Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Turning the other cheek
The noting of "turning the other cheek" stems from Matthew 5:39 (also Luke 6:29 in some translations). Not too long ago, I was thinking about the phrase "turn the other cheek." I don't think that Jesus intended for us to subject ourselves to wanton abuse. He did, after all, instruct his disciples to shake the dust from their sandals if a town does not receive them. He didn't tell them to retaliate, but he didn't tell them to remain in a hostile situation.
So what does this have to do with turning the other cheek? Maybe the idea is that we should deflect the blow, but not retaliate. Instead of standing there in defiance to the punch, why not turn your head in the direction opposite the blow. If you are about to be hit on the right cheek, turn your left cheek away from the blow. Deflect the brunt, absorbe the rest. Be at peace with yourself, knowing that you did what you could do and do not allow yourself to be provoked to negative actions. So, turn the other cheek away from the attack. Maintain the peace and do not retaliate so that you may act in love and turn away wrath with your soft response.
So what does this have to do with turning the other cheek? Maybe the idea is that we should deflect the blow, but not retaliate. Instead of standing there in defiance to the punch, why not turn your head in the direction opposite the blow. If you are about to be hit on the right cheek, turn your left cheek away from the blow. Deflect the brunt, absorbe the rest. Be at peace with yourself, knowing that you did what you could do and do not allow yourself to be provoked to negative actions. So, turn the other cheek away from the attack. Maintain the peace and do not retaliate so that you may act in love and turn away wrath with your soft response.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The "sins" of the parents
Ok, so within the last few weeks or so, I was talking to my mother on the phone. (It's not that I have some form of "confirmed bachelor" mother-worship going on; it's just that there is an irony in the fact that she indoctrinated me to the extreme and yet it's her parlance that dis-indoctrinates me.) Anyway, she made this comment about the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation, etc, etc. The context was one of those situations that can't be discussed in detail (see notes to the right), but suffice it to say that the discerning reader already has enough info to draw an inference. So as I was say... I promptly corrected and informed her that a more proper translation is iniquity. I knew the verse, but couldn't recall its location so I googled it and came up with Exodus 20:5-6. Hmm, seems like there were some others appearances as well. Maybe I'm come across them as I am simultaneously reading a particular Google result (incidentally, it was the first item in the search results). Ok, so I'm reading this transcript of a call-in radio show. I was starting to write the commentator off the page, but then he hits on another verse familiar to me from Ezekiel 18. It mentions the fathers eating "sour grapes" that "puckers" the children's mouths. But then Ezekiel writes that God says not to use that saying any longer. I've always taken this to be highly revealing about the nature of God. God is good. God is love. So is it in the nature of a good and loving God to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty? No.
So back to the misquotation. I'm looking through various English translations online, and I find that New Intl Ver., Message, New Living Trans., New Life Ver., Holman, New Intl. Readers Ver., and Today's New Intl Ver. (TNIV) were the ones that used the word sins. The other translations all used iniquity. Another thing I noticed was that the sins translations were all very recent translations. The oldest copyright that I saw for these was 1969. So it is a new convention, and one, I would argue, that was influenced by the end-time apocalyptic evangelicals who perceive and preach God as a hard-line judge of good and evil. I disagree with this approach. God is good and evil is not a part of God. So what purpose is there in judging something that is clear-cut? Rather, God does not judge good and evil in the book of Revelations, but rather the character and nature of each individual. Some would call this their "soul". And it follows that a belief that the world is living in the "last days" [sic] necessitates a belief that God's judgment is near. Therefore, there is a greater emphasis in sin, righteousness, etc, etc. The problem with this is that it ignores the essence of God's judgment. Mankind was created in God's image. This doesn't mean that we look like God--that is nonsense. God is spirit only and has no innate physical form. (But before anyone argues, yes, I acknowledge that God can arbitrarily take any form.) I have said for quite some time that this idea of image refers not to form but to concept, which is to say, an artist, borrowing from Plato and Aristotle's metaphysics, in the same manner that an artist conceives the idea of his painting in his mind before actually painting it, so God conceived the idea of humans before engaging in the act of creation. Both the artist's painting and God's creation, therefore, are created, or fabricated, according to a mental design, or image. Plato and Aristotle both wrestled with which of these is the true essence and form. The idea is always more perfect than the manifestation, but the manifestation is always more concrete than the idea. So in relation to God, what is God judging--the concept/image that was his pattern or the work that was produced from the pattern? I am becoming more convinced that God's judgment is largely about measuring the conformity of the opus with respect to the idea. In this line, there is a Biblical simile comparing God to a potter who, if not satisfied with the opus, elects to obliterate the form and being anew. And one could argue this as an echo of the flood recorded in Genesis. This could be further applied to the concept of salvation and baptism. But the idea here is that the creator's estimation of the manifestation of his concept is the basis of whether the work is good or bad. It is the suitability of the manifestation that is being judged, and suitability is open to interpretation as to fitness for a particular purpose or degree of similarity in form. This is to say, which is more important, a vase that doesn't leak or a vase that leaks, but is true to the artists mental image? Neither is a more valid basis than the other and the determination exists with the fabricator for only the fabricator foreknew the purpose of his creative expression. But with humans, the creator also designed free will, and free will includes the option to accept or not to accept any given interpretation, including this one. And even though it seem like this has nothing to do with the original premise of this blog, it is this: Who is to say what God is truly judging? Good is good. God is love. God is a father. Does a man punish a puppy because the dog relieved itself on the carpet? No. And as Jesus himself said about a father not giving his son a stone when he is asked for bread, if even we understand this much, how much more does God show his love to us? Loving relationships are about acceptance and presence rather than judgment and exclusion. So God's judgment and punishment is only an infinitesimal part of his Divinity. The apostle Peter writes in his second epistle that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God's desire is not to condemn. But judgment is a key part of end-time theology, which in turn casts God in a harsher light. Likewise, believing firmly in God's judgment and wrath fosters a works-based approach to righteousness because this judgment is either based on good or bad deeds, or based on the goodness or evilness of one's soul, which is also manifested in one's deeds, as expressed by the Apostle James who wrote that fresh water does not come from an unclean well. So good deeds are perceived to be indicative of goodness of soul. Likewise, bad deeds should be evidence of internal corruption. I argue, however, that Christians want to accept the first part and avoid the second because each person wants to believe that s/he is good. But Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned and fallen short of God's standard, and this is plainly depressing, which runs contrary to the belief that Christians should rejoice in the hope that comes through Christ. As a result, there is a tendency to re-apportion logic as it applies to theology and Scripture. If we have all sinned, then how does Person A have an assurance that he will attain Heaven and Person B will not? The true answer is that this is known in the heart, not in the mind, but the mind demands empirical (observable) proof. This leads to better-than comparisons, which leads to a false-contrapositive statement of the logic. Person A is does good things, so Person A much be a good person. Person B does bad things, so Person B must not be a good person. Notice that I did not say Person B was a bad person, just that Person B was not good. Adding to this the American belief that efforts yield results and that all adversity can be overcome though perseverance (i.e. work hard, spend wisely, and be successful). In other words, results come through purposed acts. The conclusion is that deeds are rewarded and it becomes convenient to believe that the same is true of bad results (i.e. homicide results in incarceration). And it is also acknowledged that life deals certain "hands" that are undesirable and insurmountable as in the case of debilitating birth defects. But for non-debilitating impediments, American society expects that the afflicted person work harder to overcome that adversity. This fits hand-in-glove with the notion that life deals no one a perfect hand and each person has his/her own obstacles to overcome. Some would argue that this is a coping mechanism to deal with socio-economic disparities. But this works-minded approach in conjunction with end-time theology to view circumstance as a product of indirect choice. This, I believe, explains the modern sin interpretation of what was rendered iniquity for centuries. It is more agreeable to believe that undesirable circumstance is produced by action. But this approach minimizes the reality that bad events do happen to undeserving people which emphasizing that bad circumstances are produced by bad choices. Unfortunately, reconciling this with a premise of equal opportunity to overcome adversity produces a conclusion that children can be forced to suffer for an ancestor's badness, but God's nature has already been argued to the opposite. Nonetheless, end-time mindsets predispose the individual to choose an interpretation that casts God in a more judgmental depiction and thusly, iniquity becomes sin, which emphasizes choice over condition. A father commits a crime and in incarcerated. As a result, a child grows up without a paternal figure in his formative years. He does suffer the secondary effects of his father's choice. And his father's iniquity effects his life, which in turn effects his children's lives, and even the lives of his children's children. Similarly, genetic anomalies can manifest repeatedly in descendants. In fact, a study was released just this year (2008) that all individuals with blue eyes have a single common ancestor who had acquired a genetic mutation that turned his brown melanin to blue (melanin is the same substance that causes skin to tan...which never tans any color other than brown). God is good. God is love. God cannot hold a child accountable for the sins of a parent. However, earth and mankind exist in a "fallen" state. Free will created a state of existence in which bad events could befall an undeserving party. Free will continues to inflict suffering on undeserving parties. Free will not only accounts for the Fall, but perpetuates the fall. Because of the "fallen" state, bad events happen to undeserving persons. These people were created in the image of God though Adam. Christ was a second Adam. Christ innocently suffered all the wrongs of the fallen world to provide hope though belief in Him, who abided in love, not judgment. God is love. When judgment comes, are we to be judged for our sin? No. We are justified through faith in God and his Son, the quintessential embodiment of love. We are saved by this faith and not by works (Romans 9, Ephesians 2). Salvation, not sin, is the criterion. This recalls the Platonic/Aristotelian argument of the greater reality--concept or manifestation. The former is conceivable while the second is knowable (provable). It is easier for the contemporary Christian to accept the concreteness of sin than it is the abstractness of iniquity.
And so I wonder, when my mother commented that the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation, etc, etc....was she including herself?
So back to the misquotation. I'm looking through various English translations online, and I find that New Intl Ver., Message, New Living Trans., New Life Ver., Holman, New Intl. Readers Ver., and Today's New Intl Ver. (TNIV) were the ones that used the word sins. The other translations all used iniquity. Another thing I noticed was that the sins translations were all very recent translations. The oldest copyright that I saw for these was 1969. So it is a new convention, and one, I would argue, that was influenced by the end-time apocalyptic evangelicals who perceive and preach God as a hard-line judge of good and evil. I disagree with this approach. God is good and evil is not a part of God. So what purpose is there in judging something that is clear-cut? Rather, God does not judge good and evil in the book of Revelations, but rather the character and nature of each individual. Some would call this their "soul". And it follows that a belief that the world is living in the "last days" [sic] necessitates a belief that God's judgment is near. Therefore, there is a greater emphasis in sin, righteousness, etc, etc. The problem with this is that it ignores the essence of God's judgment. Mankind was created in God's image. This doesn't mean that we look like God--that is nonsense. God is spirit only and has no innate physical form. (But before anyone argues, yes, I acknowledge that God can arbitrarily take any form.) I have said for quite some time that this idea of image refers not to form but to concept, which is to say, an artist, borrowing from Plato and Aristotle's metaphysics, in the same manner that an artist conceives the idea of his painting in his mind before actually painting it, so God conceived the idea of humans before engaging in the act of creation. Both the artist's painting and God's creation, therefore, are created, or fabricated, according to a mental design, or image. Plato and Aristotle both wrestled with which of these is the true essence and form. The idea is always more perfect than the manifestation, but the manifestation is always more concrete than the idea. So in relation to God, what is God judging--the concept/image that was his pattern or the work that was produced from the pattern? I am becoming more convinced that God's judgment is largely about measuring the conformity of the opus with respect to the idea. In this line, there is a Biblical simile comparing God to a potter who, if not satisfied with the opus, elects to obliterate the form and being anew. And one could argue this as an echo of the flood recorded in Genesis. This could be further applied to the concept of salvation and baptism. But the idea here is that the creator's estimation of the manifestation of his concept is the basis of whether the work is good or bad. It is the suitability of the manifestation that is being judged, and suitability is open to interpretation as to fitness for a particular purpose or degree of similarity in form. This is to say, which is more important, a vase that doesn't leak or a vase that leaks, but is true to the artists mental image? Neither is a more valid basis than the other and the determination exists with the fabricator for only the fabricator foreknew the purpose of his creative expression. But with humans, the creator also designed free will, and free will includes the option to accept or not to accept any given interpretation, including this one. And even though it seem like this has nothing to do with the original premise of this blog, it is this: Who is to say what God is truly judging? Good is good. God is love. God is a father. Does a man punish a puppy because the dog relieved itself on the carpet? No. And as Jesus himself said about a father not giving his son a stone when he is asked for bread, if even we understand this much, how much more does God show his love to us? Loving relationships are about acceptance and presence rather than judgment and exclusion. So God's judgment and punishment is only an infinitesimal part of his Divinity. The apostle Peter writes in his second epistle that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God's desire is not to condemn. But judgment is a key part of end-time theology, which in turn casts God in a harsher light. Likewise, believing firmly in God's judgment and wrath fosters a works-based approach to righteousness because this judgment is either based on good or bad deeds, or based on the goodness or evilness of one's soul, which is also manifested in one's deeds, as expressed by the Apostle James who wrote that fresh water does not come from an unclean well. So good deeds are perceived to be indicative of goodness of soul. Likewise, bad deeds should be evidence of internal corruption. I argue, however, that Christians want to accept the first part and avoid the second because each person wants to believe that s/he is good. But Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned and fallen short of God's standard, and this is plainly depressing, which runs contrary to the belief that Christians should rejoice in the hope that comes through Christ. As a result, there is a tendency to re-apportion logic as it applies to theology and Scripture. If we have all sinned, then how does Person A have an assurance that he will attain Heaven and Person B will not? The true answer is that this is known in the heart, not in the mind, but the mind demands empirical (observable) proof. This leads to better-than comparisons, which leads to a false-contrapositive statement of the logic. Person A is does good things, so Person A much be a good person. Person B does bad things, so Person B must not be a good person. Notice that I did not say Person B was a bad person, just that Person B was not good. Adding to this the American belief that efforts yield results and that all adversity can be overcome though perseverance (i.e. work hard, spend wisely, and be successful). In other words, results come through purposed acts. The conclusion is that deeds are rewarded and it becomes convenient to believe that the same is true of bad results (i.e. homicide results in incarceration). And it is also acknowledged that life deals certain "hands" that are undesirable and insurmountable as in the case of debilitating birth defects. But for non-debilitating impediments, American society expects that the afflicted person work harder to overcome that adversity. This fits hand-in-glove with the notion that life deals no one a perfect hand and each person has his/her own obstacles to overcome. Some would argue that this is a coping mechanism to deal with socio-economic disparities. But this works-minded approach in conjunction with end-time theology to view circumstance as a product of indirect choice. This, I believe, explains the modern sin interpretation of what was rendered iniquity for centuries. It is more agreeable to believe that undesirable circumstance is produced by action. But this approach minimizes the reality that bad events do happen to undeserving people which emphasizing that bad circumstances are produced by bad choices. Unfortunately, reconciling this with a premise of equal opportunity to overcome adversity produces a conclusion that children can be forced to suffer for an ancestor's badness, but God's nature has already been argued to the opposite. Nonetheless, end-time mindsets predispose the individual to choose an interpretation that casts God in a more judgmental depiction and thusly, iniquity becomes sin, which emphasizes choice over condition. A father commits a crime and in incarcerated. As a result, a child grows up without a paternal figure in his formative years. He does suffer the secondary effects of his father's choice. And his father's iniquity effects his life, which in turn effects his children's lives, and even the lives of his children's children. Similarly, genetic anomalies can manifest repeatedly in descendants. In fact, a study was released just this year (2008) that all individuals with blue eyes have a single common ancestor who had acquired a genetic mutation that turned his brown melanin to blue (melanin is the same substance that causes skin to tan...which never tans any color other than brown). God is good. God is love. God cannot hold a child accountable for the sins of a parent. However, earth and mankind exist in a "fallen" state. Free will created a state of existence in which bad events could befall an undeserving party. Free will continues to inflict suffering on undeserving parties. Free will not only accounts for the Fall, but perpetuates the fall. Because of the "fallen" state, bad events happen to undeserving persons. These people were created in the image of God though Adam. Christ was a second Adam. Christ innocently suffered all the wrongs of the fallen world to provide hope though belief in Him, who abided in love, not judgment. God is love. When judgment comes, are we to be judged for our sin? No. We are justified through faith in God and his Son, the quintessential embodiment of love. We are saved by this faith and not by works (Romans 9, Ephesians 2). Salvation, not sin, is the criterion. This recalls the Platonic/Aristotelian argument of the greater reality--concept or manifestation. The former is conceivable while the second is knowable (provable). It is easier for the contemporary Christian to accept the concreteness of sin than it is the abstractness of iniquity.
And so I wonder, when my mother commented that the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation, etc, etc....was she including herself?
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Religion, The Government, and Abortion
OK, So I was just thinking about a recent conversation I had. Not too long ago I asked my mother if my half-sister had had her ultrasound to determine the sex of her twins. Mostly I was curious if she and my West-Point graduate brother-in-law were going to have FIVE girls with NO boys! It turns out that she had not had it yet, but since my sister is of a certain age where considering amniocentesis would be within reason, I asked. The answer, a no, is not so worth blogging about. But the reason for it is. According to our mother, there is no reason to have an amniocentesis because--again, according to her--the only reason to have one is if one were going to consider abortion, which she presumptuously surmises, is not on the table, so the risk of having a spontaneous abortion is without merit.
I disagreed, saying that there is justification for amniocentesis, for example, an unviable fetus. I proposed a scenario in which the test revealed that the fetus could not be expected to survive long, even say, up to two years. Death is therefore inevitable and the only result of carrying the pregnancy to term is human suffering. Death is imminent. The matriarch's voice gets stoically cold and austere and says, "Yes, but it matters by whose hand it comes."
Obviously, I disagree. I see such an abortion as a hand of mercy for mother, father, and child. And really, let's look at the religious aspect of this. If it matters by whose hand death comes, what about when blasphemers and homosexuals (et al) were stoned in the Old Testament under Moses' direction? Death comes at the hand of the individuals throwing stones. But I suppose that no one would accuse another of participating in murder if all the men in the community were involved. So is the issue here about consciousness of guilt? Or is it about an abiding fear of being accused (or even being perceived) of having unclean hands? Does this just go back to the early Christian animus against the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ? This is not to say that all Christians feel this way, but it is undeniable that there are those who do...but I digress. This entry is entitled "Religion, The Government, and Abortion." So on to the conclusion.
Why shouldn't abortion be left up to the states to decide? Sure, I have my personal feelings on the issue, but who am I to mandate to another what he or she must do? Ultimately, is it not a tenet of Protestantism that the individual is directly accountable to God for his/her own actions? So if a woman decides or if a couple jointly decide to terminate a pregnancy, is she or they not accountable personally to God? So how does one derive a religious obligation to lobby the government to outlaw abortion? I'm not saying that the government should or should not regulate this or any other issue. Ultimately, democracy is a social contract (Locke, Rousseau, et al) so if the people should decide the scope of government's intrusions. But abortion legality is not the basis of this post. My point is that religion has no theological justification to make elective abortions illegal. Jesus didn't lobby the Roman government to adopt his religious/moral views. His mission time and time again was to educate those who were willing to hear about a higher way. He didn't force his sermons on anyone and there is no record that he shouted at those who didn't want to listen. The closest approximation to this type of behavior is when he ran the money changers and merchants out of the Temple. I have to admit that this is a little subversive, but at the same time, I sort of admire a righteous indignation and hey, organized religion has always needed the corruption driven out so I don't see this as a substantive weakness to my argument. The Gospels record how Jesus principally spoke to the lower class masses, who were perhaps uneducated, but never lobbying the government! I'm not saying that Christians should not lobby their government(s), they have that right as citizens, but to try to take away another citizen's ability to choose right and wrong and to remove his or her personal accountability before God is a slippery slope. It suggests that the Christian believes she is superior to her fellow citizen. And if the Christian is superior to his brother or sister who must therefore be inferred as incapable of making decisions that impact his or her personal standing before God, how then can that person be capable of deciding to have a personal relationship with God? If man is unable to decide moral issues, how can man decide spiritual issues. If his judgement be faulty in one area, how can it be anything less in another area?
But if the religion makes it its mission to educate...then the educated decision is a solid decision. The same free will that establishes a personal relationship with a deity is the same free will that allows one to choose not to have that relationship, and it's the same free will that allows one to choose a personal relationship with God and also decide moral issues that might run contrary thereto. So, religion is at its best when it governs least.
I disagreed, saying that there is justification for amniocentesis, for example, an unviable fetus. I proposed a scenario in which the test revealed that the fetus could not be expected to survive long, even say, up to two years. Death is therefore inevitable and the only result of carrying the pregnancy to term is human suffering. Death is imminent. The matriarch's voice gets stoically cold and austere and says, "Yes, but it matters by whose hand it comes."
Obviously, I disagree. I see such an abortion as a hand of mercy for mother, father, and child. And really, let's look at the religious aspect of this. If it matters by whose hand death comes, what about when blasphemers and homosexuals (et al) were stoned in the Old Testament under Moses' direction? Death comes at the hand of the individuals throwing stones. But I suppose that no one would accuse another of participating in murder if all the men in the community were involved. So is the issue here about consciousness of guilt? Or is it about an abiding fear of being accused (or even being perceived) of having unclean hands? Does this just go back to the early Christian animus against the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ? This is not to say that all Christians feel this way, but it is undeniable that there are those who do...but I digress. This entry is entitled "Religion, The Government, and Abortion." So on to the conclusion.
Why shouldn't abortion be left up to the states to decide? Sure, I have my personal feelings on the issue, but who am I to mandate to another what he or she must do? Ultimately, is it not a tenet of Protestantism that the individual is directly accountable to God for his/her own actions? So if a woman decides or if a couple jointly decide to terminate a pregnancy, is she or they not accountable personally to God? So how does one derive a religious obligation to lobby the government to outlaw abortion? I'm not saying that the government should or should not regulate this or any other issue. Ultimately, democracy is a social contract (Locke, Rousseau, et al) so if the people should decide the scope of government's intrusions. But abortion legality is not the basis of this post. My point is that religion has no theological justification to make elective abortions illegal. Jesus didn't lobby the Roman government to adopt his religious/moral views. His mission time and time again was to educate those who were willing to hear about a higher way. He didn't force his sermons on anyone and there is no record that he shouted at those who didn't want to listen. The closest approximation to this type of behavior is when he ran the money changers and merchants out of the Temple. I have to admit that this is a little subversive, but at the same time, I sort of admire a righteous indignation and hey, organized religion has always needed the corruption driven out so I don't see this as a substantive weakness to my argument. The Gospels record how Jesus principally spoke to the lower class masses, who were perhaps uneducated, but never lobbying the government! I'm not saying that Christians should not lobby their government(s), they have that right as citizens, but to try to take away another citizen's ability to choose right and wrong and to remove his or her personal accountability before God is a slippery slope. It suggests that the Christian believes she is superior to her fellow citizen. And if the Christian is superior to his brother or sister who must therefore be inferred as incapable of making decisions that impact his or her personal standing before God, how then can that person be capable of deciding to have a personal relationship with God? If man is unable to decide moral issues, how can man decide spiritual issues. If his judgement be faulty in one area, how can it be anything less in another area?
But if the religion makes it its mission to educate...then the educated decision is a solid decision. The same free will that establishes a personal relationship with a deity is the same free will that allows one to choose not to have that relationship, and it's the same free will that allows one to choose a personal relationship with God and also decide moral issues that might run contrary thereto. So, religion is at its best when it governs least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)