God – Always Was – the Eternal Self-Existing One. A Trinity. Never alone, Never lonely, needing, lacking nothing.
Yet, You created.
You created everything. There had been nothing but You.
The Universe – its laws, the stars, the planets, their moons – time and space, and matter.
Why? Why did You do it? For the same reason humans have children – to express, to manifest their love.
For all love comes from You.
But love implies care.
The good shepherd lays down his very life for his sheep.
He sees himself as the owner of the sheep, and He is ever watching over His flock. The wolf does not catch Him off-guard, unprepared – ever. He knows that the wolf is out there, and wants to feed on His sheep.
This is love.
It cannot be mustered up. It just flows from within the heart of shepherd. And it manifests as care.
People—our relatives and neighbors, seem to disagree about so many things. And, often, they seem to have such strong opinions on subjects I have not thought about, or have not even heard about! How can I–or for that matter, how can anyone–know what to think, or how to think (accurately)?
… We are inviting you to follow along as we attempt to take a long, contemplative look at the world from a biblical worldview.
Our second book – The Bible, Christianity & American Government – is still in progress, but chapters are available as a podcast at Podbean and Apple podcasts and on YouTube.
“For some were clapped into prison, others had their houses beset and watched, night and day, and hardly escaped their hands. And most were feign to flee and leave their houses and habitations and their means of livelihood.”
William Bradford, Of Plimouth Plantation, 1630
You see, King James believed in something called “the DivineRight of Kings,” and that his power as the King over England was absolute(meaning that it could not be questioned).
“James’s great failure as an English king stemmed from his inability at first to perceive wherein the English assembly differed from the Scottish Parliament, and from his unwillingness to accept the differences when at last he became aware of them.”
In fact though, the problems didn’t end with James I. They went on for many years, with struggles between various kings and Parliament, until the English Bill of Rights was signed into law in 1689. But that only came after the King at that time (James II) fled the country, which became known as The Bloodless Revolution!
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he wasn’t writing it from within the bubble of the current events of his time. He was writing it from within the context of the hundreds of years of history since King James and the Pilgrims. And not only that, he was writing it from within the context of theancientrights of his ancestors going all the way back through history to Magna Charta.
That is the our heritage as American citizens, and we would do well to remember it.
(From a Biblical, Philosophical and Historical point of view)
Democracy = "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." (Bing)
Democracy was not invented by the Americans (after the Revolutionary War), nor by the French (after the French Revolution). According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it was developed by the ancient Greeks about 2500 years ago.
National Geographic adds that democracy gives people a methodology for replacing their government “through peaceful transfers of power rather than violent uprising or revolution.”
So why is it associated with the Americans and the French? They both replaced monarchies (rule by a king or queen) with democracies.
So then, what is the purpose of “violent uprising or revolution” in a democratic governmental system?
The Huffington Post weighs in with this:
“Popular uprisings against state authorities that are largely democratic in nature…can be viewed and, rightly so, as a disproportionate, if not misguided, response to the ills of the democratic system or democratically elected leaders.”
Booker T. Washington was born a slave in 1856, in Virginia–actually about 45 miles from my home. After reading just a few pages of his book, Up from Slavery, I concluded that we, in the 21st century, have just no clue about the institution of American slavery, or the thoughts of either the slaves, nor their masters. I recommend that you read it. Washington points out that the slaves definitely wanted their freedom, and that he pitied anyone who “is so unfortunate as to get entangled in the net of slavery.” Listen to what he says about the potential for bitter feelings toward the white race:
“When we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look the facts in the face, we must acknowledge that (not withstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery) the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country… are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 8
That is surprising–that a former slave would have that sentiment. Maybe this was because of tender age, but he claims that the same feelings were widespread.
However, as a white American, I cannot help but feel the sting of hearing that no whites–even Christians– offered to teach any of their black neighbors to read after the Emancipation. Washington explains in great detail the longing for education among former slaves of all ages.
“The great ambition of the older people was to try to learn to read the Bible before they died.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 15
And another insight seems very appropriate for our time:
“The world should not pass judgment upon the Negro, and especially the Negro youth, too quickly or too harshly. The Negro boy has obstacles, discouragements, and temptations to battle with that are little known to those not situated as he is. When a white boy undertakes a task, it is taken for granted that he will succeed. On the other hand, people are surprised if the Negro boy does not fail.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 17
And consider this:
“I have no idea, as I have stated elsewhere, who my grandmother was. I have, or have had uncles and aunts and cousins, but I have no knowledge as to where most of them are. My case will illustrate that of hundreds of thousands of black people in every part of our country. The very fact that the white boy is conscious that, if he fails in life, he will disgrace the whole family record…is of tremendous value in helping him to resist temptations.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 18
And lastly:
“In later years, I confess that I do not envy the white boy as I once did. I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed. Looked at from this standpoint, I almost reach the conclusion that often the Negro’s birth and connection with an unpopular race is an advantage, so far as real life is concerned. With few exceptions, the Negro youth must work harder and must perform his tasks even better than a white youth in order to secure recognition. But out of the hard and unusual struggle through which he is compelled to pass, he gets a strength, a confidence, that one misses whose pathway is comparatively smooth by reason of birth and race.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 19
In our next blog, we plan to take a look at Frederick Douglass, and see if we can gather some insights from his experience as a slave growing up in America.
mythopoeic = "of or relating to the composition of myths." (Collins English Dictionary)
myth = "an unfounded or false notion." (Mirriam-Webster)
Is Reverend Paul right? Is the Genesis account a myth?
“In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.”
Genesis 1:1-2
How can we know if this is true? Science can not prove it. It happened in the past. None of us was here. Therefore, science cannot disprove it either. It would have been a supernatural act by a supernatural God. You either believe it or you don’t.
“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness. God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.”
Genesis 1:3-5
And here is the first problem. How, exactly, can the Bible claim that God made heaven, and earth, and light on the first day when everyone knows that the universe is at least 13 billion years old and the earth more than 4.5 billion?
Radiometric dating = "a method of dating geological or archeological specimens by determining the relative proportions of particular radioactive isotopes present in a sample." (Bing)
But is radiometric dating really that reliable? In investigating the validity of radiometric dating, we found this:
“Many radioactive dating methods are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type isotopes already exists. These isotopes did not come from radioactive decay in the system but rather formed during the original creation of the elements.”
His Holiness Pope Pius XII Encyclical Letter on the Promotion of Biblical Studies September 30, 1943
To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Archbishops and other Local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.
Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order “to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”[1] This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals. No wonder herefore that, as she received it intact from the hands of the Apostles, so she kept it with all care, defended it from every false and perverse interpretation and used it diligently as an instrument for securing the eternal salvation of souls, as almost countless documents in every age strikingly bear witness. In more recent times, however, since the divine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defense and protection. The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.“[2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and–as they contended–in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
In our last blogpost, we talked about Hinduism, but today we go on to consider the Hindu founder of–what he called the “middle way” between various forms of Hinduism–Siddhartha Gautama , “the Buddha” (6th century BC). The stated purpose of Hinduism had been “to achieve Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha.”
dharma = "(in Indian religion) the eternal and inherent nature of reality, regarded in Hinduism as a cosmic law underlying right behavior and social order." (Bing)
artha = "the pursuit of wealth or material advantage" (Britannica.com)
But the Buddha renounced artha and kama. He focused on dharma and a revolutionary doctrine called nirvana (“quenching” or “blowing out”) . Hinduism had taught that the soul is eternal, and that by passing through multiple lives, and reincarnations, and by way of karma can eventually achieve moksha.
karma = "(in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences."
But Gautama (Buddha) taught that many cycles of these multiple births and rebirths can be skipped by following the noble eight-fold path.
THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH:
Right understanding
Right thought
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood (no trading in animals for slaughter, dealing in weapons, dealing in slaves, dealing in poison or dealing in intoxicants.)
Right effort
Right mindfulness (putting aside greed and all distress )
Right concentration (pleasant abiding)
A good way of understanding the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is by thinking of the Protestant Reformation in 16th century Europe. One source says:
“Gautama did for India what Luther and the Reformers did for Christendom.”
The Journal of Sacred Literature
Buddha’s teachings (contained in the buddhavacana) seem, though, more similar to a self-help program, kind of like Tony Robbins’ 5 Steps to Take Control of Your Life Now.
But, from just a strictly epistemological point-of-view, the question is, Are the buddhavacana‘s propositions true?
One site answers that this way: Nirvana is about “getting off the Ferris wheel of reincarnation…“ But what happens then?
The site goes on to say: “Where Buddha departed most radically from Hinduism was in his doctrine of anatta, the notion that individuals do not possess eternal souls. Instead of eternal souls, individuals consist of a bundle of habits, memories, sensations, desires, and so forth, which together delude one into thinking that he or she consists of a stable, lasting self.”
So let’s sum up.
Buddhist teaching is about escaping suffering in this life. It is not concerned with the next. So that’s its ontology. And its cosmology? We are told about the Thirty One Planes of Existence through which beings are born and reborn. And we are told that:
After a fair amount of research, I found this: “One of the basic tenets of Buddhism is the concept of interdependence which says that all things exist only in relationship to others, and that nothing can have an independent and autonomous existence. The world is a vast flow of events that are linked together and participate in one another. Thus there can be no First Cause, and no creation ex nihilo of the universe, as in the Big Bang theory.”
Hmmm…
Even though so many famous people (such as Angelina Jolie, Orlando Bloom, Keanu Reeves, Leonard Cohen, Tina Turner, Steve Jobs, and Tiger Woods) are okay with that, I’m not sure that I am.
Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson (2011)
I checked the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and found something called The Cosmological Argument which says:
“…Philosophers infer deductively, inductively, or abductively by inference to the best explanation that a first or sustaining cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists that caused and/or sustains the universe. “
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
So, despite its popularity among Hollywood celebrities, singers and song-writers, entrepreneurs, and golfers, and even considering Gautama’s laudible, well-intentioned sincerity, it seems that we have to look further than the buddhavacana to find the source of ultimate truth.
In our last blog, we talked about Hinduism, thought by many to be the oldest religion, with its collection of “sacred” texts, known as theVedas. But how can we judge them as a possible source of ultimate truth?
What are our standards?
I went to one website which talks about epistemology and talks about different kinds of knowledge. They talk there about something called propositional knowledge.
Propositional knowledge (or declarative knowledge) = "knowledge that some proposition is either true or false." (Bing)
So how can we know if the propositions contained in a religious text are true or false?
This, I think, is where it becomes valuable to think of epistemology, ontology, and cosmology in relationship with one another.
The Vedas, obviously, are written from the perspective that they are true. Assuming that they are, we therefore would have to accept their view of reality (that the physical world is only an illusion, as in Dr. Strange or The Matrix). We might also take another look at their understanding of God. One site says that “Brahman created Gods and humans in such a way that they had to be dependent on each other. Gods had power but could not make food for themselves and humans did not have power but they could make their own food.” This almost makes me think of the Valar in J.R.R. Tolkein’s The Silmarillion. Do they sound like gods to you?
god = "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." (Bing)
god = "(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity" (Bing)
We are told that “Indra is the most popular and praised god in the Vedas. In the Rig Veda, more than half the hymns invoke 3 gods, with Indra being the one who has the maximum number of hymns ( 250 hymns). He is the lord of the heavens. He is the god of thunder and rain and a great warrior.”
So, isn’t it safe to say that Hinduism’s Vedas are starting to look a lot like the Norse, Greek, and Roman systems that we–all our lives–have been told were only mythology?
mythology = "a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition," or
mythology = "a set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation, especially when exaggerated or fictitious." (Bing)
pantheism = "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God." (Bing)
Is that what you believe?
Doesn’t pantheism suggest to you that cutting down a tree for fuel, or for materials for home-building, or killing a steer or a chicken for food, is a form of sacrilege (Brahman = God = the Universe = Nature)?
Pantheists seem to be suggesting that we should inter-relate with our environment as one would inter-relate with an all-knowing, all-powerful God. But does that seem reasonable? Is that a proposition that you can accept as true?
All in all, doesn’t Hinduism–though perhaps an attractive alternative to western Judaeo-Christian traditions because of its mystical (inscrutable) other-worldliness)–seem a bit difficult for you to reconcile with your intellect? In spite of Sherlock Holmes’ advice, we may have to leave Dr. Strange to the world of Marvel comic books heroes, and continue our search for ultimate truth elsewhere.
