I finished reading 1 Nephi tonight so I am now 53 pages (10%) through the Book of Mormon (BOM). Over the last four days, that's an average of 13.25 pages per day. At that rate, I'd finish the BOM in 40 days (December 5). Now, obviously the point here isn't to go for speed and forego comprehension. So, if it takes 60 or 80 or 100 days to get through the BOM, so be it. The important thing is to get something out of the experience and also judge for myself whether I believe in the book (or not). My wife, however, will appreciate the math above because I tend to do that with other books and she finds it amusing (and likely a bit ridiculous).
In terms of the content itself, I had two posts along the way (here and here). Regarding the tree of life, there is greater explanation regarding the meaning behind the tree of life in 11:22-27, 11:35-36, 12:16-18, 15:23-24, and 15:26-30. In short, the tree of life is the love of God, the rod of iron is the word of God, and the great and spacious building is the pride of the world.
At chapter 4 of 1 Nephi, there is a puzzling story of God (via the Spirit) directing Nephi to kill someone:
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.
Laban had been after Nephi's family and was also withholding plates of brass that had important information on them about Nephi's family and other direction from God. So, this is somewhat self-defense in the sense that if Nephi didn't kill Laban, Laban would have killed Nephi and his family at some point. But it's also not really self-defense in the sense that Laban is drunk on the ground, posing no immediate threat to Nephi, and yet Nephi chops off his head in cold blood. And that wouldn't be that hard to accept other than the fact that he does it at the specific direction of the Spirit. With respect to the plates of brass, you could also argue the ends justify the means ("It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief") and I get that. But it seems like there was probably a better way to accomplish this goal - especially if God's going to get directly involved. It's one thing if it's man making due with a bad situation but you'd assume God has more tools at his disposal and/or a better solution available to him that getting someone drunk and then having someone else behead him with his own sword. Asked the missionaries about this and they didn't have a great answer. Asked HG about this as well and she didn't have a great answer either. You can argue that this took place in Old Testament times (eye for an eye, etc) excerpt for the fact that if God is "the same yesterday, to-day, and forever" (1 Nephi 10:18) then the same God that's involved here (in roughly 600 BC) is the same God that operates today. Anyway, if others have good explanations, would love to hear them. I wouldn't say this passage diminishes my faith but it did take me a bit by surprise.
There are multiple references to the abominable church of the devil (see, for example, 13:3-9, 13:26-28, 13:32, 14:1-17, and 22:23). At first I thought this was a literal reference to a particular faith or church (which would have been troubling), but my sister-in-law HG informed me that Church officials have gone on the record saying that these passages are metaphorical and refer to anything worldly that takes one's attention away from God or otherwise corrupts His teachings.
In 15:11, it says "If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you". That's a comforting thought.
In 17:45, it says "Ye are swift to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God". So true.
And, in 19:6, it says "Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself". This admission that errors may exist in the record given weakness "according to the flesh" is good to hear (at least for me personally) relative to other concerns I've raised on this topic in the past (see this post, for example).
On a whole, I think it's too early to really say what I think of the BOM and whether reading it will lead me to be baptized or not. I'll just need to continue this process and see how it goes with the remaining 90% of the book (ignoring D&C and the Pearl of Great Price which are another whole set of reading). Reactions or thoughts very welcome in the meantime.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Burial
I was in Houston, Texas a couple of weeks ago. While driving down the highway, I passed a cemetary and it caused me to ask my wife where she would want to be buried. Note: someone else was driving while I sent the email on my Treo. Her response was: "I would say wherever you and the boys are settled. If the boys are grown and moved away, then wherever you are settled. I actually don't care - I think grave sites are for the survivors. Where do you want to be buried?" It's a good question. I've always pictured being buried by a lone tree up on a hill. Perhaps that's cliche. Maybe it's from a movie. Not sure. But that's how I've always pictured my final resting spot.
I was also thining about cremation. I've always wanted to fly so having my ashes dispersed from a plane or helicopter could be cool. Cremation caused me to think, however, about the LDS belief in resurrection and whether having a cremated body would get in the way of that. My sister-in-law's response to that question was: "I believe Church leaders have stated we recommend against it because the spirit and body will reunite. However, God will still have no problem putting it all back together even if you do cremate. So no strong stance [by the Church]."
I suppose donating my body to science is another option. Kind of noble but not nearly as nice for me than being by a tree or flying through the air. Then again, I'd be dead at that point so what do I care? As my wife put it, "I think grave sites are for the survivors" so I'd go along with whatever they choose.
I was also thining about cremation. I've always wanted to fly so having my ashes dispersed from a plane or helicopter could be cool. Cremation caused me to think, however, about the LDS belief in resurrection and whether having a cremated body would get in the way of that. My sister-in-law's response to that question was: "I believe Church leaders have stated we recommend against it because the spirit and body will reunite. However, God will still have no problem putting it all back together even if you do cremate. So no strong stance [by the Church]."
I suppose donating my body to science is another option. Kind of noble but not nearly as nice for me than being by a tree or flying through the air. Then again, I'd be dead at that point so what do I care? As my wife put it, "I think grave sites are for the survivors" so I'd go along with whatever they choose.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
What's really mine?
I've been wondering recently what in this life is really mine. One way to answer that question would be any or all of the following: my body, my skills, my soul, my material possessions, my job, my purpose, my accomplishments, my family. And, from most people, you probably wouldn't get much disagreement over those answers since it is the traditional way that people think about this question. But the more I personally think about it, the less I see that is really mine. You could argue that all of those things I listed are gifts from God and that anything good that flows from them is also a gift from God. In some ways, I am more of a custodian or trustee than an owner. And that bugs me on some level since I want there to be things that I can call mine, just mine, that I have exclusive dominion over.
The only thing I can come up with that falls into that category is my free will or agency. That's something that, based on how God has setup the system, is mine and can't be taken away or overridden by God. But, here's the rub, I'm supposed to use that free will to make decisions that align with God's commandments such that the outcome is exactly the same as if I didn't have free will to begin in. And, if I choose to do otherwise, I'm supposed to use my free will to repent and ask for forgiveness for those sins. So, in reality, if I am faithful and choose to do what I'm supposed to do, I'm basically left with nothing that is really mine. Perhaps that's the true test: we need to consciously choose to give up everything in this life to obtain everything we might want in the next life.
Right now, I'm not racing out to do that. I'm not pleading with God to take away my sins. If anything, I want to hold onto them. I'm hoarding them. I used my free will to get my sins. They're mine, all mine. They're all I have in this world.
The only thing I can come up with that falls into that category is my free will or agency. That's something that, based on how God has setup the system, is mine and can't be taken away or overridden by God. But, here's the rub, I'm supposed to use that free will to make decisions that align with God's commandments such that the outcome is exactly the same as if I didn't have free will to begin in. And, if I choose to do otherwise, I'm supposed to use my free will to repent and ask for forgiveness for those sins. So, in reality, if I am faithful and choose to do what I'm supposed to do, I'm basically left with nothing that is really mine. Perhaps that's the true test: we need to consciously choose to give up everything in this life to obtain everything we might want in the next life.
Right now, I'm not racing out to do that. I'm not pleading with God to take away my sins. If anything, I want to hold onto them. I'm hoarding them. I used my free will to get my sins. They're mine, all mine. They're all I have in this world.
Yesterday, today, and forever
I'm sure there are passages like this all over the Bible and the Book of Mormon but I liked the following passages from 1 Nephi 9 and 1 Nephi 10.
1 Nephi 9:6
But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is.
1 Nephi 10:18-19
18 For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.
Given where I am right now, the last part about "he that diligently seekth shall find and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them" is a comfort.
1 Nephi 9:6
But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is.
1 Nephi 10:18-19
18 For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.
Given where I am right now, the last part about "he that diligently seekth shall find and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them" is a comfort.
Tree of life
I was talking with the missionaries yesterday and JW said that his 11-year old read the Book of Mormon in 53 days by committing to read 10 pages per day. Not to be outdone by an 11-year old (pesky pride), I was thinking today that I should do the same and read the Book of Mormon between now and the end of the year. Only time will tell if I make good on that (recall I also decided awhile ago I was going to read the Bible cover-to-cover and quit 25 pages into Genesis), but tonight I read the first ten chapters in 1 Nephi (18 pages). In chapter 8, there is a discussion of the tree of life that stood out for me:
19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.
20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.
21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood.
22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.
23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.
24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.
25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.
26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.
27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.
28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.
29 And now I, Nephi, do not speak all the words of my father.
30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.
31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.
32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.
33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.
34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.
Earlier in the chapter, Nephi says in verses 10-12: "And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy. And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen. And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit."
So, to sum things up, we have this fruit that will make you happy, it's the best fruit you've ever tasted, and not surprisingly lots of people are interested in having a taste. Some people get lost along the way, some people effectively spit it out after they taste the fruit, and a lot of people choose to mock those seeking the fruit (and cause people to either turn away from their quest or regret their decision having achieved their goal).
It's this "spacious building ... filled with people, both old and young, both male and female ... their manner of dress exceedingly fine" that I fear the most right now. I haven't reached a point in my knowledge, understanding, convictions, or testimony yet that I can withstand any form of mocking or pointing of fingers - or at least I don't know that I've reached that point - so I'm reluctant to "go public" and invite this form of scrutiny. That being said, I'm writing about this in my blog and inviting you all to read it but it's a friendly audience and even if you ask questions or disagree, I know it's done in the spirit of love and trying to help rather than mocking or pointing of fingers.
19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.
20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.
21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood.
22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.
23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.
24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.
25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.
26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.
27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.
28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.
29 And now I, Nephi, do not speak all the words of my father.
30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.
31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.
32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.
33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.
34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.
Earlier in the chapter, Nephi says in verses 10-12: "And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy. And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen. And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit."
So, to sum things up, we have this fruit that will make you happy, it's the best fruit you've ever tasted, and not surprisingly lots of people are interested in having a taste. Some people get lost along the way, some people effectively spit it out after they taste the fruit, and a lot of people choose to mock those seeking the fruit (and cause people to either turn away from their quest or regret their decision having achieved their goal).
It's this "spacious building ... filled with people, both old and young, both male and female ... their manner of dress exceedingly fine" that I fear the most right now. I haven't reached a point in my knowledge, understanding, convictions, or testimony yet that I can withstand any form of mocking or pointing of fingers - or at least I don't know that I've reached that point - so I'm reluctant to "go public" and invite this form of scrutiny. That being said, I'm writing about this in my blog and inviting you all to read it but it's a friendly audience and even if you ask questions or disagree, I know it's done in the spirit of love and trying to help rather than mocking or pointing of fingers.
Friday, October 26, 2007
The Business Traveling Parent
Over the last month or so, I've been doing a lot of business travel. My wife got me the book The Business Traveling Parent: How to Stay Close to Your Kids When You're Far Away the other day at the library and I read it on one of my flights. Quick read with some good ideas. I scanned the ones that seemed like they'd work best for my family (download). On this last trip to DC, I did the letter on itinerary swap, hotel stationary, postcard, and story book over the phone ideas and it seemed to go well with the kids. If others have suggestions, please let me know.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Truth
In response to a prior post, my brother pointed me to the Wikipedia page on truth and asked me what I believe is truth. This is one of the benefits of having a blog like this and putting myself out there. It encourages people to share ideas or questions that they probably wouldn't otherwise bring up.
On a recent flight (of which there have unfortunately been many), I read the Wikipedia page. I found it interesting to discover that "the term [truth] has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree ... There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute." The correspondence theory is a "class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality ... Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying 'objective reality' and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols ... [but] language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another." Coherence theory, in general, says that "truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system ... A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole." Constructivist theory holds that "that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community." Consensus theory holds that "truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group." And the pragmatic theory says that "truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice ... [and that] definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which [Peirce] accords a lower status than real definitions."
In terms of philosophers, Kierkegaard said that "objective truths for the study of subjects like math, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argue[d] that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life." And Fromm said that "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period ... different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth."
In terms of my personal view of truth, I'd say it's a combination of the correspondence theory and the coherence theory (as I understand them from reading this Wikipedia page). In terms of correspondence theory, I do believe that there is an objective reality based on physical phenomenon or occurences such as particular atoms being at particular 3-D locations at a particular time or certain frequencies being transmitted through the air at a particular time. But this reality isn't entirely objective in the sense that we have to use language or personal judgments to overlay intent or inward reality on these outward physical phenomenon. For example, I might say "I am tired" and walk away. There is an objective reality that the atoms that compose my body moved through some 3-D space instant-by-instant during that utterance and some set of audio frequencies which transmitted instant-by-instant through the air at the same time. But that is all we can say with absolute certainty about this occurrence. As an external observer (other than God), we can't know for sure the intent behind that physical occurrence (e.g., whether I am indeed tired and need to go to bed or if I am simply making an excuse to exit the situation so I can go do something more interesting). And, sometimes even as a self-observer, we don't know the subconscious intent behind our actions and run into some of the same challenges as an external observer.
In terms of the coherence theory, I've said a couple of different times that I believe that everything happens for a reason (see prior post) and that everything in that sense fits into a whole system. So, the true global significance of a single event cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be taken in the context of the larger system.
Now, if we factor in the concept of emergence (see prior post), I can integrate the correspondence theory and the coherence theory into a consolidated theory that is personally meaningful. Specifically, there is an objective reality of physical phenomenon (e.g., atoms in motion, frequencies in the air, etc) that leads to other physical phenomenon occuring from which some perceived outward reality emerges. Now, in terms of finding the truth in this outward reality, these events (along with their inward motivations and decision-making process) must be mapped into specific nodes and paths through the cosmic decision tree I referred to in my everything happens for a reason post. In this sense, understanding the truth and significance of our current reality is only possible by way of understanding the future reality it enables.
I strongly doubt this makes sense to anyone but me. But it's my blog so, at the end of the day, all that matters is that what I'm saying makes sense to me. =)
On a recent flight (of which there have unfortunately been many), I read the Wikipedia page. I found it interesting to discover that "the term [truth] has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree ... There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute." The correspondence theory is a "class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality ... Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying 'objective reality' and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols ... [but] language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another." Coherence theory, in general, says that "truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system ... A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole." Constructivist theory holds that "that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community." Consensus theory holds that "truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group." And the pragmatic theory says that "truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice ... [and that] definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which [Peirce] accords a lower status than real definitions."
In terms of philosophers, Kierkegaard said that "objective truths for the study of subjects like math, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argue[d] that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life." And Fromm said that "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period ... different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth."
In terms of my personal view of truth, I'd say it's a combination of the correspondence theory and the coherence theory (as I understand them from reading this Wikipedia page). In terms of correspondence theory, I do believe that there is an objective reality based on physical phenomenon or occurences such as particular atoms being at particular 3-D locations at a particular time or certain frequencies being transmitted through the air at a particular time. But this reality isn't entirely objective in the sense that we have to use language or personal judgments to overlay intent or inward reality on these outward physical phenomenon. For example, I might say "I am tired" and walk away. There is an objective reality that the atoms that compose my body moved through some 3-D space instant-by-instant during that utterance and some set of audio frequencies which transmitted instant-by-instant through the air at the same time. But that is all we can say with absolute certainty about this occurrence. As an external observer (other than God), we can't know for sure the intent behind that physical occurrence (e.g., whether I am indeed tired and need to go to bed or if I am simply making an excuse to exit the situation so I can go do something more interesting). And, sometimes even as a self-observer, we don't know the subconscious intent behind our actions and run into some of the same challenges as an external observer.
In terms of the coherence theory, I've said a couple of different times that I believe that everything happens for a reason (see prior post) and that everything in that sense fits into a whole system. So, the true global significance of a single event cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be taken in the context of the larger system.
Now, if we factor in the concept of emergence (see prior post), I can integrate the correspondence theory and the coherence theory into a consolidated theory that is personally meaningful. Specifically, there is an objective reality of physical phenomenon (e.g., atoms in motion, frequencies in the air, etc) that leads to other physical phenomenon occuring from which some perceived outward reality emerges. Now, in terms of finding the truth in this outward reality, these events (along with their inward motivations and decision-making process) must be mapped into specific nodes and paths through the cosmic decision tree I referred to in my everything happens for a reason post. In this sense, understanding the truth and significance of our current reality is only possible by way of understanding the future reality it enables.
I strongly doubt this makes sense to anyone but me. But it's my blog so, at the end of the day, all that matters is that what I'm saying makes sense to me. =)
Shift Happens
My father forwarded me a cool presentation today (download). The theme is how fast the world is moving forward in terms of knowledge and work environment due to exponential growth of computers and communications. It is a paradigm shift. The slides were presented at the DISA (DoD IT and Telecom Agency) conference by Lt. General Croom. If you have a couple of minutes, check out the preso. I found it quite thought-provoking.
Hallway and rooms
My brother-in-law DE is especially fond of this passage from Mere Christianity (at the end of the preface) so I thought I'd share it with everyone:
I hope no reader will suppose that “mere” Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions – as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “Do I like this kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.
I think there's some truth in this. While discussing my intention to investigate the LDS Church in a prior post, I mentioned the benefit of community as it pertains to organized religion. That is one aspect of the room vs the hallway that C.S. Lewis is describing above. Using Lewis' metaphor, right now I'm in the hallway and I'm peaking my head into the LDS room, leaning my weight into the door frame, but resisting the momentum to go all the way in. It will be interesting to see how long that lasts and whether I poke my head into any other rooms before finally picking one. I think it's a question of "when" not "if" at this point and I suspect that Lewis will be right when he says that when I do get into my room, I will find that the long wait has done me some kind of good which I would not have had otherwise.
I hope no reader will suppose that “mere” Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions – as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “Do I like this kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.
I think there's some truth in this. While discussing my intention to investigate the LDS Church in a prior post, I mentioned the benefit of community as it pertains to organized religion. That is one aspect of the room vs the hallway that C.S. Lewis is describing above. Using Lewis' metaphor, right now I'm in the hallway and I'm peaking my head into the LDS room, leaning my weight into the door frame, but resisting the momentum to go all the way in. It will be interesting to see how long that lasts and whether I poke my head into any other rooms before finally picking one. I think it's a question of "when" not "if" at this point and I suspect that Lewis will be right when he says that when I do get into my room, I will find that the long wait has done me some kind of good which I would not have had otherwise.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Jesus Christ
I've believed in God for awhile now but it's only been recently that I've started to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as opposed to just a prophet or a spiritual leader. The change came about from reading the following passage in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.
[Now] comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was part of God, or one with God; there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhestitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was God whose laws were broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unpredudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
Seems like sound logic to me. Now, the more interesting question is what are all the implications of taking that step from not fully believing in Jesus Christ to believing in Jesus Christ? What about the Atonement? What about the Resurrection? What about the Godhead?
[Now] comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was part of God, or one with God; there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhestitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was God whose laws were broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unpredudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
Seems like sound logic to me. Now, the more interesting question is what are all the implications of taking that step from not fully believing in Jesus Christ to believing in Jesus Christ? What about the Atonement? What about the Resurrection? What about the Godhead?
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Falling on grenades
I was talking with my brother-in-law DE last night and he made a useful analogy regarding the Atonement. Specifically, he was talking about soldiers who go into battle and find themselves in situations where someone sacrifices themselves to protect the rest of their troop - specifically falling on a live grenade to shield others from the explosion. He talked about the soldiers who survive that experience - the fact that they're glad to be alive but also how they now have a debt they can never fully repay to their fallen comrade. That simple analogy really helped me connect with the concept of the Atonement (thanks DE!). Perhaps others will also find it helpful.
Update (10/7/07): One other thing I found useful about that conversation is that we discussed the fact that there are many situations in which I would be willing to lay down my life (or endure suffering) but comparatively fewer situations in which I'd be willing to sacrifice one of my sons' lives - as God did with his Son.
Update (10/24/07): Since I got asked about this the other day, let me quickly point out that I'm not saying here that this is everything there is to say about the Atonement. All I'm saying is that this analogy was one way that I was able to viscerally connect with the concept of the Atonement in a way I wasn't able to in the past.
Update (10/7/07): One other thing I found useful about that conversation is that we discussed the fact that there are many situations in which I would be willing to lay down my life (or endure suffering) but comparatively fewer situations in which I'd be willing to sacrifice one of my sons' lives - as God did with his Son.
Update (10/24/07): Since I got asked about this the other day, let me quickly point out that I'm not saying here that this is everything there is to say about the Atonement. All I'm saying is that this analogy was one way that I was able to viscerally connect with the concept of the Atonement in a way I wasn't able to in the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)