Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.
This week I have been reading Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. It's pretty dry and not very thought provoking, but I'm ploughing through. Sometimes it's interesting.
Reading the chapter on the problem of evil, I came across this little gem:
To love evil is to become evil, to succumb to it. But to hate evil is also to succumb to it. For it is practically impossible (1) to avoid Pharisaic self-righteousness and (2) to hate sins without hating sinners. Finally, (3) to hate at all is to become hard and dark and negative; even hating evil hardens us into haters (p.127).
I agree with premise (1) and (2) - almost. They are not practically impossible; they are just difficult. Point (3) though - I cannot agree with this.
That's why this blog entry is titled Roman 12:9--it commands us to hate evil. And God himself hates. It's just when we start falling into the traps of (1) and (2) that things go wrong.
The chapter also did not once mention Epicurus, though it used his point-by-point exploration of the problem of evil. It referenced a number of other authors who have talked about this exploration and I know, by reading, that at least one of them did mention Epicurus. And a quick search on Wikipedia showed Epicurus's name as the first to appear on the page for the problem of evil...
Other than these points, the handbook is... well, it's okay. I think the evil chapter was just a bit too hippy for me.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Luke 10:18
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven".
That line is starting to sound very Blade Runner to me. But moving on.
I've been thinking a lot lately about this one legend I knew. It started when a good friend was asking whether Satan is actually an angel - a good question. I don't know where that belief comes from. We can see from the verse above that he is from heaven, and he is a fallen being, but it's not angels alone that occupy heaven.
This legend I know goes something like this: God created Adam and Eve. And he said "hey my head angels, come check out what I did. Pretty cool huh. Now bow."
And Gabriel and Michael were all like "yay God! Your creation is awesome and we will bow to it!"
But Satan took offense at this abomination that was created after him, and refused to bow to it. Michael was all like "hey Satan maybe you should be careful... I mean, God told us to bow" and Satan was like "I don't care what God tells us to do!"
Hence the fall happened.
I don't know where I learnt this. It's a rough approximation of Islamic scripture, as I found out today - you can find out more about it here, here and here.
Like I said, I've been thinking about this passage a bit. Even more so with reading Luke 10:18, and Peter repeating it in his sermon on Sunday. The fact that it's of Islamic origin kinda makes my following musings farfetched, but bear with me. It's interesting.
Jesus was obviously around when Satan fell, yet the fall was pre-humanity (that is, Jesus's humanity). And we believe that God is all-knowing, right? So for Satan to refuse to bow down to created man - the form that Jesus would take upon himself - would be a refusal to bow down to God.
I think I would like to know about how Satan feels about Jesus. Because if the above scenario did touch on truth (unlikely; it has no founding outside the Qu'ran and I just came to conclusions myself) then it reveals one of the biggest mistakes in history. A lack of awareness of the things God has planned, a refusal to do his will, to trust him. I don't think an omniscient Satan makes sense. How could you know you were going to lose and still rebel? (Sounds a bit like Norse religion, ne?)
But that's as far as those musings get me. Interesting, nonetheless.
On a side note, seeing I've brought up Norse mythology--
Today one of my friends corrected someone in class for saying B.C. and A.D., as it is now officially (really? not sure. think it depends on the organisation really...) B.C.E. and C.E. for the purposes of avoiding religious slanting. But if we rename our dating system--should we not also rename the days of the week, lest we appear to be aligned with Norse gods? Thor's-day? Odin's-day?
What do you think?
That line is starting to sound very Blade Runner to me. But moving on.
I've been thinking a lot lately about this one legend I knew. It started when a good friend was asking whether Satan is actually an angel - a good question. I don't know where that belief comes from. We can see from the verse above that he is from heaven, and he is a fallen being, but it's not angels alone that occupy heaven.
This legend I know goes something like this: God created Adam and Eve. And he said "hey my head angels, come check out what I did. Pretty cool huh. Now bow."
And Gabriel and Michael were all like "yay God! Your creation is awesome and we will bow to it!"
But Satan took offense at this abomination that was created after him, and refused to bow to it. Michael was all like "hey Satan maybe you should be careful... I mean, God told us to bow" and Satan was like "I don't care what God tells us to do!"
Hence the fall happened.
I don't know where I learnt this. It's a rough approximation of Islamic scripture, as I found out today - you can find out more about it here, here and here.
Like I said, I've been thinking about this passage a bit. Even more so with reading Luke 10:18, and Peter repeating it in his sermon on Sunday. The fact that it's of Islamic origin kinda makes my following musings farfetched, but bear with me. It's interesting.
Jesus was obviously around when Satan fell, yet the fall was pre-humanity (that is, Jesus's humanity). And we believe that God is all-knowing, right? So for Satan to refuse to bow down to created man - the form that Jesus would take upon himself - would be a refusal to bow down to God.
I think I would like to know about how Satan feels about Jesus. Because if the above scenario did touch on truth (unlikely; it has no founding outside the Qu'ran and I just came to conclusions myself) then it reveals one of the biggest mistakes in history. A lack of awareness of the things God has planned, a refusal to do his will, to trust him. I don't think an omniscient Satan makes sense. How could you know you were going to lose and still rebel? (Sounds a bit like Norse religion, ne?)
But that's as far as those musings get me. Interesting, nonetheless.
On a side note, seeing I've brought up Norse mythology--
Today one of my friends corrected someone in class for saying B.C. and A.D., as it is now officially (really? not sure. think it depends on the organisation really...) B.C.E. and C.E. for the purposes of avoiding religious slanting. But if we rename our dating system--should we not also rename the days of the week, lest we appear to be aligned with Norse gods? Thor's-day? Odin's-day?
What do you think?
Thursday, July 22, 2010
John 17:20-26
Jim delivered an excellent sermon on Sunday. Oh, I know, Sunday was a fair few days ago... But you watch, I will get into the swing of this, and my posts will become more regular.
It was on John 17:20-26:
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
Naturally, the sermon dealt a lot with unity, and the pre-requisites for it. This passage is not saying that everyone on earth should have unity with one another; it is specifically for believers, in Christ and in God the Father. Right at the start we read: "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one".
So our oneness comes from:
a) believing in Jesus. But an important question, which comes up a lot, is which Jesus? Do we have unity with those who believe in Jesus.... as teacher alone? as prophet alone?
b) no. the next part is - believing in the Jesus presented by the disciples, "through their message" - Jesus's words, not mine. That is, if someone's belief in Jesus is contrary to the teaching of the disciples, then their Jesus is a false Jesus. I think this can be extended to all apostolic tradition - Paul, for example, did learn from the disciples, so I think he is a trustworthy conveyer of truth.
This means people can say they believe in Jesus, yet be deluded. I already knew this, but now it's becoming clearer where the lines are drawn. Unfortunately, I think this also puts a number of so-called Red Letter Christians at risk. I don't know enough about them to say all. I know that they focus on the teachings of Jesus (which just seems Christian to me), mostly those about love and nice things (the Socialist Gospel), but I have come across Red Letter Christians who don't read anything but the words of Jesus. This is risky due to the subsequent ignorance of the Old Testament, which is a key factor in understanding the character and teachings and necessity of Christ; it's the context. And Jesus quotes it a lot; if he thinks it's important, who are we to ignore it? I do not understand how Christians can ignore the Old Testament insofar as it is readily available.
But even more risky, these Red Letter Christians would also ignore the teachings of the disciples, who say lots of things about how Christ is the only way to salvation, you need him, so on and so forth...
And maybe that's worse than ignoring the Old Testament. I'm starting to think so.
It was on John 17:20-26:
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.
"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
Naturally, the sermon dealt a lot with unity, and the pre-requisites for it. This passage is not saying that everyone on earth should have unity with one another; it is specifically for believers, in Christ and in God the Father. Right at the start we read: "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one".
So our oneness comes from:
a) believing in Jesus. But an important question, which comes up a lot, is which Jesus? Do we have unity with those who believe in Jesus.... as teacher alone? as prophet alone?
b) no. the next part is - believing in the Jesus presented by the disciples, "through their message" - Jesus's words, not mine. That is, if someone's belief in Jesus is contrary to the teaching of the disciples, then their Jesus is a false Jesus. I think this can be extended to all apostolic tradition - Paul, for example, did learn from the disciples, so I think he is a trustworthy conveyer of truth.
This means people can say they believe in Jesus, yet be deluded. I already knew this, but now it's becoming clearer where the lines are drawn. Unfortunately, I think this also puts a number of so-called Red Letter Christians at risk. I don't know enough about them to say all. I know that they focus on the teachings of Jesus (which just seems Christian to me), mostly those about love and nice things (the Socialist Gospel), but I have come across Red Letter Christians who don't read anything but the words of Jesus. This is risky due to the subsequent ignorance of the Old Testament, which is a key factor in understanding the character and teachings and necessity of Christ; it's the context. And Jesus quotes it a lot; if he thinks it's important, who are we to ignore it? I do not understand how Christians can ignore the Old Testament insofar as it is readily available.
But even more risky, these Red Letter Christians would also ignore the teachings of the disciples, who say lots of things about how Christ is the only way to salvation, you need him, so on and so forth...
And maybe that's worse than ignoring the Old Testament. I'm starting to think so.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Sherlock Holmes
It seems weird to me that my first post here is a movie post, but it is to tie into the gospel, so bear with me.
I saw this movie the other day, and thought parts of the supernatural element were overdone. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie; but just because a movie involves the supernatural doesn't mean it has to make explicit bible references. There were a few, and they were weak and unsubstantiated. Lord Blackwood, the villain of the movie, is compared several times to Jesus (not a spoiler); when Holmes first finds that he has been ressurected after his execution (not a spoiler), he makes the comment "and on the third day he rose again", and at another point Lord Blackwood associates himself with Revelation 1:18 (Revelation, not Revelations): "I am the living one".
The likeness between Lord Blackwood and Jesus is minimal, but these comparisons didn't bother me too much. What did bother me was when Holmes said: "I may well have reconciled thousands of years of theological disparity". When I first heard this in the movie I thought, what is he talking about? I developed a theory but it's weak, so I tried to find out what other people thought. First stop: imdb. Nobody's discussing it; it's not on the quotes page. Either nobody noticed it (there were lots of complaints about Holmes's accent...), nobody has any idea what he was talking about, or everybody understood exactly what disparity he was talking about and how he solved it and I'm the odd one out. I googled it; all that came up was a link to the script and a Christian blogger who writes from movies: but he didn't analyse it, as far as I could tell; just used it to introduce his theological analysis of the movie.
Here's my interpretation of what Holmes said, and why I think it's shallow and would have been better left out of the text. I have to give you a big warning: this is where the spoilers come in.
I believe that at this point of the movie, Holmes has just realised that Blackwood was never ressurected because he never actually died. The hanging was fake. This is consistent with the fact that Holmes claims to be enlightened, and after this the movie is action packed: he doesn't really get another chance to sit down and try and figure out what is going on. So if he solved the mystery, which we know he did, this is when it happened.
So when he says that he has solved thousands of years of theological disparity, I fear he is making another comparison between Jesus and Blackwood. He knows at this point that Blackwood was never ressurected because he didn't die; I fear he is claiming the same about Jesus.
Too many holes. I don't want to believe he means that. But here is my rebuttal.
1) Faking a crucifixion must be very different to faking a hanging. You figured out how the harness stopped Blackwood from being harmed; if you are going to claim that Jesus also didn't die, it would be nice if you could tell us a) how the guards *didn't really* drive nails through Jesus wrists b) and they *didn't really* flog him (many people died at this point, even before their crucifixion...) c) and the soldier *didn't really* thrust a spear through Jesus's side, and water and blood *didn't really* come out (John 19:34), and thus we can know that he *wasn't really* dead. Swoon theory? Unconvincing due to the water that came from Jesus side. Substitution theory? Oh dear, Sherlock Holmes must be highly influenced by the Koran: but still unconvincing. After all, many disciples and people who personally knew Jesus were present. I think they would have noticed if they got the wrong man. So there you go. All evidence seems to point to the fact that he died. Remember that many eyewitnesses died claiming these things; I will not concede that this is fabrication.
2) So really, all you have left to claim is that he wasn't ressurected--he definitely did die. But so many people died claiming they had seen the ressurected Jesus, and saw him ascend to heaven. Then there's the conversion of Saul/Paul of Tarsus: what motivation could there have been for him to adopt a life of suffering and imprisonment, if he was not truly convinced that he saw the ressurected Messiah?
Really, Holmes, I am not convinced. Please do not make such lofty claims without substantiation. Lord Blackwood and Jesus have nothing to do with each other.
I was going to write comparisons about how the two lived (Jesus didn't sacrifice women and try to usurp world power....), but now this seems unnecessary.
If anyone has any alternative explanations of what he could have possibly meant by solving thousands of years of theological disparity, I'd love to know. It's clear that my understanding is flawed, and I dread to think that is what the screenwriter intended. Maybe it was something so vague as "the supernatural doesn't exist", but can that really be claimed from a single incident of one man manipulating peoples belief in the supernatural?
Maybe I should just write to the screenwriter and ask them.
I saw this movie the other day, and thought parts of the supernatural element were overdone. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie; but just because a movie involves the supernatural doesn't mean it has to make explicit bible references. There were a few, and they were weak and unsubstantiated. Lord Blackwood, the villain of the movie, is compared several times to Jesus (not a spoiler); when Holmes first finds that he has been ressurected after his execution (not a spoiler), he makes the comment "and on the third day he rose again", and at another point Lord Blackwood associates himself with Revelation 1:18 (Revelation, not Revelations): "I am the living one".
The likeness between Lord Blackwood and Jesus is minimal, but these comparisons didn't bother me too much. What did bother me was when Holmes said: "I may well have reconciled thousands of years of theological disparity". When I first heard this in the movie I thought, what is he talking about? I developed a theory but it's weak, so I tried to find out what other people thought. First stop: imdb. Nobody's discussing it; it's not on the quotes page. Either nobody noticed it (there were lots of complaints about Holmes's accent...), nobody has any idea what he was talking about, or everybody understood exactly what disparity he was talking about and how he solved it and I'm the odd one out. I googled it; all that came up was a link to the script and a Christian blogger who writes from movies: but he didn't analyse it, as far as I could tell; just used it to introduce his theological analysis of the movie.
Here's my interpretation of what Holmes said, and why I think it's shallow and would have been better left out of the text. I have to give you a big warning: this is where the spoilers come in.
I believe that at this point of the movie, Holmes has just realised that Blackwood was never ressurected because he never actually died. The hanging was fake. This is consistent with the fact that Holmes claims to be enlightened, and after this the movie is action packed: he doesn't really get another chance to sit down and try and figure out what is going on. So if he solved the mystery, which we know he did, this is when it happened.
So when he says that he has solved thousands of years of theological disparity, I fear he is making another comparison between Jesus and Blackwood. He knows at this point that Blackwood was never ressurected because he didn't die; I fear he is claiming the same about Jesus.
Too many holes. I don't want to believe he means that. But here is my rebuttal.
1) Faking a crucifixion must be very different to faking a hanging. You figured out how the harness stopped Blackwood from being harmed; if you are going to claim that Jesus also didn't die, it would be nice if you could tell us a) how the guards *didn't really* drive nails through Jesus wrists b) and they *didn't really* flog him (many people died at this point, even before their crucifixion...) c) and the soldier *didn't really* thrust a spear through Jesus's side, and water and blood *didn't really* come out (John 19:34), and thus we can know that he *wasn't really* dead. Swoon theory? Unconvincing due to the water that came from Jesus side. Substitution theory? Oh dear, Sherlock Holmes must be highly influenced by the Koran: but still unconvincing. After all, many disciples and people who personally knew Jesus were present. I think they would have noticed if they got the wrong man. So there you go. All evidence seems to point to the fact that he died. Remember that many eyewitnesses died claiming these things; I will not concede that this is fabrication.
2) So really, all you have left to claim is that he wasn't ressurected--he definitely did die. But so many people died claiming they had seen the ressurected Jesus, and saw him ascend to heaven. Then there's the conversion of Saul/Paul of Tarsus: what motivation could there have been for him to adopt a life of suffering and imprisonment, if he was not truly convinced that he saw the ressurected Messiah?
Really, Holmes, I am not convinced. Please do not make such lofty claims without substantiation. Lord Blackwood and Jesus have nothing to do with each other.
I was going to write comparisons about how the two lived (Jesus didn't sacrifice women and try to usurp world power....), but now this seems unnecessary.
If anyone has any alternative explanations of what he could have possibly meant by solving thousands of years of theological disparity, I'd love to know. It's clear that my understanding is flawed, and I dread to think that is what the screenwriter intended. Maybe it was something so vague as "the supernatural doesn't exist", but can that really be claimed from a single incident of one man manipulating peoples belief in the supernatural?
Maybe I should just write to the screenwriter and ask them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)