Tuesday, March 31, 2009
my first celebrity commenter
today i was surprised to open my email and find a comment on an old post. the post was on a quiz that i found and posted that deals with annihilationism. the celebrity (at least to me and students of theology) who commented is the author of the quiz, biblical scholar edward fudge. apparently, even he enjoys arguing with heath.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
what is the meaning of this?
i had a good end to my work day yesterday. a co-worker, a couple months ago, had her kids taken away from her by her ex-husband. this guy, from everything i have seen from him and heard about him, is a douche, plain and simple; and he is out to make her life miserable regardless of how it hurts their kids. long story short, he won custody because certain papers weren't filed right, and the judge was sympathetic to him because he is in the military. anyways, this co-worker has been no angel herself and there are times, in the past, where i have questioned her fitness as a mother. however, last week she and i had little talk. it seems that this whole ordeal has caused her to come to some serious conclusions about her life, and she went on and on about how she quit drinking and going out and is seriously trying to get her life together. she told me how she cannot wait to get her kids back so she can be the mother they deserve. and she told me that God does everything for a reason.
last year anne and i were hanging out with some friends, and one of these friends brought his own friend a long. the tag a long friend is someone who drives anne and i nuts, and i'll give you an example why. he is a know-it-all, and not only is he a know-it-all but he's also an atheist. on top of that, he is just weird and says things that are totally inappropriate. so on this particular occasion, the topic of sex came up. and i cannot remember all the details of the conversation, but for some reason, weird, atheist, know-it-all, guy blurted out, "sex is meaningless. ALL sex is meaningless." now what bugs me about this is that i think he knows that anne and i are christians, and he said this simply to pick a fight. that didn't happen; we all just kind of awkwardly looked at him and changed the subject, but i have been thinking about night ever since. half of me wishes i would have asked him to explain. my guess is he would have said that sex is meaningless because ultimately everything is meaningless.
john ortberg tells the story of how the famous atheist, bertrand russell, would describe all reality as meaningless. ultimately, according to russell, we are all bits of carbon that exist for a short amount of time on this planet that will someday be consumed by fire and then frozen when the sun burns out. at that point the earth will be be a big floating rock and nothing that has ever happened on it will have mattered. thus, ultimately, there is no meaning. in the 15 billion or so years that earth will have existed, that will be nothing compared to the infinite amount of time that preceded its existence or the infinite amount that will follow. once again, i don't know for sure that weird, atheist, guy would have said that, but that would be my guess. how depressing...
now the thing is, is that sex does have meaning. biologically, sex has purpose-- procreation-- but in the context of human relationships sex can have a lot of meaning. for two humans who love one another, sex can be a way of communicating deep, passionate love. for two people who are just using each other for pleasure, sex can mean, "i don't really care about you as a person, but i'll use you to temporarily feel good." so just like words are sounds that mean something in a particular context, sex is an act which can also mean something in a particular context. but back to russell.
if all context is destroyed, then is all meaning destroyed? because, it seems, meaning must have context. perhaps, but in the end, believing that one day the sun will destroy everything rendering meaning meaningless is just that-- belief. it is based on faith. what if scientists are wrong? what if this reality isn't the only one there is? ortberg has a great comment concerning russell's thoughts. he says that russell's ideas just might be true, but even if they are, nobody lives that way.
yesterday my co-worker stood in the pharmacy smiling. i asked her if she got her kids back, and she told me she was going to pick them up tomorrow. she said God was in that court room. she said she prayed and prayed. she repeated her vow to change her life and clean up her act. she was full of joy. in the bible, God is often portrayed as a parent or a husband. the deepest human relationships are often pictures of who God is. so i couldn't help but think that while my co-worker was getting her kids back, maybe God was also getting back one of his.
last year anne and i were hanging out with some friends, and one of these friends brought his own friend a long. the tag a long friend is someone who drives anne and i nuts, and i'll give you an example why. he is a know-it-all, and not only is he a know-it-all but he's also an atheist. on top of that, he is just weird and says things that are totally inappropriate. so on this particular occasion, the topic of sex came up. and i cannot remember all the details of the conversation, but for some reason, weird, atheist, know-it-all, guy blurted out, "sex is meaningless. ALL sex is meaningless." now what bugs me about this is that i think he knows that anne and i are christians, and he said this simply to pick a fight. that didn't happen; we all just kind of awkwardly looked at him and changed the subject, but i have been thinking about night ever since. half of me wishes i would have asked him to explain. my guess is he would have said that sex is meaningless because ultimately everything is meaningless.
john ortberg tells the story of how the famous atheist, bertrand russell, would describe all reality as meaningless. ultimately, according to russell, we are all bits of carbon that exist for a short amount of time on this planet that will someday be consumed by fire and then frozen when the sun burns out. at that point the earth will be be a big floating rock and nothing that has ever happened on it will have mattered. thus, ultimately, there is no meaning. in the 15 billion or so years that earth will have existed, that will be nothing compared to the infinite amount of time that preceded its existence or the infinite amount that will follow. once again, i don't know for sure that weird, atheist, guy would have said that, but that would be my guess. how depressing...
now the thing is, is that sex does have meaning. biologically, sex has purpose-- procreation-- but in the context of human relationships sex can have a lot of meaning. for two humans who love one another, sex can be a way of communicating deep, passionate love. for two people who are just using each other for pleasure, sex can mean, "i don't really care about you as a person, but i'll use you to temporarily feel good." so just like words are sounds that mean something in a particular context, sex is an act which can also mean something in a particular context. but back to russell.
if all context is destroyed, then is all meaning destroyed? because, it seems, meaning must have context. perhaps, but in the end, believing that one day the sun will destroy everything rendering meaning meaningless is just that-- belief. it is based on faith. what if scientists are wrong? what if this reality isn't the only one there is? ortberg has a great comment concerning russell's thoughts. he says that russell's ideas just might be true, but even if they are, nobody lives that way.
yesterday my co-worker stood in the pharmacy smiling. i asked her if she got her kids back, and she told me she was going to pick them up tomorrow. she said God was in that court room. she said she prayed and prayed. she repeated her vow to change her life and clean up her act. she was full of joy. in the bible, God is often portrayed as a parent or a husband. the deepest human relationships are often pictures of who God is. so i couldn't help but think that while my co-worker was getting her kids back, maybe God was also getting back one of his.
Monday, March 23, 2009
belief in what?-- or-- random updates and thoughts on faith and belief
things have been good as usual. i am finally finishing my upstairs with the help of my realtor. it's been fun so far, and i'm about to make another trip to home depot in a little bit. i've been a little obsessed actually and i'm probably starting to drive anne nuts with how much i talk about it.
i'm finally done with my biblical perspectives class. i sent in my final paper last week, which after reading it the day after, really kinda sucked. it just did not flow well, and the last page or so was just a lot of bullshit to fill up space. sad to say, but that class was such a disappointment, and i am pretty happy to be onto more social worky stuff again. i guess i'm most disappointed because, out of all the classes i am taking for this major, this was the class that dealt with the subject i ponder the most. and not only that, but as far as college-level bible classes go, this is probably it for me, unless i go back someday for a masters in theology. but the class wasn't a total loss. it got me thinking about something i probably wouldn't have if i didn't take it.
there's a prof at cornerstone who recently wrote a book entitled "don't stop believing: why living like jesus isn't enough." the idea is that the right theology is important, and it's not just enough to live like jesus-- you have to believe certain things about him too. this raises a whole lot of interesting questions. for one, if you're trying to live like someone doesn't that imply that you have pretty strong beliefs about that person? and for two, what if living like him is really what it's all about and the theology is really just intellectual window-dressing? or, what if the theology isn't really the point?
in my aforementioned class we were discussing the fact that the apostles presented the gospel to the jews quite a bit different than they did to gentiles. to the jews, they went deep into jewish history and the prophets. they tried to show that jesus was the jewish messiah. however, to the gentiles, who were more concerned with defeating evil spirits, they emphasized how jesus has defeated darkness. here's my point: the apostles didn't care about explaining to the gentiles that jesus was the jewish messiah. why? A, because they probably wouldn't have cared, and B, they probably wouldn't have believed it anyway. they cared about defeating evil and so that's what the apostles focused on.
in a world where most people are skeptical of the supernatural, but are incredibly open to the idea of unconditional love, selflessness, generosity, forgiveness etc., can't you argue that what those people are really searching for-- when they search for those things-- is jesus? i think most people are really searching for a way to live. i think the most compelling thing in our culture isn't rational proof for the supernatural, but the experience of somebody living a different way. if the apostles didn't bother to get into theological debates with gentiles about jesus being the jewish messiah, but focused on what they cared about, then what does it look like to present jesus to a culture who is skeptical about the supernatural? how much does intellectual ascent to certain theological positions-- or better yet (because you can believe in theological positions without necessarily believing in a supernatural versions of them) the supernatural interpretation of a theological position-- really matter?
i'm finally done with my biblical perspectives class. i sent in my final paper last week, which after reading it the day after, really kinda sucked. it just did not flow well, and the last page or so was just a lot of bullshit to fill up space. sad to say, but that class was such a disappointment, and i am pretty happy to be onto more social worky stuff again. i guess i'm most disappointed because, out of all the classes i am taking for this major, this was the class that dealt with the subject i ponder the most. and not only that, but as far as college-level bible classes go, this is probably it for me, unless i go back someday for a masters in theology. but the class wasn't a total loss. it got me thinking about something i probably wouldn't have if i didn't take it.
there's a prof at cornerstone who recently wrote a book entitled "don't stop believing: why living like jesus isn't enough." the idea is that the right theology is important, and it's not just enough to live like jesus-- you have to believe certain things about him too. this raises a whole lot of interesting questions. for one, if you're trying to live like someone doesn't that imply that you have pretty strong beliefs about that person? and for two, what if living like him is really what it's all about and the theology is really just intellectual window-dressing? or, what if the theology isn't really the point?
in my aforementioned class we were discussing the fact that the apostles presented the gospel to the jews quite a bit different than they did to gentiles. to the jews, they went deep into jewish history and the prophets. they tried to show that jesus was the jewish messiah. however, to the gentiles, who were more concerned with defeating evil spirits, they emphasized how jesus has defeated darkness. here's my point: the apostles didn't care about explaining to the gentiles that jesus was the jewish messiah. why? A, because they probably wouldn't have cared, and B, they probably wouldn't have believed it anyway. they cared about defeating evil and so that's what the apostles focused on.
in a world where most people are skeptical of the supernatural, but are incredibly open to the idea of unconditional love, selflessness, generosity, forgiveness etc., can't you argue that what those people are really searching for-- when they search for those things-- is jesus? i think most people are really searching for a way to live. i think the most compelling thing in our culture isn't rational proof for the supernatural, but the experience of somebody living a different way. if the apostles didn't bother to get into theological debates with gentiles about jesus being the jewish messiah, but focused on what they cared about, then what does it look like to present jesus to a culture who is skeptical about the supernatural? how much does intellectual ascent to certain theological positions-- or better yet (because you can believe in theological positions without necessarily believing in a supernatural versions of them) the supernatural interpretation of a theological position-- really matter?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
a monstrous God of love?: my thoughts and feelings on the bible revisited
today i have to turn in a paper for my final biblical perspectives class, once again, discussing my thoughts and feelings on the bible. my real final paper isn't due till next week. i may or may not post that one. the idea with this one though is to see if the class has changed my thoughts and feelings.... this class unfortunatley was kind of a disappointment. but anyways, here's my second paper, which really doesn't reflect much from my class experience, but is fine because the only requirement is that the paper begin with "the bible is..."
The Bible is ultimately God’s story. It tells how God created everything, and chose humans to be his partners, as his image bearers, in taking care of his creation. It describes how humans abandoned their dependency on God and the fallout from that decision. From there the Bible tells about how God chose a specific people to be his vehicle in restoring his creation; how he chose them to live in relationship with him; and how they continually betrayed that relationship. The story climaxes with Jesus and his role as Israel’s, and eventually, the world’s redeemer. It describes the life of the early communities of Jesus’ followers; and ends with an apocalyptic vision of a new creation where God and humans dwell together at last. But this narrative of creation, fall and redemption that ends in the marriage of God and humanity can be a hard and bitter pill to swallow.
The Bible is an incredibly messy, disheveled, yet beautiful story. In its description of human behavior, it is gut-wrenchingly real. The story of David’s affair with Bathsheba describes a man who is supposed to be of the highest moral caliber, yet sleeps with the wife of someone who was probably a close friend. After attempting to cover up the product of the affair, David sets the husband up to be killed in battle. Thus the Bible’s portrayal of humans is that they are creatures of contradiction, but sometimes the most seemingly conflicted person in the Bible is its central character-- God.
Its stories of mass human slaughter at the hands of God’s people are unbearably disturbing, and seem impossible to reconcile that they are orders from a God who is later revealed to be love itself. Yet in these stories, sometimes referred to as “texts of terror,” there are glimpses of God’s mercy such as when Rahab is spared in the battle of Jericho. It is this mixture of brutality, barbarism, love and compassion that can make the Bible difficult to be taken as “God’s word.” Indeed it seems ludicrous to believe that Jesus, when he teaches to love one’s enemies, is the incarnation of YHWH, warrior God of the Old Testament.
And therein lays the mystery and paradox, which is often for me, more difficult to swallow than the resurrection or the crossing of the Red Sea: a monstrous God of love? So my thoughts and feelings concerning the Bible are in a constant state of flux and evolution. On one hand, its jarring portrayal of God smacks of mere human invention. Our intuition tells us that the one true God should be blatantly clear and unambiguous. On the other, its incongruent picture of God is consistent with the confusing nature of the rest of reality. I maintain that it is inspired by the God who is manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe its story of creation, fall and redemption is the true story underlying all of history, and at the center of all existence. But I don’t ignore that those propositions take an incredible amount of faith.
The Bible is ultimately God’s story. It tells how God created everything, and chose humans to be his partners, as his image bearers, in taking care of his creation. It describes how humans abandoned their dependency on God and the fallout from that decision. From there the Bible tells about how God chose a specific people to be his vehicle in restoring his creation; how he chose them to live in relationship with him; and how they continually betrayed that relationship. The story climaxes with Jesus and his role as Israel’s, and eventually, the world’s redeemer. It describes the life of the early communities of Jesus’ followers; and ends with an apocalyptic vision of a new creation where God and humans dwell together at last. But this narrative of creation, fall and redemption that ends in the marriage of God and humanity can be a hard and bitter pill to swallow.
The Bible is an incredibly messy, disheveled, yet beautiful story. In its description of human behavior, it is gut-wrenchingly real. The story of David’s affair with Bathsheba describes a man who is supposed to be of the highest moral caliber, yet sleeps with the wife of someone who was probably a close friend. After attempting to cover up the product of the affair, David sets the husband up to be killed in battle. Thus the Bible’s portrayal of humans is that they are creatures of contradiction, but sometimes the most seemingly conflicted person in the Bible is its central character-- God.
Its stories of mass human slaughter at the hands of God’s people are unbearably disturbing, and seem impossible to reconcile that they are orders from a God who is later revealed to be love itself. Yet in these stories, sometimes referred to as “texts of terror,” there are glimpses of God’s mercy such as when Rahab is spared in the battle of Jericho. It is this mixture of brutality, barbarism, love and compassion that can make the Bible difficult to be taken as “God’s word.” Indeed it seems ludicrous to believe that Jesus, when he teaches to love one’s enemies, is the incarnation of YHWH, warrior God of the Old Testament.
And therein lays the mystery and paradox, which is often for me, more difficult to swallow than the resurrection or the crossing of the Red Sea: a monstrous God of love? So my thoughts and feelings concerning the Bible are in a constant state of flux and evolution. On one hand, its jarring portrayal of God smacks of mere human invention. Our intuition tells us that the one true God should be blatantly clear and unambiguous. On the other, its incongruent picture of God is consistent with the confusing nature of the rest of reality. I maintain that it is inspired by the God who is manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. I believe its story of creation, fall and redemption is the true story underlying all of history, and at the center of all existence. But I don’t ignore that those propositions take an incredible amount of faith.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
you'd think a class that discusses genocide and prostitution wouldn't be boring
it's sad to say, but i'm so glad that i have one more week of biblical perspectives. i really was looking forward to that class, but sadly our instructor has been a composite of sunday school and high school bible teachers (excluding david rudd) of my past. last week she ended class by reading us a children's book... complete with showing us the pictures by spreading wide the pages, facing them towards us and twisting back and forth. i felt so bad for her, as we all sat slumped in our chairs waiting for it to be over.
tonight wasn't as bad. we talked about the resurrection, and jewish perspectives of isaiah's suffering servant. i find myself holding back comments, however, because a. i don't want to look like a know-it-all and b. i don't want really want people to think i'm enjoying class, because it is so incredibly boring. and that's pathetic. but most people think studying the bible is absurdly boring and i'm sure it is because they have had bible teachers like my instructor.
but the bible and theology shouldn't be boring. for starters, the bible is full of what entertains people today-- sex, violence, drama. but more importantly, if you believe it is true, then the bible and theology are about the very foundational truths of existence. so it shouldn't be very difficult for teachers to make class interesting. on top of that, most americans have very deeply held beliefs about God, the bible, the end times etc... so it's pretty easy to say something provocative that will get a discussion started. i think about joe and i. we try to get together on a regular basis, and besides talking about life issues and other normal stuff, every time we meet the discussion almost invariably turns to something theological and it's typically about hell. it happened today, actually. why? because if you believe in God and a life beyond this one, then all of life now-- everything truly meaningful-- is rooted in what and how you think about source of all existence.
so i'm thankful for friends that i can have those discussions with, and i'm thankful for a blog where i can dump my unfinished and unpolished theological and philosphical ramblings. maybe bible teachers subconsciously keep it boring because the bible is full of such jarring and confounding insights into reality. they keep it surfacy because when you dig deeper, things get murky and uncomfortable really quickly.
tonight wasn't as bad. we talked about the resurrection, and jewish perspectives of isaiah's suffering servant. i find myself holding back comments, however, because a. i don't want to look like a know-it-all and b. i don't want really want people to think i'm enjoying class, because it is so incredibly boring. and that's pathetic. but most people think studying the bible is absurdly boring and i'm sure it is because they have had bible teachers like my instructor.
but the bible and theology shouldn't be boring. for starters, the bible is full of what entertains people today-- sex, violence, drama. but more importantly, if you believe it is true, then the bible and theology are about the very foundational truths of existence. so it shouldn't be very difficult for teachers to make class interesting. on top of that, most americans have very deeply held beliefs about God, the bible, the end times etc... so it's pretty easy to say something provocative that will get a discussion started. i think about joe and i. we try to get together on a regular basis, and besides talking about life issues and other normal stuff, every time we meet the discussion almost invariably turns to something theological and it's typically about hell. it happened today, actually. why? because if you believe in God and a life beyond this one, then all of life now-- everything truly meaningful-- is rooted in what and how you think about source of all existence.
so i'm thankful for friends that i can have those discussions with, and i'm thankful for a blog where i can dump my unfinished and unpolished theological and philosphical ramblings. maybe bible teachers subconsciously keep it boring because the bible is full of such jarring and confounding insights into reality. they keep it surfacy because when you dig deeper, things get murky and uncomfortable really quickly.
Friday, February 27, 2009
confrontation and adaptation
i am a non-confrontational person. i will typically avoid confrontation at all costs. when i get into heated arguments with people i don't know too well my sympathetic nervous system kicks in full gear and i begin shaking and my voice trembles. basically, i look and sound like i'm going to cry, which sucks, because i'm actually pissed and crying is the furthest thing from my mind. i would bet that if i didn't behave this way in confrontational situations i wouldn't be as prone to avoiding them. but alas, i do and i only get into them when they come to me, and the other day, one did.
i won't get into specifics because that would take too long, but while i was doing a job a co-worker should have already had done, said co-worker walked up, got in my face, and told me she needed help with something else, and that i wasn't helping her. now this co-worker is already on the brink of being fired because she struggles to keep up with her work and others have to always come bail her out, and i already had a laundry list of things i wanted to say to her. so, needless to say, the opportunity presented itself and when my fight or flight response kicked in, i fought.
in the end, i think this was good for me. i need more experiences like that. that's not to say i need to start picking fights with random people to improve the way i handle myself in confrontations, but i need to learn to not fear them and to keep my self in control while firmly arguing my side. the rest of our day together went fine, and while we didn't talk about our blowout again, i think she understood that my frustration wasn't towards her personally, but her lack of certain skills.
when confrontation and conflict turn ugly, it often has to do with how the two parties are communicating, as well as, their history. i think that being honest and open with people is important, but it's also about how you're honest and open. i have a diverse group of friends. most of my friends are not friends with each other, and only know one another through me. i get nervous when some of my friends are around each other. during the week of my wedding two of them almost came to blows, and another set of them did. why do i get along with all of them, but some of them cannot get along at all? a lot of it has to do with communication. the way i communicate-- what i say and how i say it-- changes with each friend. most people communicate one way with everyone, and if they clash with some people, they respond with: "oh well, you can't get a long with everyone." and some people are so oblivious, they cannot even grasp basic communication etiquette like: don't talk religion and politics with new people. my dad is a good example of that.
i think my desire to avoid confrontation has a lot to do with why i can communicate and maintain friendships with people who are very different from one another. rather than getting into fights, i adapt to how others communicate. my big challenge on the conflict and confrontation front, like i said, is learning to not look like i'm about to cry. i think a good step towards that is learning to recognize when things are escalating, and then to take it down a notch. it's interesting to me how something that is usually problematic-- avoiding confrontation-- has been somewhat of an asset to me. now i just need to learn to adapt in times when it's unavoidable.
i won't get into specifics because that would take too long, but while i was doing a job a co-worker should have already had done, said co-worker walked up, got in my face, and told me she needed help with something else, and that i wasn't helping her. now this co-worker is already on the brink of being fired because she struggles to keep up with her work and others have to always come bail her out, and i already had a laundry list of things i wanted to say to her. so, needless to say, the opportunity presented itself and when my fight or flight response kicked in, i fought.
in the end, i think this was good for me. i need more experiences like that. that's not to say i need to start picking fights with random people to improve the way i handle myself in confrontations, but i need to learn to not fear them and to keep my self in control while firmly arguing my side. the rest of our day together went fine, and while we didn't talk about our blowout again, i think she understood that my frustration wasn't towards her personally, but her lack of certain skills.
when confrontation and conflict turn ugly, it often has to do with how the two parties are communicating, as well as, their history. i think that being honest and open with people is important, but it's also about how you're honest and open. i have a diverse group of friends. most of my friends are not friends with each other, and only know one another through me. i get nervous when some of my friends are around each other. during the week of my wedding two of them almost came to blows, and another set of them did. why do i get along with all of them, but some of them cannot get along at all? a lot of it has to do with communication. the way i communicate-- what i say and how i say it-- changes with each friend. most people communicate one way with everyone, and if they clash with some people, they respond with: "oh well, you can't get a long with everyone." and some people are so oblivious, they cannot even grasp basic communication etiquette like: don't talk religion and politics with new people. my dad is a good example of that.
i think my desire to avoid confrontation has a lot to do with why i can communicate and maintain friendships with people who are very different from one another. rather than getting into fights, i adapt to how others communicate. my big challenge on the conflict and confrontation front, like i said, is learning to not look like i'm about to cry. i think a good step towards that is learning to recognize when things are escalating, and then to take it down a notch. it's interesting to me how something that is usually problematic-- avoiding confrontation-- has been somewhat of an asset to me. now i just need to learn to adapt in times when it's unavoidable.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
demythologizing good and evil- some observations
note: i could not, for the life of me, figure out how to create columns on blogger, so this will have to do.
good~evillight~darkness
order~chaoscreation~destruction
function~dysfunction
life~death
righteousness~sin
love~hate
peace~violence
truth~deceit
healing~suffering
healthy~decaying
joy~depression
i think it's fair to say that most people have an incorrect view of good and evil. most people believe in good and evil, but believe the two are in some sort of mythical opposition to one another. this view is, of course, played out in incredibly popular books-turned-movies like the lord of the rings, the chronicles of narnia, harry potter, and the twilight series. i think most people would also say that the bible is a story of the epic struggle of good and evil as well. i would disagree. i would not only disagree that the bible is a story of good versus evil, but i would disagree with the whole notion of the epic struggle of good versus evil. and i would also reject the incredibly mythical way that most people think about good and evil.
people who know me well, actually read this blog, or have a rudimentary knowledge of philosophy know why i would reject these ideas. the notion of good versus evil is dualism. it's really lame, but i first rejected dualism after reading a corny email forward about a bold christian taking on his philospohy professor. while the email was corny and probably not true, the arguments put forth in it completely changed how i view good and evil. and i'm sure they are age old arguments created by someone a long time ago, but up until that point, i had never heard them. the argument is that evil really isn't a thing, but a lack of a thing, namely, good, just as darkness and cold aren't things, but are a lack of things, namely light and heat. interestingly enough, a metaphore for good and evil used throughout the bible is light and darkness.
the above chart i made, i believe, represents several different ways people say "good" or "evil." death, suffering, violence etc. get lumped under the big mythical umbrella of "evil" and love, life, peace etc. get lumped under the mythical umbrella of "good." my first observation echos what i mentioned in the previous paragraph, in that many of the things on the right are nothing more than a lack of the things on the left. note that this observation concerns relationship. the relationship, for instance, between order and chaos isn't that they are opposing forces, but that one is a lack of the other.
my second observation is this: certain items on the two lists have a cause and effect relationship.
take life and death. a while back i was going to post a series called, "is death really a bad thing?" because for there to be life there has got to be death. we eat dead plants and animals. animal waste is used to fertilize soil which creates life. if there were no death there would be over-population which would make life miserable. death is necessary for life.
my next observation is that there cannot be life without order. i am composed of sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs and organ systems. and all of these particles working in an orderly way to allow me to live do so because of orderly physical laws. without order there can be no life, and this truth carries on into the worlds of living organisms-- people create families, which create societies, which create cities, and countries, and governments, and nations etc... in other words, we try to create order, and when we stray from order, we see destruction, lies, hate, violence, disease, suffering, depression, death-- chaos. so it can be said that everything in the good column is just another way of saying "order" and everything in the evil column is another way of saying "chaos."
so how does this square with the bible? as previously stated, the bible uses the metaphor of light and darkness to describe good and evil. i would also point out that there are "order from chaos" themes in scripture. these observations cause me to conclude that sin is any behavior which works against God's order-- which i believe is all "true order." i say "true order" because there can be order used for destructive purposes, but this order ultimately destroys itself. sin is also our straying from our role of being agents of order creating more true order. and sin, of course, leads to suffering, destruction and death.
i am still stuck with the life and death thing. life and death work together; i do sometimes question the evilness of physical death. and suffering, as well, brings similar issues, for suffering can lead to redemption. suffering can purge us of destructive behavior. suffering is often a bridge from the right column to the left. can chaos create order or does an outside agent have to intervene?
my last observation is that i believe order is a tangible way of seeing God. this isn't to say that order is God and God is order, but that if we want to see the living God all we have to do is ponder the fact that without order all would cease to exist. we don't have to search far to see God; we don't have to look for signs or miracles-- existence is a miracle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
