide any way to measure his reality. Allowing the mind to become the only measure of reality leaves no room for the unexplainable thus any room for God.
Logic and reason are powerful tools of the mind but they can only explain so much. What cannot be experienced by the senses cannot be explained by the mind. Logic can explain the invisible but only as well as it can reason for its existence. Logic allows man to explain the wind but the wind can be felt and its effects seen. The wind may be invisible but it is explainable. How can the mind reason God? God cannot be seen or felt; tasted or smelled, not even heard how then can the mind use reason to rationalize God. Only through faith something independent of the minds logic and reason; something that actually goes against the basis of understanding allows man to understand God.
The standard of measuring reality cannot be only the mind. There is too much that is missed and left out that the mind cannot grasp. It would be a mistake to base all of life in the logic and reason of the mind. The mind is not the soul answer to explaining reality.
Balance is the answer to trying to understand reality. Give material to science and the immaterial to religion. Create a world where the two can coexist harmoniously and then all things can be explained. If both the mind and faith can share in explaining reality more will be explained and less would be left to question if there was only one.
I felt compelled to post this simply because I was already working on track. Anyways just added this so please post and comment.
Is the Bible trustworthy? This is the question that William C. Placher addresses in “Is the bible true?” The goal of his essay is to say that the Bible is true without appealing to the fundamentalist or moderate side of the debate. Placher goes about this by providing examples, from other literary works, explaining misinterpretation in translation, and reasons that people do trust in the Bible.
Placher begins by providing us with two secondary truths that must be accepted if we accept that the bible is true. The first point is; if the Bible is true then what it means is true, and what it means is shaped by the genres in which it is written. The next secondary truth is; if we trust the Bible as truth then we must accept it as a guide for our lives and for our faith. As a guide for our lives it should shape our understanding of the world and our role in the world.
To understand the Bible it must be viewed as it was intended to be. To do this we must know and understand the genre in which it was written. All books are written in a genre that is specific to them if they are viewed out of context than the meaning and therefore the truth will be lost to that book. The other issue that Placher ties in with genre is the culture barrier. Different cultures not only have different languages but also have different concepts of social conditions. The difference in language obviously is affected during the translation. The different social views provide their own problems. The example Placher provides is that of slavery. He explains that the Jewish idea of slavery was that of an indentured servant; a temporary thing. The colonial American view and therefore most Americans view is that of a permanent ownership of one person over another. This misunderstanding can greatly affect how someone reads and interprets the Bible.
Placher finishes by providing reasons for putting trust into the Bible. First it is another test of faith. Also it consistently makes sense of the world. The most important reason for trusting the Bible is that Christians put their trust in God the source of the Bible.
To truly trust in the Bible a Christian must know the Bible. Christians must fully immerse themselves in the Bible knowing its language and its world. One verse should remind the reader of another and support it, so that there is always something to reference to. The problem with most people who read the Bible today is that they don’t truly know the Bible. Very few people put out the time and effort that it takes to understand such a complex book.
I agree that Knowing and trusting the Bible is a very difficult thing. No matter how much devotion a person could have to God to fully know the Bible seems to be an insurmountable goal. I believe this is why trust is so important with the Bible. Since very few If anyone has ever truly understood everything in the Bible, faith and trust become so important. This faith is what God appreciates and desires most.
Placher provides us with many reasons why people have trouble putting their trust in the Bible. For the most part these reasons are merely misunderstandings of the reading. So to understand and put trust in the Bible the reader must read deeper into the text and find the context and genre in which it is written. Plachers examples were very clear in explaining the reasons why people find it difficult to understand and trust the Bible.
I found Plachers reasoning in social and cultural misunderstandings the most helpful. When he explains the differences of the American view of slavery and the Jewish view of slavery he provided me with a difficulty that I had never heard before. The fact that there is not only the language barrier but also a cultural barrier to create misunderstandings provides even more problems in understanding the Bible.
I felt lead to believe there was more than just the two secondary claims. I feel that there is more to the arguments than is explained in this paper and that he just left the rest out. I feel that he did not provide a counter side to his opinions so the paper is somewhat one sided. Over all I like Plachers paper. He provided well thought out and helpful examples to support his thesis over a difficult subject.
The Most Beautiful Thing
Pondering the question when asked in class “what is the most beautiful thing you can think of” I answered “a sunny day”. In my head beauty is a difficult concept to comprehend, physical beauty is obvious and dependent on its interpreter, however I mean to discuss mental beauty. The beauty of a sunny day lay not in its appearance but rather in the fact that is generates bliss. Bliss is the most beautiful thing in my opinion as it not only encompasses aesthetics, but as an emotion allows for pleasure, joy and leads to good things.
In Jordan’s blog he had commented that “understanding” was the most beautiful thing, “understanding that is necessary for a deep emotional relationship that one partakes in with another human being. The most intimate relationships are between people with a profound level of comfort emotionally and mentally”. While understanding does contribute to refined emotional relationships; bliss ultimately contributes to understanding. How can this be? Look at this picture of a child smiling, how is it confirmed that one truly understands another? Through the emotion of smiling.
Bliss contributes to happiness, happiness refines an individual and when happiness is shared with others they experience peace. With this said perhaps the purpose of humanity is bliss, perhaps our true purpose as opposed to analyzing the problems within our world is spreading happiness. I had a conversation with a friend about how our night out was. She said that here life was a "hot-mess" and I laughed. Despite the fact that she may considered her actions that night as dumb or embarrassing she made others laugh, she contributed to everyone having a good night. Thus she spread bliss to all of our friends as we now possess a hilarious memory when looking back on this event. The quote "the pursuit of happiness" may be what we truly yearn for, and be strengthening our social connections with others and creating positive memorable events we contribute to the spreading on happiness from person to person.
In Jordan’s blog he had commented that “understanding” was the most beautiful thing, “understanding that is necessary for a deep emotional relationship that one partakes in with another human being. The most intimate relationships are between people with a profound level of comfort emotionally and mentally”. While understanding does contribute to refined emotional relationships; bliss ultimately contributes to understanding. How can this be? Look at this picture of a child smiling, how is it confirmed that one truly understands another? Through the emotion of smiling.
Bliss contributes to happiness, happiness refines an individual and when happiness is shared with others they experience peace. With this said perhaps the purpose of humanity is bliss, perhaps our true purpose as opposed to analyzing the problems within our world is spreading happiness. I had a conversation with a friend about how our night out was. She said that here life was a "hot-mess" and I laughed. Despite the fact that she may considered her actions that night as dumb or embarrassing she made others laugh, she contributed to everyone having a good night. Thus she spread bliss to all of our friends as we now possess a hilarious memory when looking back on this event. The quote "the pursuit of happiness" may be what we truly yearn for, and be strengthening our social connections with others and creating positive memorable events we contribute to the spreading on happiness from person to person.
Carkstock and Sweet Tarts
I had thought about this for a while and wrote a journal entry briefly commenting upon love however I felt I would share this with my classmates. Through the modern marvels of mass media and Hallmark’s cash crop, Valentines Day; the notion of love within our society has ascended from its physical body, transcended across generations and obtained immortality through its presence as human emotion. In our society we regard love with compassion, the ability to give “birth” to another “being”, an entity that lasts forever. Within Plato’s Symposium, each of the seven participants has expressed his expression and explanation on the being Love. In regards to Socrates’ the presentation of Diotima’s speech creates a notion of love which clearly differs from those expressed by the other participants. Beginning with his genealogy, the seer Diotima remarks on Love as a follower of Aphrodite, a being who is by no means mortal, nor immortal; one that is not one thing and its opposite. Diotima’s Love possesses attributes of its parents, Resource and Poverty, and while Love is a rough and always in a state of need, he is also very resourceful. A love that may live one day and die the next, A love who ultimately lusts for wisdom, a love whose true purpose is to achieve divinity through birth of the mind and body, this is Diotima’s Love. In short Diotima’s love explains the the birth of philosophy, the creation of Love that is truly divine. Diotima presents a love in which sexual pleasure is not the gratification of the act. Diotima believes that procreation between a male and female only contributes to the birth of the body, a being that is mortal. On the other hand, while two man can not procreate, they possess the ability to share ideas (philosophy) which is the true gratification of love. This sharing of ideas between men is a love that is divine and immortal as it contributes to the union of body and mind. In regards to our society Diotima’s Love at first can be viewed as a love that meets no ends, rigid and compassionless. However I find it ironic, as one delves further into her explanation of Love, the love expressed in Diotima’s speech bare compassion for knowledge and creates a divine being, a love that lasts forever. The very characteristics that we attribute to love are those that Diotima had attributed within her speech.
The Cracked Mirror (4/24)
Upon my voyage I sat and stared at that mirror over there. Before one can analyze their world and participate in philosophy they must first truly understand their being. Throughout the duration of our Philosophy class we have identified philosopher expressing their own individual ideas of the arche, being and becoming. From their individual analysis I have concluded that the arche in some cases could be man. While man is not in all things, humans contribute to all to all things. Humans affect the world they live in as all beings within a society, we influence the world around us and from us come life. Humans are always in a state of flux, continually coming in and out of being through life and death, and while man is merely mortal we possess immortal ideal. We give birth to being, creatures, ideas through our mind, through our thoughts.
In the world today I feel that humans are too often influenced by this media based society that they forget they give purpose to all things. Without man, without human ideas this existence would not be possible. As humans before we can analyze the world we must analyze ourselves. We must focus to improve ourselves before we seek to improve others, we must strengthen our bodies through exercise, our minds through literature and our social interactions through friendships.
But where does man start? Where do we start to correct ourselves after being so dependent on the life society has forged us? We start by looking in the mirror. That is how we have to look i- deeper and deeper within our own being. It is said in the bible that you cannot see God because God is not outside, God is within. Humans much search within themselves in order to fully understand their being, understand their purpose. To first step to understanding this purpose comes be understanding oneself in order to understand others. It is by understanding others that society as a whole can be refine.
In the world today I feel that humans are too often influenced by this media based society that they forget they give purpose to all things. Without man, without human ideas this existence would not be possible. As humans before we can analyze the world we must analyze ourselves. We must focus to improve ourselves before we seek to improve others, we must strengthen our bodies through exercise, our minds through literature and our social interactions through friendships.
But where does man start? Where do we start to correct ourselves after being so dependent on the life society has forged us? We start by looking in the mirror. That is how we have to look i- deeper and deeper within our own being. It is said in the bible that you cannot see God because God is not outside, God is within. Humans much search within themselves in order to fully understand their being, understand their purpose. To first step to understanding this purpose comes be understanding oneself in order to understand others. It is by understanding others that society as a whole can be refine.
Time Here It Passes So Slow
Most of you probably do not know this however today is my dad’s birthday. My father and I are intellectuals of such who communicate well through writing. In honor of his birthday I had prepared a piece which I want to share with him and you all, but what does this have to do with Philosophy? I had earlier talked about my problem with friendships of utility. My father according to Aristotle would be considered a friend, I wish well for my dad, this feeling is recognized and the feeling is reciprocal. However he would not just be any other friend, my father is a representation of “The Good” within friendship thus this “gift” is something very important to me as it helps me realize that I do indeed possess deep relationships with individuals and perhaps all relationship initially begin as Utility and evolve as time progresses.
To most people fishing can be described as the act of catching fish for food. To others fishing is an occupation, a tedious job that puts money on the table for one’s family. Some people even view fishing as a competition amongst peers to see who gets the biggest catch. While these definitions are true, fishing can be seen in a much different light. Fishing is an art form, a delicate art form that soothes ones body, mind and soul. Fishing slows down time, especially when fishing with another individual. Going fishing with my father is not just a family tradition, but also an important experience that slows down time. It is an activity that allows me to spend time with my father, making it essential to the growth of the father/son relationship.
As a child spending time with a parent is often taken for granted, the fact that they are always around is often seen as a burden. Parents would always want to plan special activities with their children, trying desperately to make their children conform to a parents own definition of fun. Sure the child often agrees to participate in the certain activity but to he or she it’s just another obstacle that hinders the child from playing outside with his or her friends.
This process continues into adolescence, thus a parent realizes his or her little baby doesn’t want to spend time with them anymore. However, some individuals, setting out on their adventure into young adulthood, realize the time spent with their parents seems to be narrowing. The parents that were once hovering over their child’s every move have now diverted their attention to something else. And the time that once burdened a child seems to flash right before their eyes. Alas, because we are young and will always act stubborn in regard to our parent’s wishes, some parents never allow their child to experience this “lack of time shock”. Some parents continue to persist and schedule activities with their child, hoping that one day their child will understand the significance of their efforts. Like the parent described above, my father never allowed for his son to experience a lack of time shock. Though he was a very busy man and didn’t live near home, my father always put time aside to retain a family tradition that was originally resented by his son. This tradition was fishing. It was the tradition that has plagued the Amaefule family for ten year and was finally accepted six years later. Fishing was the divine force that encouraged the two oldest males in the Amaefule family to put aside their work and spend time with each other.
The tradition of fishing never left the Amaefule family, though the exact location of where the father and his son would fish, the sights, and the smells changed. The song of the lake always remained the same. It was a routine; when it was time to go fishing, the events that would come to pass always played out in the same sequence.
A warm sensation would hit the face and with eyelids shut the oldest son felt the yellow and orange aura of the sun prompting him to fully awaken. Though his body missed its comforting surroundings, he removed himself from bed and peer out an open window. The sky was always clear; not a cloud in sight, the ground; always covered in greenery, provided protection for the sleeping princess. As the son’s eyes gaze from left to right he navigated through the trees and brush, to find the azure princess hidden within the endless greenery. This princess, the lake, would always sing her soothing song which resonated through the cool, brisk air. Though the location was different each year, and the trees, the air, and the lake may have change, the song was never different. The song of the lake always painted the same image of fishing within the oldest son’s mind. A beautiful image followed by a glorious hymn, the song and the vivid image it created was what kept the boy coming back to the lake each year.
It was the lake that commanded the boy to stay year after year, but it was his father’s voice that would lead him to their destination. As always the boy’s father would tell his son when it was the “right time” to head towards the lake. Every year the business man would let out a soft bellow from downstairs which signaled his son to gather his own equipment for the trip. The bellow would creep up the stair and the son would always reply, “Yes Sir”, as if his father was an Admiral in the Navy. The boy would then pack the necessary tool, meet his father downstairs, and the two [father and son] would exit the cabin as quickly as possible.
Like all family traditions there was a series of “rules” that pertained to fishing. My father was a man of law and order, thus he created a tradition within a tradition. Rather than driving from our cabin site to the lake, my father instructed his oldest son, that the two of them would journey to the lake on foot. Of all the rules that surrounded fishing with my father, the one that ticked me off the most was that of “The on Foot Rule”. My father and his oldest son would always complain amongst one another about this rule. Father always said, “Journeying to the lake on foot built character as well as strength”, while his son would argue, “You’re too old and I’m too young for this kind of stuff.” The argument always went on for a good five minutes but the outcome was always the same, “Father knows best.” Father, armed with his fanny pack, compass, map and his sailor’s cap, would always lead the way while his oldest son trailed behind carrying the “necessary equipment”. As they walked along the same path they followed every year father would tell of his own childhood experiences with his father. He would always mention about how his father would carry the necessary equipment while my father would navigate towards the lake. The never ending walk would cease once the lake was in sight. It was then that Father would help his son carry the equipment to the “necessary spot”. The “necessary spot” was the same as every spot that surrounded the shimmering lake. However, father for some reason, always picked the spot farthest away from the trees.
Once we reached our desired spot, my father and his oldest son unpacked the “necessary equipment”, which consisted of: a rod, a spinning reel, a set of lures, hooks, and fishing lines. These were tools father said, “God crafted to make life easy for us fishermen”. Father then proceeded to enter the shallow water of the lake and with delicate hands he attached a lure onto his hook. His oldest son followed close repeating the steps his father had preformed, and together with eyes fixed on the lake around them, they casted their lines. It was then; as the lures soared through the brisk air, and as the light of the sun skimmed across the top of the lake, that time slowed down.
It always seemed as if an eternity had past when my father and his oldest son went fishing. The burdens of the day, the tedious tasks that took place before we arrived at our “necessary spot”, everything that happened that day prior to fishing, had faded away. Only one memory would remain in my mind year after year. It was the smile on my father’s face as the two of us hooked our fish, the smile on his face as the clear water splashed in my face, and the smile on his face as he saw his oldest son grow up year after year. It was those memories of fishing that has allowed my fathers relationship with me to continue to grow, and stay intact. It was our memories of being together that truly defined my concept of fishing.
To most people fishing can be described as the act of catching fish for food. To others fishing is an occupation, a tedious job that puts money on the table for one’s family. Some people even view fishing as a competition amongst peers to see who gets the biggest catch. While these definitions are true, fishing can be seen in a much different light. Fishing is an art form, a delicate art form that soothes ones body, mind and soul. Fishing slows down time, especially when fishing with another individual. Going fishing with my father is not just a family tradition, but also an important experience that slows down time. It is an activity that allows me to spend time with my father, making it essential to the growth of the father/son relationship.
As a child spending time with a parent is often taken for granted, the fact that they are always around is often seen as a burden. Parents would always want to plan special activities with their children, trying desperately to make their children conform to a parents own definition of fun. Sure the child often agrees to participate in the certain activity but to he or she it’s just another obstacle that hinders the child from playing outside with his or her friends.
This process continues into adolescence, thus a parent realizes his or her little baby doesn’t want to spend time with them anymore. However, some individuals, setting out on their adventure into young adulthood, realize the time spent with their parents seems to be narrowing. The parents that were once hovering over their child’s every move have now diverted their attention to something else. And the time that once burdened a child seems to flash right before their eyes. Alas, because we are young and will always act stubborn in regard to our parent’s wishes, some parents never allow their child to experience this “lack of time shock”. Some parents continue to persist and schedule activities with their child, hoping that one day their child will understand the significance of their efforts. Like the parent described above, my father never allowed for his son to experience a lack of time shock. Though he was a very busy man and didn’t live near home, my father always put time aside to retain a family tradition that was originally resented by his son. This tradition was fishing. It was the tradition that has plagued the Amaefule family for ten year and was finally accepted six years later. Fishing was the divine force that encouraged the two oldest males in the Amaefule family to put aside their work and spend time with each other.
The tradition of fishing never left the Amaefule family, though the exact location of where the father and his son would fish, the sights, and the smells changed. The song of the lake always remained the same. It was a routine; when it was time to go fishing, the events that would come to pass always played out in the same sequence.
A warm sensation would hit the face and with eyelids shut the oldest son felt the yellow and orange aura of the sun prompting him to fully awaken. Though his body missed its comforting surroundings, he removed himself from bed and peer out an open window. The sky was always clear; not a cloud in sight, the ground; always covered in greenery, provided protection for the sleeping princess. As the son’s eyes gaze from left to right he navigated through the trees and brush, to find the azure princess hidden within the endless greenery. This princess, the lake, would always sing her soothing song which resonated through the cool, brisk air. Though the location was different each year, and the trees, the air, and the lake may have change, the song was never different. The song of the lake always painted the same image of fishing within the oldest son’s mind. A beautiful image followed by a glorious hymn, the song and the vivid image it created was what kept the boy coming back to the lake each year.
It was the lake that commanded the boy to stay year after year, but it was his father’s voice that would lead him to their destination. As always the boy’s father would tell his son when it was the “right time” to head towards the lake. Every year the business man would let out a soft bellow from downstairs which signaled his son to gather his own equipment for the trip. The bellow would creep up the stair and the son would always reply, “Yes Sir”, as if his father was an Admiral in the Navy. The boy would then pack the necessary tool, meet his father downstairs, and the two [father and son] would exit the cabin as quickly as possible.
Like all family traditions there was a series of “rules” that pertained to fishing. My father was a man of law and order, thus he created a tradition within a tradition. Rather than driving from our cabin site to the lake, my father instructed his oldest son, that the two of them would journey to the lake on foot. Of all the rules that surrounded fishing with my father, the one that ticked me off the most was that of “The on Foot Rule”. My father and his oldest son would always complain amongst one another about this rule. Father always said, “Journeying to the lake on foot built character as well as strength”, while his son would argue, “You’re too old and I’m too young for this kind of stuff.” The argument always went on for a good five minutes but the outcome was always the same, “Father knows best.” Father, armed with his fanny pack, compass, map and his sailor’s cap, would always lead the way while his oldest son trailed behind carrying the “necessary equipment”. As they walked along the same path they followed every year father would tell of his own childhood experiences with his father. He would always mention about how his father would carry the necessary equipment while my father would navigate towards the lake. The never ending walk would cease once the lake was in sight. It was then that Father would help his son carry the equipment to the “necessary spot”. The “necessary spot” was the same as every spot that surrounded the shimmering lake. However, father for some reason, always picked the spot farthest away from the trees.
Once we reached our desired spot, my father and his oldest son unpacked the “necessary equipment”, which consisted of: a rod, a spinning reel, a set of lures, hooks, and fishing lines. These were tools father said, “God crafted to make life easy for us fishermen”. Father then proceeded to enter the shallow water of the lake and with delicate hands he attached a lure onto his hook. His oldest son followed close repeating the steps his father had preformed, and together with eyes fixed on the lake around them, they casted their lines. It was then; as the lures soared through the brisk air, and as the light of the sun skimmed across the top of the lake, that time slowed down.
It always seemed as if an eternity had past when my father and his oldest son went fishing. The burdens of the day, the tedious tasks that took place before we arrived at our “necessary spot”, everything that happened that day prior to fishing, had faded away. Only one memory would remain in my mind year after year. It was the smile on my father’s face as the two of us hooked our fish, the smile on his face as the clear water splashed in my face, and the smile on his face as he saw his oldest son grow up year after year. It was those memories of fishing that has allowed my fathers relationship with me to continue to grow, and stay intact. It was our memories of being together that truly defined my concept of fishing.
Is Homosexuality acceptable by Christianity?
Continuing with my spontaneous posting of unconnected ideas I wanted to do a blog post on homosexuality. In class today we discussed the notion of homosexuality within the Greek culture, through the concept of the “lover-beloved” theory. As a Christian I do possess a bias towards homosexuality due to a combination of religious and moral ideals. However today I read an article by Richard Hays and he shed some light on the subject of homosexuality in Christianity which sparked my interest.
Homosexuality is a subject that many Christians struggle with. Richard B. Hays wrote this article after his friend who was a homosexual Christian died of aids. His friend had struggled with his identity as a homosexual person and his belief in Christianity. Hays wrote his article to state the bibles position on homosexuality and to express what the true churches response to homosexuality should be.
Hays provides a biblical stance on homosexuality through references from the bible. He begins by stating that the bible actually rarely discusses homosexuality. He starts with Genesis19:1-29, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although homosexuality is mentioned in this story it is merely that, mentioned. The next reference is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. These references leave no question that homosexuality is wrong. This reference cannot be held as absolute for Christian ethics and is disputed because it was in the old testament and many religious laws from then were merely cleansing law or purity laws that were abolished with the establishment of the new covenant with Christ. Reasons for its dispute are that there was no distinction between purity laws and moral laws so it is unknown which category homosexuality would fall under.
Homosexuality in the New Testament is discussed as well. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are verses where the early church describes homosexuality based on Old Testament. The last and most important text for the issue is found in Romans 1:18-32. This verse is the only verse that truly condemns homosexuality as wrong and therefore sin.
The true argument that surrounds the issue of homosexuality is whether or not it is a choice or a human condition. We must know if people are born homosexual or if it is a learned and personal choice. The theological argument is that all people are born with sin which is a rebellion against God. This rebellion is then manifested in a rebellion against the natural order of things through the desire to be with others of the same sex. Judging by this the outward act becomes a mirror for the inward spiritual struggle between doing God’s will or doing what mans nature allows; and rebel. Many people argue that the New Testament only condemns promiscuous and exploitive homosexual behavior. This belief is most likely not true and to categorize the behavior as different for certain occasions or instances is just an attempt at finding a loop hole.
There are several keys to understand in this argument. The first key to remember is that all sin is the same; there is no greater or lesser sin. We have judged homosexuality as a sin but all people sin; most on a daily basis. The fall of man condemns all to sin and the natural rebellion of man against God, homosexuality is like a physical manifestation of that sin. Secondly everyone sins no one can judge and should leave that to God. Lastly the church should accept homosexual members because even though many openly sin they are the same as anyone else if you remember that all sin is the same. Everyone is a captive of sin born into it so no matter if it is a free choice or a forced behavior it is subject to God’s wrath.
Hays friend came to the conclusion that the only solution to keep from sin was abstinence. In fact for all people abstinence should be practiced to remain faithful to God, not just for homosexuals. The only true solution for homosexuals however is celibacy.
In the end the church should embrace Homosexual people as brothers and sisters in Christ. The church should not focus on the sin but on the people. We all sin and no sin is different so acceptance is the solution to the argument.
This article has truly changed my perspective on things. I had never thought of homosexuality as merely sin. I always got involved in arguing over whether it was a choice or not and didn’t get past the fact that in the end all sin is equal. Hearing the bibles official stance on the matter is very helpful as well. It provides a foundation to view the whole situation from. Reading this article has given me a new view point on the matter and I am thankful that I have read it.
Homosexuality is a subject that many Christians struggle with. Richard B. Hays wrote this article after his friend who was a homosexual Christian died of aids. His friend had struggled with his identity as a homosexual person and his belief in Christianity. Hays wrote his article to state the bibles position on homosexuality and to express what the true churches response to homosexuality should be.
Hays provides a biblical stance on homosexuality through references from the bible. He begins by stating that the bible actually rarely discusses homosexuality. He starts with Genesis19:1-29, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although homosexuality is mentioned in this story it is merely that, mentioned. The next reference is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. These references leave no question that homosexuality is wrong. This reference cannot be held as absolute for Christian ethics and is disputed because it was in the old testament and many religious laws from then were merely cleansing law or purity laws that were abolished with the establishment of the new covenant with Christ. Reasons for its dispute are that there was no distinction between purity laws and moral laws so it is unknown which category homosexuality would fall under.
Homosexuality in the New Testament is discussed as well. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are verses where the early church describes homosexuality based on Old Testament. The last and most important text for the issue is found in Romans 1:18-32. This verse is the only verse that truly condemns homosexuality as wrong and therefore sin.
The true argument that surrounds the issue of homosexuality is whether or not it is a choice or a human condition. We must know if people are born homosexual or if it is a learned and personal choice. The theological argument is that all people are born with sin which is a rebellion against God. This rebellion is then manifested in a rebellion against the natural order of things through the desire to be with others of the same sex. Judging by this the outward act becomes a mirror for the inward spiritual struggle between doing God’s will or doing what mans nature allows; and rebel. Many people argue that the New Testament only condemns promiscuous and exploitive homosexual behavior. This belief is most likely not true and to categorize the behavior as different for certain occasions or instances is just an attempt at finding a loop hole.
There are several keys to understand in this argument. The first key to remember is that all sin is the same; there is no greater or lesser sin. We have judged homosexuality as a sin but all people sin; most on a daily basis. The fall of man condemns all to sin and the natural rebellion of man against God, homosexuality is like a physical manifestation of that sin. Secondly everyone sins no one can judge and should leave that to God. Lastly the church should accept homosexual members because even though many openly sin they are the same as anyone else if you remember that all sin is the same. Everyone is a captive of sin born into it so no matter if it is a free choice or a forced behavior it is subject to God’s wrath.
Hays friend came to the conclusion that the only solution to keep from sin was abstinence. In fact for all people abstinence should be practiced to remain faithful to God, not just for homosexuals. The only true solution for homosexuals however is celibacy.
In the end the church should embrace Homosexual people as brothers and sisters in Christ. The church should not focus on the sin but on the people. We all sin and no sin is different so acceptance is the solution to the argument.
This article has truly changed my perspective on things. I had never thought of homosexuality as merely sin. I always got involved in arguing over whether it was a choice or not and didn’t get past the fact that in the end all sin is equal. Hearing the bibles official stance on the matter is very helpful as well. It provides a foundation to view the whole situation from. Reading this article has given me a new view point on the matter and I am thankful that I have read it.
Ascension: Shall We Depart (3/24)
As I was trolling Steven’s blog earlier today I stumbled upon and intriguing question. Steven asked the question “can one become god-like?” I believed one can’t fathom the idea of being God-Like as there is no concrete knowledge as to what qualifies an individual for such a position. Sure we have developed our own notion as to what defines a god, but is it truly the arsenal of ethereal abilities that defines a god or is it something more. In agreement with Aristotle, I believe that through contemplation and analyzation we as humans can detach our selfs from our mortal plight. To some this is merely a foolish assumption; I am not saying that simply by looking at our world we will become god-like, but I do believe there is one quality of “godly-hood” that can be adopted by morals and that is the quality of knowledge.
We are able to obtain knowledge through experience, learning, and analysis, I feel if humans took the time to depart from the stresses of their lives and merely contemplated about the problems of the world they would obtain a vast amount of knowledge. Imagine the idea of a god as a savior or an individual who could rescue you from your failures, now take into consideration and ill person. By researching and obtaining knowledge on this individual’s illness you possess the ability to find a cure. By delivering a cure and healing this person you have no benefited that individual but society as you present a cure for all other possessing the illness. You then become a hero, a champion, a savior. So if our only interpretation of a god was that of a savior whom provides miracles it is safe to say a doctor, engineer, or individual of any particular profession who solves a problem could be considered god-like as they have obtained vast knowledge and through this knowledge have generated a solution.
We are able to obtain knowledge through experience, learning, and analysis, I feel if humans took the time to depart from the stresses of their lives and merely contemplated about the problems of the world they would obtain a vast amount of knowledge. Imagine the idea of a god as a savior or an individual who could rescue you from your failures, now take into consideration and ill person. By researching and obtaining knowledge on this individual’s illness you possess the ability to find a cure. By delivering a cure and healing this person you have no benefited that individual but society as you present a cure for all other possessing the illness. You then become a hero, a champion, a savior. So if our only interpretation of a god was that of a savior whom provides miracles it is safe to say a doctor, engineer, or individual of any particular profession who solves a problem could be considered god-like as they have obtained vast knowledge and through this knowledge have generated a solution.
A Brief Analytical Pause
Before we continue on with our philosophical voyage we must take a brief pause to analyze a conceptual flaw within our college community. Reminiscing on an early discussion in class I remember sharing a few beliefs about Baylor Universities Chapel with a few of my classmates. Here at Baylor, chapel is a mandatory “spiritual” gathering which students must attend. As a freshman I despised chapel not because of it’s content, but merely because it was a waste of my precious time. However as I progressed through school I began to notice a critical flaw with chapel. Correct me if I am wrong, but the purpose of chapel is to unite Baylor students, primarily Baylor freshmen, within a Christian setting and offer meditation, reflection and comfort to students in opposition of their rigorous curriculum. Taken from the literal context this seems like an amazing program, however, here at Baylor a few critical flaw prevent chapel from actually being a worthwhile activity for the masses. For starters chapel attendance is mandatory, with that alone the activity has already lost its steam. Mandatory chapel with continuous attendance by all students for two semesters; in making chapel mandatory some students possess feeling of animosity towards the activity. Along with this feeling, mandatory attendance also bring student who generally “don’t want to be here” to the playing field and as a freshman I was one of those students. I would skip chapel as often as possible and when I was forced to go (due to the possibility of failing) I would often pass out in the back of the chapel. It was not until I started going to sleep on time that I realized the sheer significance of chapel as a meditation tool. So what’s my point, simple, Baylor should not make chapel mandatory. If it is of failing) I would often pass out in the back of the chapel. It was not until I started going to sleep on time that I realized the sheer significance of chapel as a meditation tool. So what’s my point, simple, Baylor should not make chapel mandatory. If it is mandatory Baylor does not reach its purpose of true praise and worship also in the worst situation, students who do not want to be at chapel are merely distractions. Now I am not saying lets get rid of chapel, that’s asinine, chapel is a treasured therapeutic tool. However what I would rather support would be a chapel service two times a week, at various times going on at campus. Similar to the current chapel system however there is no attendance, students from all age groups are welcome and the grandiosity of the activity is reduced. I feel that only when this is done, will chapel be an efficient experience for all individuals who choose to partake.
- Note 2/24
- Note 2/24
As We Set Sail (1/24)
I am on a voyage, but not in the conventional sense. From your perspective there is no ship, no sea, no crew but perhaps there is. Perhaps I am the ship, perhaps life is my sea and perhaps purpose is my destination. I find as we live within this material world we, as humans, often lose sight of our “purpose”. But how can one blame us, do we even have a particular purpose? Are there rules and regulation as to how to obtain this purpose? Of course there are laws, religions and literature which express views on purpose and attainability but these views are presented by other humans. Other individuals caught up within a materialistic world, beings that are merely products of their own society. For these individuals “purpose” was merely an ends created by oppression and social factors of their respective times. Take the example of a college student. Throughout your college career you are met with choices and instructions as to how you should live your college life. You are often instructed by your friends, family and advisor on a career path. With external influences such as the media and society, you affirm your belief in a field of interest. Thus you pursue a major in order to find a career which presents pleasure to you. One can say you go to college in order to obtain higher education which can be used in a career, you obtain a career to in order to provide for yourself and in some cases you strive to provide for loved ones and family. In essence life presents individuals with miniscule goals to achieve in order to achieve yet another goal, but is this truly all there is to life? Is the pursuit of goals one’s purpose? Do we live only to fulfill tasks? These questions have troubled humanity for millennia and with such inquiries came the study of philosophy. Philosophy, as literature, law and in some cases religion, presents us with such purpose; aids us in understanding the problems present in society, as well as problems that we possess within ourselves. I feel that through philosophy and only through philosophy will one truly find purpose in life. However my philosophy calls for each individual to embark on a voyage, a philosophical voyage in which one journeys through life in order to seek purpose. There is more to life that simply fulfilling goals, society has caught humans within its grasps and philosophical voyage is the only means by which we can free ourselves from a vicious cycle of purpose established by society. Our purpose can only be obtained by departing from this material world and analyzing it as an individual in disconnect, our voyages will present us with true purpose, they will present us with true meaning, they will present us with solutions to the problems within our lives. For problem solving in essence is the true purpose of humanity, however we have been entangled in a web of lies that shrouds this revelation from taking place.
- Note 1/24
- Note 1/24
Monday, January 18, 2010
Letters from the Voyage...
The quote, "hello everyone, I am...", is by far the worst, if not most boring means of introducing yourself to any individual; regardless of race, age, or social class. Introductions should be exciting, unique and entirely original to their owners. This society, however, has once again found a way to trump my ideals with the "reverse personification" of words. I would like to believe a human is "more than words can describe", though as of recent, individuals have often been associated with a word or any compilation of words. In respects to our social paradigm, I am "sarcastic", "laid-back", "out-spoken", "flirtatious", or any other selection of words that can describe "Christopher Amaefule", from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Nevertheless, In respects to my own ideals I will present you all with a more appropriate introduction (also I promise to never refer to myself in the third person again).
I am a 20 year old college student, at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. I recently enrolled in
Dr. Bowery's class in order to gain some insight as to how all these "crazy guys" became famous, as well as, better understand "society's influence" on the human paradigm over the years. Apart from my interests within the constraints of class, I enjoy hanging out with my friends, sports, exercise and many forms of creativity; from writing to drawing to even singing, I guess you can say I enjoy expressing myself through various media. Over the course of the semester I will post various works that correspond to information which we have discussed in class, please comment on these artworks and lets get to know each other pretty well.
- Chris
I am a 20 year old college student, at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. I recently enrolled in
Dr. Bowery's class in order to gain some insight as to how all these "crazy guys" became famous, as well as, better understand "society's influence" on the human paradigm over the years. Apart from my interests within the constraints of class, I enjoy hanging out with my friends, sports, exercise and many forms of creativity; from writing to drawing to even singing, I guess you can say I enjoy expressing myself through various media. Over the course of the semester I will post various works that correspond to information which we have discussed in class, please comment on these artworks and lets get to know each other pretty well.
- Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
