Monday
2:00 - Kanan De Los Santos - Truth and Reconciliation: A Brief
Inquiry Into the Nature of Sin, Forgiveness and Repentance
3:00 - Ryan Farrington - Foreknowledge and Foreordination
4:00 - Kathleen Dowling - Punishment and Discipline
Tuesday
8:00
John
Elhardt
Eve's
Wisdom
9:00
Annabel
Carroll
Gender
Roles
10:00 - Addison Hinrichs - Reductio ad Absurdum
11:00
- Ryan
McDonald
Reexamining
Greatness
12:00
Lunch
1:00 - Rosalie Blacklock - The Transcendence of Good and Evil
2:00 - Wesley Near - The Means to Believe
3:00
Jenny
Rulison
Confident
in
Christ
4:00 - Nickolas Bruetsch - A Case for History: Why Studying
History is Important
Kanan de los Santos
5-18-2012
GBT V Paper II
Word Count: 3,564
Truth and Reconciliation: A Brief Inquiry Into the Nature of Sin,
Forgiveness, and Repentance
“To properly forgive another you must first forgive
1
yourself.” This proverb describes the common mentality of
forgiveness, but does not address the fact that there is a
fundamental need to know how to properly forgive. Is it possible to
properly forgive someone? This question regarding one of the basic
necessities of the human race is a simple, yet profound, one.
Examining history there can be found many theologians, bards, and
authors who have tried to elaborate on the true methods of proper
forgiveness. Of many famous figures of history properly illustrating
forgiveness, the poet Homer provides an exemplary tale of
forgiveness in one of his famous stories.
In The Iliad, the classic epic written by Homer, the central
character is Achilles the greatest warrior of the Trojan War. In the
opening lines of The Iliad Achilles cries out, “Sing, goddess, the anger
of Peleus’ son Achilleus, and its devastation, which put pains
thousandfold upon the Achaeans, hurled in their multitudes to the
house of Hades strong souls of heroes, but gave their bodies to be
the delicate feasting of dogs, of all birds, and the will of Zeus was
accomplished since that time when first there stood in division of
2
conflict Atreus’ son the lord of men and brilliant Achilleus”. This
theme in The Iliad, the rage that Achilles bears, provides an ideal
parable regarding the nature of forgiveness. The plot begins during a
plague brought on the Achaeans by the god Apollo. An attempt was
made to understand the reason Apollo had smitten them with
1
2
Anonymous
The Iliad Book I, Homer
plague. Central to this tale is that King Agamemnon had a concubine
named Chrysies who had been obtained through kidnapping and
assault. Her bereaved father was the priest Chryses who was a
priest of Apollo. During this calamity in the camp of the Achaeans,
their seer, Calchas, revealed the source of the plague was due to the
presence of Chrysies. Armed with this knowledge, the Achaeans
forced Agamemnon to surrender and return Chrysies to her father.
After returning her, Agamemnon then forcefully claimed the
beautiful Bryseis, a woman equal to Chrysies. However, Bryseis was
the possession of the great Achilles, who was greatly enamored with
her. Agamemnon possessed greater troop force than the Achaeans
(Greeks), thereby forcing Achilles to reluctantly yield Briseis to him.
Achilles, in his rage, rescinded his forces from the battles and
refused to partake in the war, allowing the Trojan army to gain the
upper hand.
Achilles’ beloved cousin Patroklus (feeling compassion for
his fellow Achaeans) borrowed Achilles’ armor and went out to
battle with the Achaeans. Upon seeing Patroklus in Achilles’ armor,
the Trojans assumed it was Achilles leading the battle and filled with
fear, allowed the Achaeans to advance. However, Prince Hector
recognizing that it was not Achilles, rode into battle and slew the
heroic Patroklus. Upon discovering the death of his beloved cousin,
Achilles realized the error of his ways and called a meeting with
Agamemnon saying, “Son of Atreus, king of men Agamemnon, you
can give such gifts as you think proper, or you can withhold them: it
is in your own hands. Let us now set battle in array; it is not well to
tarry talking about trifles, for there is a deed which is as yet to do.
Achilles shall again be seen fighting among the foremost, and laying
low the ranks of the Trojans: bear this in mind each one of you when
3
he is fighting.” Achilles realized that to repent for his actions he
must once again enter the battle. Recognizing his own hand in this
tragedy, a humbled King Agamemnon spoke to Achilles saying, “Son
of Laertes, your words please me well, for throughout you have
spoken wisely. I will swear as you would have me do; I do so of my
own free will, neither shall I take the name of heaven in vain. Let,
then, Achilles wait, though he would fain fight at once, and do you
others wait also, till the gifts come from my tent and we ratify the
4
oath with sacrifice.” After finally conceding to the foolishness of
his ways, Agamemnon realized the wisdom in Achilles’ repentance.
Agamemnon then advised Achilles to wait and let the gifts and
sacrifices follow, so that they can properly forgive one another for
the actions they have committed.
The important aspects of forgiveness are illustrated in the
recounting of this tale. First, it is acknowledged that a mistake has
been made, which is clearly identified in the selfish actions of
Agamemnon regarding Achilles’ slave. Yet Achilles is not innocent
either: His withdrawal from the war created the circumstances
leading to the death of Patroklus. This tragedy leads to the next
aspect: mutual forgiveness, which is demonstrated by the
reparations and gifts offered to Achilles by Agamemnon and
resulting in Achilles rejoining the war. Although Agamemnon and
Achilles display the primary illustrations of forgiveness, the ultimate
scene of forgiveness is given in the latter portion of The Iliad
regarding the burial of Prince Hector.
3
4
The Iliad Book XIX, Homer
The Iliad Book XIX, Homer
After Achilles kills the warrior Prince Hector and drags his
body around the city of Troy, King Priam goes into the tent of
Achilles and begs for the body of his son. “The two wept bitterlyPriam, as he lay at
Achilles' feet, weeping for Hector, and Achilles
now for his Father and now for Patroklus, till the house was filled
5
with their
lamentation.” This scene of Priam begging at the feet of
Achilles, and the mutual grief for Priam’s loss pulls on the
heartstrings. Although Agamemnon and Achilles’ falling out,
forgiveness, and repentance shows the proper steps of forgiveness;
Priam’s and Achilles’ forgiveness of one another in the death of their
loved ones shows the true face of forgiveness.
The forgiveness shown by King Priam and Achilles
exemplifies the humble nature needed in forgiveness. The two of
them meeting on equal terms in lamentation, helps conclude the
saga of forgiveness in the rage-filled Iliad. This saga began with
Achilles’ and Agamemnon’s feud and ended with the heartfelt
repentance of Priam and Achilles. This ancient narrative of the
Trojan War demonstrates and executes all the key aspects of
th
forgiveness. Moving forward and taking a dramatic shift to the 12
century reveals the new stage of western civilization’s perspectives
on the topic of true forgiveness.
Revered for his contributions to natural philosophy the
th
12 century priest, St. Thomas Aquinas, was known for his views
regarding penance and its relation to forgiveness. In his book,
Summa Theologica III, St. Thomas creates six common consequences
of penance in relation to mortal sin. He begins by saying, “We must
now consider the effect of Penance; and (1) as regards the pardon of
mortal sins; (2) as regards the pardon of venial sins; (3) as regards
the return of sins which have been pardoned; (4) as regards the
recovery of the virtues. Under the first head there are six points of
inquiry: (1) whether all mortal sins are taken away by Penance? (2)
Whether they can be taken away without Penance? (3) Whether one
can be taken away without the other? (4) Whether Penance takes
away the guilt while the debt remains? (5) Whether any remnants of
sin remain? (6) Whether the removal of sin is the effect of Penance
as a virtue, or as a sacrament? Whether all sins are taken away by
6
Penance? ” The common consequences may seem overwhelming,
but for every question Aquinas provides a logical and Biblical
response for its existence.
Examining the notion of penance absolving sins, St.
Thomas Aquinas states, “If by the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,
we understand sin committed through certain malice, this means
either that the blasphemy itself against the Holy Ghost is
unpardonable, i.e. not easily pardonable, or that such a sin does not
7
contain in itself any motive for pardon.” Henceforth regarding
blasphemy as a sin, the possibility of forgiveness lingers. For
everyone commits blasphemy; yet we are forgiven. Therefore St.
Thomas shows that all sins can be pardoned through penance, since
Christ (our ultimate sacrifice) gives us an infinitely clean slate to
repent upon. This forgiveness is entire, not specific, for Christ died to
forgive all sins, not just some sins.
Regarding the next inquiry, the pardoning of sin without
penance, St. Thomas concisely states, “Consequently, for the pardon
of this offense against God, it is necessary for man's will to be so
changed as to turn to God and to renounce having turned to
something else in the aforesaid manner, together with a purpose of
amendment; all of which belongs to the nature of penance as a
8
virtue.” St. Thomas shows that to truly have one’s sin absolved by
God repentance is necessary. This is allowed solely based upon the
fact that Christ is willing to forgive us and that we (Christians) are
willing to attempt a change of our nature. Without any renunciation
of our sinful lives, Christ’s grace is rejected and is returned with
nothing but contempt. However, with penance as a virtue (action)
our efforts to lead a sinless life enable us to commit to Christ’s
sacrifice.
Concerning the following consequence, the forgiveness of
sin being entire or individual, St. Thomas states, “For if one
particular sin were displeasing to him, because it is against the love
of God above all things (which motive is necessary for true
9
repentance), it follows that he would repent of all.” St. Thomas
asserts that without sin being forgiven entirely, it would be
impossible for proper repentance. If Christ did not lay down his life
for all sin, then he would not have defeated death. It is through this
absolute forgiveness of sin that we with an entirely sinful nature are
forgiven. Only through the forgiveness of sin entirely can we
understand that the sins apparent and unapparent are forgiven.
Therefore, by merely accepting our sinful nature we can properly
repent and be forgiven by God.
St. Thomas subsequently voices his opinion about the
remaining punishment for those who have repented and been
absolved, stating, “Consequently when guilt is pardoned through
grace, the soul ceases to be turned away from God, through being
united to God by grace: so that at the same time, the debt of
punishment is taken away, albeit a debt of some temporal
10
punishment may yet remain.”
In this supposition St. Thomas
describes how Christ’s pardoning of sin through his sacrifice makes it
impossible for an eternal punishment to be brought down from God.
However, the distinction is made that due to our sinful nature and
sinful actions there may be some sort of temporal punishment.
Often we may see this temporal punishment as a manifestation of
natural consequences that follow in the wake of sin.
Now the answer regarding the forgiveness of mortal sin
and the traces of sin left behind St. Thomas states, “There is no
reason why, after the guilt has been forgiven, the dispositions
caused by preceding acts should not remain, which are called the
remnants of sin. Yet they remain weakened and diminished, so as
not to domineer over man, and they are after the manner of
dispositions rather than of habits, like the "fomes" which remains
11
after Baptism.” This end disposition describes the remnants of sin
being explained through a simple illustration: When a person
8
5
The Iliad Book XXIV, Homer
6
Summa Theologica Q 86 Ac 6, St. Thomas Aquinas
7
Summa Theological Q86 Ac 6, St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica Q86 Ac 6, St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa theological Q86 Ac 6, St. Thomas Aquinas
10
Summa Theologica Q86 Ac 6, St. Thomas Aquinas
11
Summa Theologica Q 86 Ac 6, St. Thomas Aquinas
9
performs an action (its morality irrelevant) a memory is created,
which he can dwell upon giving life to said memory through the
action of pondering. His sins may be forgiven by God’s grace, but
should he come close to relapsing, his memories like scars will linger
in his mind, haunting him to either repeat or flee from the sin. This
illustration shows how forgiven sin can linger through memories in
the soul to be reflected upon for future reference.
Another point to ponder: When one performs the act of
penance is his guilt forgiven? St. Thomas answers this stating, “I
answer that, Penance is a virtue in so far as it is a principle of certain
human acts. Now the human acts, which are performed by the
sinner, are the material element in the sacrament of Penance.
Moreover every sacrament produces its effect, in virtue not only of
its form, but also of its matter. Because both these together make
the one sacrament, as stated above. Hence in Baptism forgiveness of
sin is effected, in virtue not only of the form (but also of the matter,
viz. water, albeit chiefly in virtue of the form) from which the water
receives its power---and, similarly, the forgiveness of sin is the effect
of Penance, chiefly by the power of the keys, which is vested in the
ministers, who furnish the formal part of the sacrament, as stated
above, and secondarily by the instrumentality of those acts of the
penitent which pertain to the virtue of penance, but only in so far as
such acts are, in some way, subordinate to the keys of the Church.
Accordingly it is evident that the forgiveness of sin is the effect of
12
penance as a virtue, but still more of Penance as a sacrament.”
Therefore reaffirms that penance creates a forgiveness of the guilt
of sin.
St. Thomas’ first effect of sin concludes that all sins can be
pardoned through penance due to Christ’s sacrifice. With his
conclusion of penance, St. Thomas shows that to truly have one’s sin
absolved by God repentance and change is necessary. St. Thomas
demonstrates that through an understanding of sins committed, we
discover that forgiveness is brought about through repentance. With
every sin we commit a menial punishment is manifested in the
physical universe according to St. Thomas’ consequences. He then
illustrates that sin although absolved will possibly manifest itself in
the future through human or universal actions. His final conclusion
of penance reveals that penance will create forgiveness of sin.
Henceforth Aquinas’ effects of penance ponder the effects of sin
and penance on the soul of the believer and show how penance is
the next logical step in forgiveness.
The Divine Comedy an epic tale detailing the journey of
author Dante Alighieri’s quest through visions of Hell, Purgatory, and
Heaven to find his love, Beatrice. Dante is led by Virgil (the Roman
bard), and after book I Inferno they journey into book II Purgatory.
When they exit inferno the Cato of Utica (a man whose purpose is to
prevent souls from escaping hell) questions the two on the nature of
their journey. Upon realizing that Dante is still alive, Cato instructs
Virgil to cleanse Dante in a river so that he may continue his quest.
After the ritual Dante and company hike upon the base of Mt.
Purgatory and stumble upon a group of souls known as the late
repentant.
Dante describes the late repentant’s interactions saying,
“We all by violence died, and to our latest hour were sinners, but
then warn’d by light from Heaven; so that, repenting and forgiving,
we did issue out of life at peace with God, who, with desire to see
13
Him, fills our heart.” This vision of those who repent late is an
honest and well thought out rendition of those who still have hope.
These souls to their last hour were sinners, yet through God’s grace
were shown peace at the end of life. With this illustration Dante
observes the Catholic notion that even if salvation is attained, the
consequences of a sinful past life will linger in some form to haunt
your future.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction is
a fact and Dante is able to properly convey to us this in regards to
the action of sin. Dante’s punishment for a life of sin and last minute
salvation is being trapped in limbo (a place between heaven and hell
of waiting) before ascending to heaven. Although applicable to the
Catholic faith, Dante’s message regarding sins consequences is an
absolute truth. When we become Christians our promise is that of
attempting to love Christ with our hearts in return for his endless
sacrifice. Therefore to accept Christ’s forgiveness, we must attempt
to change our sinful nature through repentance. The amount of
effort is irrelevant to Christ’s infinite love, only that we try and
through our effort, we convey to Christ our love for him despite the
pain.
Can repentance be helped through knowledge regarding
the nature of sin? The simplest definition of sin is as follows,
“Disobedience in any shape or form as to the plans that God
14
establishes.” Through this we can understand that when we stray
from God’s providence we sin. Still it is hard to identify the will of
God, and our only way to understand would be an inquiry of the
root of all evil, hubris. Hubris is the will of man put above the will of
God. During the great Exodus from Egypt the Lord’s prophet Moses
went up to Mt. Sinai and after forty days and nights came down with
the Ten Commandments. These Ten Commandments were passed
down from the Lord to the people specifically for the purpose of
making His people conscious of sin and helping them avoid it.
Ironically, after bringing down the Ten Commandments,
which were meant to instruct and enlighten the people, Moses
found his brother who was high priest, Aaron, leading the people
into idolatry. The people of Israel were misled in the absence of
their leader, Moses, and fell into temptation. The burning, selfish
nature in their hearts took hold, and their desire to put their own
will above God’s manifested itself in pure idolatry. They gathered
the gold they had brought from Egypt and melted it down creating
an idol in the shape of a calf. Moses returning from the mountain
was enraged by the sight of the idolatry and in his indignation
smashed the Ten Commandments. After the Israelites repented,
Moses once again went up to Mt. Sinai and brought back a second
set of the Ten Commandments from God.
13
12
Summa Theologica Q 86 Ac 6, St. Thomas Aquinas
14
The Divine Comedy Canto V 47-56, Dante Alighieri
Anonymous
Upon reading the Ten Commandments, it is possible to
detect this root of all evil illuminated in the third commandment:
“You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD
15
will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”
The
conclusion is apparent: When blasphemy is uttered immediately the
holiness of God’s is name discarded. Rather than using our Lord’s
name for a holy purpose, in our moments of menial anger and
irritation a rejection of purity occurs and adds to our sin.
Henceforth, we are caught putting our will to slander the Lord above
His will for us to be purified.
Also in the Ten Commandments we can understand the
application of hubris apparent in life by looking at the sixth
16
commandment, “You shall not commit adultery.” When a person
perverts God’s institution of marriage (a holy union between a man,
a woman, and God) they put their will above God’s and taint that
which was holy. A gift given by God such as marriage is not to be
tampered with, but revered. However, some will manifest their will
in this holy relationship spits our savior in the face disregarding the
will of the Savior. It is through the defiance of God and the desire to
make our choices as if we were God, that we commit the root sin of
hubris, the selfish nature of man elevated above God’s will.
With the recognition of root sin, the causal inquiry to be
made is laid out: Is it possible for humanity to be freed from the
wretched and sinful nature that is apparent throughout our lives?
The answer to this question can manifest itself in the simplest yet
most apparent of ways, and only unto those with a gaze humble
enough to see the pierced hand of Christ extended. Drenched in the
blood of true innocence, it offers grace, forgiveness, and repentance
eternal. John on the island of Patmos describes the scene in his
visions of Revelations and end times saying, “They have washed
17
their robes in the blood of the Lamb and made them white.” This
image of sanctification is what Christ offered his followers; yet what
often is returned to Him is, doubt, and defiance. A beautiful line
from Dream Theater’s Alcoholics Anonymous Suite states, “Of all the
wrongs I have done for which I must repent, I once thought it better
to regret things that I have done than haven't. Sometimes you have
18
got to be wrong and learn the hard way to be saved.” Only through
recognizing our sinful actions can we repent and embrace God’s
abundant grace and forgiveness.
Henceforth, the Homeric ideology of forgiveness shows
the acknowledgement of the actions, but not the nullifications of
those actions, in order to forgive. St. Thomas Aquinas shows that
forgiveness must be followed by penance and through an
understanding of penance’s consequences, he illustrates the proper
steps following forgiveness. In Dante Alighieri’s Purgatorio, we are
given a vision of the Late Repentant: souls who show us that even if
repentance is last minute we still may dwell in the presence of Christ
no matter how great our sin. To properly be forgiven we must
acknowledge that our sin is contrary to the will of God and is driven
by our selfish desire to be our own God. This root sin can only be
forgiven by Christ’s sacrifice that covers our vile and depraved, sinful
nature. Henceforth the proper way to forgive is to acknowledge the
actions committed, sorrowfully repent of those actions, and then to
move on with grace and love for both parties. This notion of
forgiveness is completely contradictory towards the way humans
live their lives, and only through forgiving can we be true Christians.
Because just as we were offered forgiveness of sins and mercy while
we were yet sinners, so we must be willing to extend forgiveness
and mercy to others. “Bear with each other and forgive whatever
grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord
19
forgave you.”
Ryan Farrington
GBT5
Wednesday 10-12
Foreknowledge and Foreordination
Is life full of choices, or no choice at all? When it comes to
choices, people like to believe that their choices are their own, and
that they are in charge of their own life. This view works well for
both religious and non-religious people. Christians, however, have a
difficulty with this view. The problem that Christians have with this
idea comes from believing in the Omniscient aspect of God. If God is
Omniscient, then the question of foreknowledge versus
foreordinations arises. If God knows everything that has, is, and will
happen, then are those events set in stone? This paper will examine
the different aspects of both foreknowledge and foreordination to
answer this question.
In the Webster dictionary, foreknowledge is defined as, “to know
what is ahead in time or space” and foreordination as, “to ordain or
appoint beforehand”. When someone possesses foreknowledge, it
means that they have absolute knowledge of the future. They will
know what another person will have for lunch two weeks from now,
or any other event in the future. When someone possesses
foreordination, however, that person can actually choose what
someone will have for lunch two weeks out and there is nothing that
can be done about it. Foreordination is, in a way, a form of
foreknowledge. Instead of being on the receiving end of the
foreknowledge, the one with foreordination is the creator of the
foreknowledge. In foreordaining that an event will come to pass, he
will have foreknowledge that it will happen. Foreknowledge,
however, is not a form of foreordination. Foreordination, as it will be
used here, is to dictate that an event or action will happen and when
it will happen. Just because one foreknows that an event will
happen, does not mean that they have solidified that event. With
these definitions, one can now approach the issue of foreknowledge
and foreordination.
15
The Holy Bible NIV, Exodus 20:7
The Holy Bible NIV, Exodus 20:14
17
The Holy Bible NIV, Revelation 7:14
18
Repentance: VIII: Regret IX: Restitution, Mike
Portnoy/Dream Theater
16
19
The Holy Bible NIV, Colossians 3:13
Does God possess foreknowledge or foreordination? An easy way
to answer this question is to apply each one to God and see if the
results cause any circumstances that are logically impossible and
contradict God’s nature. First is foreordination. What would happen
if God possessed the power of foreordination? If God possesses the
power of foreordination, then he can make the Universe do
whatever He wills. He could control every decision mankind makes
and what man experiences. Since God created the universe, He
should have the right to do what He wants with it, right? This is true,
except God chooses to let man do as he wishes. Why? Because God
gave man free will. God gave man free will so that he could choose
for himself to love God. Joshua 24:15 states, “And if it seems evil to
you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will
serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the
other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land
you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” The
Bible states in this passage that man has a choice to serve or not to
serve the Lord. If God had not given man free will, then all that
mankind would be is a group of robots, all programmed to love their
creator and not know why. Just as a father would rather have his
children come to love him on their own instead of being forced, God
wanted mankind to come to love Him on their own. Free will is also
what separates God from being what some people call fate. If one
believes in fate, then one believes that the universe is planed out a
certain way. This plan is unchangeable and that no matter how hard
one tries, he cannot change his fate. Some believed that one man’s
fate could be determined by what star he was born under or what
his horoscope is for the day. All of these ideas are shunned and
considered false today and are to most people, just a small
amusement. If God possessed foreordination, then there would be
little separating Him from only being very definition of fate,
however. Augustine states that,
But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive
power he judges that something should be avoided or
sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some
particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some
act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from
free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to
various things . . .And forasmuch as man is rational is it
necessary that man have a free-will.
Rocks and water do not act. They are only acted upon and therefore
have no free will. Plants and animals act, but not with judgment.
They act with their natural instincts that they have no choice but to
follow. Man is the only creature that has judgment. What is
judgment used for? Judgment is used to evaluate options and to
choose the one that benefits the chooser the most. Why would man
possess judgment and not have free will? Free will is also necessary
for accountability. Man’s free will is implied in the act of God giving
man rules to follow. Thomas Aquinas says that “Man has free-will:
otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards,
and punishments would be in vain.” Why would God tell man to
follow a set of rules when He could just make us follow them in the
first place? The Bible says in Deuteronomy 28 that,
“If you obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his
commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you
high above all the nations on Earth. ”
It then says later in the chapter,
“As to those who call by the name of fate, not the
disposition of the stars as it may exist when any creature is
conceived, or born, or commences its existence, but the
whole connection and train of causes which makes
everything become what it does become, there is no need
that I should labor and strive with them in a merely verbal
controversy, since they attribute the so-called order and
connection of causes to the will and power of God most
high, who is most rightly and most truly believed to know
all things before they come to pass, and to leave nothing
unordained.”
Augustine even says that the difference between God without giving
man free will and fate is just a “verbal controversy”. To Augustine,
who believed that man did not posses free will, God and fate are
one in the same. This is why free will is so necessary. Without it,
there is nothing separating God form being this force that decides
how someone’s life will play out. This is why free will is necessary.
One could argue that free will is necessary for many reasons. One
of these reasons is that free will is what separates man form all of
the rest of creation. Thomas Aquinas states in his book, Summa
Theologica,
“However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do
not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am
giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and
overtake you.”
In giving man a moral code to follow, He is implying that man has a
conscious choice to follow or disobey those rules. In having free will,
it makes mankind accountable for his sins. If God exercises
foreordination and could change the future to anything he wanted,
then man would not be in charge of his own life. If a man is not in
charge of his life and the decisions that he makes, the he cannot
rightfully be held accountable for his life and actions either. This
would mean that all of the sins that man makes a choice to commit,
like murder, theft, and deception, would not be a choice of his own
but rather the will of God. This is absurd due to the fact that God
does not wish for any such evils to be. The Bible says in John 3:17,
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but to save the world through him.” God does not wish that the
world should be condemned for sin, but to be saved from it.
The doctrine of predestination relies heavily on God exercising
the power of foreordination. The doctrine of predestination states
that God chose, from eternity, those select few that He would
extend His grace and mercy to and only those “Elect” would have
the opportunity to become saved. Those that are not selected to be
part of the Elect are destined to be condemned to Hell. This means
that anyone who was not chosen to be part of the Elect would never
have the opportunity to come to know God. The opposite was also
true for the Elect themselves. This idea about the predestination
powers of God is false because it would mean that God would favor
one man over another. Say that there are two parallel universes. In
each universe there exists two people by the names of Bill and Ted.
In universe 1, say that Bill hears the good news and comes to except
Jesus into this life. After Bill is saved, he goes and shares the gospel
with Ted. Bill tries to share with Ted, but Ted refuses to believe
anything that Bill believes and dies a non-believer. In universe 2, Ted
hears the good news and accepts Jesus into his life and becomes
saved. Ted then shares the gospel with Bill. Ted tries to share with
Bill, but Bill refuses to believe anything Ted believes and dies a nonbeliever. What the doctrine of predestination says is that God would
prefer one of these possible universes as opposed to the other. God
does not value the salvation of Bill over the salvation of Ted, or vise
versa. God wishes that everyone would come to know Him and be
saved. The Bible says in 2 Peter 3:9 that "The Lord is not slack
concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is
longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that
all should come to repentance". It does not say that God wills that
some should perish and some should come to repentance. It says
that He does not will “that ANY should perish but that ALL should
come to repentance.” The doctrine of predestination also
contradicts evangelism. If the doctrine of predestination is true, then
what is to be said about evangelism? If the salvation of every man
has already been predetermined, then what is the point of
evangelizing? The Bible clearly states that we are to preach the good
news to the world. Jesus says in Matthew 28:19-20, “Therefore go
and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to
obey everything I have commanded you.” If everyone was
predestined to be saved or not, then why would Jesus command
man to evangelize? Jesus did not tell man to evangelize just for fun.
He gave man a mission with a purpose: to bring people to Christ.
This commandment to evangelize would be useless if people were
already predestined to go one way or the other. With the doctrine of
predestination, free will is thrown out the window. It does not
matter if a man takes Jesus as their savior if God did not selected
them to be saved. This is why free will is so important. Removing
man’s free will also removes his accountability, and if removing
man’s accountability means that God causes man to sin, then God
cannot possibly possess foreordination.
Some people may say that if God cannot make man do what He
wills, then God is not omnipotent, as the Bible says he is. Just
because God cannot do something, does not mean that he is not
omnipotent. A common attack against Christianity is that if God is
omnipotent, then He can create a boulder that even He cannot lift.
This is a misconception because the common view of omnipotence
is being able to do anything that one desires. As it turns out, not
being able to create a boulder that God cannot lift is not proof that
he is not omnipotent, but rather affirms it. God also cannot lie,
cheat or steal. So because God cannot do these things, does that
then strip Him of his omnipotence? One must look at it this way:
God is so powerful that it is impossible for Him to create anything
greater than Himself. So, in the end, just because God cannot do
certain things, it does not lessen his omnipotence, but rather affirms
it.
Since Foreordination is a trait that many Christians associate with
God, it seems logical to assume that since God created the universe,
that he would control every aspect of it. This theory was proven
false by explaining that just because God cannot do something, it
does not mean that he is not omnipotent. As in the case of free will,
a human’s love for God is worth more because it is voluntary, as
apposed to being forced out of him.
Since it has been proven that God cannot exercise foreordination,
then perhaps God possesses foreknowledge instead. One thing that
can be known for certain is that God cannot be surprised by His own
creation. In the beginning, God created everything in existence.
When someone creates a machine, he knows every little detail
about the machine he built. He knows what makes it run, what it is
supposed to do, and any flaws that it may have. God, having a more
perfect knowledge and far more superior building skills than any
man, would obviously know every little thing about His creation. He
knows what makes it run, what it is created to do, and all of the
flaws that it has brought upon itself. What this is implying is that
God has perfect knowledge of his creation. With this perfect
knowledge, God can accurately predict what decisions we will make.
He knows that when someone comes to a decision they have to
make, He knows all of the factors that will influence their decision
better than they do. Armed with this knowledge, God built his plan
for the universe knowing every decision mankind would make.
Despite making room for both free will and foreknowledge, this
view still overlooks a few details. Just because God knows what will
happen in the future, it does not mean that the event has to take
place. There is a story about David in 1 Samuel that takes place while
David is on the run from King Saul. David and his men come across a
town called Keilah that is under attack by the Philistines. David asks
God if he should go and help. God says yes and David saves the city.
Saul hears that David is in Keilah and immediately sets out to
destroy the city in order to get to David. David hears about this and
asks God that if Saul attacks the city, will the people surrender David
to him? David asks the Lord in 1 Samuel 23: 12, “Again David asked,
‘Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?’ And
the LORD said, ‘They will.’” Obviously God knew that if Saul attacked
Keilah, then the people would surrender David. However, this did
not happen, for David then decides to flee Keilah to save the city.
Even though god foreknew that the people of Keilah would
surrender David if Saul attacked, they never did surrender him. This
proves that just because God appears to foreknow an event, it does
not mean that it has to be fulfilled. Another detail that is often
overlooked is that He is not limited by the rules of time. Since God is
the one that created time, He cannot be subject to it. The Bible says
is Colossians 1:17 that “He is before all things, and in Him all things
hold together.” Therefore, since God is not subject to time, God
exists in every moment in time, simultaneously. This means that God
is in the past, present, and future, all at the same time. Since God
already exists in the future long before man does, he knows what is
happening there and He created his plan based on this knowledge.
What God has is not foreknowledge, but just simply knowledge. If
God were to have foreknowledge, it would mean that he would be
subject to time, and need foreknowledge in order to know what will
happen. Since God already exists in the future, He does not need
foreknowledge.
Foreknowledge is a trait that is often associated with God.
Augustine even says in the City of God that “Is that but just ‘the fool
saying in his heart there is no God?’ For one who in not prescient of
all future things is not God.” It is often viewed that since God is
omniscient, or all-knowing, that he must therefore know all that is
going to happen in the future. Once again, God is being made
subject to one of His creations, which is time. The Bible says in
Romans 11:36 that “For from Him and through Him and to Him are
all things.” God is not limited to live in the present, as all finite
beings are, but can, and does, exist in the past, present, and future.
Therefore He knows what will happen in the future because he
exists in the future. Therefore there is no need for foreknowledge,
because there is nothing ahead of where God is to be foreknown.
Another possibility is that God could have certain aspects of both
foreknowledge and foreordination in that He only foreordains what
is necessary. This theory will be called the Theory of Necessity.
Augustine addresses such a theory in Book V of the City of God.
Augustine defines necessity like this: “we define necessity to be that
according to which we say that it is necessary that a thing be of such
or such a nature, or be done in such and such a manner.” The
Theory of Necessity states that God only foreordains the important
aspects of a man’s life necessary to God’s plan for creation. A man’s
death is a good example of this theory. The question is, “does God
foreknow or foreordain that a man shall die?” According to the
Theory of Necessity, he has foreordained that he will die because it
is necessary that man should die physically as a result of his sin. This
theory would also say that if it is necessary that a man sin in order to
progress God’s plan or the universe, then he has no choice but to
sin. One thing that this theory does not account for is the fact that
even though the influence of God on a man’s life is minimized, it is
still there. This theory may actually be worse for man than having all
of his actions controlled by God, as with foreordination. At least with
foreordination, the man would not have to feel guilty about any of
his actions because he would know that they were all God’s doing.
With the Theory of Necessity, it would be impossible to know which
actions would be his own and which would be God’s. This would
eliminate guilt and punishment because man would not be able to
tell what sin was truly his and which was an action of God’s
foreordination. So even the Theory of Necessity, in trying to find
some middle ground between foreknowledge and foreordination,
proves to be false.
So it seems that does not choose to use any amount of
foreknowledge and foreordination. This leaves a theory that
contains neither foreknowledge nor foreordination. God is
omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, yet He achieves these in
ways that it is hard for man as a finite being to understand. God
knows the future because He exists in the future as much as He
exists in the past and present. This make his knowledge appear like
foreknowledge to mortal man, but it is actually just knowledge to
God, seeing as how there is no past, present, or future to God, just
eternity. God is all-powerful, not because He is capable of doing
anything He wants, but because there is nothing more powerful that
He is. Free will is the greatest gift that God has ever given Man. The
choice to choose whom to serve is a freeing one, but is also
dangerous if we choose the enemy. The Bible says in Romans 10:910, “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be
saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and
it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” The “if” in
verse nine means that man has the choice to “confess with your
mouth” that Jesus is Lord and to “believe in your heart that God
raised him from the dead.” For God gave man free will to make
man’s love worth more than a robot’s programmed functions.
In conclusion, God does not need foreknowledge of the future
because He exists in the future and in all times. God does not
foreordain how everyone’s life will unfold because to do so would
put sin on His hands and remove man’s accountability. Life is full of
choices that are all very important. Each choice creates a change,
and change is what drives time forward. If nothing were to ever
change in the slightest degree, time would simply stand still. God is
still omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent despite not
possessing foreknowledge nor choosing to foreordain all events. He
just attains them in ways that man’s finite mind cannot relate to.
Punishment and Discipline
Kathleen Dowling
GBT V Paper #2
4/27/12
Punishment or discipline; which is more effective? While
punishment is harshly enforcing consequences of breaking rules and
enforcing authority, while discipline is taking a calmer approach and
trying to correct the wrong in a way that effectively reforms the
wrongdoer. The question of effectiveness has often been debated
with regard to leadership. Many situations arise for leaders in which
the choice between punishment and discipline is necessary. How
does one decide which is appropriate? One such situation occurred
on February eighth, two thousand twelve. Tommy Jordan created
and posted a video on his daughter’s Facebook page in a response to
her writing an inappropriate note about her family on Facebook. The
video included Mr. Jordan giving his daughter an angry lecture about
how she did not appreciate the things her family provided, and
ended with him firing nine bullets from his pistol into her laptop. It
was clearly stated that the intent of the video was to embarrass her
in the presence of her peers. He states that the intent of this is “so
that all those kids who thought that it was cool for how rebellious
20
you were, can see what happens.” The video was later uploaded to
‘Youtube.’ The video immediately ‘went viral,’ receiving over thirty
million views in five days. It provoked many questions and debates
over its content. The majority of the viewers agreed with Mr.
Jordan’s approach to handling his daughter’s rebellion, and
encouraged more parents to follow in his footsteps, however some
were shocked and appalled that he used public humiliation as a form
of punishment. This raised several questions about parenting, and
leadership. What is the correct means of enforcing rules and
demonstrating consequences? More importantly, is there a
difference between punishment and discipline? Several
philosophers, and even some of the United States of America’s
founding fathers have discussed this intriguing question. Some
would argue that harsh punishment is all that is necessary to enforce
rules, while other believe that gentle discipline is needed to teach
and influence those in trouble. Should a leader always be
responsible for punishing the wrongful actions of the people under
them? Does the government have the responsibility to enforce laws,
20
Facebook Parenting: For the troubled Teen
and punish wrongdoers? Is discipline a more effective way to
influence and change the ways of those who are rebelling? Was Mr.
Jordan punishing or disciplining his daughter by creating a public
video for the world to see? Are there ever crimes bad enough to
warrant harsh punishment? If so, whose responsibility is it to
enforce this punishment?
rather than analyzing the situation, and recognizing that Prometheus
was correcting an oversight in the way he best saw fit, however
incorrect it was, Zeus simply punished the crime. This was an
instance in which harshly punishing the Prometheus did not right
necessarily right the wrong. Prometheus was carrying out his task of
equipping the creatures of the earth, and saw it as a necessary
action to equip man with the skills to survive on earth. Epimetheus
was equally at fault, as he had not left any skills or defenses for man.
It was ultimately Zeus’ responsibility to care for men, which he did
not properly carry out. This myth exemplifies a leader unjustly
punishing someone, rather than calmly accessing the situation .
There is a fine line between punishment and discipline.
Punishment is essentially forcing someone to atone for what they
have done wrong in a manner that fits the crime. Throughout
history, many different leaders have used punishment to train
people to their way of thinking. Punishment is a harsh but effective
way of righting wrongs. Socrates writes about this in the book
Gorgias. “Again, of two who suffer evil either in body or in soul,
which is the more wretched, the man who submits to treatments
and gets rid of evil, or he who is not treated but still retains it? …
And was not punishment admitted to be a release from the greatest
of evils, namely wickedness?” According to Socrates, human nature
strives for justice, and justice is served through punishment.
Socrates implies that all wrongdoings should be punished, no matter
how small. “Then wrongdoing itself holds the second place among
evils, but first and greatest of all evils is to do wrong and escape
21
punishment.” Socrates infers that escaping punishment is a worse
crime than the actual wrong deed. However, punishment must be
analyzed according to the crime. Intent must be taken into
consideration, and those serving the punishment must be certain
that they are not punishing out of anger, but out of a genuine
interest to instill justice. In Plato’s Protagoras, there is an example of
a leader punishing someone for disobeying him. Socrates addresses
the subject of a leader punishing disobedience in The Republic.
According to the Greek myth, all creatures of the Earth were
fashioned from earth and fire. The Titans Epimetheus and
Prometheus were assigned the task of equipping and inspecting the
new creatures before they could live on the Earth. Prometheus
inspected the creatures and noticed that while the other creatures
had weapons and means of survival, humans were naked and
unarmed. He saw that humans would need some means of survival.
“Prometheus therefore, being at a loss to provide any means of
salvation for man, stole from Hephaestus and Athena the gift of skill
in the arts, together with fire - for without fire it was impossible for
22
anyone to possess or use this skill – and bestowed it on man.”
Though Prometheus’ intentions may have been pure, he stole
knowledge and fire from the gods and gave them to man. This did
not please the gods, and angered Zeus greatly. Out of anger Zeus
punished Prometheus for his seemingly valiant offence. “Through
this gift man had the means of life, but Prometheus, so the story
23
says, thanks to Epimetheus, had later on to stand trial for theft.”
Other versions of this myth state that Zeus punished him for his
crime by binding him to a large rock while a great eagle ate his liver
24
every day only to have it grow back to be eaten again the next day.
This example shows how a leader punishes one of his subjects for a
crime. The punishment was intended to show the other gods and
Titans what would happen to those who defied Zeus, not to reform
Prometheus of his actions, and teach him to respect the gods above
all else. Despite his good intentions, Prometheus paid for giving fire
to man. In this example Zeus did not analyze Prometheus’
intentions, or the situation. He simply punished Prometheus for
correcting the oversight of Epimetheus. Punishment treats the
symptom but not the disease. Zeus used Prometheus as an example
to others. This was his fault as a leader of the gods and men because
Another way a leader can enforce his authority on others
is through discipline. Saint Augustine writes that while sins do
deserve punishment, it is God’s place to punish. “So the human race
was justly held in condemnation, and all its members were children
of wrath…When God is said to be angry, this does not mean that his
mind was disturbed like the mind of a person who is angry, but his
vengeance, which is nothing but just, is, by an extension of meaning,
25
called his anger.” Saint Augustine explains that only God can
punish with wrath and anger without being distracted by sin.
Therefore, leaders should not attempt to reconcile a wrong out of
anger, and blatantly punish someone under them without first
checking their own intentions. Discipline should come out of love
and genuine caring for those in question. This goes for all types of
leaders, whether it be from a leader of a family, or an army. Saint
Augustine talks of how uncomfortable it was for him as a child to
suffer the humiliating punishments of his teachers and parents.
“Great was the misery and great the deception that I met with when
it was impressed upon me that, to behave properly as a boy, I must
obey my teachers…Yet if I was slow at learning, I was beaten. This
method was praised by our forebears, many of whom had passed
through this life before us and had laid out the hard paths that we
were forced to follow…My punishments, which were then a huge
and heavy evil to me, were laughed at by older men and even my
26
own parents.” Saint Augustine’s teachers and parents were his
leaders at that point in his life. They were to teach him patiently
how to succeed in school, but instead laughed at him and beat him.
He writes that these men who punished him were guilty of the same
transgressions. “Perhaps some fine judges of things approves my
beatings… Did the very man who beat me act any different from
me? If he was outdone by a fellow teacher in some trifling
discussion, he was more tormented by anger and envy than I was
27
when beaten by my playmate in a ball game.” Rather than
analyzing their own actions, and making certain that they were not
at fault as well, Saint Augustine’s teachers punished him for the
same faults that they themselves were guilty of. A leader should
never hypocritically discipline someone without first analyzing
themselves. This is not to say that a wrongdoing should go
unpunished if he is who is discipline is also guilty, but if a child is
caught stealing and is punished by an adult who also steals regularly,
the adult should analyze himself as well. Throughout history there
have been instances when someone in authority is at fault for a
transgression. One such instance was when President Richard
Nixon’s administration was found guilty of attempting to sabotage
the Democratic Party in an upcoming election. Even though
President Nixon was not involved with the actual event, commonly
called the Watergate Scandal, he was assumed to be guilty of trying
to cover it up. Because of this over 10,000 people marched through
Washington D.C. demanding Nixon's impeachment. While Congress
21
25
Plato: Collected Dialogues, Gorgias, Section 478 d
Plato: Collected Dialogues, Protagoras. Section 321 d
23
Plato: Collected Dialogues, Protagoras. Section 322 a
24
Theogony by Hesiod and Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus
22
The Augustine Catechism, section 10, The Grace of God
through our Lord Jesus Christ
26
The Confessions of Saint Augustine, Book 1, Chapter 9
27
The Confessions of Saint Augustine, Book 1, Chapter 9
could have satisfied the public and immediately impeached him
from office, they allowed him to simply resign and maintain his
dignity. Impeachment would have meant that President Nixon
would have been removed from the office of President without a
choice. President Nixon’s Vice President stepped into office after
him. Upon doing so he exercised his presidential authority by
pardoning President Nixon for his actions. “Now, Therefore, I, Gerald
R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon
power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the
Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full,
free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against
the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may
have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20,
28
1969 through August 9,1974.” By pardoning President Nixon in a
public fashion, President Ford allowed him to walk away from the
office of President with his self-respect. As President Ford was the
new leader of the country, he was able to discipline the former
president without harsh punishment. President Ford showed good
leadership by not embarrassing his forbearer in a moment of
disgrace. Saint Augustine would have approved of how President
Ford handled the situation because he did not use humiliation as a
form of discipline.
Although punishment is harsh, it is at times necessary.
When someone violates the law, they must be held accountable for
their actions. However, whose responsibility is it to hold them
accountable? Is it merely a matter that can be solved by the
offender and the offended? Or does a third party need to step in on
occasion to serve punishment for the crime? Alexander Hamilton
writes in The Federalist that in the United States of America, it is the
government’s responsibility to hold a trial and punish criminals for
breaking the law. “Government implies the power of making laws. It
is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction,
or in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience.”
29
Alexander Hamilton is not saying that the Government is to punish
any crime that someone takes offense to. If the crime is in direct
violation of a law, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Government.
Without this system in place, there would be no clear guidelines on
punishment of crimes. “If there be no penalty annexed to
disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be
laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or
30
recommendation.” If the Government did not enforce their laws,
either multiple crimes would go unpunished, or people would take
the law into their own hands, which only adds to the problem. One
apparent case of someone taking the law into their own hands
happened on February twenty-six, two thousand twelve. On this
day, George Zimmerman was performing a night watch in his
neighborhood. He noticed a young man, Trayvon Martin, displaying
suspicious behavior. He called the police to report this occurrence,
and was told to stay where he was and that the police would come.
Rather than obeying the command of the police dispatcher, he
followed the man. Shortly afterwards, there was an altercation,
which ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin. Zimmerman
assumed that Martin had been in the neighborhood to break into
houses, as the houses in the neighborhood had been the subjects of
numerous burglaries in the previous months. Rather than obeying
the police, and trusting that they would come to the area and
handle the suspected criminal, he took matters into his own hands.
It is not known exactly what his intentions were, but it is clear that
by following Martin, after being told not to, he was stepping into the
jurisdiction of the government, defined by Alexander Hamilton in
The Federalist Papers. It was the Police’s responsibility to come to
the scene and question the victim. Although he used the gun in selfdefense, the loss of Trayvon Martin’s life could have been avoided
completely if George Zimmerman had obeyed the directions of the
authorities. In situations where the law is being broken, and no one
in immediate danger, the citizens are to let the Government enforce
the law.
A classic clash of authority occurred in The Three Theban
Plays. This tragedy was caused when family loyalty defied the law
set down by a government. When Oedipus, the king of Thebes, died,
he left two sons behind; Eteocles and Polynices. It was agreed that
each would take the throne from one year to the next. However,
after the first year, Eteocles, the elder, refused to step down. This
caused Polynices to attack Thebes in an attempt to claim his rightful
place as king. All were defeated and the brother killed each other in
a duel, making their uncle Creon king. As one of the first things
ordered as king, Creon had Eteocles buried in honor and left
Polynices to rot in the streets, with a city-wide ordinance forbidding
anyone from burying him or mourning him. Their sister Antigone
was blinded by grief and outraged by the fact that she could not pay
respects to her brother, Polynices. “I will bury him myself. And even
if I die in the act, that death will be a glory, I will lie with the one I
love, and loved by him – an outrage sacred to the gods! I have
longer to please the dead than please the living here: in the kingdom
down below I’ll lie forever. Do as you like, dishonor the laws the
31
gods hold in honor.” Antigone was so grief-stricken that she was
willing to die to give a final honor to her brother and the gods. When
she was caught giving his body the last rites, she was imprisoned.
Creon came to her to find out if she had heard of the decree. When
she admitted to being aware of the decree, Ceon had little choice
but to order her execution.. To Creon, the death of Polynices was
simply the death of a traitor. Denying a traitor burial rites was a
common practice, and it showed honor to Eteocles, who had died as
a hero for Thebes. “Wasn’t Eteocles a brother too – cut down, facing
him?...Then how can you render his enemy such honors, such
impieties in his eyes? Polynices died ravaging our country! But
32
Eteocles died fighting on our behalf.” By burying this traitor, Creon
had no choice but to treat her as another traitor. If she had not been
related to him, it would have been obvious that she was a traitor
and would not be shown mercy. “Since our judgment hath taken this
turn, I will be present to unloose her, as myself bound her. My heart
misgives me, 'tis best to keep the established laws, even to life's
33
end.” Creon knew that his judgment was clouded because she was
related to him. He displayed fair leadership by not giving her any
preferential treatment because she was family. In this situation,
Creon could not have merely disciplined her. She had clearly violated
the law, and since he was the leader of his government, it was his
responsibility to follow through with the ordinance that he had
instated. A good leader must realize this responsibility when they
are put into tough situations in which the interests are conflicted. In
the end, justice was not truly served. Antigone took her own life and
avoided the punishment of the law. However Creon had handled the
situation as he should have, and displayed fair leadership to his
kingdom.
Tommy Jordan was punishing his daughter through his
harsh video on her Facebook. He acted out of anger with her, rather
than acting out of love for her and a genuine interest to help her. By
punishing her, and publicly humiliating her, he did not consider the
28
Vice President Gerald Ford’s pardon to President Nixon
speech
29
The Federalist, No. 15, by Alexander Hamilton, Pg. 18
30
The Federalist, No. 15, by Alexander Hamilton, Pg. 19
31
The Three Theban Plays, Antigone, lines 85 – 92
The Three Theban Plays, Antigone, lines 578 - 585
33
The Three Theban Plays, Antigone, lines 746 - 748
32
repercussions. Actions like this simply breed more rebellion. Not
once in the video did he express his love for her as a father, but
rather gave her a list of her faults and areas that she fell short. She
undoubtedly deserved some sort of consequence for writing
inappropriate content about her family, but as her father, and the
leader of his house, it was Mr. Jordan’s responsibility to act with
discretion. The Bible speaks on taking up sins with others privately.
““If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just
between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them
over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that
‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three
witnesses.’” –Matthew 18:15-16. If a leader must discipline
someone, they are to allow the offender to maintain their dignity,
such as disciplining in private. Mr. Jordan did not respect his
daughter’s privacy in receiving her consequences. Law without
consequences and punishment is merely a suggestion. Without
enforcing it, it has no effect. Since the government makes laws, they
are responsible for dealing the punishment. If someone has broken
the law, it is the government’s responsibility to uphold it. A trial
should be held, in which it is decided what the punishment should
be. If the role is simply to be a leader, then disciplining is necessary
and punishment in this situation could cause more damage than
good, such as in the situation of Mr. Jordan and his daughter. When
Mr. Jordan posted the video to his daughter’s Facebook, he had
already punished her, by destroying her computer. The second step
of filming the deed and posting it to her Facebook was absolutely
unnecessary, and showed his lack of discernment. He could have
expressed his feelings to her in a private setting, without an
audience, but instead decided to create an example of her. Like Zeus
creating an example of Prometheus for giving fire to the humans, all
that Mr. Jordan accomplished was to bring the public eye to his
daughter’s wrongdoing. One of the differences between discipline
and punishment is that the person serving it has a different
approach. They must take into consideration all the factors that
could have caused this wrong, and pass judgment accordingly. It is
the leader’s responsibility to assess themself and his attitude, and be
certain that they are not attempting to right a wrong out of anger,
as this puts him in the wrong. Mr. Jordan was provoking his
daughter by showing her punishment to her friends, and to the
public. The Bible speaks directly against this. “Fathers, do not
provoke your children to anger by the way you treat them. Rather,
bring them up with the discipline and instruction that comes from
the Lord.” - Ephesians 6:4. A good leader will inspire their subjects to
try to be good, out of devotion to their leader, rather than rebel
against their authority. They will not flaunt their authority, but
rather make it clear that their intentions are with love and caring.
Parents especially must show this to their children, as it is their
responsibility to shape and raise them to become leaders
themselves one day. It is a governments responsibility to punish, and
it is a family’s responsibility to discipline.
John Elhardt
GBT 5 Paper # 2
5/25/2012
Words: 3227
Eve's Wisdom
Pride wears the mask of high ideals, but thou, O God, art high above
all. Ambition seeks glory, whereas only thou shouldst be glorified.
Ignorance and foolishness may hide under the name of simplicity and
innocence, yet none has thy true simplicity and thy complete
innocence.
(Confessions, Book 2 VI)
God, apparently, had not told Eve everything about the fruit in the
center of the garden. “For God knows that when you eat from it”, the
serpent was now telling her, “your eyes will be opened, and you will
be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:5) Eve could either
remain simple, trusting God to direct her, or try to gain knowledge
He had not given her. When she looked at the fruit, Eve “saw that the
fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eyes, and also
desirable to make one wise.” (Genesis 3:6) Eve wanted wisdom that
would allow her to operate on her own, independent of God, so she
ate the fruit.
Philosophy is commonly defined as the love of wisdom. God loves
wisdom too. “Wisdom is supreme” He tells man, “therefore get
wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.” (Proverbs
4:7) He also says that wisdom and understanding are within man's
reach. If you apply your heart to understanding “and search for it as
for hidden treasure,” (Proverbs 2:4), “you will understand” (Proverbs
2:10) and “wisdom will enter your heart” (Proverbs 2:11). However,
the wisdom that God wants man to pursue is His wisdom and His
ways. “The fear of the Lord...is wisdom” (Job 28:28), and “all who
follow [God's] precepts have good understanding” (Psalms 111:10).
The message is clear: however powerful his mind, however strong his
will, however passionate his spirit, man cannot find wisdom apart
from God. Wisdom is only found in dependence on God – the very
dependence that Eve sought to emancipate herself from.
Man, unfortunately, tends to follow in Eve's footsteps, preferring to
find and develop understanding by means of his own powers of
observation and reason. The problem is that the man who relies on
his own understanding cannot move beyond the limits of that
understanding – he can not break free of the world he belongs to, the
only world he knows. Though he may reason from the nature of
man, from natural principles, or from the nature of reason itself, his
imagination is limited by his experience. His reasoning is necessarily
shaped by his own nature and by the nature of the world he lives in.
It is a world, the Bible tells us, dominated by “the lust of the flesh,
the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life...” which are “not of the
Father, but...of the world.” (1 John 2:15) When Pascal writes that
“the three forms of concupiscence have created three sects, and all
that philosophers have done is to follow one of these three forms of
concupiscence” (Pensees, 461), he is contending that for all their love
of wisdom, philosophers end up glorifying either the lust of the flesh,
the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life. Like Eve, they pursue that
which is “ good for food... pleasant to the eyes,” or “desirable to
make one wise” (Genesis 3:6). Relying on their own reason, they
create a philosophy in the image of their own sin.
The first ardent longing on which such a school of philosophy may be
based is the lust of the flesh. The lust of the flesh is essentially the
desire for the physical pleasures and comforts of life – anything that
pleases the senses. These include good food, warmth, beauty,
wonderful odors, and music, as well as freedom from discomfort,
pain, and ugliness. A man whose philosophy glorifies the lust of the
flesh will contend that the pursuit of the comforts and pleasures of the
flesh demonstrates a man's wisdom, or sense.
Lucretius is one philosopher who considers himself much too
sensible and realistic to waste time and effort pursuing high-flown,
intangible conceits. “Do you not see”, Lucretius writes, “that nature
is barking for two things only, a body free from pain, [and] a mind
released from worry and fear for the enjoyment of pleasurable
sensations?” (On the Nature of the Universe, bk 2 17-19) Lucretius
believes that man is simple and naturally endowed only with the
desire for physical pleasure and comfort. The wise man will
therefore be content with a life free from discomfort, where his body
is sustained with some of the many pleasures life has to offer, and the
peace of mind to enjoy them. He contends that man only “frets life
away in fruitless worries” (On the Nature of the Universe, bk 5 14301434) when he pursues less material pleasures such as knowledge,
wisdom, fame, or power. This is pointless; “our bodies are not
profited by treasures or titles or the majesty of kingship... neither are
our minds” (On the Nature of the Universe, bk 2 37-39). Wealth and
position only add to our cares and anxieties; they neither give man
pleasure nor the peace of mind to enjoy it. In the end, Lucretius
writes, our nature requires “no more than is necessary to banish pain,
and also to spread our many pleasures for ourselves” (On the Nature
of the Universe, bk 2 21-22). By this, Lucretius means that any effort
beyond that required to secure a man's physical and emotional
comfort is wasted. Any effort that secures a man's physical pleasure
is, by extension, morally justified. Lucretius' entire philosophy thus
reveals itself as the lust of the flesh.
The lust of the eyes, or covetousness, is the second ardent longing
that informs schools of philosophy. This refers to man's desire for that
which he sees, whether he sees the object of his desire with his
physical eyes or with his mind's eye – the imagination. Just as Eve
wanted the fruit because it looked pleasant, man wants to possess the
object of his attention because it appears valuable and desirable to
him. Thus the man captivated by the lust of the eyes will want to
possess the beautiful women or the fast car, or he may be driven by
what St. Augustine describes as a “vain and curious longing” born out
of “a passion for experimenting and knowledge” (Confessions, bk 10
ch 35). Man covets and pursues that which he visualizes with his
imagination as fervently as he covets and pursues that which he sees
with his physical eyes.
Like many other philosophers, Plato spurns the pursuit of material
goods, only to advise men to pursue an immaterial object of the
mind's eye. He calls this object by many names – “truth”, “wisdom
in all its purity”, (Phaedo, 68a) “the highest form of knowledge”,
(Republic, 519d) “the brightest of all realities”, (Republic, 519d) “the
vision of the good”, (Republic, 519d), and “knowledge absolute”
(Phaedrus). Though nebulously defined, it is an ideal of all that is
good and true. Plato makes it clear that man must direct his “mind's
vision” towards this wisdom, or “clear view of reality” (Phaedo, 65c)
to perceive it. Furthermore, just as the physical eye must adjust to
bright light, the mind's “eye” must adjust if it is not be be blinded by
this “brightest of all realities”. Plato clearly considers this truth, or
wisdom, to be outside man, “visible only to the mind” (Phaedrus).
Rather than being something man reasons his way to, Plato's wisdom
is an aesthetic ideal that man sees with his mind and covets in his
heart.
Since wisdom, as Plato calls it, is the highest good and can only be
grasped by the mind, the body is no more than a distraction. In fact,
man's body, with its desires, only “prevents the soul from attaining to
the truth and clear thinking” (Phaedo, 66a). For that reason, the lover
of wisdom must keep himself “uncontaminated by the follies of the
body”. The man who wishes to attain wisdom must not only turn his
back on his physical nature, but also free himself from “the dead
weights natural to this world of change” (Republic, 519d) until he
“forgets earthly interests and is rapt in the divine” (Phaedrus). In
other words, a man cannot acquire wisdom without setting aside the
desires, ties, and responsibilities of earthly life, all of which divert the
mind and hinder it in its quest. In fact, since only the soul that is
separated from the body can “find wisdom in all its purity” (Phaedo,
68a), death is the final prerequisite for the attainment of true wisdom.
Freed from the body, “the intelligence of every soul rejoices upon
seeing reality, and gazing upon truth, is... made glad” (Phaedrus).
According to Plato, then, man's greatest aspiration should be to free
himself from the world so that his mind can gain this wisdom. In its
glorification of the pursuit of an aesthetic ideal that is seen by the
mind for its own sake, Plato's philosophy is a vivid manifestation of
the lust of the eyes.
The pride of life, a desire for importance and esteem, is the third
ardent longing a philosopher may pursue. The man who follows the
pride of life desires to be feared, admired, envied, or loved by others.
Position, reputation, power, and influence may confer material
benefits to a man following the pride of life, but these are secondary
considerations to his worth – be it in his own eyes, the eyes of an
exclusive inner circle, or the eyes of the world. He essentially wants
honor, power, and glory, and relies on his own strength to achieve
them.
The philosopher Aristotle presents the pride of life as the culmination
of the pursuit of virtue and happiness. “Happiness” Aristotle writes,
“is the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world”
(Nicomachean Ethics, 1099a) and the prime motivation that drives
man. As Aristotle puts it: “it is for the sake of [happiness] that we do
all that we do” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1101b). What makes man
happy, Aristotle contends, is to act “in accordance with complete
virtue”, (Nicomachean Ethics, 1101a) because “virtuous activities...
are what constitute happiness” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1100b).
Happiness and virtue are aligned. Both are good, noble and pleasant.
Unlike all other activities, man chooses virtue for its own sake, but
ultimately because it is synonymous with happiness. True happiness
can only be found in a life of virtue.
Having established the connection between virtue and happiness,
Aristotle elaborates on the two types of virtues man must exercise if
he is to be happy: the intellectual virtues and the moral virtues. The
intellectual virtues – such as practical wisdom, political wisdom, and
judgment – are those which are developed by the use of reason,
while the moral virtues – such as justice, temperance, and friendliness
– are acquired habits. The moral virtues can only develop under the
direction of intellectual virtues, especially practical wisdom, as man's
mind guides his actions. Since man develops the intellectual virtues
by reason, “the life according to reason is best and pleasantest.”
(Nicomachean Ethics, 1178a) Aristotle considers reason so central to
man's virtue and happiness that he writes that reason “is man”
(Nicomachean Ethics, 1178a). Since reason is the best and most
essential part of human nature, man should rely on it for guidance on
all his paths. Men would be happiest if they could devote their lives
to intellectual virtues through abstract and metaphysical
contemplation. Such contemplation is leisurely, pleasant, and
requires fewer external goods than moral virtues. For these reasons
Aristotle declares that “perfect happiness is a contemplative activity”
(Nicomacean Ethics, 1178b).
Yet, he concedes, since even the
contemplative philosopher “is a man and lives with a number of
people” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1078b), he must also practice the
moral virtues.
Moral virtues are developed as habits, and must be applied according
to practical wisdom. There are a number of such virtues, among
them justice, friendliness, and magnificence. Each is what Aristotle
considers a noble and praiseworthy way of acting in a given sphere of
life. Most of the virtues involve finding a happy medium between
extremes. Liberality, rather than prodigality or meanness, is the
virtuous attitude toward money, temperance the virtuous attitude
toward pleasure, and tactful wit the proper approach to amusement.
The culmination of all the virtues is pride, which Aristotle calls
megalopsychia, or greatness of soul.
The proud man concerns
himself with great deeds rather than small deeds, speaks and acts
openly rather than hiding emotions, and grants favors rather than
accepting them. Because he is liberal, just, appropriately ambitious,
and lacks no virtue, the proud man knows himself worthy of honor,
“the prize of virtue” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1123b). Honor, which is
the greatest good man can acquire, thus corresponds to virtue, the
best activity. Both are united in pride, the “crown of the virtues”
(Nicomachean Ethics, 1124a). Aristotle sees pride as the culmination
of virtue because a man's pride is based on his virtues, and the honor
due him accrues to those virtues. Although Aristotle contends that
the “honour” due a virtuous man “is a little thing,” (Nicomachean
Ethics, 1124a) to a proud man, it is his rightful due – one he expects
to receive.
The expectation of receiving esteem which characterizes pride, the
crown of virtue, is also manifest in the practical application of all the
other virtues. Aristotle writes that while the virtuous man “sets no
store by wealth”, (Nicomachean Ethics, 1120a) possessions are a
prerequisite for happiness. Men, Aristotle argues, must have material
goods to be virtuous, because “it is impossible...to do noble acts
without proper equipment”. Similarly, one cannot be generous
without money or just without friends. Thus Aristotle writes that a
man cannot live a virtuous life without “friends and riches and
political power”, and “the liberal man will need money for the doing
of his liberal deeds, and the just man too will need it for the returning
of services” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1178a). Men require the means to
demonstrate their moral virtue. Even the temperate man needs an
opportunity to be temperate, “for how else is either he or any of the
others to be recognized?” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1178a) A man needs
power and possessions to demonstrate his virtue because virtues are
actions; without means, virtues cannot be realized. While a modest
fortune, writes Aristotle, is enough to enable man to practice the
virtues, a greater demonstration of virtue requires greater possessions
. Greater virtue, in turn, justifies greater pride, and deserves greater
honor. Since the crowning virtue in Aristotle's philosophy is pride, or
man's faith in his own virtue and his belief that he deserves honor,
Aristotle's philosophy ultimately glorifies the pride of life.
All three of these philosophers inevitably celebrate one of the
concupiscences – either the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, or
the pride of life. Though Lucretius may view himself as a pragmatist,
content with little, his philosophy encourages man to pursue the lust
of the flesh. Plato couches his ideas in terms that evoke images of a
noble spirituality in his readers. In practice, however, his philosophy
urges man to chase an aesthetic ideal, an object of the lust of the eyes.
Aristotle, finally, extols the pursuit of virtue, but since what he calls
virtue culminates in personal pride and is inextricably tied to honour
and esteem, it ultimately serves the pride of life. It is not that these
philosophers set out to pursue a concupiscence. On the contrary, each
philosopher uses his reason to rise above the allure of one of the
concupiscences only to exchange it for another. Thus Lucretius
rejects the pursuit of the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, only to
seek contentment in the lust of the flesh; Plato repudiates the lust of
the flesh and the desire for prestige in order to devote himself to the
pursuit of an idealized vision of his imagination; and Aristotle
disclaims any desire to gratify the lust of the eyes or the flesh, except
insofar as the possession of wealth, wisdom, and learning enable man
to justify both his pride and his desire for recognition and honor.
Although each man turns to reason to rescue him from the world's
foolishness, his philosophy expresses his sin.
It is important to remember that all three concupiscences, or ardent
longings, are ultimately rooted in God-given desires. God means man
to receive that which is “good for food and pleasant to the eyes, and...
desirable to make one wise”, but He means man to receive these
things from His hands, in His timing, and in order to participate in
His work. Instead, as the Apostle James writes, man 's needs remain
unmet because he relies on his own resources, quarreling and fighting
to get what he wants instead of asking God for it. Furthermore, when
man does ask God to supply his wants, God more often than not
cannot give him what he desires because he asks for the wrong
reasons, to “spend” them on his “own pleasures” (James 4:1-3). Put
another way, man's God-given desires become concupiscences, “evil
desires” which trap men (Proverbs 11:6), when man seeks good
things for their own sake, takes them by his own strength, and uses
them for his own purposes. The desires are not the problem; the
problem is man's reliance on his own resources to fulfill them.
God's ways are beyond man. “My thoughts,” God tells man “are not
your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways.” God's ways are, in
fact. as much higher than man's “as the heavens are higher than the
earth” (Isaiah 55: 8,9). The wisdom of God and the wisdom of man
are also so far apart that “the wisdom of this world is foolishness in
God's sight” (I Cor. 3:19) and the wisdom and ways of God seem like
foolishness to men (1 Cor 1:23). God shows man what His ways
look like most clearly in Jesus, the incarnation of His nature and His
word. Where Lucretius directs his efforts to “banish pain, and also
to spread out many pleasures for [himself]” (On the Nature of the
Universe, bk 2 21-22), Jesus gave up a normal life and died for the
sake of his enemies. Where Plato yearns to leave the confines and
demands of his physical life behind in order to acquire a pure and
ideal understanding, Jesus left heaven to live on a fallen earth among
men with twisted hearts and understanding. Where Aristotle aspires
to justified pride in his own virtue, Jesus “humbled himself in
obedience to God and died a criminal's death on a cross” (Phil 2:8).
Jesus' behavior was so foreign to human reasoning that none of the
people around him knew what to make of it. Even his disciples did
not understand it until God, through the Holy Spirit, explained it to
them.
It is no wonder, then, that the philosophers can tell us “You are on the
wrong track”, but cannot show us what the right track is (Pensees,
466). Their reason simply can not comprehend the heights of God's
thoughts and ways. They cannot even imagine them. This is why the
man who “trusts in his own mind” is “a fool” (Prov 28:26a). Wisdom
has not changed since Eve's day. Man must go to God to find it.
Annabel Carroll
GBT V Paper #2
June 4, 2012
Gender Roles
In the beginning, we have heard, “God created Man in His
own image, and male and female created He them.” (Genesis
1:27, KJV) It may well be that from that time until the current
one, the true meanings of those words have been a source of
contention. It is, in the minds of many, a matter of great
importance—to be called “unmanly” or “unwomanly,” as the
case may be, is often regarded as a supreme insult. Discovering
the essence of “Man” or of “Woman” would thus be
considered of vital importance. Attempts at definition have,
however, always proven to be difficult, and the resulting
definitions extremely transient. Lines have been drawn and
redrawn countless times in the family, the workplace, the
government, and society at large, and the wide assortment of
human faults and virtues has been distributed to the sexes
differently in each culture and time period. In western culture
alone, the past two or three hundred years has been a time of
rapid change, of women beginning to lay claim to areas that
were traditionally considered the provinces of the masculine,
such as academia, literature, business and politics. Family
structures have changed and societal mores have shifted,
leading some to cry shame, others to applaud, and others still
to assert that not enough has been done. Looking at some of
the many facets of the debate and the wide variety of its
manifestations in literature, history, and philosophy, one
might conclude that the genders are less definable—and their
distinctions less noteworthy—than might be sometimes
thought.
It must first be acknowledged that the discussion of gender
roles is an extremely complicated one. To begin with, it must of
necessity be based largely upon observation, a fickle tool,
easily swayed by bias and personal experience. In fact, the
majority of the world’s literature is at least suspect because it
was almost without exception written by men, a fact Regency
author Jane Austen points out in her novel Persuasion. “I do not
think I ever opened a book in my life which had not something
to say upon woman’s inconstancy” says the male half of a
conversation, “…but perhaps you will say, these were all
written by men." The female promptly replies “…yes, yes, if
you please, no reference to examples in books. Men have had
every advantage of us in telling their own story. Education has
been theirs in so much higher a degree; the pen has been in
their hands. I will not allow books to prove anything.”
(Persuasion, Jane Austen) It is a fair argument enough, one that
Virginia Woolf supports in her famous essay A Room of One’s
Own. In it she argues that we cannot judge woman’s powers by
the little literary work they have done in the past, because in
the past women had neither the independent needs required
for a successful career as an author nor the education to
prepare them for the task. And this is another obstacle in the
way of a meaningful or useful debate about the sexes—it is
never clear how much of what is commonly observed in a
group is caused by conditioning—expectations of how one
ought to act, gathered from media and family and teachers in a
myriad of subtle and unsubtle ways—and how much springs
from nature. Nor, were this question comfortably settled,
would the obstacle be quite removed, for nature itself is
corrupted, and education often required to form decent
behavior—how much, exactly of nature and of education is
right and beneficial, and how much wrong and damaging, can
hardly be ascertained. Most statements made about the
behavior of the sexes must be at once qualified or retracted—
for any rule one can think of a dozen exceptions. Still, the topic
is an interesting one, and one can gain from its discussion,
even if answers are not forthcoming.
It often seems that the first recourse, when any attempt is
made to delineate the role of either sex, is to define its
relationship to the other. The arena of romantic relationships,
and especially marriage, may very well be the one in which
strict distinctions between the genders are most firmly insisted
upon. The most conservative of accounts of the proper
romantic relationship reaches far beyond the Biblical
description of a man as his wife’s symbolic “head” by granting
to a husband absolute power over his wife’s decisions and
even, in a sense, her stand-in for God. The famed English poet
Milton seems to demonstrate this belief in his lovely but
understandably controversial Paradise Lost; the attitude of his
Eve before his Adam can only be described as prostrate. “My
author and disposer,” she declares to him, “what thou bidst
unargued I obey… God is thy law, thou mine; to know no
more is woman's happiest knowledge and her praise." (Paradise
Lost, John Milton) The fact that Eve seems content without any
direct contact with her Creator is, alone, reason enough to be
uncomfortable with this marital relationship, but more reason
still can be found in Eve’s seeming lack of will. Any
marriage—any human relationship, in fact—must of necessity
involve a great deal of compromise, but to place the burden of
submission on one party alone, and to make, as is common,
that party always the female one, is signally unfair, at once
assigning the wife the seemingly impossible task of
relinquishing her own opinions and artificially relieving her of
any responsibility for her own actions. This sort of relationship
seems to be in direct opposition to the Bible that declares that a
person without “rule over his own spirit is like a city that is
broken down, and without walls.” (Proverbs 25:28, KJV) The
idea of man as dominant in and served by romantic
relationships and women as properly subservient is repeated
centuries later in philosophies of human relationships which
were based largely on new evolutionary theory. Eighteenthcentury Romanticist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, makes a
distinction between the physical part of love— “that general
desire which urges the sexes to union”—and the moral—
“which determines and fixes this desire exclusively upon one
particular object.” He continues to assert that “the moral part
of love is a factitious feeling, born of social usage, and
enhanced by the women with much care and cleverness, to
establish their empire, and put in power the sex which ought
to obey.” (A Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the
Inequality of Mankind, Jean-Jacques Rousseau) conveniently
ignoring the fact that for the first several thousand years of the
worlds history, all of the great romances were composed,
published, and in large part read by males. Rousseau’s
description adds to Milton’s overemphasis on submission an
imputation of pettiness and emotional tyranny, one that is
echoed throughout literature.
Balancing these negative extremes, however, are countless
authors who portray romantic relationships in quite different
lights. In Shakespeare’s beloved Much Ado About Nothing, for
example, Beatrice—headstrong, warm-hearted, born under a
laughing star—seems largely on equal terms with her
Benedick. The same might not be said for the wild-tempered
Katharina, whose marriage with her husband Petruchio in The
Taming of the Shrew at first seems little more than a multi-act
battle, but her ultimate submission is portrayed not as a
destruction of her own will but a channeling of her natural
fierceness into love and loyalty instead of bitterness. Another
veritable mine of varied marital relationships is Geoffrey
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, a fourteenth-story collection of
stories told as if by religious pilgrims of varying class, gender,
and age. In The Franklin’s Tale one can find the story of Dorigen
and Averargus, whose pact of equality indirectly leads to
problems yet is not explicitly condemned by the text. The Nun’s
Priest’s Tale, a story about, of all things, anthropomorphic
chickens, describes the “marriage” of Chanticleer, an arrogant
and impetuous rooster and Pertelote, a hen whose
superstitious worry for her husband is not mere paranoia but a
legitimate concern. The Wife of Bath’s Tale does not grant its
couple true happiness until the husband submits his will to his
wife’s, thus breaking an old spell. Chaucer does include in his
work one marriage of absolute submission, that in The Clerk’s
Tale. In it, Walter, a marquis, begins to doubt the love and
loyalty of Griselda, the wife—by all accounts not only beautiful
but wise and gracious—whom he has raised from poverty. He
then subjects her to a years-long series of tests—she must
submit first to the execution of her infant children, then to her
own divorce, then to the mortification of preparing the
chambers for her husband’s new wife, all on the grounds that
her common blood has made her unworthy. In Walter’s mind,
Griselda passes these tests when she responds to them without
question and with apparently unabated adoration for her
husband, and so she is at last rewarded with the truth—her
children are alive, having been raised secretly far from her
sight, and she, far from cast out, is honored by her husband
and land. The reader’s resulting distaste—anger at Walter for
his tyranny and arrogance, at Griselda for her nearly criminal
neglect of her own responsibility as a mother and apparent
lack of self-respect—is dampened by the envoy Chaucer
attaches on the tail end of the story. Tongue-in-cheek and
rather bawdy, it summarily rejects the message of The Clerk’s
Tale, declaring that the submission there depicted only makes
sense in the context of Man’s relationship to God, and bidding
wives, “Stronger than camels as you are, prevail! Don't
swallow insults, offer them instead. And all you slender little
wives and frail, be fierce as Indian tigers, since designed to
rattle like a windmill in a gale.” (Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey
Chaucer, Nevill Coghill) What emerges from these readings is
less a definition of the perfect romantic relationship or
marriage (though ideas enough are given about the several
definitions of a wrong by a “form” in the style of Plato but by
common standards of decent human interaction, and one) than
a general concept of marriage as a partnership, the rules of
which are determined not by a “form” in the tradition of Plato
but by the ordinary rules of human morality and the
personalities of the individual partners.
The perceived differences between the sexes that exist in
romantic relationships are for the most part transferred whole,
with added complications, when it comes to the discussion of
family. The traditional familial structure of husband as worker,
wife as child-rearer, is based more directly than any other
human structure on the physical. Females, as the bearers and
nursers of children, are in nature also usually the ones who
raise them, and males, who are by and large physically
stronger, are with some exceptions the ones who hunt and
build and dominate. Human beings are not animals, however,
and thus the parts that are easily assigned to male and female
animals (though there are very many cases of mold-breaking
even then) often ill-suit the peculiar constitutions of the
individual actors. Some men are gifted for the demanding task
of raising a child; some women for the grind of a daily job;
some men thrive in domesticity; some women chafe under its
restraint. In one of her children’s novels, Louisa May Alcott
said (through the mouth of a fictional character) “I like to help
women help themselves, as that is, in my opinion, the best way
to settle the woman question. Whatever we can do and do well
we have a right to, and I don't think anyone will deny us.”
(Louisa May Alcott) Of course, this right has been denied, and
often—from the near-complete lack of career opportunities
found in days gone by to the controversy that rises, even now,
when a mother runs for political office. More controversial
than the mother who chooses to work is the woman—and the
man, for there is not as much difference in this area as there is
in others—who chooses not to marry or, if he or she does
marry, not have a family. Churches are often structured
around families—politicians make them their platforms—a
great deal of value is placed upon them, by Christians in
particular. While this is understandable—the family unit can
be the best example of how, in human relationships, “Iron
sharpens iron,” (Proverbs 27:17, KJV) and the relationships of
spouses and of parents to children are both vital symbols of
God’s relationship with us—it can, at times, be too highly
valued, especially when individuals lose their perceived
importance outside of its structure. The Apostle Paul addresses
the subject in 1 Corinthians 7. “For I would that all men were
even as I myself,” he says. “But every man hath his proper gift
of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say
therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if
they abide even as I.” (1 Corinthians 7:7,8, KJV) This is not a
commandment on Paul’s part—he qualifies his words often,
saying that they are his own opinion, God-allowed, rather than
divine revelation—but it can be taken as permission for men
and women alike to live lives focused on God, on work, and on
their friends and churches, rather than families of their own.
The freedom that this grants to women especially, and
especially when taken in contrast with their previous
limitations, is not negligible, and the commitment of marriage
and children, when it is a choice, one of a woman’s (or a
man’s) options instead of the only conceivable path, is given a
new value.
The relationship between perceived marital, familial, and
societal roles is something like that between different layers in
a Russian nesting doll, each layer an enlarged image of the last.
One who believes that marriages, symbolism aside, are
basically equal partnerships will likely translate this view to
the public sphere, while one who believes in a more
submissive model of marriage will likely feel distrust towards
female leaders in the government, the community, and the
church. The negative attitude towards female leadership in the
church, in Christians, at least understandable—many verses in
the New Testament seem to prohibit female pastors or priests,
though it can be argued that these verses have been
misinterpreted or were fitting for a season, and the Bible itself
gives many examples of remarkable female leaders—Deborah
and Anna come to mind. The reluctance to submit to female
leadership in general, however, is less excusable, based in
acquired prejudice. Aristotle believed that “The male is by
nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and
the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all
mankind.” (Politics, Aristotle) It is a fairly general principle, if
not one that is always acted upon, that the best, or at least the
best leaders, should rule. Women, however, are even today
most often assigned a supporting role—even in America they
make up a very small percentage of the government leaders,
directors, and bosses in our country, some still considering
them too volatile and persuadable to be good leaders. German
philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche saw no difficulty with this
state, declaring that “Woman must be maintained, taken care
of, protected, and indulged like a more delicate, strangely
wild, and often pleasant domestic animal; the awkward and
indignant search for everything slavelike and serflike that has
characterized woman’s position in the order of society so far,
and still does…what is the meaning of all this if not a
crumbling of feminine instincts, a defeminization?” This
equation of femininity with instability and weakness is widespread—Nietzsche also declared that even women have “in the
background of all personal vanity an impersonal contempt—
for ‘woman’”—can only harm society, by creating resentment
and self-reproach in women, robbing them of opportunities
and society of their talents. The early English feminist Mary
Wollstonecraft, near the end of her famous Vindication of the
Rights of Woman, prayed “Gracious Creator of the whole
human race! Hast thou created such a being as woman, who
can trace thy wisdom in thy works…for no better purpose?—
can she believe that she was only made to submit to man, her
equal…can she consent to be occupied merely to please
him…and can she rest supinely dependent on man for reason,
when she ought to mount with him the arduous steps of
knowledge?” (A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Mary
Wollstonecraft) They are logical questions enough, especially
for those who believe, as we do, that “there is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galations 3:28)
Over two thousand years ago in Ancient Greece, Socrates (as
recorded by Plato) halted a discussion about virtue because his
companion Meno was making a distinction between the virtue
of a child and that of an elderly person, and, more topically,
that of a man and that of a woman. “Let us take first the virtue
of a man,” says Meno. “He should know how to administer the
state… and he must also be careful not to suffer harm himself.
A woman's virtue, if you wish to know about that, may also be
easily described: her duty is to order her house, and keep what
is indoors, and obey her husband.” (Meno, Plato) Socrates
promptly differs, declaring that just as the health and physical
strength appear similarly in men and in women, so “both men
and women, if they are to be good men and women, must have
the same virtues of temperance and justice.” (Meno, Plato)
Socrates’ point is an important one. One cannot allot different
virtues to men and to women—one cannot decide, for
example, that it is for men to be courageous and women
gentle, men forthright and women compassionate. This
polarizing of the human psyche allows for the idea that the
partnership of a man and a woman is the only true
consummation of humanity, an idea reflected in another work
of Plato’s, his Symposium. In this book, the character of
Aristophanes submits the theory that the earth was originally
populated by nearly spherical people with doubled bodies;
these people angered the gods and were for the sake of
punishment divided directly down the middle. Human beings
in their current states are not whole individuals but halves,
searching for their soul-mates that they may be made whole
again. It may be assumed that few living in today’s culture
believe in Aristophanes’ origin story, but the idea that one can
be completed by romantic love is ubiquitous in popular
culture. This can be dangerous not only because it fosters the
idea that a life of singleness is necessarily unhappy or
abnormal one, but because it can encourage the belief in the
supposed moral division between the sexes. The artificial
moral distinctions that are daily made between the sexes are
rarely outright proclaimed—they manifest themselves more
subtly, often in the way people are judged. The most obvious
examples of this is the double standard regarding sexual
behavior, which has been railed against since the Victorian era
and still manifests itself, though less often, today, sometimes
quietly enough, as when the hero of an adventure story is
lightly forgiven by the narrative for “blowing off steam” before
marriage and sometimes blatantly and horrifically, as when the
victim of a rape receives more blame than the perpetrator.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13444770) But there
are other double standards besides this, and women are not
their only victims. What but a double standard could explain
the way ambition often meets with praise when found in men
but with unease when found in women, or the way that tears
or tenderness, so valued in women, often result in mockery
when displayed by men? If one believes that each individual
human soul is a reflection of the nature of God and of the
organization of all mankind, emphasizing certain virtues as
more or less appropriate for any given individual must seem
neither accurate nor wise.
There is a precarious sort of balance one must strike on the
subject of gender roles. Falling to extremes is a very easy and
sometimes socially acceptable matter. There is a disconcerting
tendency in some Third Wave feminists, for example, to
measure their triumph by the extent to which women have,
turning tables, taken over the roles they originally lamented to
see men in. They encourage cutthroat ambition and
unrestrained sexual appetite and emotional hardness in
women, failing to realize that the original problem with these
characteristics was not that they were the perceived provinces
of men but that they were quite simply wrong—that a sin is
not liberating, even if it is generally new to one’s sex. On the
opposite extreme and reacting against the most radical of the
feminists are those who romanticize traditional gender roles,
idealizing the civility of the Victorian times or the chivalry of
the Middle Ages, believing in a pageant of pure, whitegowned maidens and brave heroes. There is, perhaps, a certain
value in this sort of nostalgia—civility is always to be
treasured when one finds it, and it would be a shame not to see
the worth in the patterns and stories that have been with
human beings for centuries. But it would be foolish to trade the
freedom that women have gained—the legal rights over their
own bodies and property—the freedom to choose whom and if
to marry—the ability to vote and work and protect themselves
and their children—for a place in a story. Arbitrary rules—
even beautiful ones—have a habit of being very cruel to the
exceptions: women like Edmund Spenser’s Britomart, the
armor-clad woman who could out-joust every opponent;
Artemesia, the crafty ancient Persian sea captain; Antigone, the
loud-mouthed, power-hungry rebel who chose fame over a
husband. The nostalgia for a day when the roles were
predictable and set in stone is, ultimately, misguided, as is the
vengeance that sets up an eternal war between men and
women, as if their purpose was not ultimately the same. “All
this pitting of sex against sex,” wrote Virginia Woolf, “ … all
this claiming of superiority and imputing of inferiority, belong
to the private-school stage of human existence where…it is
necessary for one side to beat another side, and of the utmost
importance to walk up to a platform and receive from the
hands of the Headmaster himself a highly ornamental pot.” (A
Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf) The goal of this debate is
neither the trampling of traditional roles nor a return to them:
it is a world where empty and needless posturing will no
longer be considered necessary.
The tidy compartmentalization of the sexes is often the kneejerk response to the very complex issue of human gender, and
perhaps understandably so—sharp divisions and black-andwhite color schemes are easier than more complex solutions,
after all. But they are not realistic, because we live, ultimately,
in a world populated by female boxers and make-up-wearing
men, stay-at-home fathers and CEO mothers, and a failure to
acknowledge the expression of God’s nature in such people is
a failure to fully grasp reality. And these drastic distinctions
often serve to complicate life rather than to simplify it.
Communication between human beings is already a very
fragile process, fraught with difficulty—the transition from
thoughts to spoken or written words and of words to listeners’
understandings is constantly being hindered by clichés, misphrasings, and limited vocabulary—the frequent failure of
human language to adequately express human experiences.
This combination is already disheartening enough without
adding to it the misconception that one half of the population
is automatically less fit to be heard than the other on certain
subjects. Perhaps ridding ourselves of those of the gender
divisions that are arbitrary and misguided, however
traditional, and allowing ourselves to gravitate to those paths
which most suit us, staying within God’s boundaries rather
than in tradition’s, will grant us more space and time to devote
to understanding ourselves, each other, and ultimately God—
the most important riddles of our existence.
Addison Hinrichs
GBT V
Paper # 2
“Reductio ad Absurdum”
It was a dark moonless night; the prisoners huddled in their
small dimly lit cells, trying to keep warm. Not a sound emanated
from the dark hallways except for the occasional footsteps of a guard
making his normal nightly rounds. These sounds were familiar to the
prisoners, the rhythmic pounding of the leather boots, and then the
shadow of the guard passing their cell. These shadows were all the
prisoners were able to see as their shackles kept them perpetually
staring at the wall opposing the guard. Minutes turn to hours and
hours into days, the only connection the prisoners had to the unbound
humans were that of these looming shadows passing by. It became a
guessing game to determine how the guard actually appeared, rather
than just the mere reflection which they saw.
The confining walls of the prison held captive the
imagination of those inside, there were no experiences with nature,
no communication with the outside world. The prisoners slowly
succumbed to the degenerative state, discouraged from engaging in
thought and speech. The prisoners welcomed the pale silence which
pervaded the prison. Their life resembled a blank canvas on which
the artist lacked inspiration. Suddenly, a loud siren shattered the
silence like an explosion lighting the night. Grumbling, the sleepy
prisoners awoke to try to understand the cause of the excitement.
Guards came rushing by to ensure that all cells contained all the
prisoners therein. The answer was discovered in last cell in one of the
hallways; the cell was empty. The two prisoners detained in there had
disappeared into the dark of the night.
It was very late that night when the two escaping prisoners
stopped to rest their weary legs; they had traveled nearly 15 miles
when they finally could push their selves no longer. They had to be
very cautious as they snaked through the sleepy little village. They
were able to salvage some clothes from a dusty old garbage can that
was lying outside in a neighborhood. The feel of the smooth cloth
was foreign to them; it awarded them the feeling of satisfaction and
comfort, unlike their crude “prison clothes”. The two prisoners knew
that before dawn, they would need to split, and go on their own
separate journeys in order to prevent suspicion. They bade eachother
farewell and headed on their separate ways, in search of a home, and
knowledge of the outside world. .
Thesis:
A sudden rush of footsteps; guards shouting inaudible
tones; blinding lights shining in the prisoner’s eye as the prison
guards rushed into the cell shining their flashlights at him. Startled,
the first prisoner jumped up and released a blow toward the supposed
guard, only to awake himself from his sleep to realize that he had
been dreaming. Blinding, warm sunlight filled his eyes, he had
mistaken the sunlight as the flashlights of the guards; a pleasant
breeze kissed his face as he sat there in the soft dirt which he found
as a place to rest. The sounds which he thought were prison guards
shouting were actually birds chirping as they flew on their merry
way. The first prisoner sat there dazed as his mind was filled up with
all these beautiful visions and experiences. His senses were
overloaded with feelings and passions which were unfamiliar to him.
As the first prisoner became accustomed to the world around him, he
realized that the outside world was very different than how he had
pictured it to be. This world was more vibrant and colorful than he
could have possibly imagined in the prison. While the first prisoner
was still in prison, he had tried to imagine what the outside world
would be like. Much to his dismay, he realized that in his mind, he
was only able to create something like the prison he lived in because
it was all he had seen before so he could not possibly picture
something beyond what he had experienced.
Realizing that his stomach was growling with hunger, the
first prisoner feebly stood up, strategizing how to obtain a decent
meal. He stood there as his tattered clothes fluttered in the wind, he
had donned the look of a homeless man seeking shelter and
nourishment, and this suited his preferences as it made him less
susceptible to being questioned by prison guards who were well on
their search for the prisoners by now. The nearest food bank was
positioned at a church near his end of town. The warm bread served
there was the most delicious food the prisoner had tasted. He wished
he could go back and share some of the food and his memories with
his fellow prisoners. All these experiences were so new and
wonderful that he thought it would bring life to those in the prison.
He was saddened however by the fact that the prisoners would not be
able to understand anything he was talking about because they would
not have seen anything like it before and therefore they would be able
to comprehend such images. Before leaving the food bank, a kind
lady invited him to a church service the following morning. The first
prisoner decided to accept the invitation because he new he would be
safe from trouble inside a church building.
While sitting in the service the following morning, the clock
seemed to stand still as the pastor gave his lengthy sermon. Taking
advantage of this idle time, the first prisoner continued thinking about
the topic of thought. Little headway was accomplished until the
prisoner was struck by an idea. He had noticed that his mind was
limited to only what he had seen and felt. Even his imagination was
confined by his experiences. He concluded then that there must not
be anything besides the physical that affects the mind because of his
limited imagination. These false ideas of his excluded the possibility
of there being a god because according to his reasoning, a god would
be outside a human’s ability to perceive and therefore they would not
be able to understand the existence of this deity.
While sitting in the long church service, the first prisoner
could not help but wonder if there was a god who had dominion over
the earth. The first prisoner began to create an image of how he
pictured a god to be. A list of characteristics rushed through his head
as he started pondering. A mighty, powerful, father-like figure was
what he imagined. He tried to expand on this image, giving this god
features, imagining him sitting in a chair made of pure gold in the
clouds, golden light shining down, just like the morning dawn. He
was very pleased with this image.
The first prisoner’s mind was brought back to his previous
idea on perceptions and thought; it was not long before prisoner
realized that he was not able to liken this god to anything outside of
his perceptions, past and present. He had composed a god that was
essentially created out of physical entities, not supernatural. This
revelation brought him to the decision that since god was not
imaginable outside of the physical, the god must be the physical and
created of the physical, the universe as a whole was god. There was
nothing outside of reality, no intangible worlds such as paradise;
earth was paradise because everything was physical and
comprehended through the senses. He decided that there was no such
thing as a god who had supernatural abilities, or cared for creation.
Additionally, he decided that thought was not a necessary aspect to
life because everything important was derived from the senses.
Prisoner sat there happily with his newfound pantheistic worldview,
his conclusion satisfied his busy mind. Looking around the room, his
gaze was directed to the last pew, he was astonished to see his friend
and fellow escapee sitting there listening to the pastor intently. The
first prisoner was so astounded to see his friend there that he almost
jumped right out of his old pew in the front row to run over and greet
him, but he knew it would be better to stay quiet to avoid suspicion.
After all, they were still hiding.
Antithesis:
The second prisoner had many of the same
experiences as the first when the sun first rose the morning following
their escape. He had found a sheltered place under an oak tree in a
secluded part of the town. His first impression after waking up was
that of the sun shining through the leaves flowing like gold down to
earth, gracing everything it encountered with vibrant colors. The
grass shown brilliantly as it flickered in the wind like a sea of water;
birds were chirping as they went about their morning activities, and
there were sounds of children playing off in the distance. These were
all familiar sounds of a Saturday morning in this small town, but to
the second prisoner; these were new sounds that seemed deep with
meaning, full of life and understanding. He loved that in the sunlight,
everything was visible, nothing was hidden, but instead, everything
was visible. The second prisoner’s body felt numb with sensations as
he observed his lush surroundings.
After awakening and exploring the town, the second
prisoner decided to go on his own quest for food. He loved walking
around the town and enjoying all the sights and sounds, he was
satisfied to find that the outside world was similar to how he pictured
it to be. Unlike the first prisoner, the second prisoner was able to
imagine what he had never seen before. While in the prison, he tried
to imagine what it was like to live in the outside world. He found this
easy to do because he was expecting the outside world to be quite
different from anything he had seen before. Therefore he simply tried
to create things in his imagination which he had only heard of before
but had never seen. He decided to believe that his senses were not
important to understanding the existence of an object within his
mind.
Shortly thereafter, the second prisoner read a bulletin
posted on the wall of an old church building inviting all people to a
community lunch which was to be served the next morning following
the Sunday service. Deciding that this was the best way to retrieve a
warm meal, the second prisoner planned to attend the service the next
morning. On his way back to his humble abode, he stopped at a local
library to entertain himself. He thumbed through many different
books, one of the books he looked through was written by a French
author named Rene Descartes. The second prisoner read about a wax
analogy in which Descartes questioned the purpose of the physical
senses. While the interesting writing and philosophy intrigued the
second prisoner, the intellectual thinking exhausted the Second
prisoner so much that he decided to return to his temporary home
under the tree and rest for the night.
The bright morning light awoke the second prisoner the
next morning. He did not seem to mind the awakening though; he had
the anticipation of a warm meal to look forward to. This gave him the
excitement and energy to sit through a whole church service.
Strategically arriving late, the second prisoner quietly slipped into the
pew which stood the farthest back from the stage. The second
prisoner was amazed at the beauty of the stained glass window
through which poured down a brilliant display of bright colors
decorating the carpet clad floor. There were many lit candles
flickering on their golden candle stands. This visual display was
enough to entertain him while he sat there slightly bored. He noticed
the little drops of melted wax dripping down the stands, he was
particularly intrigued by observing the melted wax on the floor; The
second prisoner thought back to what he had read in the library about
Descartes’ wax analogy. He noticed that he indeed considered the
melted liquid on the ground to still be classified as wax, even though
it did not contain any of the attributes of the un-melted candlesticks.
The appearance of the melted wax was thoroughly different than the
candles that were flickering on their stands, yet he still considered the
melted substance to be wax. The prisoner could not understand why
he still thought it was wax when every aspect that characterized it had
changed. He then began to wonder if he knew what the wax was in
his mind only through knowing what it felt and looked like, or
through something else in his mind that made the idea of wax outside
of his physical senses. It seemed that what he saw there in front of
him was merely what he perceived, but not what constituted the
actual idea of wax in his mind because the idea now seemed
independent of the physical characteristics which were attributed to
it. He found it peculiar that while still in the prison, he was able to
create an idea in his head without previous physical experiences. This
meant that he had the idea of an object in his mind, but it was not
generated from his physical senses alone. These convictions he felt
were polar opposite to those of the first prisoner who believed that
the mind could only think of what the body had experienced. If the
second prisoner was correct that the mind could think beyond what it
had felt, this would mean that humans would be able to create things
in their minds which were not linked to their physical experiences
and therefore destroying the limits of the human mind.
The second prisoner did not believe that there could be a
god. This, being one of the reasons he disliked sitting in church. But
he was pleased that his newly developed reasoning supported his
belief. It only seemed clear that this earth had come into existence by
chance, and from that, everything had evolved. Since there was not a
creator, man naturally created one in their minds, one which
portrayed the abilities of a perfectly evolved being. It seemed
sensible that man was able to create such things in their imagination
because their minds were not limited by their perceptions. The
second prisoner was much pleased with his new atheistic worldview;
he then sat there in his pew content, possessing a worldview
completely opposite his fellow escapee.
Synthesis:
Among the thesis and antithesis, there are themes which are
evident in both stories; first, there is the distinction between the two
worlds, the prison cell resembles the world where mans perceptions
are distorted; outside of the prison cell is the world were man’s
perceptions are not distorted. In the outside world, the mind can
flourish; it is not hindered by the confining prison walls. Secondly,
both prisoners quickly observed the ability to reason large topics.
They both noticed simple things in their perceptions that gave them
what they thought was valuable evidence for their opposing
worldviews each being devieved. Certain values such as the
comparison between mans perceptions are extracted from the thesis
and antithesis to create a middle ground, being the synthesis which is
the final argument.
Before one begins this journey into the world of
metaphysics, it is important that one understands the idea of
“thought”. Thought can be defined as the function of all living
objects. A being that thinks is one that functions rationally with
preferences and choice. Primarily, God must be recognized as an
entity that thinks, not in the fashion by which we humans think, but
rather that He functions. Spinoza argues that God is a thinking being
by his ability to create. He writes in his book titled the Ethics., “For
the more things an infinite entity can think, the more reality, I.e. the
more perfection we conceive it to contain; therefore, an entity which
can conceive infinite things in infinite ways is infinite by its power of
thinking. Since, therefore, we may conceive an infinite entity by
attending to thought alone.” It is evident that God creates what exists,
not through his understanding from previous perceptions; but He
creates whole new entities. For example, mankind has the ability to
think, however his thoughts are fed through his past perceptions and
senses. It is impossible for man to think of something without that
idea being fed by some experience. The first prisoner also believed
that mankind’s ability to think is limited by his perceptions. What he
did not believe was that God created the universe without any
previous experiences feeding His Imagination and that even
“thought” itself was created by God. God is infinite and outside of
our physical realm of senses, we cannot understand his existence
through the mind alone.
When God created the earth, He gave mankind the ability to
sense and perceive all that existed in the world. Not only does man
have the ability to perceive, but also the ability to communicate and
speak. However, we don’t simply sense the world around us, but our
senses feed our mind. These experiences, we then keep forever in our
memory. Our mind is constantly being fed new information from our
daily senses; all these senses are what compose our imagination as
we begin to attach certain feelings to our ideas. For example, most
humans understand what a rock is, even if they have not felt one
before. Suppose that a child, who has never seen or felt a rock, does
so for the first time. All these experiences would then be attached to
the idea of rock in his mind. The second prisoner would argue that it
is not important for the child to feel the rock physically in order to
understand its existence entirely. However the first prisoner would
say that the child can only understand what the rock is in his mind by
physically experiencing it. The combination of senses and the mind
are foundational when expressing one of the many differences
between God and man. God can create anything without a foundation
of experiences, whereas man cannot create anything outside of his
experiences yet still understand that there is something beyond his
comprehension.
The book of Genesis tells the story of God creating the
earth. God did not create the earth by referencing from past
experiences, but by creating the universe, He gifted mankind with the
world we obtain all experiences from. Therefore, all our experiences
and ideas are made possible through God’s creation. As a result of
this, God is a being that is extended over the world because
everything is a result of Him. Spinoza also argues this idea, in
Proposition # 2, he writes that “Extension is an attribute of God, God
is an extended thing” basically implying that everything is a result of
God and through that understanding, we find God to be noticeable
everywhere. Since God has created this universe, and created all
which man comprehends, He must be able to create something which
mankind cannot understand. Certain attributes of God are
comprehendible, while others are completely outside the realm of
human experience. This reasoning provides evidence supporting the
idea that God is outside of our humanistic understandings, yet makes
Himself known through his tangible creation which man
comprehends. The first prisoner was only able to see which he could
comprehend and as a result, he made his god to be what he physically
understood. Opposing this idea, the second prisoner invalidated all
that he could tangibly comprehend because he believed that people
should think beyond what exists in the physical world in order to
understand such a deity. While the first prisoner is right when he
believes we should concentrate on what we physically understand, he
was deceived unlike the second prisoner who knew that there was a
metaphysical realm we couldn’t understand. In actuality, we must
strive to understand God’s existence while knowing that we can not
understand all of his attributes because he is beyond our complete
comprehension.
Although we can know that God exists, we humans are
imperfect and flawed. Our imperfections hinder us from
understanding God as a whole, because we cannot understand
perfection; we can only acknowledge its existence. Humans have the
ability to perceive perfect things; however our imperfections will
corrupt our perceptions of that which is perfect. Therefore, we
cannot fully understand all attributes of God, we can only
acknowledge their existence. Ephesians 3:18-19 says, “I pray that
you may have the power to comprehend , with all the saints what is
the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of
Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with the
fullness of God.” This verse describes God’s love to surpass the
knowledge of all human understanding. It is clearly evident that
attributes of God are still incomprehensible to man, while at the same
time, we understand those attributes, such as God’s love to exist.
Once again, it is seen that there is a duality to God’s being. We can
understand that certain attributes of God exist yet not be able to fully
comprehend how they exist.
Thought is one of the most powerful attributes of mankind.
Through thought, man can come to acquire great knowledge of this
universe. Only through faith can humans fully acknowledge the
existence of God. However the mind is the only tool to reason that a
supernatural deity exists. Unlike the first prisoner’s belief, God is not
of this world. We can not fully understand his almighty power but He
has made himself know through this world. The second prisoner also
failed miserably in is quest for a deity. Although our simple minds
are bound to the ideas and senses of this earth, we can still understand
the existence of God and his characteristics through what has been
given to us in the physical realm. It is only reasonable that there is a
God who exists inside, and outside of our reasoning. His infinite
perfection will always surpass the finite knowledge of mankind. Yet
our journey here on earth, is to come closer to a more pure
understanding and respect of God’s duality.
Ryan McDonald
GBT V Paper #2
Reexamining Greatness
It was a typical Saturday morning in Westbridge. Children
played happily at the playground, the weekly farmer’s market was in
full swing on Main Street, and a small crowd was gathered at the
softball field for the co-ed softball league. Across the street from
the field, an older gentleman took his normal seat at a park bench
located within Westbridge Park. He peered briefly towards the
game across the way before turning his attention to the crisp
newspaper he had just bought at the local store. He scanned the
pages, until his eyes fell on his least favorite section: the obituaries.
There, he read the following:
Thomas Drew Cunningham, September 15th, 1950 - March
22nd, 2012.
Thomas Drew Cunningham, beloved Father,
Grandfather and Friend passed
away Thursday morning,
nd
March 22 2012, after a long battle with cancer.
Thomas
worked as a contractor for the local Westbridge Construction
Company. Thomas was an outspoken Christian, who boldly
shared his faith and
the gospel with all he came in contact
with. Thomas loved to read, hike, sing and play softball. Thomas is
survived by his wife of 36 years, Emma, and his children, Joshua,
Juliette and Jamie. His memorial service will be held Thursday,
March 29, at 11:30am at First Community Church of
Westbridge.
The older gentleman abruptly closed the paper, and sat back on the
park bench. Who was this Thomas Cunningham? The man thought.
Just then, a loud cheer erupted from the softball field as a home run
sailed over the fence. With it sailed the last thought the gentlemen
would ever think of this one Thomas Cunningham.
Who was this Thomas Cunningham? He was a man little
known, and not long remembered by the world. He would never
make a list of the greatest men to live. However, though falling
short of the world’s standard of greatness, he was considered great
by those who called him friend. His story helps us to reexamine the
qualities that measure greatness. The following is his story—the
story of a man who lived life to the fullest, and will always be
remembered by those who knew him as great.
“We must live differently in the world, according to these different
assumptions: (1) that we could always remain in it; (2) that it is
certain that we shall not remain here long, and uncertain if we shall
remain here one hour. This last assumption is our condition.”
Pensées 237, Pascal
Billions of people live on this earth, but only a few will
have their names stamped into the books of history. Some will be
remembered for the great deeds they did and the wars they won,
while others will be remembered for their evil deeds, and the lives
they took. Each person came into the world the same way. And
though kings might like to think, none of us came from our mother’s
womb clad in royal garments. Every baby enters the world in the
same state, even if dressed in royal garments, unable to care for his
or her needs, but through the care of the baby’s parents is able to
grow and become self-sufficient. Each human life is marked by key
events that have molded them into who they are, what they believe,
and what they stand for.
Things were no different for a little baby boy named
Thomas Drew Cunningham. He lived life without a care in the world.
If he had food and was near his mother, everything was as it should
it be. In just a short while, he began to crawl, and in no time began
to walk. He then learned how to feed himself, and learned to cope
when not by his mother’s side every second of the day. He then
learned to read and write. He ate, talked, laughed, cried, slept and
played just like every other child. Nothing about his childhood was
very special.
While young, Thomas learned about great men who
conquered many countries. He could tell you everything about
Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander the Great, however, he
considered George Washington the greatest of them all.
Thomas had a fascination with the idea of greatness and
so his parents taught him that to make a lasting impression on the
world, he needed to live differently than the world. When he was
twelve years old, Thomas read a portion of the New Testament, and
finally began to grasp what his parents meant by “living differently.”
“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the
renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and
acceptable and perfect will of God.” Thomas decided to commit this
verse to memory. “Romans 12:2—And do not be conformed to this
world,” he would often say to himself. From then on, Thomas
decided he wanted distinguish himself from the world by living a life
of such moral purity that he would stand out from those around him
who might be compromised, distinguish himself in a way that he
could show God’s love to others. He realized that time on earth is
short, and he believed that the best way to spend his life was
through doing great things for God. He realized that in order to be
truly great, he would have to live his life according to the plan that
God had set for him. He realized the first step towards greatness
was to live differently than those around him. Thomas now lived
with a purpose, which allowed him to live a life separate from the
world’s standards. Not different like a bird trying to swim, but like a
bird working harder to fulfill its purpose, and in so doing, soaring
higher than all other birds.
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in
the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a
bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in
appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to
the point of death, even the death of the cross. ~ Philippians 2:5-8
Years passed, and Thomas grew into a strong, smart young
man. At the age of eighteen, Thomas started a new journey in his
life—college. It did not take him long to build a strong reputation for
himself. Not only was he known for his incredible athletic ability, but
he was equally lauded for his academic achievements. Of course,
being a talented young man in college, humility was not one of his
strong points. However, this all changed in a moment during his
junior year of college. “Thomas, would you like to join us for lunch
after church today?” The voice of Pastor Robert Morris sounded
from across the sanctuary of First Community Church of Westbridge,
where Thomas had recently begun attending church. “Absolutely,”
rang Thomas’s enthusiastic reply—after all, never before has a
college student turned down food. Little did Thomas know, but the
lunchtime conversation that followed would forever change his
outlook on life.
After devouring a hearty meal of lasagna, french bread and
salad, Thomas and his pastor entered into a deep discussion.
“Thomas, I’d like to ask,” started Pastor Morris, “what do you want
to do with your life?” “Oh, Pastor Morris,” jumped Thomas, “I want
to do great things for God. God has given me many gifts that I can
use, but I feel that I do not have the right opportunities right now. If
people actually knew who I was and what I can accomplish I would
be able to use those gifts to show the world the Gospel of Christ.”
Pastor Morris paused, looking intently into Thomas’s eyes.
“Thomas,” he started slowly, “I have no doubt you will do great
things with your life. But in order to do great things you have to
realize that the small things are just as important as the big. You
see, all the great pyramids were not built from the top down, no,
they were built from the bottom up, step by step, and brick by
brick.” Thomas was now all ears, listening carefully to everything
Pastor Morris said. “Now Thomas, who do you think should be
considered the greatest man who ever lived?” “Well,” Thomas
replied, “I have always been fond of George Washington, but—and I
know this sounds like a Sunday school answer—I would have to say
Jesus.” “And I totally agree with you,” Pastor Morris replied.
“Consider, then, the life of Jesus. He did many great and miraculous
things on Earth, however, most of the great acts he performed came
outside of the spotlight. The people he talked with and taught were
poor, dirty, and sick. He did not come down to earth to show off his
power like some celebrity, but his power and greatness was seen
through his humility.” Pastor Morris continued, “You don’t achieve
greatness by what you gain, you achieve greatness by what you give.
God gave you all these gifts that you might win souls for him, not
that you would flaunt them in front of others. Jeremiah 9:23 says,
‘Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, let not the mighty man
glory in his might, nor let the rich man glory in his riches.’ We are
supposed to be thankful to God for the gifts he has blessed us with.
In order to be great you need to humble yourself as Jesus did and
serve those around you. Humility is not just a quality that Jesus
wants for people but even Pascal says, ‘Do you wish people to think
well of you? Don't speak well of yourself.’ The first step to becoming
great is by making yourself small.”
There was a brief pause in the conversation, before Pastor
Morris started again, “Thomas, did you ever read any of Plato’s
books?”
Before Thomas could even answer, Pastor Morris
continued at a more rapid pace. “You are at the same point in your
life that the character Callicles was in Plato’s book, ‘Gorgias.’
Callicles wanted to be a ruler just so he could accumulate wealth for
himself. But Socrates quickly turned him around by making him
understand that a ruler is to work for the good of those under him.
You see, Thomas, the greatest man does not live for himself, but
gives himself up for the good of those around him.” The
conversation continued, but Thomas never could quite remember
what was said. He was fixated on the truth that in order to be truly
great, you have to lower yourself and help serve those around you.
Thomas walked away from that discussion with a new goal – to
touch lives through his humility.
You can love a person dear to you with a human love, but an enemy
can only be loved with divine love.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace. Book 11, chapter 15
Thomas graduated with honors from college and a year
later married his best friend, Emma. Thomas became a contractor at
a local construction business. Thomas could have become the next
Steve Jobs—he sure was smart enough. However, Thomas did not
want to be in the spotlight. He often said to himself, “What does it
profit a man if he gains the whole world yet loses his soul?” The
work was easy for Thomas but some of the co-workers made life
very difficult for him. One of the construction workers, Larry, was
the son of the owner of the construction business. Larry was in his
late 30s and had worked for his father’s company since he
graduated from high school. He was not the best worker, but had
been with the company for over 20 years so he thought he had the
chance to become a contractor for the company. When Thomas
arrived on the scene and won the coveted contractor position, this
did not sit well with Larry. And Larry did not hesitate to let Thomas
know of his feelings day in and day out. He did everything he could
to make Thomas lose his job, even making false accusations to his
father about Thomas’ performance. However, even through all the
accusations against Thomas, the business owner refused to fire
Thomas because he had great trust in Thomas, who had always
proved himself to be of highest integrity.
Because of the constant strife from Larry, Thomas
frequently thought about quitting, but he knew that even someone
with his credentials would have trouble finding a job in the current
economic situation. So, instead of giving up on the job, he prayed
each day that God would give him the strength to show love to
everyone around him—including Larry. One day on the job, Larry
was verbally harassing Thomas when all of the sudden, Larry took a
step backwards and slipped off the scaffolding, falling two stories
down to the ground. Without hesitating, Thomas ran to help. He
was the first to get to Larry. Concerned, Thomas shouted, “Larry,
are you alright?” “I’m not sure,” groaned Larry. “I think my arm is
broken, maybe more.” “Okay, Larry, well, don’t worry, I’ll get you to
a hospital, and everything will be just fine. Here, let me help you
up.” Larry looked up astonishingly at Thomas. “Why are you
helping me? If I were you I would have tried to kill me for everything
I’ve done to you.” “Larry, I have a Savior who thought I was worth
dying for, and he died for you too. It’s only through him that I am
able to get through life. I want my actions to display the love of
Christ.” Soon, they arrived at the hospital.
Larry came out of the hospital with a new outlook on life.
He had been deeply moved by the kindness that Thomas showed
him after everything that Larry had done to him. As Thomas would
say, “It was not through my own strength that I was able to love you
after everything you did, but through Christ I was able to love you.”
For the rest of his life, Larry insisted that the greatest pain he felt the
day of his fall was not the broken arm he suffered, but the
conviction he felt through the love that Thomas showed him. This
conviction led Larry to live a life that loved and encouraged others.
“Courage is a mean with respect to things that inspire confidence or
fear, in the circumstances that have been stated; and it chooses or
endures things because it is noble to do so, or because it is base not
to do so.” ~ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Book 3, part 7.
Thomas retired two days before his 61st birthday. He was
excited that he would get to spend the rest of his life playing with his
grandchildren, spending many peaceful years with his lovely wife,
Emma, and spending every free moment in worship and communion
with God.
A few years went by and all of his retirement dreams
seemed to be coming true. This was all changed in one regular
check-up appointment with his doctor. “Thomas,” the solemn voice
of Dr. Harrison started, “I can’t bear to tell you this, but you have
stage IV prostate cancer. I’m afraid it has spread throughout your
whole body.”
Thomas had six months to live. How did he respond? Not
with self-pity or despair, nor with becoming upset with God, and
wondering why God would do this to him after a lifetime devoted to
serving God. Instead, he turned to Dr. Harrison, and said the first
thing that came to his mind: “I must let as many people know about
Christ as I can before I die.”
Many times over the course of the six months, the pain
was unbearable but he fought through it. One day five months after
hearing the sad news that he had cancer a group of doctors Thomas
highly respected entered his room. “We have a suggestion that will
help the pain.” Excitedly Thomas asked, “What’s the suggestion?”
“We have done everything that we can to try to find a cure for your
cancer but have been unable to find one. And we see that the pain is
only getting worse and worse. So, as the professionals we are, we
suggest that euthanasia is the best step we can take now.” Thomas
did not give in, as so many others would, to the pain and take the
drug that would end him of his misery. Thomas simply replied, “I
cannot take it. Christ suffered so that I can have life, and he has let
me live this long for a reason.” It is a rare sight to see a mere mortal
look into the face of death and not tremble at its cold, dark,
lonesome grave. But that is exactly what Thomas did. He did not fear
death because he was adopted into the family of the King of kings
who has overcome death.
No one can hurry me down to Hades before my time, but if a man's
hour is come, be he brave or be he coward, there is no escape for
him when he has once been born.
Homer - The Iliad, Chapter IV
Between us and heaven or hell there is only life, which is the frailest
thing in the world. Pensées 213, Pascal
As soon as she heard the coughing Emma rushed quickly
from the kitchen into the master bedroom. Thomas was coughing
uncontrollably, and Emma knew his time on earth was about to be
up. She sat on the bedside next to him, trying to comfort him. “It’s
alright, Tom, everything is going to be okay.” She held back her
tears, and held her warm hands tightly around his cold fingers. The
cough slowly faded, and with all the strength he had left, Thomas
peered into Emma’s eyes, and with a hoarse voice said, “I love you,
Emma. My time here on earth is finished. Up to my Savior I go.”
With his last words his last breath went also.
and family to leave and for the casket to be lowered into the
ground. The cemetery attendants started to fill the grave with the
surrounding soil until the hole was completely filled. Though his
earthly body was covered with soil, his legacy did not get covered.
Just as every great man, his legacy lived on. He may not have made
the history books, but to his family and friends, Thomas Cunningham
was one of the greatest men to ever live.
Rosalie Blacklock
June 1, 2012
The Transcendence of Good and Evil
Emma started weeping, but through her tears she softly
sang, “Face to face, O blissful moment! Face to face, to see and
know; Face to face with my redeemer, Jesus Christ who loves me so.
Face to face I shall behold Him, far beyond the starry sky; Face to
face in all his glory, I shall see him by and by.” Though Emma would
never see the sweet smile of her beloved husband again here on
earth she was thankful for the example he was to her. She was
thankful for the many memories she had with him and she knew
that one day she too would enter into glory.
A week passed by and it came time for the funeral. The
three Cunningham children led their mother to the car. They arrived
shortly at the cemetery where a few of Thomas’s extended family
and some of his closest friends waited for their arrival. They all
showed their respects to Emma and the children, and sat down for
the service. The rest of the world around the cemetery continued on
as if this day was no different than all the rest. It was as if the world
did not even know or care what was taking place this very moment
for the Cunningham family. The time came for the funeral message.
Thomas had been a member of the same church since college, so
Pastor Morris, who had Thomas over for dinner many years ago, and
though he was in his mid-80s gave the message. “I once knew an
ambitious young boy,” Pastor Morris began. “He was on fire for the
Lord. One day I had him over for lunch and he told me he wanted to
do great things for God. There was never any doubt in my mind that
he would achieve those great ambitions. The man we honor today
was this boy, and he was a man who could do anything or be
anything he set his mind to. Thomas did not do what most men with
those gifts do. He did not strive to become rich and famous, or
constantly look out for his own interests. Instead, Thomas gave all
he had to God. Thomas lived differently than most men do. He lived
with a purpose, and that purpose was to fulfill the purpose God had
given him, which is to glorify God. Thomas lived a life of humility,
lowering himself and giving all the glory to God. Thomas also had
courage; courage that could face any fear—even death. And finally
Thomas loved everyone with a love only given by God. So many
people today believe that in order to be great you have to be a
celebrity, or rule a country. These people have it all wrong. You see,
Thomas was not a celebrity or a president, but the example he gave
day in and day out I consider a true mark of greatness. Let us never
forget the example he was to us. And may his memory live forever in
our hearts from this time forth.”
Though there were many tears shed that day there was a
sense of hope among the family and friends: hope that one day they
would reunite with Thomas in glory. The time came for the friends
Since the time of Plato, philosophers have been intrigued with the
idea that man is the author of good and evil. This notion has shaped
not only the opinions of the ancient Greeks, but also those of more
recent philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich
Nietzsche. In Plato’s Gorgias, the character Callicles expresses the
view that the concept of right and wrong is grounded in human
convention; Hobbes’s Leviathan echoes this view when it claims that
“good” and “evil” are simply terms signifying the desires and
aversions of man. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche plainly regards
the concept of good and evil as a fabrication when he urges his
readers to progress “beyond good and evil and no longer… under
34
the spell and delusion of morality.” Yet without a transcendental
definition of abstract good and evil, Callicles, Hobbes, and Nietzsche
each must develop anthropocentric explanations for the visible
manifestations of good and evil, the laws of morality. In examining
their moral systems, it becomes clear that none can sufficiently
explain the phenomena of right and wrong so long as they deny that
good and evil are transcendental and independent of man. It is only
by acknowledging good and evil as transcendental and dependent
on God’s nature that man can come to a proper definition of
morality.
In Gorgias, Plato lays out the basic position that man is the author of
good and evil. Through the mouth of his character Callicles, an
Athenian citizen who challenges any transcendental definition of
right Plato explores the notion that right and wrong has its origin in
convention; rather than existing apart from man, Callicles argues,
the idea of good and evil has been formed by human customs.
Nature dictates that every man should avoid misfortune and exploit
the world to the utmost of his power; it is only by custom that the
“wrong” has come to be viewed as disgraceful. “For by nature
everything that is worse is more shameful, suffering wrong for
35
instance, but by convention it is more shameful to do it.”
According to Callicles, good and evil are entirely the product of man.
Callicles’ view of morality follows naturally from his theory of good
and evil. Because he recognizes no transcendental principle of good
and evil, he reasons that the rules governing men’s actions are
derived from nothing more than human desires and defects,
34
35
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Part 3 section 56.
Plato, Gorgias, section 483.
particularly from man’s ambition for dominion over his fellows.
Threatened with domination by the strong, to whom the right to
rule naturally belongs, the weaker and larger portion of mankind
have invented moral laws in order to protect themselves. To rein in
the more powerful, the majority imposed ethical obligations on the
strong and fabricated the notion that no man should subjugate his
fellows; this construct was the origin of the concept of justice. “And
accordingly they frame the laws for themselves and their own
advantage… and to prevent the stronger who are able to overreach
them from gaining the advantage over them, they frighten them by
saying that to overreach others is shameful and evil, and injustice
36
consists in seeking the advantage over others.” By rights, the
strong ought to overthrow this weak invention of morality and take
the world for themselves. Thus temperance and justice are only for
simpletons who submit to the masses; according to Callicles, “Luxury
and intemperance and license, when they have sufficient backing,
are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel, the unnatural
37
catchwords of mankind, mere nonsense and of no account.”
Callicles’ notion of how one should live follows from his attitude
toward morality: “anyone who is to live aright should suffer his
appetites to grow to the greatest extent and not check them, and
through courage and intelligence should be competent to minister
to them at their greatest and to satisfy every appetite with what it
38
craves.” Callicles’ reasons for his position are simple: By observing
nature, one can easily see that all animals and even some human
civilizations function according to the principle of the right of the
powerful, without the unnatural constraints of morals. Morality is
nothing more than a scheme invented by the frail majority, and the
good life is lived for pleasure.
40
sake of the good, not the good for the sake of the pleasant.” Now,
it is clear that with regard to the body, those pleasures that are
conducive to its health are good; in the same way, good pleasures of
the soul must be those pertaining to law and order. And what is the
prudent choosing of those good pleasures, but the exercise of those
qualities of justice and temperance which Callicles so disdained?
According to Socrates, men should not spend their lives in an
indiscriminate pursuit of pleasure, and morality is not, as Callicles
has it, a meaningless invention.
In light of Socrates’ criticism, Callicles’ notion that morality is a
human invention seems deficient. Moreover, apart from
hypothetical speculation on morality’s origin, the only clear
argument Callicles offers to support his position is that animals
behave in accordance with it – an observation that would seem
rather to weaken than to recommend the point, if man is
understood to be higher than the animals. But perhaps the most
telling argument against Callicles’ notion of morality is
demonstrated in the nihilistic nature of its implications. If morality is
nothing more than an invention of man, then all good and truth
ought to be rejected.
Plato himself argues against Callicles, speaking through the
character of his master, Socrates. Socrates locates flaws in the idea
that the only good is pleasure, the conclusion that would naturally
follow from Callicles’ opinions about morality. If the true good of life
were pleasure, Socrates, points out, then those who lived in
pleasure would be good men. Yet it is plain that despicable men
such as cowards and fools – those not endowed with the “courage
and intelligence” of Callicles’ ideal man – experience pleasure at
least as much as admirable men who are brave and wise can do.
“Then the evil man becomes just as bad and good as the good man,
or even more good. Is not this the result… if anyone identifies the
39
pleasant and the good?” The paradox that results from Callicles’
opinion would make morality appear to be unconnected with
pleasure. Perhaps Socrates’ point is disputable, given that he uses
his own definition of good and evil in order to disprove Callicles’
argument. Yet Socrates provides another argument as well,
illustrating the disparate natures of good and pleasure with the
example of opposites. It is possible, Socrates explains, to experience
both pleasure and its opposite, pain, at once; for instance, when
satisfying one’s appetite, one feels both the pain of hunger and the
pleasure of eating. But while pain and pleasure can be experienced
simultaneously, good and its converse – evil – cannot; it is
impossible to fare both well and ill at the same time. Because of
their dissimilar natures, good and evil must be distinct from pleasure
and pain. In light of the incongruity between pleasure and good,
Socrates observes that it is logical to conclude that pleasure is not
simply the good; some pleasures are good and others bad, and
“…the pleasant as well as everything else should be done for the
An example of where the theory of morality as a human invention
leads can be found in Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche, a
philosopher who rejected a transcendental definition of good and
evil. Without the eternal principles of good and evil, Nietzsche’s
approach to morality resembles that of Callicles: Beyond Good and
Evil argues that the rules governing our actions are fashioned by
man rather than being eternally set within his heart. In fact,
Nietzsche explains that there was a time when humans had no
notion of morality; rather than being judged by right and wrong
intentions, “…the value or disvalue of an action was derived from its
consequences. The action itself was considered as little as its origin…
41
Let us call this period the pre-moral period of mankind…” Without
a grounding of morality, Nietzsche sees man instead as an
essentially power-driven creature: “A living thing seeks above all to
42
discharge its strength – life itself is will to power…”. Beneath any
other force that spurs on human actions, the will to power drives
man to seek control as his ultimate goal in everything. Thus, as a
product of human psychology, morality springs from the same drive
toward power that produces all other human actions and creations.
While a “master morality” develops in the powerful from feelings of
disdain, “slave morality” originates from fear and hatred of the
stronger. Likewise, according to Nietzsche every moral system put
forward by a philosopher has sprung from the will to power in much
the same way as those systems developed by the masses: All
moralists create their systems with supremacy as their ultimate end.
In some instances, moralists want merely to tyrannize their fellow
men by binding them to a moral ideal; in others, the moralists mean
to exalt themselves by making a show of their own morality. “There
are moralities which are meant to justify their creator before others.
Other moralities are meant to calm him and lead him to be satisfied
43
with himself.” For Nietzsche, it is the existence of moral systems
such as these that indicates morality’s human origin and relative
nature. As they constructed their theories of morality, philosophers
throughout the ages “… never laid eyes on the real problems of
morality; for these emerge only when we compare many
36
40
37
41
Id.
Plato, Gorgias, section 492.
38
Id. at section 491.
39
Id. at section 499.
Id. at section 500.
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Part 2 section 32.
42
Id. at Part 1 section 13.
43
Id. at Part 5 section 187.
44
moralities.”
Man’s moral systems are numberless and
contradictory; how could he have one “true” standard? The
existence of so many diverse moralities is evidence that morality is
relative, a fabrication of man created to gratify his lust for power.
Grounded in nothing more than man, Nietzsche’s theory of good
and evil quickly results, like that of Callicles, in a rejection of
morality. “The overcoming of morality… let this be the name for that
long secret work which has been saved up for the finest and most
honest, also the most malicious, consciences of today, as living
45
touchstones of the soul.” If morality has been invented by the herd
to satisfy ambition, then morals are absurd vanity, worthy of being
discarded; men may reasonably live in the unscrupulous pursuit of
pleasure. But from here Nietzsche proceeds further than Callicles,
revealing the inevitable tendency in their approach to degenerate
into nihilism. In renouncing morality, Nietzsche also rejects the idea
that good is to be desired over evil: “…hardness, forcefulness,
slavery, …and devilry of every kind, that everything evil, terrible,
tyrannical in man… serves the enhancement of the species “man” as
46
much as its opposite does.” Furthermore, because “It is no more
than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than mere
47
appearance,” Nietzsche rejects truth itself, claiming that “The
falseness of a judgment is for us not necessarily an objection to a
48
judgment… ” Good and evil, truth and untruth mean nothing to
Nietzsche. Indeed, if good, evil, and morality are an invention of
man, Nietzsche’s challenge to the preeminence of good and truth is
appropriate. Why should we form and test our viewpoints of the
world by comparing them to a purely human standard? Without a
transcendental principle of good and evil, morality is a worthless
invention of man; lacking morality, man can only be motivated by
selfish drives, and not even good and truth have meaning. Power
alone is relevant.
Not only does Callicles’ view of morality lack solid arguments to
support it; from Nietzsche, it is apparent that Callicles’ approach to
morality ultimately must reject the principles of right and wrong that
it sets out to explain. If morality is grounded in nothing more than
man, then it is meaningless; we ought to advance “beyond good and
49
evil and no longer… under the spell and delusion of morality.” And
ironically, the philosopher who would have us accept this position as
truth draws from it the self-defeating claim that there is no truth.
Thus it would seem that because a moral system based on man
breaks down into nothing, the idea that the principles of good and
evil are a human phenomenon must be equally futile. Yet the futility
of Callicles’ view of morals does not fully disprove his opinion of
good and evil, the principles behind morality. The political theorist
Thomas Hobbes offered a theory that placed morality on a more
solid footing while still adhering to Callicles’ theory of good and evil
in the abstract: Hobbes identified the origin of morality in reason.
In Leviathan, Hobbes makes the claim that good and evil originate in
man: The terms “good” and “evil” merely signify individual men’s
desires and aversions. “But whatsoever is the object of any mans
Appetite or Desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth Good: And
50
the object of his Hate, and Aversion, Evill…” . Good and evil are
simply convenient terms. Hobbes supports his opinion by pointing
out the common controversy over which things actually are good or
evil. “Good, and Evill, are names that signifie our Appetites, and
Aversions; which in different tempers, customes, and doctrines of
men, are different … Nay, the same man, in divers times, differs
from himselfe; and one time praiseth, that is, calleth Good, what
51
another time he dispraiseth, and calleth Evil…” If one man’s good
differs from another man’s – if, indeed, even the same man’s good is
different at different times – then how could good and evil be
eternal principles? Consequently, good and evil must be nothing
more than relative expressions, wholly dependent on man’s
inclinations.
Hobbes’ view of good and evil resembles that of Callicles and
Nietzsche; according to his theory, these principles originate in the
nature of man. Interestingly, Hobbes’ understanding of man’s nature
is remarkably similar to Callicles’ and Nietzsche’s as well: He
identifies in man a will to power much like the one they also
describe. Hobbes speculates that all men have a fundamental drive
toward the domination of their fellows, “…a perpetuall and restlesse
52
desire of Power after power, that ceaseth onely in Death.” But
rather than placing the origin of morality directly in the selfish
desires that spring from this drive, Hobbes develops a more complex
approach. He first explains that the universal drive to power
generates contention and violence, resulting in a continual state of
53
“…Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man...” In this
condition of war, Hobbes makes clear that no sin or morals can yet
exist: “To this warre of every man against every man, this also is
consequent; that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and
Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place... Force, and Fraud,
54
are in warre the two Cardinall vertues.” In man’s natural state,
morality is nonexistent. Yet man is dissatisfied with this contentious
way of living, which is of necessity “…solitary, poore, nasty, brutish,
55
and short.” Motivated by another drive – the desire for a
comfortable, fearless life without war – he finds that “…Reason
56
suggesteth convenient Articles of Peace…” and agrees to certain
“Laws of Nature” that are founded on logic. These Laws of Nature
include such principles as the keeping of covenants, civility, and
equal rights, and their virtue consists in their ability to bring about
peace. “The Lawes of Nature are Immutable and Eternall… For it can
57
never be that Warre shall preserve life, and Peace destroy it.” To
violate a Law of Nature would be a sort of logical contradiction. It is
from the Laws of Nature that men derive morality, and “…the true
58
Doctrine of the Lawes of Nature, is the true Morall Philosophie.”
Apparently, then, while good and evil are relative to men, morality
rightly understood as the practical result of reason – a code of
conduct that should be followed because it works for the common
good.
On its face, Hobbes’s theory does not necessarily seem heretical; he
advocates such time-honored principles as justice and civility.
Because Hobbes’ morality is founded on the stable foundation of
reason rather than on man’s capricious desires, it is also common to
all men. And by offering a morally-binding system rather than a
fraud of the weak, Hobbes avoids the conclusion that morality is
worthless, the assertion that confounded Callicles in the end. Yet
51
44
Id. at section 186.
45
Id. at Part 2 section 32.
46
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Part 2 section 44.
47
Id. at section 34.
48
Id. at Part 1 section 4.
49
Id. at Part 3 section 56.
50
Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I chapter VI.
Id. at chapter XV.
Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I chapter XI.
53
Id. at chapter XIII.
54
Id.
55
Id.
56
Id.
57
Id. at chapter XV.
58
Id. at chapter XV.
52
because of his conjecture that good and evil are relative, Hobbes’
theory is, too, imperfect. Hobbes’s morality does not depend on
good; it consists in whatever effectively brings about peace. Thus,
according to his theory, even evil could be moral and proper if it
brought tranquility. And if morality is merely an effective path away
from war, its very existence rests on man’s perverse state; a perfect
world with no war would be amoral. But most importantly, if good
and evil were indeed relative and man a purely selfish, power-driven
creature, why would his drives lead him to form a peaceful
commonwealth? Rather, it would seem logical to predict that the
men acting in accordance with Hobbes’s theory would arrive at a
state resembling that described by Callicles and Nietzsche, freely
composing their own moral standards to serve their own purposes.
In fact, aside from the additional assumption that men have
invented this thing called morality out of reason, Hobbes’s theory is
identical to the others. He too assesses good and evil as human
phenomena and identifies a will to power as the fundamental drive
in mankind; in fact, Hobbes’s morality too originates from man’s will
to power, if more indirectly. As an explanation of how morality could
have arisen without good and evil as transcendent principles,
Hobbes’ theory of morality offers no satisfactory improvement over
the theories of Callicles and Nietzsche.
From the examples of Callicles, Nietzsche, and Hobbes, it would
seem that we must recognize good and evil as transcendent
principles rather than human inventions in order sufficiently to
explain morality. But in the course of their discussions, Hobbes and
Nietzsche both brought up a feasible argument against good and evil
as universal principles: Men are not in agreement about what is
good and what is evil. Hobbes pointed out that one man differs from
another – and even sometimes from himself at different times – in
what he calls “good” and what “evil”; Nietzsche made a similar point
by calling attention to the conflicting moralities in the world. If
different men have different standards of right and wrong, how
could there be any rule of good and evil common to all men? The
third-century philosopher St. Augustine addresses this argument in
his book Confessions, making an analogy between men who hate
good and the sick who reject wholesome food. The good things of
God, Augustine explains, offend the wicked in much the same way
that “…the bread that pleases a healthy appetite is offensive to one
that is not healthy, and that light is hateful to sick eyes, but welcome
59
to the well.” If light is pleasant to one man’s eyes and painful to
another’s, is it reasonable to conclude that the nature of light is
relative? On the contrary, anyone would acknowledge that light
does not change; the healthy man is experiencing the right and
natural sensation, while the unhealthy man’s eyes are defective.
Likewise, the inconsistencies that men encounter in contemplating
ideals can as easily be traced to their own errors as to the ideals
they contemplate.
Although Augustine’s argument encompasses the differences in the
perception of good and evil between the wicked and the upright, it
could yet be argued that his point fails to explain the honest
intellectual disagreements on the subject of right and wrong that
sometimes arise between unbiased thinkers. It would still seem that
good has no universal nature when two men of equally honest
standing disagree on whether a thing is good. Yet even those
differences which are outside the scope of Augustine’s argument
prove nothing against universal good and evil in light of the
distinction between things that possess a quality and that quality
itself. For instance, if one man calls a particular punishment just and
another man disagrees, their disagreement does not consist in
whether the punishment is itself the ultimate essence of Justice.
59
St. Augustine, Confessions, Book 7 chapter 16.
Both men have the same object – Justice – in mind; they simply
disagree on whether the case in question is a proper administration
of Justice. Just as no man would say that a particular punishment
was the ultimate essence of Justice, so when a man calls something
“good,” he does not mean that the thing is the very essence of
Goodness. Rather, he has in his mind an idea of Goodness which he
considers to be reflected accurately in the object. Because the
disagreement originates in the men’s perceptions, another man can
disagree with the first’s assessment of the object without possessing
a different standard of Goodness; the ideal remains the same for all
men. The argument presented by Callicles and Nietzsche fails to
prove that good and evil are relative to men.
It is worth noting that human disagreements not only fail to prove
relativism; by their very disagreeing about good and evil, men also
point to a universal principle. The widely differing approaches to
good and evil apparent in the world may give the impression of
different standards, but men must have some sort of common
ground even to disagree. Callicles could not have argued to Socrates
that his position was right unless he and Socrates shared some
common notion of “right”; otherwise, Callicles himself would have
had to acknowledge that his argument was meaningless. Even those
who would deny the existence of a universal standard base their
own arguments on the indispensable assumption that such a
standard must exist.
It is evident that all of mankind shares a transcendent ideal – that
there is a model of right to which all know they ought to conform,
and that evil consists in violating this standard. Above the influence
of man, this model of right exists in every culture, although many
have invented their own names for it, failed to grasp fully what it is,
and even denied it with their lips while involuntarily acknowledging
and affirming it with their lives. Scripture itself affirms that no men
are without some idea of right, because “…the requirements of the
law are written on their hearts, their consciences bearing witness,
and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times
60
even defending them.” Christians know that none other than God
Himself is their model, He in whose image all men have been
designed. It is to Him, the measure of all right, and not to ourselves
that we ought to attribute the source of good and evil.
The Means To Believe
By Wesley Near
Great Books Tutorial V
60
Romans 2: 15, NIV
Paper II
Mr. H
confident in the validity of the statement “In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth” and to accept the ramifications
of that belief in life.
The first and most sought after “reason” for faith is reason
itself. To account for belief of the great natural philosophers of
history, the excuse has been that they did not have as developed a
“scientific view” as we do now, and as such are to be pitied and
subsequently pardoned for this lapse in their understanding. The
fact that Sir Isaac Newton spent more time and ink upon theology
than science is sometimes lamented by many admiring “scientists”,
who have remarked “oh, if only he had spent more time on science
than on his childish religion.” However, in their wholesale discount
of religion, they overlook the actual reasons these great men of faith
and science gave to defend their “childish beliefs”. Contrary to
popular belief, reasons for faith and religion are very common to
man, and many men over the centuries have tried to answer with
reason the supernatural question in life.
Wesley Near
4/21/12
GBT V
Paper II – Faith
Mr. H
The Means to Believe
Many people today view faith, or religion, as an illogical
construct that one might accept for purely emotional reasons, but
when it comes to truth, there is nothing in the world but science.
What must be understood is that these two entities—faith and
science—are not mutually exclusive, but rather one is the mother of
the other. Science, man’s attempt to understand the universe, is
based upon a very critical assumption: that the universe is
understandable and reasonable. Science comes from the Latin word
scientia, which simply means knowledge. Reason is the mind’s lens
through which it can capture knowledge. Natural philosophy, which
is now called Science, is simply man’s attempt to use reason to
describe and understand the natural world. If the laws of nature
were not demonstrable repeatedly, then the concept of science
would be absurd as it would be foundationless in an irrational world.
But there were men throughout history who believed that the
universe was rational as it had been made by a rational God, and as
a result attempted to search it out to understand God better. This
genesis is forgotten to the post-modern world that instead believes
that science is the only absolute truth that can be had. Today
science is proclaimed as the reasonable belief, as opposed to the
unreasonable, which is faith in the supernatural, of which it is now a
mortal enemy. Supernatural, is a simple compound word, that
simply means above or more than natural, as opposed to modern
science which accepts the natural alone. Man, being made in the
image of a rational God, is rational, and wants reason to believe in
God, but today these reasons are so quickly overlooked and are
widely unknown. This endeavor is not to show the compatibility of
faith with science, but rather set the foundation for that future
harmony by making clear the reasonableness of faith. There is faith
both logical and emotional, based upon reason and experience.
Once one is assured of the unseen in these reasons they can be
The first and perhaps most haunting question about the
universe that men face is simply “Is there a God at all?” One such
man, Aristotle, tried to answer just that question. Aristotle was the
tutor of Alexander the Great, and the pupil of Plato, and as such
followed after his master in philosophy, but had his own approach to
explaining the necessity for the divine. Movement is evident, but
cannot be simply existing, but must come from something else, as
he said “Now nothing is moved at random, but there must always be
something present to move it; e.g. as a matter of fact a thing moves
in one way by nature, and in another by force or through
influence….” (Aristotle, Metaphysics XII, ch 6, ln 33-34). Newton
surmised as much in his first law stating that things will stay as they
are, unless acted upon by an external force. Aristotle reasoned then,
that if the world is continuously in motion, then there must be a
mover that acts upon it to keep it thus in motion. Even though
objects or bodies that have been moved externally can still act upon
and move other objects, Aristotle rightly rejects the idea that a chain
of movements has continued in an infinite regress, but rather states
that there must be something active that moves, but is in itself
unmoved as the initiator of all motion. He says, “[T]here is
something which moves without being moved, being eternal,
substance, and actuality.” (Aristotle, Metaphysics XII, ch 7, ln 24-25)
Because the world’s motion is continuous there must be something
that’s’ “essence is potency”. Because the world must be moved in
this way Aristotle surmises “The first mover, then, exists of
necessity; and in so far as it exists by necessity, its mode of being is
good”. (Aristotle, Met. XII, 7, 11-12) This being he calls God, and he
continues to describe it, “We say therefore that God is a living being,
eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal
belong to God; for this is God.” (ln 28-30) In this way Aristotle shows
that it is both reasonable, and ultimately necessary for there to be a
God. He finishes off his discourse on the matter by proving that
there is but one God “[T]he world refuses to be governed badly. ‘The
rule of many is not good; one ruler let there be.’” (ch 10, ln 45-46) It
is clear from the unity of the order of the universe that there is only
one ruler, only one God.
St. Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican monk in Italy, and the
prominent theologian of the thirteenth century, also had his own
ways to show the necessity for God with reason. He started with
what Aristotle had to say, and added his own ideas and proofs to
that which had already been established. God must be the Prime
Mover, but he also is the necessary and efficient cause of
everything, because only He came before everything to create and
move it. He also says that by the very nature that one thinks of, or
speaks of things is indicative that there is a God; that all
comparatives are indicative of a superlative. If one states that a
flower is beautiful, or that it is more beautiful than anything else,
such as a rock, they are stating that it is more alike to beauty than
the rock is. Because there are ways to compare things there must be
a superlative, or an extreme of that same quality. So when one
states something is good, or better, it is indicative that there is a
highest good, which is God. CS Lewis remarked the same thing when
he came to the conclusion that the evil in the world is in itself an
argument for there to be a supreme good because we
subconsciously compare it to the supreme good of how man knows
things should be.
appropriately. If we are right, and have lived righteously are saved
and gain everything. If we are wrong we also do not lose because we
shall not have lost anything at all that is not necessary or already
inevitable that one should lose anyway, for all men die eventually.
Many would argue that not being able to live in the sensual
pleasures of the world is in itself a loss, however most who honestly
confront this question agree that getting AIDS or Syphilis and dying
young is not a fulfilling life. Either one gains everything or loses
nothing, which are better odds than even the most naïve of
gamblers would immediately pounce upon. And this, says Pascal, is
enough of a reason on which to base your faith in God.
“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world.
We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies,
act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly
always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is
plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their
end.” (Summa Theologica I, 2, 3, ‘I answer that’) Aquinas states that
unintelligent things, such as rocks, act toward an end. That end is
the reason by which they operate, and by the very nature that they
are unintelligent, the intelligence which dictates their movement is
separate from them. This intelligence that he refers to is the natural
order that the world displays everywhere one looks. Science, by
definition, is simply the studying of the natural order of the world.
Science today has made it a crusade to search for plausible or even
remotely possible ways that they could disprove the mounting
evidence for what is to them a very inconvenient truth. That order,
which is the subject of science, is in itself evidence for the
Intelligence behind it.
If then, the Judeo-Christian God is indeed the one true
God, what are other factors other than reason that can amount to
true faith in Him? Is reason enough to “prove” to one that he should
live in the manner that befits the Christian? Decisions are not
entirely made with the head. For the vast majority of human kind,
simply being able to prove logically that it is most likely that God
exists in a certain way is not enough to make them really change
their lives. Decisions are made, not only with logic in the head, but
also with emotion in the heart. This emotional reason for believing
in God, and trusting in him, which is called faith, comes from what
has happened in one’s lifetime. Past experiences dictate much of
what one thinks or feels about something, especially religion, and as
such is quite a defining mark for the decisions one makes. What sort
of experience then might faith be based upon? Pascal finishes off his
wager argument by saying that if one does not feel particularly
inclined to faith, he should simply act as if he has complete faith
until the religion proves itself to him and he truly does. If the religion
has proved itself, then it is no longer simply logic that faith is based
upon, but upon experience which is a much stronger motivator and
convincer than reason alone.
With the knowledge that there is a God, and some of his
attributes established, one might wonder about such a God, and
which, if any, religion is the true religion of Him. By what has been
established—that is, that He is eternal, unchanging, most good, life,
and one—one can evaluate the religions of the world to see if one
matches up. By nature of it being monotheistic with an all powerful
God, the list becomes increasingly short of probable candidates:
Islam’s Allah, and the Judeo-Christian God. Though both claim their
God is good, and that he is eternal etc. the deciding factor then is
simply that only Jesus Christ, makes the claim that He Himself is life
most good and eternal.
Blaise Pascal, a philosopher of the mid seventeenth
century, came up with another way of looking at reasons for having
faith in God, and specifically the Judeo Christian God. He looked at
the question in life and likened it to gambling. Though he was no
gambler himself he was a prominent mathematician and was very
familiar with statistics. He says that one has himself, and what time
he has here on earth to stake, and the prize is the eternal
destination of his soul. The options is simple, one can either believe
in God and live accordingly, which is to say rightly according to that
“religion”, or to not believe in God, and do whatever one pleases
throughout his life here on earth. The odds, as it were, are 50% as
one can either be wrong or right, and if one rejects all the
aforementioned reasons to chose to believe in God, then this is a
fully reasonable explanation to have faith. If one chooses not to
believe in God, and he is right, then nothing happens, and he shall
slip into oblivion, but if he is wrong, and he has not lived in
accordance with the sovereign judge of the world, he shall spend
eternity in hell. If one chooses that he will believe in God, and is
wrong, then nothing will happen and he shall slip into oblivion
where such beliefs don’t matter. However, if he is right, and has
lived well and righteously before the Almighty, then he shall enjoy
His presence forever in Heaven. Therefore Pascal concludes it is
most reasonable to “wager” that God exists, and to live one’s life
Experience is perhaps the greatest “reason” for faith. If
one has seen God work, or has had experiences where there is no
doubt in their mind that it was indeed God working, and no result of
chance at all, then they might have faith in God based upon the fact
that they have seen him work. When they have seen Him work, they
can have faith that He can or will work again. This is the nature of
the Christian faith. In John 1 there is a repeating theme of people
going to and experiencing Jesus first hand, and not being content
with just hearing about Him. When John the Baptist announces that
Jesus is the messiah two of his disciples follow Jesus. They wished to
learn from him and asked where he was staying so that they could
meet and speak with him, they said, “Where are You staying?” He
*said to them, “Come, and you will see.” (John 1:38b-39a). When
Andrew learns of the Christ in his own town, he immediately goes to
his brother Simon Peter and retrieves him to meet Jesus face to
face, instead of just telling Peter about Jesus. When Jesus goes into
Galilee to find Phillip he says “He found Philip. And Jesus said to
him, “Follow Me.” (John 1:43b) When Jesus asks Phillip to follow
Him, he is starting a relationship with him, and Phillip accepts and
experiences Him face to face. Philip goes out to find his friend
Nathanael, and when he finds him he tells him that they have found
the messiah. “Philip said to him, “Come and see.”” (John 1:46b). This
theme of coming an experiencing is continued in various places
throughout the rest of the book. In Acts 1:8 Jesus prophesies about
the disciples receiving the Holy Spirit and going out into the world,
however he does not call them to be evangelists, but rather
witnesses. The very nature of a witness is someone who has seen
something. In court, witnesses that saw the crime are called up onto
the stand to testify to what they witnessed. This is exemplified in
John 4 with the woman at the well. After encountering Jesus at the
well of Jacob, and Jesus had identified himself as the Messiah, she
goes into Sychar and tells the people of Jesus. After Jesus has stayed
with them there for two more days the people say to the woman “It
is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have
heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of
the world.” (John 4:42b) She had experienced Jesus first hand, and
witnessed to others so they could come experience Him first hand.
She could share the news with the people of Sychar because she had
seen Him herself. It is upon their own experience, and not only her
testimony that their faith was based.
Yet another example of faith through experience is the
man who is often known as the “father of faith”: Abraham. Now
Abraham was promised a son through whom all the nations of the
earth would be blessed. This promise was ultimately fulfilled
through Isaac, who was his heir, long after it should have been
possible for it to be fulfilled, for he and Sarah were very old. When
Isaac was older, to test Abrahams faith, Abraham was told to
sacrifice his son Isaac, the child of the promise, whom he loved,
upon Mount Moriah. Abraham took Isaac, wood, and the knife and
went to Mount Moriah. He bound Isaac and laid him upon the wood,
and raised the knife to kill his beloved son, the child of the promise,
and all that he ever wanted. “He knew it was the hardest sacrifice
that could be demanded of him; but he knew also that no sacrifice is
too severe when God demands it—and he drew the knife.”
(Kierkegaard, Pg22) But God sent and angel to stop him, his faith
being found true, for truly his faith could be put to no harder test.
“But Abraham had faith and did not doubt; he believed the
preposterous. If Abraham had doubted, then he would have done
something else.” (Kierkegaard, pg20) Abraham was shown to be the
possessor of the greatest type of faith, because God had proven
himself to him before. He was willing to give up the most precious
thing in his life because he still believed that God would fulfill his
promise. “Abraham had faith specifically for this life—faith that he
would grow old in this country, be honored among people, blessed
by posterity, and unforgettable in Isaac, the most precious thing in
his life” (Kierkegaard, pg 20) and again as Paul said “By faith
Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had
received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was
he to whom it was said, “in Isaac your descendants shall be called.”
He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead,
from which he also received him back as a type.” Abraham believed
that no matter what God required of him, He would be faithful, and
for that is known as the “father of faith”.
How does one have such faith? How could he, Abraham,
“the father of faith”, have the ability to be so trusting in God? By
what means? What might one do when they have no past
experience to base their belief upon? Was it something that
Abraham possessed that made him able? Was it something in him—
or even in all great men of faith—that allowed them, of all men, to
believe? In Psalm 25 David, the man after God’s own heart, writes,
Make me know Your ways, O LORD; Teach me Your paths.
Lead me in Your truth and teach me, For You are the God
of my salvation; For You I wait all the day…All the paths of
the LORD are lovingkindness and truth To those who keep
His covenant and His testimonies.... The secret of the
LORD is for those who fear Him, And He will make them
know His covenant.
Perhaps one should expect such statements from one who is called
“a man after God’s own heart”, but at the same time these are bold
statements. What allows him to make such bold statements? It is
because he knew God. He knew God, and wanted to know him
more. Because he knew God, and he knew that God was for him,
and not against him, as Jeremiah once said “For I know the plans
that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for
calamity to give you a future and a hope.” (Jeremiah 29:11). Because
he knew that God was for him, he could say that the Lord has
lovingkindness and truth for him. He knew that God was his
salvation, and not his own power, and out of that comes his deep
seeded trust and faith that is so evident throughout the rest of the
Psalms. He feared the LORD, and knew his covenant. He believed in
Him and was saved. He was saved, and he could most firmly trust.
This covenant was that which God had made with His people the
Israelites which was the beginning of the bridging of the gap
between God and men. With the gap bridged men could meet God
through what He had done and was doing in His word and actions.
Through this experience they could have fait in Him. The faith is by
nature experiential, and David had all the experience he needed: He
knew God, and had experienced Him.
Reason is not opposed to faith, but instead it is
only a tool. Those who are in subjugation to our Lord Christ Jesus
use reason and it strengthens their faith. Science is the servant
trying to userp the masters throne. Men have rebelled against God,
and have used reason to develop a “science” that is independent of
The Faith. Reason is simply the tool. Reason, if wielded by a man
who is in rebellion produces a result that is opposed to God who is
Truth. In its proper place, which is in subjugation to God, then it
leads to truth, but if it is in rebellion from God, then it is the tool of
the devil to work our way away from God. Modern Science is just
the result of a Rebellious Man. It is not where reason takes you
always it is only where reason takes the rebellion from God. . As Paul
says in 2 Corinthians: “We demolish arguments and every
pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we
take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2
Corinthians 10:5) We should not set God given things in opposition
to one another, like the branches in the church, but rather unify all
things in their proper place—under one banner: Christ. We should
seek to put all things under His subjugation.
The aforementioned authors—Aristotle, Aquinas, Pascal,
and Kierkegaard—provide the great frame of different ways and
reasons to trust God. They show us the reasonable side of the faith,
and they tell us of the great men of old who had faith and were
blessed. They are amazingly valuable to the struggling believer or to
the nonbeliever who can not come to grips with the intellectual
comprehension and belief in God. They can strengthen the timid
believer to become bold in his trusting God. But let us not forget
what is in the frame. What is the picture, our goal: knowing God.
The most important resource of all is the Bible, for it is God’s
inspired word to us. Sometimes faith can have no auxiliary, no
earthly reason, and there is nothing we can do but to simply have
faith like the Apostle Paul put it: “Faith is the assurance of things
hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old
gained approval” (Heb. 11:1-2) Faith with out sight is sometimes all
that we might have. But it is here that the Bible is our most valuable
resource: the inspired word of God straight to us, for the sole
purpose that we might know him; it is in the Bible that we have the
means to believe. It is in the pages of the Bible that we can come to
the ultimate reason for having faith: to know God.
And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon,
Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,
who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness,
obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, quenched the power of
fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made
strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women
received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured,
not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better
resurrection; and others experienced mockings and scourging, yes,
also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in
two, and they were tempted, they were put to death with the
sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute,
afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy),
wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the
ground. And all these, having gained approval through their faith,
did not receive what was promised, because God had provided
something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be
made perfect. Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of
witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance
and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with
endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the
author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him
endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the
right hand of the throne of God
For Consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against
Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
Hebrews 11:32-12:3
Jenny Rulison
5/25/12
GBTV, Paper #2
Final Revision
Confident in Christ
The sun beams down on the city of Thebes, parched and
thirsty. The aroma of incense and the stench of rotting bodies
rises up from the streets and hovers in the air. Scattered wails
can be heard throughout the city. The unmistakable feeling of
despair and apprehension pervades the streets, almost as
heavy in the air as the mingled dust, smoke and ashes. Above
the city stands the royal house; the center of power and
dwelling for the king of this wretched place. The altar made of
stone is central in the courtyard, and a procession of priests
stumbles dejectedly around it. The doors of the palace open,
and the priests turn around to see their king approaching them.
Shocked at their apparent hopelessness, he exclaims,
“Children! Why the despondency? Your grief is mine; tell me
what troubles you, that I may use my great power and wisdom
to put your fears to rest. For I am Oedipus!”
The priests fall to their knees before him, remind him of the
dreadful plague that has laid waste to their city, and implore
him to rescue them from its destruction.
He assures them that he has a plan; he has already sent
Creon to Delphi to inquire of the oracle and find what may be
done to save Thebes.
Just then Creon approaches with news from Apollo. He
recounts how the former king of Thebes, Laius, had been
murdered, and asserts that in order to appease the gods and
bring peace and prosperity back to the city, the murderer must
be found and either banished or killed.
Oedipus’ voice booms out, “I will find him! This accursed
murderer will not be long on this earth; not while I draw breath.
I am the land’s avenger and therefore will singlehandedly rid it
of this corruption.”
A chorus of men climbs up the steps to the courtyard.
Oblivious to the recent news, they trudge around the altar,
pleading with the gods for mercy and relief from the oppressive
plague.
Upon hearing them, Oedipus retorts scoffingly, “You pray to
the gods? Let me grant your prayers.” He orders the killer of
Laius to make himself known at once. When no one steps
forward, he calls down horrible curses on the fated murderer
and proclaims that he will not rest until he has been found.
Tiresias, an aged prophet sent for by Creon, hobbles slowly
into the courtyard, weighed down with years and with some
dark knowledge he possesses. The skies darken; dusk starts
to enfold the city. He surveys the scene before him and sighs
heavily at the truth he knows he must reveal.
“How terrible - to see the truth when the truth is only pain to
him who sees! I knew it well, but I put it from my mind, else I
1
never would have come.”
“What can you mean?” Oedipus exclaims. “So foreboding...
what is it that you have put from your mind? Confess at once!”
Tiresias, at first hesitant to reveal the painful truth, eventually
gives in to Oedipus’ demands and declares that Oedipus
himself is the curse; the corruption of the land.
There is silence for a moment. Apprehensive, the priests and
citizens scan the face of their king, wondering how he will
respond to this appalling allegation.
Oedipus grows livid with rage. Indignant that anyone, least of
all an old blind man, would dare to accuse him of being
immoral, he turns on Tiresias.
“You sneaky prophet! Do you think that because you are a
seer you can accuse me of anything you like? Self-righteous
soothsayer! You seek to overthrow me. You and Creon... you
would take the throne from me. Pious fraud! Who was it that
solved the riddle of the Sphinx? Was it Tiresias, the holy
servant of the gods? No, it was Oedipus. I needed no religion,
no guidance from the gods to help me. My intelligence was
sufficient. How could you even dream that you could defeat
me? Away with you, blind imbecile!” Turning on his heel,
Oedipus stomps up the courtyard steps that lead to the palace
doors.
Tiresias begins to walk away, but before he goes he utters one
last thought, “You mock my blindness, but soon all shall see
who is truly blind. Though your physical eyes still retain their
vision, the eyes of your soul are sightless. Your parents... your
children... your wife... soon you shall realize who they really
are; who you really are. Your confidence will be your downfall.”
The prophet exits slowly, his gloomy words still echoing in the
courtyard, now empty except for the chorus.
Some time later, Oedipus converses with his queen Jocasta.
He recounts the story to her, telling of how he has been
accused of murdering her former husband Laius. Jocasta
dismisses this charge without a thought, saying that Laius was
brought down by thieves at a crossroads. At this Oedipus
winces, as if recollecting a long-lost memory that he would
rather not recall. He recounts the story of his birth and how he
had been fated to couple with his mother and kill his father.
Reaching further into his memory, he tells of how he met a
wagon at a crossroads, and terrified for his own safety, struck
down the leader. At this Jocasta reminds him that it was a
whole band of thieves that they say killed Laius; it could not
have been Oedipus. As if to further solidify their reassurance, a
messenger comes in to deliver the news that Polybus is dead dead from natural old age and not by the hand of his son,
Oedipus.
“Ha! Where are the gods now? They said I would be fated to
kill my father, but obviously it is not so. All their prophecies
about me - worthless!”
At this the messenger speaks up, and says that Polybus is not
his father after all; he knows the true story of his birth. Another
shepherd passed Oedipus on to him...a shepherd who served
Laius. Jocasta turns sharply and then begs him not to
investigate further; not to find this shepherd. “You’re doomed 2
may you never fathom who you are!” She screeches and runs
back into the palace.
At Oedipus’ command, the aforementioned shepherd enters
and converses with the messenger, who reminds him of the
exchange they had, so long ago. The horrible truth comes out;
Jocasta herself, the wife of Laius and Oedipus’ current wife,
was the one who gave baby Oedipus to the shepherd to kill it,
for fear of the prophecies.
Oedipus turns as pale as a ghost as the full realization of what
he has done sweeps over him. He shrieks in agony: “O god all come true, all burst to light! O light - now let me look my last
on you! I stand revealed at last - cursed in my birth, cursed in
3
marriage, cursed in the lives I cut down with these hands!”
Oedipus races through the palace halls like a madman.
Opening his chamber doors, he beholds his wife... hanging
limply from a woven noose, swinging back and forth, her body
lifeless and her eyes hopeless. His agonizing sobs echo
throughout the palace. He eases her down, embraces her, and
gouges his eyes out as he screams in agony.
“I have brought this upon myself. Oh, wretched man that I am!
Loathed by the gods, I spat in the face of their prophecies
about me, only now to see how true they really were. My
mortification is nothing compared to their majesty. My dignity is
forever damaged, and my reputation is in shambles. The only
thing left for me now... is exile.”
Distinct parallels can be drawn between the character of
Oedipus from Sophocles’ “Three Theban Plays” and the two
types of souls that Hegel sets forth in his “Phenomenology of
Spirit.” As defined by Hegel, the unhappy consciousness is a
soul that has become painfully aware of its own wretchedness
and inferiority in the face of a perfect Being. In contrast to this
is the beautiful soul, described by Hegel as a self-assured,
overly confident soul that sees its own reason as the measure
of truth. The comparison between these two souls and
Oedipus is twofold; Oedipus before his climactic realization
being similar to the beautiful soul and Oedipus after the
realization resembling the unhappy consciousness. Before this
comparison can be fully realized, however, a deeper delve into
Hegel’s definitions of the unhappy consciousness and the
beautiful soul must be undertaken.
In the “Phenomenology of Spirit”, Hegel lays out in detail the
nature and psychological tendencies of the beautiful soul and
the unhappy consciousness. Although the description Hegel
gives of these souls is painstakingly meticulous and thoroughly
exhaustive, their defining characteristics can be summed up in
their relation to the Unchangeable. This “Unchangeable” that
Hegel continually refers to is assumed to be an omniscient, allpowerful being that exists outside of our changeable world and
is not affected by it. Hegel’s “Unchangeable” can be likened to
the gods in “The Three Theban Plays.” They both represent an
absolute power that is above and superior to man. Just as
Oedipus’ attitude towards the gods changed throughout the
play, the relationships that the unhappy consciousness and
beautiful soul have to the Unchangeable are vastly different
from one another.
At the outset, Hegel describes the beautiful soul as a soul that
sees its own reason as the standard by which it must act.
Instead of conforming to the will of the Unchangeable, the
beautiful soul looks to itself for guidance. Ridding itself of all
outside advisors, it is left with its own reason, impulses, and
desires to guide it. Having nothing to validate its actions, the
beautiful soul has communion only with itself. It answers to no
one. This path of self-certainty that the beautiful soul takes
eventually leads it down a road of subjective morality. Since it
sees its own reason as the absolute truth, its so-called “truth”
becomes as inconsistent and changeable as the reason it is
based off of. “Consequently, its law is one from which
conscience knows itself to be absolutely free, and it gives itself
the authority to add to and take from, to neglect as well as to
4
fulfill it.” The beautiful soul can change its convictions on a
whim and still be just as assured of their veracity. Duty holds
no determinateness, there is no consideration for the
repercussions of its actions, and self-doubt is virtually
nonexistent. “Conscience, then in the majesty of its elevation
above specific law...puts whatever content it pleases into its
knowing and willing.......Equally, it is in its own self divine
5
worship, for its action is the contemplation of its own divinity.”
Hegel is implying that the egotism of the beautiful soul actually
results in a form of self-worship. Its reason has become the
absolute standard.
Living in fear of tarnishing its own purity of reason, or perhaps
its reputation, the beautiful soul begins to distance itself from
the world. “It lives in dread of besmirching the splendor of its
inner being by action and an existence; and in order to
preserve the purity of its heart, it flees from contact with the
6
actual world...”
The beautiful soul grows to be so selfabsorbed that it becomes a passive being that sits back and
judges the rest of the world without any substantial action of its
own. Hypocritical in nature, it delights in airing its own opinion
and passing judgement on the actions of others, all the while
leaving no room in its mind for self-questioning or healthy selfdoubt. Its failure to act makes all of its judging seem rather
empty. “It does well to preserve itself in its purity, for it does not
act; it is the hypocrisy which wants its judging to be taken for
an actual deed, and instead of proving its rectitude by actions,
does so by uttering fine sentiments...duty without deeds is
7
utterly meaningless.” The beautiful soul is, in essence, trying
to make up for its lack of action by declaring the judgement
itself to be its significant action. The rhetoric is eloquent, but
the action is nonexistent.
At the beginning of the Theban play “Oedipus the King”, the
picture Sophocles painted of Oedipus is one of a majestic and
somewhat pompous ruler. At the offset Oedipus declared that
he could single-handedly rid Thebes of the corruption that ailed
it, to which his adoring chorus whole-heartedly agreed. He
even raised himself up to a divine level when he encouraged
his people to let him answer their prayers instead of the gods.
Furthermore, his quickness to judge others showed him to be
the personification of the beautiful soul. When he felt
threatened by Tiresias’ statements about his past, he
immediately turned on him and accused him of things he knew
nothing about. Similarly, he called Creon a traitor when he had
little justification for this accusation. Led by his emotions, his
attitude and behavior epitomized the unyielding, headstrong,
self-assured nature of the beautiful soul.
The fundamental difference between the beautiful soul and the
unhappy consciousness is their respective relations to the
unchangeable. For the beautiful soul, the Unchangeable is, in
a sense, internalized. Epitomized by confidence and selfrighteousness, its own reason becomes the standard by which
it acts. In contrast to this is the unhappy consciousness, a soul
that is aware of its own changeableness in contrast with the
unchangeable being that exists outside of it. This results in a
consciousness that hates itself, because it sees itself in light of
the true unchanging consciousness.
The relationship of the unhappy consciousness to the
Unchangeable is threefold. The first aspect of this relationship
occurs when the unhappy consciousness simply sees itself in
opposition to the Unchangeable. It only comprehends the
Unchangeable as “the alien Being who passes judgement on
the particular individual”. This mentality results in a being that
is acutely aware of its own inferiority. Hegel describes its state
of mind as one that is agonizingly self-divided; yearning for the
purity of the Unchangeable but unable to lay hold of it. In
essence, the unhappy consciousness cannot attain the
perfected individuality of the Unchangeable, and so gives up
seeking it.
The second and third aspects of the unhappy consciousness’
relationship to the unchangeable are direct consequences of
the first aspect. Since the unhappy consciousness has failed to
live up to the standards of the Unchangeable, it now seeks to
find fulfillment in working and desiring. This consciousness
embraces the world and all that it has to offer and obtains
temporary satisfaction through external activity and physical
enjoyment. This fulfillment does not last long, however. The joy
soon goes out of the labor, and “...its actual doing thus
becomes a doing of nothing, its enjoyment a feeling of
wretchedness. Work and enjoyment lose all universal content
8
and significance.” This third characteristic of the unhappy
consciousness is typified by a loss of joy and a feeling of
defilement in the face of the Unchangeable. “Instead of being
something essential, [it] is of the meanest character, instead of
being a universal, is the merest particular... we have here only
a personality confined to its own self and its own petty actions,
a personality brooding over itself, as wretched as it is
9
impoverished.” The unhappy consciousness tried to live up to
the perfection of the Unchangeable, failed to do so, and is
therefore miserable.
Now painfully aware of its own insignificance, the unhappy
consciousness seeks to have access to the Unchangeable by
way of a mediator; i.e. a minister or priest. It essentially gives
itself up to this mediator; relinquishing its freedom of decision
and renouncing the right to work and enjoy. This person even
gives up his external possessions. As Hegel would say, it truly
and completely deprives itself of the consciousness of inner
and outer freedom. The unhappy consciousness essentially
gives up its mental and moral freedom and is now fully
dependent on an external moral code for its fulfillment and
happiness. The culmination of these three aspects of the
unhappy consciousness is a soul in which self-questioning,
duty, and adherence to religious law are top priorities.
Constantly analyzing its way through life, this consciousness
has little to no self-confidence and instead relies on the
affirmation of others. This unhappy consciousness has realized
its place before God: a speck of dust as compared with His
majesty; a miniscule particular in the face of an immense
universal.
A comparison can be made between Oedipus and the two
souls that Hegel describes. Oedipus’ character and disposition
changes drastically during the play and eventually comes to
reflect the nature of the unhappy consciousness. When he
finally realizes that he indeed killed his father and married his
mother, he is overcome with disgust, horror, and guilt. “What
can I ever see? What love, what call of the heart can touch my
ears with joy? Nothing, friends. Take me far, far from Thebes,
quickly, cast me away, my friends - this great murderous ruin,
this man cursed to heaven, the man the deathless gods hate
10
most of all!” Overcome with guilt, he went from mocking the
gods and their oracles to living in fear of them. Bereft of selfconfidence and joy, he is acutely aware of his own
insignificance. This is the epitome of the unhappy
consciousness.
How does one properly balance the characteristics of the
beautiful soul and the unhappy consciousness? Should a
Christian base his actions off of personal conviction or an
external moral law? Which is better: self-questioning or selfconviction; duty or emotion? Paul had plenty to say on this
subject in his letter to the Galatians. He speaks against the
unhappy consciousness by clearly stating that living by the law
will end in futility. “For as many as are of the works of the law
are under the curse... that no one is justified by the law in the
11
To live by the law as the unhappy
sight of God is evident.”
consciousness does is to live under a curse; to be forever
enslaved to a thing which can never be satisfied. Christ came
to redeem us from the law. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty
by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled
12
again with a yoke of bondage.”
It is apparent from Paul’s
writings that one must not live under the bondage of the law as
the unhappy consciousness does; hating itself for the inferiority
it feels in contrast to the perfection of the law. This
entanglement is not what God intended.
However, on the same token, God did not intend for us to live
completely independent of guiding principles. Not living under
an external law could easily lead one to conclude that one
should live by its own law. This, however, would lead to a
prideful “I am God” mentality. The beautiful soul is ruled by its
own fleshly self, enthroned. It is epitomized in Lucifer, when he
declared that he would be like God. Isaiah reads “You have
said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my
13
throne above the stars of God...I will be like the Most High.’”
The beautiful soul apart from God is arrogant, judgmental, and
hypocritical; the type of attitude that needs a good dose of
humility and healthy self-doubt. Christ came to set us free from
the cage of our prideful, fleshly desires and to give us true
humility.
A balance must be struck between the unhappy consciousness
and the beautiful soul. As has been shown, neither of these
souls is altogether correct. However, both contain aspects of
truth. If the beautiful soul says, “What I believe to be true is the
law”, and the unhappy consciousness says, “The external law
outside of me is what is true and absolute,” then the Holy Spirit
living inside of someone is the blending of the two. Biblical law
is, in a sense, internalized when God writes it in our hearts by
His Spirit. It is only when one is surrendered fully to the will of
God, that one can have confidence and fulfillment in Him. “‘Not
by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the Lord of
14
hosts.”
Total abandonment to God requires a great deal of
humility. In the Old Testament, there was a king that
underwent substantial humiliation in order to get to that place
of humility. Nebuchadnezzar was the powerful king of Babylon.
In the book of Daniel, it tells how he wrongly took the credit for
his wealth and might. “The king spoke, saying, ‘Is not this great
Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty
15
power and for the honor of my majesty?’”
Almost as soon as
Nebuchadnezzar made this presumptuous claim, God drove
him away from his kingdom and caused him to dwell with the
beasts of the field and eat grass like the oxen. The life of
Nebuchadnezzar is in many ways similar to the life of Oedipus.
They were both mighty kings that were brought low. Oedipus
was humbled and humiliated just like Nebuchadnezzar was.
The difference, however, is that once Nebuchadnezzar was put
in his place, it caused him to worship and praise his Creator
instead of simply wasting away in exile as Oedipus did. This is
the correct response to the humbling of God’s mighty hand,
and this is how one may gain true, balanced, joyful confidence.
Word Count: 3,605
References:
1. The Three Theban Plays; Oedipus the King; section 360
2. The Three Theban Plays; Oedipus the King; section 1173
3. The Three Theban Plays; Oedipus the King; section 1306
4. Phenomenology of Spirit; section 645
5. Phenomenology of Spirit; section 655
6. Phenomenology of Spirit; section 658
7. Phenomenology of Spirit; section 664
8. Phenomenology of Spirit; section 225
9. Phenomenology of Spirit; section 225
10.
The Three Theban Plays; Oedipus the King; section
1475
11.
Galatians 3:110-13
12.
Galatians 5:1
13.
Isaiah 14:13
14.
Zechariah 4:6
15.
Daniel 4:30
16.
17.
18. Nickolas Bruetsch
19. GBT V
20. Paper II
21. May 25th 2012
22. Word Count: 3515
23.
24. A Case for History: Why Studying History is Important
25.
26.
History is often viewed as a useless course of
study for a modern education. Many question its importance--why
would one possibly want or need to delve into the past and learn
about societies and civilizations long gone? How do those
societies, civilizations and great figures of old have any effect on
a modern culture and modern life? How have events and doings of
our forefathers influenced the modern day and age? Is one not
better suited pursuing academic accolades in a course of study that
has direct implications on the future than a faculty that focuses
only on the past? On the other hand, within all other faculties, one
first studies the specific history of that academic discipline to fully
understand it and then goes forward and learns about the newest
developments, theories and experiments in that field. What then is
the study of history? More importantly, what are the concrete
arguments for studying the lives and times of our forefathers?
They are these: One might study one's past, and the origins and
roots of one’s culture and society and in doing so discover from
where and what one has come. Next one can analyze historical
happenings and the ensuing results in an attempt to explain and
predict the events of the present. Furthermore one could study the
past in such a way that one might develop theories about future
events based on similar events and occurrences in the past.
27.
Before one can delve into the effects and
implications of history, one must first define exactly what one
understands as history. Many have proffered their own definitions
of history. Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor and
generalissimo, defines it as follows: “History is the version of past
events that people have decided to agree upon” Napoleon brings
up a very important consideration: The subjectivity of historical
accounts. History tends to be written by the victors of any
confrontation. American author Mark Twain pinpoints this: “The
very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.”
History is used to cover up the mistakes and failures of those
writing it and exploit the misfortunes of those who no longer have
a voice to an opposing view and perception. To understand and
study history one must always keep in mind that most if not all
historical accounts and descriptions are the way that the writer
perceived them and are thereof tainted by this perception. It is
however this perception that paints a clear picture of the past and
transforms pure, raw, objective data to technicolor portrayals of
empires and armies, generals and statesmen that capture our
imagination. This captivating art of storytelling though leads to
other discrepancies. Publius Cornelius Tacitus, a roman senator
and historian, describes the errors and fallacies that make their
way into historical accounts: “So obscure are the greatest events,
as some take for granted and hearsay, whatever its source. Others
turn truth into falsehood. Both errors find encouragement with
posterity.” Such errors and subjective perceptions cannot be
entirely avoided when dealing with history. Which such a
seemingly cynical view of history one might wonder if studying
history has any worth at all, if history is naught more than fanciful
stories and lies. English Author and essayist G.K. Chesterton
states: “The disadvantage of men not knowing the past is that they
do not know the present. History is a hill or high point of vantage,
from which alone men see the town in which they live or the age
in which they are living.” Regardless of some of the discrepancies
and fallacies found in history and its textbooks, the study of
history is an important one and there are a number of historians,
like Tacitus himself that devoted themselves to accuracy in their
accounts. What then is history? History itself is to be very simply
defined as the past considered as a whole. It is a record of all of
humanity's progress and set backs, victories and defeats, triumphs
and failures.
28.
Now equipped with the notion that history might
indeed be worth studying, one might ask where to begin. One
ought begin at the beginning and to do so ask the question: What
importance does the past have now? The political institutions of
the United states can be traced directly back to ancient Rome with
other influences from central Europe. The English language is at
its core an alloy of German, Latin and Greek. The German
influence is seen in the Vulgate where as Latin and Greek are
found in all formal and academic language. Many modern
architectural styles have been imitated and refined from those that
emerged in central Europe throughout the ages. One of the
primary sources of this influence was the Roman Empire and its
citizens. In fact, the neoclassical period of architecture was fueled
and spear-headed by Thomas Jefferson, in an attempt to bring out
the idea that the republican principles of America were the same
that made Rome great. Publius Cornelius Tacitus was no small
figure in Roman society at his time. He was a formidable
politician in the Roman senate and had a habit for recording
events and happenings of his time and that of his forefathers. He
is viewed now as one of the most important Roman historians of
all time. He penned many works, first and foremost of which are
his “Annals of Imperial Rome” which recount the events between
the reigns of Emperors Tiberius and Nero (14-68 AD). His other
works include the “Histories” describing the events after the fall
of Nero, the rise of Vespasian and the Flavian Dynasty (69-98
AD), the “Germania”, an ethnographic description of the
Germanic nation of tribes on the fringes of Rome, and the “Life of
Agricola” about Tacitus' father-in-law, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, a
prominent Roman general. The book describes Agricola's career
as a general and governor in Roman Britain. Now one might ask
what the importance of all these texts and writings are and what
importance or relevance do these accounts have on modern
society? All of Tacitus' texts are not only accounts of events and
happenings but provide keen insight into the inner workings of the
different societies and cultures that the Roman Legions
encountered in their conquest of central Europe. These works
provide a window to the past into the very foundations of modern
central European culture and society as well as the progress and
evolution of mankind in that part of the world during that time.
The significance of Tacitus' works cannot be understated, for
within his tomes are the roots of our modern society. Empires rose
and fell, borders changed and moved but the core foundations of
much of western European, Anglo-Saxon society and culture
originated with the people groups described by Tacitus. Despite
the various wars and regional super powers the ethnicities and
cultures outlined by this great historian of Rome are the
forefathers of all who claim their heritage from central and
Western Europe. The Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce outlines
the significance of this precisely: “All history is contemporary
history”. With this he states that the importance of history is a
study of where one's society and culture has come from and how
it influences daily life.
29.
The importance of history has been established
for the past and times long gone, one might ask how history has
an effect on day to day life. The answers to this question lays in
the past, in times long gone, in the shared history of humanity. In
a time when society was at its youngest and humanity had just
began to settle down, the stories and happenings of one's
forefathers were kept in an oral tradition passed down from one
generation to the next. Wondrous and inexplicable events were
attributed to the gods and goddesses of one's given pantheistic or
monotheistic religion. These traditions went on for multiple
millennia. Eventually humanity developed various alphabets and
as they did so, began to write down the stories of their forefathers
and the great things that happened during those times. During the
5th Century BC, in the city of Halicarnassus, lived a man by the
name of Herodotus. There is very little known about Herodotus'
personal life. He possessed that most human quality of natural
inquisitiveness. He made it his life's work to inquire about the
past. Now the word history is the Greek “ἱστορία”, and means to
judge by inquiry or by facts. What importance then does inquiry
have in history?
30.
Herodotus began by recording the events and
time lines of the various civilizations in and around the
Mediterranean Sea during his time. His great work “The
Histories” is a landmark cultural and ethnographic work, covering
a time line from 557 to 479 BC. In modern times it has been
divided into nine individual books named after the 9 Greek muses.
“The Histories” provides detailed information about not only the
various Greek city states at that time but also and arguably more
importantly an account of the rise and expansion of the Persian
Empire. Herodotus' work was also one the first written accounts
of the past that began to search for logical and rational
explanations for events and happenings. Before this point in time,
all works of this nature relied heavily upon divine intervention
and action as the root cause for daily occurrences. Because of this,
Herodotus is known as “The Father of History”, a title bestowed
upon him by Roman consul Marcus Tullius Cicero, political
theorist and statesman. The effect inquiry has on all this is that
without thorough and accurate knowledge of who these Persians
and Greeks were, what traditions they had, and what caused them
to act they way they did, the instances and events surrounding
both parties involved in the conflict become murky and unclear.
Inquiry provides precise, concrete information with which the
truth might be established. Truth is important one does not live
within the fanciful fairy-tales and illusions of one's own mind.
Herodotus does not completely abstain from use of the divine in
his narrative nor does he exclude many a fable relating to himself
and his travels, which garnered him the opposing title of “Father
of Lies” by Plutarch, another great Greek historian who lived
during the Golden age of the Roman Empire. However, regardless
of the arguable veracity of Herodotus' sources, he planted the seed
of research and inquiry. A later, equally important Greek historian,
Thucydides, was heavily influenced by this method of telling
history that Herodotus began. Many of today's academic
departments, especially the sciences, are indirectly effected by
Herodotus, who before writing “The Histories” traveled much of
the known world, conducting interviews with people who had
experienced the events first hand, and then attempted to establish
the veracity of the details by cross referencing them with other
sources. Not only is Herodotus the Father of history but one might
argue that the seeds he planted in inquiry and research have
blossomed into the Scientific Method used in all of modern
science from physics to mathematics, biology to chemistry to find
precise and accurate data, with which one can conduct infinite
experiments and solve countless equations. Clearly history and its
repercussions still shape and form society today. Martin Luther
King Jr. describes it as such: “We are not the makers of history,
we are made by history.” With this statement Dr. King captures
the essence of the importance that history has on day to day life.
31.
With evidences for the importance of history in
the past and the present, one is left to look to the future and
wonder how it might be shaped by the past. When one surveys the
history of humanity, one conclusion that one must inevitably come
to, is that our collective past is fraught with great, merciless bouts
of bloodshed. Conflicts that have pitted brother against brother,
father against son, religion against religion and ideology against
ideology. American author and poet Maya Angelou states:
“History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if
faced with courage, need not be lived again.” With this Angelou
touches on a simple underlying truth, namely that history cannot
be changed, however it can be observed, so that the horrors of war
and other atrocities might be avoided. Now shortly after the death
of Herodotus, another great Greek was born. Thucydides lived
from approximately 460 to 395 BC. He participated in the
Peloponnesian War as a general in the Delian League, led by
Athens against the Peloponnesian League lead by Sparta. After his
forced retirement from both political and military spheres, he used
much of his family wealth to travel and have interviews with eye
witnesses to the events of the Peloponnesian war in order to
record them as accurately as possible. The war itself was the most
brutal and violent conflict the world had ever seen. Warfare which
had previously been small scale and formalized combat became
all out struggles between city states, complete with massacres, the
breaking of cultural, social and religious taboos as well as the
complete and utter destruction of entire cities. Thucydides' great
work was his complete “History of the Peloponnesian War”. The
war began in 431 BC with Spartan aggression against Athenian
holdings. Once the dust had settled in 404 BC, the geopolitical
stage looked very different then it had 27 years earlier. Athens had
lost all its former glory and wealth and was no longer a regional
influence. Sparta had taken Athens' place as military super power
in the region and poverty was widespread throughout all of
Greece.
32.
Of the many actions, offensives and dialogues in
the “History of the Peloponnesian war” the one that best portrays
Realism, which is one of the most important theories of
geopolitical occurrences and International Relations, is the
“Melian Dialogue” occurring between Athens and the neutral
island of Melos. The Athenians, who are already fully committed
to the struggle with Sparta stand before the door of the Melians
who have remained neutral throughout the conflict thus far. Melos
held a strategic position and was wealthy. The Athenians were
interested in this wealth to fund the war. According to Thucydides
the Athenian envoy states: "For ourselves, we shall not trouble
you with specious pretenses— either of how we have a right to
our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking
you because of wrong that you have done us— and make a long
speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that
you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not
join the Spartans, although their colonists, or that you have done
us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real
sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right,
as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power,
while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
must.” After much debate back and forth of the morality of Athens
coercing the Melians into an alliance, the Melians simply reply:
“Our decision, Athenians, is just the same as it was at first. We are
not prepared to give up in a short moment the liberty which our
city has enjoyed from its foundation for 700 years." At this, the
Athenians mercilessly destroyed all of Melos as they had
threatened they would from the outset. What is interesting about
this exchange however is not so much the result, which was
inevitable given the inclinations of both parties, but the arguments
made by both. The Athenians clearly outline that they are the
stronger and will get what they want regardless of what the
Melians have to say. The Melians on the other hand make great
arguments that about the morality and justice of the Athenian
threat to their freedom. This dialogue is considered as the birth of
Realism in political science, also known as Real- or Machtpolitik,
which is one of the major schools of thought in International
Relations. Now International Relations, as a branch of political
science, attempts to explain and predict the actions of players on a
geopolitical stage based on a collection of schools of thought.
Realism believes that all nations or players on any political stage
are only interested in their own gain or protection and will do
whatever they have to get what they want or need, and more often
than not resort to the use of force to do so. “The strong do what
they can while the weak suffer what they must”. This point of
view would also tend to reflect basic human nature to look out for
one's own needs regardless of the needs of one's community. With
this method of analyzing history and events of times long past,
one can face the future with courage, in hope that the horrors of
the past might not be relived.
33.
Despite the hopeful nature of Maya Angelou's
statement, there is an entire other side to the coin about the future
in regards to history. If one reviews the complete history of
humanity, one will begin to see similarities in many situations that
lead to the same results. The most apt of examples come from
invasions into Russia by both the French and the Germans, ending
the same way, in failure. These both were catastrophic failures due
to lack of adequate supplies, the nature of the terrain and the
corresponding climate. Another comes in the form of a global
economic downturn, both in the 1930's and now. There have been
various religious wars between various faiths struggling for
predominance in various regions. There are many more, one need
only throw open the pages of history to see events and
circumstances repeat themselves. George Santayana SpanishAmerican Essayist and novelist, is most well-known for his
statement: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned
to repeat it.” With this, Santayana makes a most compelling
argument to the value of the study of history and its effects on day
to day life. One not only should study history, but must study
history, so that humanity might be more prudent and with a hope
that the horrors and atrocities that humanity has borne witness to
in the past might never need come to pass again.
34.
In review of why the study of history is so vitally
important in the modern day and age, there are four key
conclusions to be drawn. Firstly, history grants a rare window into
the past, to days long gone and of civilizations long since
disappeared. For western society the works of Tacitus the roman
senator, provide an glance into the roots and foundations of their
society as well a glance into the state and progress of humanity at
that time. Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, described this well in
asking the profound question: “Who has fully realized that history
is not contained in thick books, but lives in our very blood?”
Secondly, history's effect and influence on day to day life in a
modern society. Aside from further work by Herodotus describing
the habits, lifestyles and cultures of many of the Mediterranean
civilizations at his time, there occurred a change in thinking as
humanity as a whole no longer began to fully rely on their deities
as an explanation for happenings, but began to utilize empirical
data to explain and research things that were not readily
explicable. This then was the birth of modern science and
scientific method. Thirdly, through the study of history, especially
the study of nations and their conflicts with one another one can
begin to draw theories and conclusions as to how certain players
will interact with one another upon the greatest stage known to
humanity. From Thucydides' “History of the Peloponnesian War”
one of the two predominant schools of thought in political science
was born. Realism, the belief that everyone is self-interested and
as a result of this the strong will take what they want and the weak
will get what they can. With this thought process, one might
attempt to predict how future events and circumstances will play
out. Fourthly, is the contemporary warning of modern historians at
the repetitive nature of history and that those who do not learn
what they might from the past will inevitably fall victim to the
cycle of history. History then is not an option but a necessity.
Cicero, a notable Roman politician portrays the study of history as
this: “To know nothing of what happened before you were born is
to remain forever a child.” Cicero paints the study of history then
as a rite of passage into the adulthood of society. This rite then
tasks one with the full weight of humanity's past as a whole as
well as all the knowledge that has been and is to be gained by
study of history.