It’s impossible to say anything definitive about speculations. Somewhere you may be right (in a way) and somewhere else you may be wrong (in a way). And overall, too, you may be right (in a way),… and so on. I instead want to draw your agile attention to how Bob immediately understood my exact meaning, even if what I wrote made him cringe no less than what you wrote now makes me. He did not feel an impulse to disagree with the fact I wanted to bring up (like you often might for example); Bob only supposed the possibility of interpreting (dressing it up) differently. Very telling little coincidence, and puzzling, and perhaps worthy of your closer scrutiny.
Where is the origin of your notion that for Christians, their egos are to be spared from destruction or from the impossibility of serving two masters (“He or she does not have to choose”, etc.)? I am earnestly interested in where personally you have picked up this idea. If you share, I will in response share a funny story. For now we must continue in ever-darkening tone. You know that many people call themselves Christians, whether out of ignorance or for some other reason, arrogating to themselves a great responsibility they could never hope to correctly fulfill. It becomes a question of terminology at this point, and I say that once you call yourself “kettle”, you better live up to that name. And if only it was just the name! What we imply by that is - one has to also live up to that function. Contrary to pop-beliefs, the function of a Christian is not being nice to his fellow man and going to Church. The sole concern and function of a Christian qua Christian is his own (individual only!) so-called salvation. Everything else is secondary: friends and family, other people, reputation, the Church, even his own well-being (observe this curiosity, it is no coincidence either: salvation and well-being need not go hand in hand). The radical solipsistic slant of this aspect in re-legion must first be understood in full, to be appreciated philosophically.
What we see around us is that everybody naively calls himself “kettle”; but when you pour a little hot water into the innards of these proud vessels, they howl in pain and soon crack lengthwise.
I apologize if what I wrote hurt you, or made you “cringe” in some way. Your discussion with Bob are your own, you and Bob. I don’t busy myself with every reply made to a response. That is not because it is beneath me, but because the sun shines outside and one needs the fresh air.
But that said, I found your response curious. Made me wonder if you ever were a Christian, or to what degree you know the subject. But let me tell you the origins of my insight. The Christian opinion of “self” is similar to the Soul. Death is the destruction of the body, not the destruction of the self. The Soul, after it is free from the body, is subjected, just as a self would, to a judgment. Now, a person’s actions reflect natural dispositions and learned aspirations. For you, the self is both of these, or composed of both. But for the Christian, that gracious nihilist, natural dispositions are only seen in conflict with learned aspirations, and void of Soul, which is the house of self. The denial of natural dispositions or their subjugation to learned aspirations, then, does not cause in them the necessary feeling of sacrificing themselves as much as serving their own ends, for on their success depends the future condition of the Soul. Is it really that different from the natural propensity of a creature to leave behind a part of them in other to save that which is more prescious? Jesus says to rip your eye out, because “you” are not in your eye, but in your eternal soul. The situation is similar to a war patient who has caught an infection in his wounds. Often the surgeon takes an arm or a leg, but this is not considered a “human sacrifice”.
Now, what do you think is the meaning of “well-being” for a Christian? And is such definition incompatible with his definition or what he means by “salvation”? Obviously you feel that they do not go hand in hand. I don’t see why not. Can you tell me the origin of this insight? If you define “well being” as the corporeal well being, then yes, salvation does not follow corporeal commodity. But the idea that Jesus tried to convey to Christians is that you heap burning coals upon your head by this finite enjoyment. A greater reward is to be had in some “after-life”. The well being of the body, in this life, is not equated with the well being of the soul. Salvation is for them true well being, a well being with God who will nourish your soul eternally instead of tormenting it eternally. All that is required is the fulfillment of aspirations.
Humility has yet to register in my thoughts on wisdom. In fact, proverbs tells us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, not humility. So how do you deal with that? Is fear another word for humility, or somehow rooted in humility? To me, fear is opposable to trust and faith. Fear is the beginning of wisdom, but it is concomitant with trust, and in trust is how we are to proceed… (My argument here is pretty simple: we first see fear of God in Adam and Eve, who are afraid because they are naked. The fear that is the beginning of wisdom is the fear of being naked; it is the fear that causes us to cover up, to run and hide. This fear is concomitant with trust, in that instead of succombing to the fear we can entrust our naked selves to God. This, I think, is the path to wisdom…)
How can there be a wisdom that is “before any understanding of morality” or “the duality of good and evil” when wisdom is discerning good and evil? The tree of knowledge of good and evil, i.e., wisdom, is already growing when humankind is in a state of childish innocence… So I’m not sure how you distinguish wisdom from morality or knowledge of good and evil… To me they are the same.
Also, I take issue with “an innocence that was humble and childlike”, as if a childlike existence is humble. I don’t think children are humble (or at least, this isn’t what leaps to mind when I think of a child). Children are curious, adventurous, naive, often self-centered, but also trusting creatures. I believe it is the trusting spirit of children, as well as their helplessness, that draws Jesus to them.
Perhaps here is the crux of the matter: while you see this voice as “overbearing”, “overlaying”, “protective”, etc, and as such as something that must be “quieted”, I see this voice having an equal capacity to be supportive, harmonizing, generous, etc, and as such something we’d be fools to quiet.
But again, this “rest” and “peace” is, well, always a dream given the ego can never be silenced for good… Elements of this I obviously like though, such as your emphasis on trust. A new worry would be that “being taken into the mystical flow of spiritual life” means a relinquishing of personal responsibility and decision. It’s like you’re going to stop trying to control things and let time take you where it will, so that in the end you have no responsibility or decision as to where you end up.
I’m of the fervent belief that we are co-creators with God, and this means we can’t relinquish all control or responsibility but we must in fact take control, or take the reigns if you will and orchestrate the flow…
WL, I am somewhat surprised that you assume that I “cringed” at what you said (wrote), but in fact I just wanted to make clear that your expressive language didn’t meet with my experience and I doubt whether it would with a number of Christians living outside of America, albeit I am familiar with such expressions.
I would agree that a number of people may attempt to take on the right or responsibility of calling themselves Christian to which they are not entitled, but who do mean? Since the diversity amongst Christians is probably larger than with any other religious group, this would raise quite an issue. And, why this one group and not another?
I think that you do not understand half as much as you claim to. Why would Paul say that, if he could, he would forfeit salvation to see his fellow Jews saved? The idea that salvation is about selfishly surviving (in heaven), no matter what else is on the agenda, is a caricature of Christian teaching and quite a devious twist of the truth. In fact, the analogies used by Jesus suggest that the self-conscious are probably more prone to missing the point than, say, a poor widow with less than a penny in her pocket.
Well-being is to be understood as part and parcel of “completeness” in God, but not as something that is to be jealously guarded against all odds. The rich young man isn’t told that he must sell all of his possessions until it becomes clear that it is for them, not for salvation that he lives, even though he claims it to be otherwise. He is called to become free to live, instead of serving Mammon. If you do not cling to anything, you can move freely. That is the message.
As descriptive as your language is, I fail to see the real message, since who is “proud” - the person being studied, or the person who takes on the right to judge them?
Fear, as the beginning of wisdom (chokmâh) in the phrase you mentioned, is literally “reverence” and “awe” and that is something that can make us humble. It was in the translation into Greek that the word became attached to fear (phobos) in the way you mean. Trust is about confidence in somebody or something you revere or hold in awe, like for example Christ – this is also what people call faith. Your argument about Adam and Eve fails to notice the way the story is taking you. They are both in harmony with the Garden until the tree of morality (the knowledge of good and evil) becomes desirable to them. It is only when they have eaten the fruit of this knowledge that they become afraid (a different word to reverence) and hide, which is to say that morality installs fear but doesn’t provide the way out. It is trust (faith) that takes us back into harmony with God.
No, you shouldn’t equate knowledge of good and evil with wisdom. Wisdom is being in awe of God, or “knowing” God in a way that amounts to experiencing his Grace. Knowledge of morality is not the same as moral behaviour, whereas knowledge or experience of Grace is a transforming experience. The person who experiences the grace of God realises that the (moral) law doesn’t lead to salvation (freedom), but faith does. “Grace and peace from God” are what Paul wishes his Churches at the beginning of his letters, because it is an intuitively discerning spirit, as against a judging mind.
“Humble and childlike” means humble and childlike, which adds attributes rather than comparing them (as in humble or childlike), but it is as you say, that the trusting spirit of children is meant.
Perhaps the crux of the matter is that you don’t know what I mean …
If you are always presumptive of what people mean to the degree that you turn their words into the opposite of what they say, there are no grounds for discussion. You believe that you control more than you in fact do and you have no sense for the flow of spiritual life, so therefore you will probably tend to move against it. This is precisely the situation from which Christ “saves”.
Why would God have this tree growing in the middle of the garden if it only leads to sin? Why wouldn’t God uproot it and replace it with the tree of wisdom? If God creates by wisdom, then shouldn’t the tree of wisdom be in the middle of the garden?
I do believe that God eventually intended for Adam and Eve to enjoy wisdom’s (or what you are calling morality’s) fruit. God withheld the fruit initially (and the reason why is a good question to ask, I think), but this was only temporary. Unfortunately Adam and Eve didn’t have the patience and approached wisdom/morality on their own. (Thus they entered into an improper relationship with wisdom; i.e., without God.)
I’m not a Hebrew expert by the way. Indeed the word you mention has references to reverence, but it still seems to mean fear. Perhaps a double meaning is intended here by the writers. We are supposed to revere God, but Adam and Eve obviously fear God (they run and hide). Either way, trust is called for.
If you equate knowing good and evil with a moral law, then I agree. Wisdom is not a law or something that can be inscribed in law. To me, wisdom or knowledge of good and evil has nothing to do with law. It is the ability to discern what is good and evil in the singular situations we face. It is not the application of a law, but a discernment in a moment that no law has yet to be created for.
I was also worried before, and this reraises it, that you are very Greek in your thinking, that “wisdom is to be in awe of God”. This sounds like Aristotilean contemplation, for example, or Platonic reunion with the perfect forms. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I just wonder if you’ve thought about this Greek connection.
Again, I apologize, but I’ve taken the words you said at their face value and I’ve confronted you with a problem that you’ve yet to resolve (so far as I can tell).
There cannot be peace of mind if the ego is a perpetual voice. There might be brief moments of peace, but they will always be interrupted by egoism. As such there is no true rest in your thinking. That may not be a problem, but at other times it sounds like peace and rest is precisely what your thinking aims at. Hence why I prescribed not silencing the voice, but turning it into a voice that harmonizes with the moment it is in (a connecting rather than a separating voice).
It seems to me there are many spirits at work in the world so that the “spiritual flow of life” is not motivated by a single spirit we can trust in. The spirit of Satan is just as strong in this world as the spirit of Christ is, and the world could just as easily fall into its flow. Hence why I called for some control and responsibility. Hence why I see our calling as co-creators with God: so that the spiritual flow of life will indeed be the ruach elohim.
So anyways, that’s why I’m not entirely down with “going with the flow”, if that is indeed what you’re prescribing, since I think it naively presumes that the only spirit at work is a good one. If I misunderstand you, again I apologize.
That’s alright, it often happens because these thoughts are not common to all, instead we are continually led down the garden path.
Why was “Jesus […] led up to the wilderness by the Spirit, to be tempted by the Devil”? There is no point in asking this way, since the stories are not historical but allegorical. Adam and Eve are us, each of us who all reach a point when we choose morality instead of the Grace of our parents. Until then we are happily naked (unless conditioned early on in life not to be so) and happily ignorant. One day the choice comes and we fall every time. There is no quick way from innocence to wisdom, it always passes through experience. Even the Son of Man had to be tested, although he tells us to pray, “Lead us not into temptation.”
These stories are telling us that it is a normal part of our development to pass through temptation and inducement. Until we have been this way, we are not wise. The secret lies in the ability to overcome such temptation, which is what Jesus teaches his disciples –albeit they are not fully aware of that fact whilst he’s still alive. The call of Jesus to look at the children is to show them that they must be “born from above” and return to that childhood, but this time comprehending the wisdom of humilty.
Although the words for fear (reverence) and being afraid are related, they are separate words with different meanings. Standing I awe of something or somebody is quite different from being afraid of them. The latter is connected with the threat of punishment or harm, the first is just aware of the enormous disparity between him and the point of reverence.
That is where you go astray, you don’t need to discern what is good and evil but you need to know what to do. What does it help to be able to say that something is good or evil, since wisdom tells us that everything has its time:
Ecc 3:2-8
(2) A time to bring forth, And a time to die. A time to plant, And a time to eradicate the planted.
(3) A time to slay, And a time to heal, A time to break down, And a time to build up.
(4) A time to weep, And a time to laugh. A time to mourn, And a time to skip.
(5) A time to cast away stones, And a time to heap up stones. A time to embrace, And a time to be far from embracing.
(6) A time to seek, And a time to destroy. A time to keep, And a time to cast away.
(7) A time to rend, And a time to sew. A time to be silent, And a time to speak.
(8) A time to love, And a time to hate. A time of war, And a time of peace.
I am aware of this connection and Pierre Grimes once said that thinking Christians should be Platonists. And still I try to connect with that which went before.
Meditation is training, and without training we can’t run the race. The endless voice of ego is perhaps not really the problem, but our belief that we always have to follow it or react to it. When a thought comes we have to learn to let it pass, perhaps note it, but let it pass. If you train in this way, you become more able to concentrate on important things and listen more.
It is this fear of “evil spirits” that causes a lot of damage and it is in fact the opposite of faith. Just ask yourself whether, if it were as you say, you would ever know what spirit is riding you? Instead Christ says “fear not” and would have us enter to solitary chamber and be silent before our God. This isn’t naivety but faith in the words of Christ and his Way of death and resurrection, back to the Garden and the Presence of God.
If it’s a matter of discerning good and evil or discerning what to do, I’m happy to say either or (but we already knew that!). My comment before was basically that wisdom is knowing what is good, or what is right, or what we are to do, in the singular situations we face, so I think this is great.
Do you not worry about Paul’s statement in Corinthians that the wisdom of the Greeks will be destroyed (more or less)?
It’s not a matter of fear of evil spirits that has me say this. I’m not afraid of them, rather I think it’s of the utmost importance to admit their existence, to try and recognize them, to discern them and cast them out like Jesus does when he meets those possessed by demons (what would you say these people are in the grips of if not an evil spirit?). It seems to me that the fall is the introduction of the spirit of evil in the world, and that it was precisely for those possessed by evil that Jesus was sent.
If we work with your terms, since you don’t seem to like good and evil: would you say there is a spirit of selflessness and a spirit of egoism at work in the world? If so, why insist on this binary and reject good and evil?
As to your question, how would I ever know what spirit is riding me, well, enter wisdom or knowing good and evil! Jesus seems able to recognize good and evil spirits (just as these spirits can recognize Jesus, interestingly…), and so I think it’s a human capacity, something we are all capable of. I’m not quite there yet, but I certainly don’t think it’s impossible. I also think Christ says “fear not” because Christ doesn’t want us to run and hide from him. He is not an evil spirit and he indeed wants us to know we can trust him (just as God wanted Adam and Eve to trust instead of fear). However, I think we need to trust in God even in the face of evil. This is precisely what the crucifixion is: Jesus passes through the torments of evil, trusting in God to give life every step of the way, even into death.
No, because I understand what he is saying there, something that I fully agree with. The wisdom of words will perish before the experience of grace, humbly presented as the Way of the Cross. This is something that debaters either scoff at or hold in awe, but you can’t really debate it. It is something you simply surrender to by following it. The Gospel dumbfounds people – even those who want to be Christians but at the same time want to be debaters.
“Discerning” the spirits is what I was talking about when meditating. But the “spirits” of then are the manipulative thoughts of today. However, the more you fight them, the more power they gain. It is as though you followed those thoughts, entertaining them in your mind, debating with them until they have you. You really have to discern this and see through them, letting them pass. It is helpful to concentrate on the Lords Prayer, letting the short statements occupy the mind, or on a single verse from the Bible, like a Mantra.
The language of the Bible is intended to be pictorial, which is the language of the soul, but it isn’t meant to be taken literally. You have to see through the surface into its depths, and then you experience the grace of God. Allow its pictures to inspire you but don’t stay on the surface. Intuition can lead you once you have gained experience.
I know many people, mostly patients and residents, who are possessed by delusions. Often it is caused by their medication as a side effect, but there are people who are destined to have certain illnesses. I have daily contact with people who are schizophrenic or have psychotic illnesses. If you can reach their soul without making them scared, they are very thankful and greet you the next time they see you like a long lost brother. This is the way to present the Gospel even to people who are presumed healthy, but to force the issue of historicity is to blow it and you lose the magic – it is then only the ideology of fanatics and is enforced by the dictatorship of the weak.
I think the best way to explain this would be to show you what Jesus said to the pious Pharisees who really did mean well. These weren’t the nominal Jews, they were serious about what they did, and stood to be counted. This was the dispute that they had with Jesus. They told him that he and his disciples had a bad influence on people by reaping or even healing on the Sabbath, not going through washing rituals etc. Jesus was quite blunt (Matth. 23:25-26):
“ … ye make clean the outside of the cup and the plate, and within they are full of rapine and incontinence. Blind Pharisee! cleanse first the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside of them also may become clean.”
The worry about becoming unclean by mixing with non-pious people, or being possessed by demons and spirits outside of us overlooks the fact that … “there is nothing from without the man entering into him that is able to defile him, but the things coming out from him, those are the things defiling the man. If any have ears to hear – let him hear!”