Veritas Invenere

I apologize, first off, for my long absence. The last few months have been fairly hectic, and what with writing papers, organizing club stuff, being an RA and applying to grad schools, I haven't put much effort into keeping this up.
I came back into Vernal yesterday. And while I'm not going to comment on Vernal right now, on the three hour car ride home, I had a lot of time to think about whatever it is that I wanted to contemplate. I utilized the ride to think about why it is that there are so many differing belief sets in the world.
It occurs to me that there must be a certain appeal to any given philosophy or faith. There must be some aspect of it that attracts men and women to it. I feel, then, that any given practice of beliefs must have some truth within it. I believe, as Socrates, that humans can recognize certain truths. This, of course, would be why there are similar beliefs in remote parts of the world--similar in how they conduct themselves and even, to a certain extent, what they believe about our final ends and the governing powers of the universe.
However, we observe that there are also a great deal of differences between the various beliefs. I would submit that this is because, as Aquinas says, it is possible to come to a fullness of truth, but not everyone could come to the truth, and it would only be done by long and arduous labor. So, often, when someone comes upon some great truth, he synthesizes doctrines based on this, though often erroneously.
Of course, these sets of beliefs get propagated because man eventually feels the compulsion to find the truth. As Blaise Pascal said, every man, eventually, comes to the realization that death is coming hurtling at him. When we come to grips with our temporality, we realize seek to find some kind of reason for our being. So often, men turn to philosophies or faiths, especially those wherein they see a truth that they recognize.
But it cannot be the case that every single philosophy or religion is right. So many of them openly contradict each other, that it would be utterly incomprehensible to have a pantheistic or panphilosophic attitude. So the task lies on us to figure out which ones we can embrace and which ones to reject.
Of course, with the differing doctrines within each one, it is impossible to take a look from any perspective of the schools of thought to examine what we should do. Plato thought we should seek to live virtuous lives. Luther taught that we are saved through our faith by Grace, and that our works cannot achieve heaven for us. Hedonists and Nihilists claim that nothing we do has any moral or eternal bearing. If we are already attached to one thought, we cannot fairly judge any other school.
So I will not lie and say my opinion is unbiased. But I will try to demonstrate what I think the correct answer is and why. If the Hedonists, Nihilsts, and even some of the Existentialists are right, then we have no moral obligation to anythin. However, this is not the case, because it is obvious through the ways that societies work that at some level, we have a moral obligation to fulfill. If Locke and Hobbes, and for that matter Caesar and all the current talk show hosts, are right, then our moral obligation is only to the state, and that is wherein our salvation lies. However, this cannot either be the case, since states rise and fall all the time, and oftne men outlive their own body politic (read: in a relatively recent example, East and West Germany, the Soviet Union, etc). So it must be to some greater force, for some greater good. If we follow Luther, then salvation requires faith. My biggest problem with this doctrine is not that we are saved through Grace, but rather that our faith is necessary. This seem ridiculous when there are people in parts of the world who have no access to the Gospel, nor did our ancestors if we go back far enough. Thus, salvation excludes a significant portion of the population, and Grace doesn't really seem like Grace.
So, I find myself taking on a more Platonic ideal. I will not say that we need to try to embrace every single virtue in either a Socratic or Aristotelian method, but we do need to live our lives with a sense of what it is to be a good person. Righteous living is the key to our salvation. Even Vatican II made provisions for the "virtuous pagan" an idea that suggests that morality is actually universal, though faith in Christ Jesus is not.
So, I think that whether or not we devote our entire lives to honoring God is irrelevent, but living our entire lives as if we were serving Him or His children is absolutely relevent. Our salvation lies not in how many times we pray, nor in how often we attend church, but it absolutely depends on how we see our brothers and sisters and how we honor the light of God within them.

Aquinas' University

In 13th Century Paris, St. Thomas Aquinas proposed a curriculum for the university which offered a hierarchical view of studies. The newer students would study the liberal arts, including language, history, logic and geometry. After completing this, those students who wished to continue their studies would learn philosophy, including Aristotle. Finally, students would be taught theology. Theology was saved for last because, in Aquinas' mind, it was the highest discipline and therefore should not be taught to those who were not willing to learn all the other disciplines they needed to. Of course, this system sets up a highly educated caste of theologians, such that their intellect and knowledge would surpass the philosophers of the day.
Today's university has discarded of the practice of hierarchically ranking studies. Accounting is as valuable as philosophy and English as worthwhile as theology in our schools. This practice does not make for well-versed students. I do not say this because I think that theology is the best subject, but rather because we do not emphasize how all of these subjects can be connected to form a comprehensive understanding of the world. That being said, I will propose that theology does a great job out of all subjects for doing this.
Consider the following: a history class' objective is merely to report the facts of the past. The ramifications of these actions is not within the realm of history to determine, but rather for philosophers, politicians and strategists. A literature class seeks to understand specific literary works, which sometimes requires an understanding of time, and consequently history. However, rarely does this, unless it is a philosophical work, require an understanding of philosophy to understand the work. Rather, language devices and literary nuances are required.
If we follow this trend we can observe several other things. In sciences, for example, it is necessary to have an understanding of mathematical concepts, but math does not necessitate the understanding of science. Linguistics requires an understanding of at least one language. Engineering requires an understanding of physics and advanced math is only understood after simple math is learned.
As we follow this line of thinking, we discover philosophy incorporates several of these studies. As a philosopher, one has to understand a history that dates back to Pythagoras. Literary devices, including allegory, allusion and equivocation are important parts in philosophical discourse. As Socrates demonstrates in the Crito, even mathematics is important. In short, learning more and more about the world can only help one in the philosophical field.
Theology, then goes one step beyond this. Theology often incorporates philosophy and engages every other field of study. Evolutionary biology is constantly in direct dialogue with theology. Neuropsychology has implications for the nature of the soul and what it means to be human that theology must also engage. Even Quantum Mechanics, with its focus on elementary particles, has something to say about the universe that God created and the way that we understand the matter therein.
As we realize this, we discover something shocking and unsettling. We cannot intelligently engage in theological discussion without understanding a large amount of what is going on in the world. If we idly spout out uninformed opinions about God and the universe, we are little more than babbling fools. For how can we expect the world to take us seriously as believers when we respond to challenges to our faith in the most uninformed and baseless manner? If we want to enter into real discussion with the world, then we necessarily need to be aware of the matters in which we engage others in conversation. Laying baseless claims against the charges of unbelievers does not increase our credibility, but rather it makes us look like fools and yuppies in the eyes of our critics.

Too Pious?

I attended a Protestant service today. It was a departure from the way Mass is celebrated.
Rather than genuflecting, we just sat down. There was no holy water to cross ourselves and no one bowed at the altar. We began, not with a blessing or a song, but with a rockin' rendition of some hymn I'd never heard before.
I was reminded just how different Catholicism was practically from Mormonism. Mormons show up for meetings and just sit down. and talk to people around them. They don't really stand up or sit down a whole lot and there are no responses during the service. There really are no readings to speak of, and the communion, though lauded as being the central focus of the meeting, is carried out in so quick a manner that nobody really pays attention. Two to three lay people will be asked to deliver sermons, and they will, usually to the best of their ability (or with only five minutes of prep time before the meeting). All manner of church business will be conducted before communion, usually distracting people. Kids will be crying, old men will be snoring, children will be drawing or texting or some other activity, and everybody will be hot because the AC doesn't work. Any music numbers consist of an organ, or possibly a piano or choir number between speakers.
Catholicism, however, is very big into its ceremony and sacramentals. We cross ourselves walking into the church. We genuflect before sitting down at the altar. We stand and sit and give responses. The readings are often read by lay people while the gospel and homily are done by the priest or deacon. The Eucharist is done at the end of the service with fully half of Mass devoted to the mystery of the Flesh and Blood of Christ. People are less likely to doze off because of all the constant position changing, though a few will snooze during the homily. Mass is only an hour, as opposed to Mormon's three hours of church meetings, making it more endurable for the unwilling attenders. Music is usually more traditional, with either a piano or organ, or possibly a small band, though with only accoustic instruments.
Even the more traditional Protestant churches I've attended place much less emphasis on ceremony and tradition. People just walk in, talking and sharing with each other. There are no procedures for bowing or sitting, but people do rise for readings and sermons are usually done by the minister. But the minister is not a priest, and the Communion is not viewed with the same reverence and respect as the Eucharist. Usually there's a full band, including electric guitars and basses and keyboards. Where the crossing and genuflecting is absent, however, other forms of worship are present. People stand during songs, hands outstretched and eyes closed in worship. People shout glorious alleluias and amens during sermons.
So I wonder what it is to be pious and reverent in worship. Is it dancing in the aisle? Is it Gregorian chanting? Is it abject silence as a peer reads a pre-written sermon? In my mind, worship needs to be somehow disconnected from the mundane world we live in. Our individual actions and habits we associate with worship need to be seperated from what we do at parties.
Do we talk too loudly at our services? Do we distract ourselves with the gossip of our friends and neighbors? Does the worship music distract us? Are we conducting ourselves in such a manner that we know we are in a worship service?
I find it quite fascinating to see the ways in which worship has changed over the last 2000 years. In the early days, as detailed by writers like Egeria, services would last hours, sometimes all day long. While I seriously doubt that many people today have the patience to sit through such a long liturgy, it is interesting to note that they did back then. However, we can also infer that aside from strict worship, the service also sought to entertain. We also read from Paul that when members got together for the Lord's Supper, they often gorged themselves as if they were strictly there for the food (1 Corinthians 11:21-22).
Over time, the Church moved from lengthy, entertaining services to shorter, worship focused liturgy. With developing theology, Mass shortened to focus more on the liturgical, worshipful aspects rather than the grandiose rhetoric and theater.
Then, during the Reformation an interesting thing happened. The Roman Church changed its liturgy to a more Baroque style with ornate art and gothic architecture. Many of the Protestant Churches, the Reformers and Anglicans especially, traded the ornamentation for simplistic, bare-walled worship, often with no music. The Protestants sought simplistic worship, with the scripture being the beginning and end. The Catholics, with their tradition and Tradition, held onto the images of saints and the writings and songs of the doctors and theologians.
As time went on, Catholicism made few changes, until Vatican II. Then, the liturgy was changed to vernacular, the priest faced the congregation for Eucharist and hymns were modernized. However, even these changes couldn't parallel the radical changes American Protestantism. In exchange for the melancholy tones of yesteryear, Christian rock bands take the stage. Where hellfire and damnation were once preached from the pulpit, today it's love for Jesus. Shame has been traded for ambition and the angry preacher for the happy-go-lucky minister.
It can be hard to decide what form of worship to adhere to. Do we stick to the old ways of yesteryear, full of bowing, crossing, genuflecting and chanting? Do we get with today's contemporary worship with rock bands, bible study, youth ministers, and interactive sermons? Or do we go with the silent adoration with no signals, no prostrations or ornamentation? Whatever way we decide to worship, the most important aspect of it is our understanding it as worship and our utilizing it as such.

Whose fight is it?

I read today that Mormon Church leader Dallin H Oaks spoke to the student body of Brigham Young University Idaho on the gay rights movement. In his talk, he compared what was going on to the Civil Rights Movement.
As if that wouldn't be a controversial enough statement, the way in which he compared it was laughable at best. He claimed that the Mormon Church, due to the (sometimes violent) backlash of those against Proposition 8 in California, was synonymous to the African-Americans who fought for their rights. This is hilarious on several levels. 1) The gay community at large are the ones seeking civil rights, not the Mormon Church. 2) The Mormon Church are the ones responsible for holding down the homosexual movement, thus more the aggressors here than the victims. 3) The Mormon Church was also not on the side of African Americans in the Civil Rights Movement because they denied Black men the priesthood until 1978, a full decade after Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated.
It's hard to not view the whole picture of this without laughing, or at least chuckling. 119 years ago the Mormon Church had to officially stop allowing their men to have multiple wives (some as many as twenty) in order to gain statehood. Now, one would imagine that because of their past non-conventional style of marriage, they would be more merciful to those seeking to have their marriages recognized as legitimate. On the contrary, though, the Mormon Church either seeks to act out in pure spite against those seeking legalization of their marriages or wishes to be more conformed with other conservative evangelical faiths.
Perhaps to understand the emphasis the Mormon Church places on heterosexual marriage we need to understand a critical document called The Family: A Proclamation to the World. In it the Mormon leaders set out that the "traditional family" is the only one that is worth upholding. This document presents very few beneficial patterns for family life and many backwards minded constrictive and regressive models. Among the positives are the emphasis of father interaction with children. However, among the negatives are a call for women to stay in the home, for the man to have sole financial burden and for the prototypical model to consist of a man born with an X and Y chromosome, and a woman born with two Xes who are lawfully married.
Which brings me to a final point. Marriage, in the way that we speak of it, has three different definitions. First is the legal definition. This is the fight going down in the ballots, in the courts and in the marches. Legal definition gives rights for insurance, inheritance, financial co-ownership, children custody and last rights and medical decisions. In the event of divorce, the fight is generally over property and children rights.
The second definition is the social definition. This has no clear boundaries and is only displayed insofar as both parties demonstrate consent. A couple that lives together and shares all things is for all intents and purposes socially married. A child can be raised by a man who is not biologically or legally his father if he is in a social marriage with the child's mother. This definition often coincides with the legal definition, but over and against it, if parents are "separated" they are legally still married, but socially divorced. This form of marriage is not generally recognized by most conventional organizations, but is the most practical and has the most far reaching consequences for familial structure and development.
The third and final definition is the religious definition. This is a marriage officially recognized by a specific faith group. For Catholics, this is the sacrament of marriage. For Mormons, this is marriage in a temple. For other faiths, these are the traditional marriage ceremonies unique to each one. Often times these are coincidentally legal marriages as well, but from time to time, religious marriages have not been recognized by the state. Similarly, in divorce, for religious marriages, a special "divorce" is often required, as in the case of annulments. Religious marriages have consequences in spirituality. They impact the nature of the religious family and the value of the marriage in an eternal perspective.
The important distinction here is that the Mormon Church is a religious organization. They meddle in the religious sphere. Their authority is over religious marriages. They can deny or allow marriages in their temples for whomever they wish. But the homosexual community is not currently vying for religious marriages in Mormon temples. No, they only seek legal marriages. Yes, the Mormon Church views it as their specific duty to ensure that the "traditional family is upheld in every sphere." However, I think it is important to note where they're jurisdiction ends and begins. So it is, whether or not we agree with the idea of homosexual religious marriage, the desire for legal marriage is merely seeking a civil right--one that we as a people have given to every race and religion and owe to the homosexual community

Cynicism

I feel as if I've brought this topic up once before, but in looking at the previous post, I realize that it does actually address a slightly different topic of discussion.
I've realized (with more than a little help), that I'm a cynic. I do not take great pride in this fact, nor do I take shame in this. It is what it is. But I shall attempt to explain why this is and from whence it comes.
To begin, I start with St Augustine's theology about Original Sin. St Augustine states that all men are born with the sin of Adam. Though I don't know that he ever explicitly mentions this, many theologians have derived from Augustine that this means that humans' souls are stained with sin. Of course, with the theology of the Passion, Cristology tells us that through Jesus all are alleviated from the sins of Adam. However, many disagree with the way in which this is done, and even still, no theologians have ever allowed this to mean that any men (aside from the Blessed Mother and Jesus Himself) were ever born without the sin of Adam still on them.
I take this to mean that human beings are innately evil. Yes, this is a very dismal view on the human condition, but I accept this to be only an extension of Augustine's theology. If we have been born with the sin of Adam, and our souls are inherently stained, then we are automatically sinful and inclined to sin. Thus, we are wicked and bad people by nature.
I do not think that all people are bad, however. I have continually been shown that there are, in fact, many good and great people in this world. I have known many philanthropic and self-sacrificing people. All the saints were great people. Many mentors and instructors are and were great people. Philosophers and philanthropists have blessed the world with their virtuous ideals. The world is not completely evil, in other words.
However, this makes me take on the idea of people being bad unless proven innocent. Worse is when I negatively associate many occupations without knowing the people necessarily. While I will not make more specific what occupations I view as contemptible, suffice it to say any position in which I believe people are unduly rewarded for something which doesn't merit such benefits I regard in negative fashion.
However, to be more all-encompassing in my general biases (which have been variously pointed out to me), I would state that any industry, organization or social trend that promotes vice over virtue is despicable in my eyes. Our pop-culture is heavily laden with bad morals and unethical practices. The dominant image in media portrays an image of vice and sin. It is as the serial killer (Spoiler Alert) on Se7en states, "Only in a world this sick would we consider these [sinners] to be innocent people."
This doesn't mean that I think there should be any destructive or mean repercussions enacted to combat this. On the contrary, meanness only begets meanness, while kindness leads to kindness. The only way in which I think these ideals could be reversed would be through promotion, especially on our own part, of virtues. Only through this, do I think, anything will be accomplished to better us.
When I close my eyes, the world I see is one quite unlike this one. Parents are most concerned about instilling their children with virtue and view sports and other activities as secondary. Prisons are replaced with rehabilitation programs to help prisoners learn of the errors in their ways. Schools teach virtues first and expound on them to all other studies (including wisdom, which consists of the bulk of our curriculum). Men and women pursue activities that will bring them true happiness rather than temporary pleasure. Virtue rules the culture and dictates what we do.
However, I am no fool. I don't foresee this happening soon. I know the world is full of corruption, and that complete virtue is a goal far off. However, I believe it negligent of me to not try to instill any virtue on those I meet. Not to force it, mind you, as this would also be inconsistent with virtue, but to try to enlighten whomever will be receptive.
This is where I come to my final point about my cynicism. While I consciously will virtue to be pervaded throughout the world, I know that it isn't. And unless I acknowledge this, I cannot hope to change it. I perceive of the world as being corrupted and in need of change, because I feel that in acknowledging this fact, I am opening myself to the possibility of changing or trying to change what I see that is wrong. Taking a completely optimistic view of the world will only prevent me from allowing anything that I perceive to be already working to be fixed. Thus, a healthy dose of cynicism allows us to make improvements in our own lives.

Unanswered Questions

So Alexa and I had a long discussion today which involved several different things. However, there is really one which I would like to expound more. Anybody who has paid much attention to controversial issues of the day knows that a chief topic is Creationism versus Evolution.
Concerning the topic of Creationism, there are several big objections I have against it. The timing makes little to no sense, nor does the order of creation. Additionally, I have a hard time with the idea that God, being a god who is thought to work inside the confines of nature would create the world in such a strange manner, ignoring matter and universal properties rather than creating the sun with light, and land with the sea. Additionally, there is the simple matter of logistic errors. Why is there water in the sky? Why is woman pulled out of the side of the man? Why is the sun created after the earth? Finally, there is the contradiction in stories. Yes, storieS. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis provide two different stories of the creation. In one instance, God creates everything, and in the end creates humans. In the second, God creates man, then creates everything else in order to be used by human. Both stories supply woman as being created after man, in one instance being drawn from his actual body, and in the other being created almost as an after thought.
However, even with these many objections, I do think that the Creation has some merit to it. It is a scriptural story that has lasted through thousands of years, a claim that NO OTHER origination idea can claim. Also, There is the simple fact of human telos and God's glory in us. Whether or not we believe the stories to be literal, they demonstrate for us God's love in a very basic way. God loves us from the beginning, makes us in God's image and watches out for us and takes care of us.
Also, there is a lot to be gained from the story allegorically, as Origen, even in the second century, admits. We learn a basic pattern for human labor. We learn a metaphysical truth that Aquinas would verify in the hierarchy of being. We learn the connection between all things and the divine origin of the universe. Finally, we see that all that God has created is GOOD.
Evolution has several problems with it as well, however. Human achievment, intelligence and sentience is discounted if we are little more than a step on the evolutionary ladder. Identity and purpose is void if we are simply mutated simians. Thousands of years of philosophies and theologies are invalidated because the true answer to human existence lies in random chances and chemical reactions.
Furthermore, the truth is that the idea of human origin through evolution is not a scientific principle, though thought by many to be so. Evolution is cited as a principle, insofar as we have observed it in lower life-forms (bacteria and insects, ie). However, the idea of humans being descended from primordial primates is NOT a principle, but merely a theory. Granted, it has valid implications and has plenty of basis, but as there is no definitive proof, one cannot state that evolution of human origins is a proven principle.
Also, Evolution is an idea only 150 years old (this year!). Science continually disproves itself. The physics of Aristotle's time were disproven by Cartesian physics, which were disproven by Newton, who was shown to be wrong by Einstein, which even today is considered incorrect by Quantum physics. Biological origination has come a long way since pre-Pasteur. Even evolutionary theory has moved a long way since Origin of Species. Thus, to assert the absolute correctness of modern evolutionary theories would be to deny any possibility of a better theory in the future.
I have no problem synthesizing the two ideas, however. If we imagine for ourselves a God who operates in the natural world, one can posit biological development as if God were working in a petri dish which we term "earth." Thus humanity can emerge from the natural world, a world which even the Genesis account deems to be "good." Human diversity, awareness, sense of telos and natural curiosity can be accounted for by God's creation of us, whereas our animal bodies can be explained by the evolutionary aspect of it.
It is important to note that science does not and has never disproven God. Furthermore, true theology should never conflict with scientific truths. Thirteenth century Muslim philosophers understood this idea better than most Christians do today. Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna taught that if a scientific principle conflicted with theology, either we misunderstand the scientific results or we misunderstand our theological truths. God cannot create a universe that disproves Him. This is essential for us to understand as believers. For those skeptics out there, it is important to remember that modern scientific method is derived from the Golden Age of Islam.
Finally, we must cede that we do not actually understand or know where it is that we come from. As believers, the best we can truly say is that we believe we are made in God's image and likeness. As scientists, the best we can say is that our physiology, anatomy, and DNA suggests a close relationship between us and other primates which suggests a common ancestry. But whether an idea is three thousand years old, or only a hundred and fifty, we do not know definitively what the real answer is. Thus, I think it is wrong for either side to discount the other completely. Being completely ideologically opposed to the propogation of the other idea is just as bad as the accusations leveled against whatever group we support.
Best of all we need to understand that as believers, we must be willing to accept what science tells us and seek to understand God better through this rather than denying whatever new ideas may come at us. The theology introduced in the Torah is radically different from the theology of the Gospels, which is added to and explained over the course of the proceeding two millenia. To follow the mantra of evolutionary theory, if we do not adapt with our theologies, we shall find that we whither and die.

The language of God (linguam dei) (لغة الله)

I have grown up for the most part in Protestant-oriented (or Mormon-oriented if we want to differentiate) America with English as my only language for many years. After coming out to Catholic Notre Dame, I was exposed to a very different religious ideology. However, it was in studying theology in tandem with different langugages where I discovered that a lot of ideas and thoughts we have in American Protestant culture are very skewed and mistranslated ideas.
For example, as a Mormon, I always heard the name of Jehovah being tossed around among other Mormons. Later, I realized that Jehovah is really derived from the Latinized iehovah (like in Indiana Jones) which is really better transcribed in today's modern alphabet as YHWH (thanks to the incorporation of the Greek Epsilon and the invention of the W). The vowels we incorporate are purely functional since Hebrew can be read without vowels, and they for sure would not have been incorporated into the tetragramatron. In the Old Testament, the name appears like יהוה and would later have been given vowels as translators (most likely Jerome or those who compiled the Septuagint) would have seen fit.
Likewise, there are many ideas used in Greek that do not translate neatly into English. For example, the opening lines of the Gospel of John use the word "Logos" where it says "In the beginning was the Word." The Greek idea of Logos can be used to mean word, but furthermore it means something more related simple cognitive movement, but especially those movements that are communicative in nature. Thus, Logos can also refer to ideas, thoughts, and, in contemporary usage, even study. Thus the word Logos doesn't just mean the Word, but God's own thought.
There are other controversies that have arisen because of language ambiguation. The Nicene Creed for those from the Roman heritage, for example, says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son," whereas in the Greek tradition he "proceeds from the Father through the Son." This seemingly slight difference changes the entire Trinitarian formula depending on whether the Holy Spirit descends or is emitted. Likewise, the early Church councils debated on whether the Word and the Flesh were of one nature or one likeness depending on the placement of a single Greek iota.
Even in these early Church councils, such as Chalcedon and Ephasis, because of the wording of certain theological principles, the Christian Church was schismed against itself and the Oriental Church was broken off from the Church at Constantinople. This division caused such a rift that even until the last fifty years, the Churches had not been in communion with each other.
Perhaps this is why the Catholic Church maintained Latin as the official Liturgical language for so long. Even now, post Vatican II, all official proclamations from the Vatican are written in Latin. And other Churches, such as the Caldeans and the Assyrians practice their liturgies in their native tongues rather than in the common tongue of the area.
But even against this, it is interesting to see the various different languages God's word has been handed down in. The Old Testament, the oldest of the various scriptures adhered to by Monotheists, was originally written in Hebrew. When God speaks to Moses, it's all in Hebrew, and when Isaiah and Jeremiah write poetry, that's also in Hebrew. It would not be incorrect to say that God speaks Hebrew first and foremost.
Then comes something rather peculiar. Due to Alexander the Great's occupation of Israel, many Jews found themselves outside of the former Kingdom of Judah. The TNK (Old Testament) was then recompiled by seventy Jewish scholars into Greek, which we know now as the Septuagint. As far as translations go, there are few big differences between the TNK and the Septuagint, aside from the presence of deutero-canonical (or "apocryphal") texts in the Septuagint. However, with the Bible being in Greek, this took off any claim that could be made that Hebrew is God's language.
Christianity comes along and makes things even worse. Christian scriptures are all written in Greek. The apostles who wrote wrote their epistles in Greek. The Apocalypse is in Greek. Even the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are written in Greek. All of a sudden, there's a new religion claiming to be in right standing with God which writes completely in Greek. However, there's a bigger catch to this. Jesus didn't speak Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Traces of this can be seen even in the Gospels, especially in scenes where one of the Evangelists (John mostly) clarifies his words by saying "....meaning..." or "...that is to say..." Historical critical exegetes see these quotes as being evidence of the historical Jesus.
Now the Christian finds himself in an odd standpoint. His scriptures are in Greek, and, except for the fact that the canon was formed using the Septuagint, have some Hebrew origins, but their founder and the object of their worship spoke Aramaic. Thus we can see why above all the monotheistic faiths, Christianity puts the least emphasis on liturgical language. Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Armenian, Coptic and Hindi were used for centuries as acceptable languages of the faith, with German, French and English developing as acceptable languages in the sixteenth century and all common languages being used today.
Islam enters the story about five hundred years after Christianity. However, the قورئن was handed down to Muhammed in Arabic as the very Word of God. Thus, there is no room for variance. To vary from Arabic in liturgy, or exegesis is to stray from God's actual word. Even the احدث are preserved in Arabic, though they are not official words spoken by the Angel Gabriel. Thus, in Islam, it is very clear that God's language is nothing other than Arabic.
This poses an interesting question and certainly a point for consideration. If so many theological points are untranslatable, how are we to expect all people to know them? Likewise, if God only speaks one language, are we to expect all men and women world-wide to learn this language? To take a passage out of the Bible, one which all three monotheistic faiths recognize, the tower of Babel story demonstrates to us the dangers that can arise when we all speak the same language. Had God wanted us to be able to communicate simply and universally with each other, perhaps it would have been better if our communication were limited to the moans and shrieks of whales, dolphins, dogs and cats. Thus, we are struck with the paradoxical question of "what language does God give preference for?" and likewise "if God had a preferential language, would not we all speak this?"

Intelligent debate

Though I claim to be no expert, I have recently concluded that there is a rather high percentage of internet users have no sense of reality.
Firstly, it seems that there is an abnormally high rate of atheism on the web. Not to say that all atheists are idiots, but there is most certainly a difference between informed atheism and ignorant atheism. There are plenty of atheists who stand behind Richard Dawkins without ever reading his The God Delusion or being aware of the real issues behind atheism. Scientific evidence or theories are touted as definitively disproving God. Theists are ridiculed and harassed to no end.
However, one must also understand that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. As of yet, God's existence has been solely relegated to the realms of philosophy and theology. There are evolutionary biologists with strong convictions in God. Likewise, many astro-physicists and various other scientists are known to have theological beliefs. At the same time, not all those who we would consider to be simpletons or of little intelligence are theists or even Christians. Barring the blatant example of many of the internet "trolls," atheists can be found in even the most backwater hollows and uneducated villages. Thus, atheism and theism cannot be strictly assigned to those we view as "educated" or "uneducated" without revealing a bias within ourselves that denotes simple prejudice and ignores reality.
Regarding the high occurrence of i-atheists--what causes this, I wonder? It seems that polls suggest that most of the country identifies with being theist, Christian, in fact. If this is the case, why does the bulk of internet literature provide a very antichristian message? Perhaps the answer lies in the sort of people we find on the internet.
So I come to my second point. It seems that the internet, or at least much of the posted stuff on the internet is relegated by the base and grossly immoral. When pedophilia, cancer and the Holocaust can be used as objects of comedy, one must seriously question the ethics of those making such jokes and those laughing at the same jokes.
Given real world situations, these jokes would find themselves limited to very few instance of acceptance, all of which involve the immature and the unrefined. This is where the internet shows reveals a dark secret: identity thereon is by and large anonymous. One can easily access the internet under any given guise he chooses for himself and can access it in any given place. There are no real world repercussions, provided that actual information is not supplied. Thus, the geeky kid who sits quietly in class can become a god among his peers without them knowing who he is.
I feel that this tells us something very shocking about human nature. Due to the anonymous nature of the internet, as I've hinted at, some of the most heinous and ethically wrong things have been posted and made fun of. There is no taboo on the web. Thus we are given a pure glimpse into the nature of human beings. This is a discussion for another day, but the question arises as to whether or not humans are good simply because of social pressures or whether the social situation determines ethics.
This leads to a third point. The internet is the medium of the up-and-coming generation. Our parents and grandparents live by the ethical standards of their generations. Rarely do you find a middle-aged or senior person who is as proficient at navigating the internet as their younger counterparts. Thus, we see that the children of today are being raised in a dual setting: one in which they are given a basic set of morals, customs and beliefs and another wherein those are attacked and mocked. We see the youth of today being taught by their peers at 50mbps that the entire system of morals and ethics they've been raised with are decrepit and outdated.
Thus we are beginning to see what seems to be the fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy that "the hearts of the children of men will wax cold," or even Nietzsche's prediction that "the peasant shall dance with satyr-like gyrations." What was heralded as wrong or taboo is swiftly being undone in such a way that the ethics of the old world might very well be on the brink of being completely abandoned.
I abandon my point, however. I would like to emphasize that the internet is rapidly producing some of the most unscrupulous and unintelligible rubbish ever to be seen in history. My fear is that the ability to engage in intelligent, rational conversation is being lost as memes, lolcats, and unintelligible webcomics and blogs take over the entirety of people's lives. Perhaps the solution, then is to try to engage those who post in forums to use real language and debate with logical discussion.

Glittery prizes

I feel obligated to disclaim this post by stating upfront that this will be more graphic and mature-oriented than ever before. I do not mean that I shall entertain gratuitious sexual themes or violent ideas, but merely that I will address sexuality with much greater attention than every before.
It occurred to me today that there is and always has been something inherently wrong in our society when it comes to sexuality.
We are taught by every theologian that sex is an issue of serious nature. Promiscuity is never religiously accepted. In fact, most faiths preach that sexual activity without the bonds of marriage is strictly prohibited. Even in faiths where men are allowed to have more than one wife, the justification that allows that is that the man is still faithfully committed to each of his wives and that those marriage unions will be used to build families.
Catholicism takes an even more extremist approach than other faiths. Not only is it impermissible to have sex outside of marriage within the Catholic faith, but religious must take on a vow of chastity. Furthermore, divorce isn't allowed, and if one wishes to remarry, he must have previous marriages annulled, or made to not even exist.
While this may seem like a highly constrictive view of sexuality, consider the counter society poses. In contemporary American culture, not only is sex outside of marriage considered to be ok, but even "casual sex," or uncommitted sex is fine. It is even the case that many go specifically to bars and nightclubs for the sole purpose of hopefully meeting a stranger that he/she can take home for a "one night stand."
While I'm not willing to go into the logistics of why this is wrong, suffice it to say that contemporary American culture has a very laxed view on sexual conduct and what is permissible in the realm of sexual experiences and encounters.
However, I would like to discuss more the idea of sex as a prize. This might sound ridiculous or heinous, but in all actuality, it happens more often than not.
Most modern cultures readily admit that prostitution is disgraceful and that the practice is quite shameful, both for the women involved and for those who patronize as well as the culture that encourages it. However, I have heard it reported that prostitution is the oldest documented occupation. Thus we see that granting sexual favors for some kind of gain is one of the oldest vices of humanity.
One would have to be ignorant to suppose that prostitution is outlawed today. Rather than being outlawed, it is thriving in some places. In addition to this, with the publication of magazine such as Penthouse and Playboy, and with such easy access on the internet today, being paid for sex doesn't even necessarily involve having sex with the client.
To add one more, and in my thinking, the most despicable, sexual practice is that of awarding sex to those who we think merit it. This sounds very odd, but let me explain what I mean. There are members of society who achieve renown and fame. In addition to paying them gratuitous sums of money and showering them with undue attention, we further them along in their egotism with sexual favors. This I would call the "Rock N' Roll" ideal of sex.
This is more common than we might imagine. Think, for a second, how many times in recent memory somebody expressed in so many words that they would enjoy sexual relations with insert celebrity here. Yes, it is true that many people might fantasize a celebrity but have no real intention of ever wanting to engage in sexual activity with said person, but there are those who would and do.
While for some reason this doesn't seem to be as big of a thing in Hollywood, consider music artists. How often does a rock band, or a hip-hop artist, or even a pop star come to town and seduce some of the local women while they're in town? Gene Simmons, the famous bassist of the rock band KISS reportedly has had sex with over 4500 women. That is more than the entire female population of Notre Dame undergrads. That is one woman per night for 12 1/2 years. Granted, Gene Simmons is probably the high end of the spectrum, but imagine how many other musicians have pulled off similar stunts where they sleep with multiple women while on tour.
Athletes are no exception to this either. Think of such fiascoes as the one Kobe Bryant went through a few years ago. Many other athletes do the exact same thing. Similarly, so do politicians. In reality, nobody that has achieved celebrity status is above the ability to seduce people.
This angers me for one specific reason: it seems to me that this is the most obvious way in which sex is shown to be cheapened. What bond is there between the star athlete and the fawning fan who will undoubtedly be forgotten the next day? What relationship can be built between the star-eyed groupie and the rockstar who is on tour? What kind of emotional support is the secretary who drags the executive away from his family and into public scandal?
While sexuality in the religious world is often a controversial issue, I think very few who are engaged in the debate would readily state that there is nothing in sex. Sex builds and destroys families, it strengthens relationships often and often times, in the wrong setting, can ruin relationships.
Thus, while it is often a controversial subject, and the chief object of censorship, we must admit to ourselves that our culture is structured, and indeed our own lives in many cases, on the principle of sexual meaning and significance.

Good God!

I've been very slothful in my updating responsibilities. I hope those who read this will forgive me, as RA duties/school work/Korean/being sick/club duties/grad school stuff/friendship/relationship/Korean/research have all been in que before my blog has.
A few weeks back (yes, I've been thinking about this for two full weeks), my philosophy professor asked how we can believe in an omnibenevolent God who is also omnipotent if we live in a world with evil. For if God is all good and all powerful, then He should prevent any evil.
To face this challenge, however, we first need to look at what it means to say "There is evil in the world." What do we mean by this? I take it that most of us would agree that by "evil" we mean something that is universally bad. Something might seem unfair, but if it generates net good (in a direct way) we cannot label it as evil. Likewise, even though someone might gain some advantage from some choice of his, if it creates a net negative reaction in a direct way, we might label this as evil. To illustrate this idea: Bill forgets to give his brother Steve the hundred dollars he promised and instead sends it to his favorite charity. Steve might think Bill's action was mean or unfair, but few of us would label a generous act, especially if it was in genuine forgetfulness, as evil. On the other hand: Rich embezzles money from his company. Rich benefits from this, and his workers suffer a bit, but overall we term this as evil.
Even with this sophisticated notion of evil, we haven't yet said anything about its origins. The idea of evil is not one that pervades every society, nor is it one that has been readily available to all peoples. According to Nietzsche, evil is a notion that can be traced directly back to monotheism in general and Judaism in particular. He says that most nations embrace an idea of "good" and "bad" wherein bad is simply "what we are not," and not anything more or less. In this way, something is good because it is widely accepted in society. However, Judaism introduces the idea of "evil" leading to an emphasis in evil over good. In this sense, evil means "what you are" with the you being other nations. Thus the emphasis is not a negative one (what isn't like me...) but a positive one (what is like you...). In this way the idea of evil is one that includes more malice and the idea of good is changed from a positivist spin to a negative one (even now we think of good as being without sin).
Is Nietzsche right, though? In Zoroastrianism as well as sects such as the Macabees and the Gnostics, the view of the universe has been a dualistic one. There is no "good and evil" but rather a "light and dark." This presents a less malicious view of what is seen in a negative light (evil/bad/dark) because by the very nature of dualism, the light and the dark are two parts of one reality. They almost exist in synchronicity, though usually only until the great and final battle where light conquers darkness (though only barely).
Similarly, in paganistic cults there were always gods of the dark arts. Hades is the god of the underworld and is always full of malice. Loki is the god of mischief. Anansi is the spider god who plays tricks on people. Toth is the deceiful god who tries to trick the dead. Cerberus and Fenrir are vicious dogs of godly power. But these figures are also countered by gods with more benevolent tendencies. However, whether it be Olympus or Asgard, the gods always seem to be more morally relative than in any sort of determinate ethical stance.
Hinduism and Buddhism also seems to see good and bad more as pathways through life. Good will lead us to Nirvana. Bad will send us circling around through various incarnations.
Even philosophy only speaks of things in terms of virtuous and vicious.
So we see that the idea of evil is inalterably connected to the idea of a good God. We cannot view there being any evil unless we come from a standpoint where we compare it to the absolute good (God). So we can't even speak of evil from an atheistic standpoint. We can talk of Nietzsche's will to power and people's selfish drives and immoral tendencies, but we can't use evil to describe it. For if we use the term "evil" that denotes that we are comparing it against something, presumably "good." And thus we must have some standard of good, otherwise our view of evil has no real basis. Thus, our standard of good must be the highest good, thus God.
But I have not yet answered the question. All I have shown is that we have locked ourselves into a paradox. With an omnibenevolent God, there should be no evil. However, without an omnibenevolent God we have no standard of good with which to talk about evil. So now I am forced to either answer the question to the best of my ability or remain silent on ethics until I can.
I take Augustine's view on sin and evil. Evil might be equatable to sin, since both are in opposition to God, and none should deny that evil is always sin. Thus, if sin and evil can be spoken of in this instance unequivocally (which I hope to show is the case), then my case might be made. Sin, to Augustine, is simply a turning away from God. If we concede that evil is the opposite of the ultimate good, then it follows as well that evil is a turning from God. Original sin, then was the first turning away from God which introduced sin and evil into the world and stained our human souls. However, original sin is not the subject of this discussion, though it is most certainly a part.
I further hold, as Aquinas does, that in order for something to become it best good (its telos, per Aristotle), it must be fully made through, or perfected. However, something that is created without the ability to reach its best good cannot grow or be perfected. It is a good thing to undergo growth and perfection, thus it is better to develop into the best good rather than be created in it. Thus it would seem that it is better to grow into our telos rather than being created in it. So we can see that humans can derive greater good from being imperfect and growing into perfection.
Part of not being made through, and growing, is the process of making choices. Many choices we make are ethical or moral choices. In choosing something good, we turn toward God. By being able to turn toward God, we must also be able to turn away from God. Thus, a necessary part of our being able to grow is to be able to sin.
If we admit all these things, then it follows that if God is all good, and part of His good is our perfection, then there must be evil in the world. This does not make the reality of evil any easier to understand or to accept, however, it shows that perhaps there is more to what's going on than a simple matter of what we think God should do and what God does. Simply because we see evil around us does not mean that God has abandoned us. What it might mean is that God wants us to help make a difference.

My God loves me more than your God does

I believe I've said this before, but perhaps the hardest thing for me about becoming Catholic was the idea of Saints. It's not that I think these people weren't great, I just have never been comfortable with the idea of praying to them. I have never really been able to fully reconcile the idea of praying to somebody who I think will relay the message on to God because their voice is better, but as I believe I've also stated before, praying to saints is more of an act of working as a community than anything else.
What I do find to be also problematic is what Peter says in Acts 10:34, that "God is no respecter of persons." If the Saints were to have more sway over God than we do, then God automatically plays favorites. Here we have to ask ourselves if this is really the case.
The Romans and Greeks believe their gods to be favortists. Aeneas had the favor of his mother Aphrodite. Odysseus angered Hera and Callisto, but had the favor of Athena. Apollo was often invoked before war in both epic and tragedy, and Zeus was often found meddling in the affairs of mortals as well.
But we are not Pagans. We do not believe in gods, or a God who plays favorites. We believe in a God who does not respect people. This does not mean that God doesn't care about His children. What this does mean, however, is that God doesn't give precedence to anybody simply because of piety, status, wealth, achievement or even righteousness.
We believe our God to be a fair God. We believe, as Barth says, that Christ's death saved not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles. We believe that no people are damned simply for being who they are. From the Catholic perspective, we don't even believe that any specific people will be going to Hell (with the notable exception of Dante's Inferno, in which he lists people who are in Hell).
In fact, we as Christians explicitly state that Deus Caritas Est (God is love). What this means from a Christian perspective is that our God embodies love. If there is anything that is love, it is of God. If there is anything that is hateful, it is most certainly not. As St. Paul states, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" (1 Corinth. 13:13). It is very much against the nature of Christianity (in its purest form) and the way we view our God to even endulge malicious feelings for other people.
So as part of this, Vatican II recognized that all people who lived righteous lives, regardless of their faith, were likely going to be saved. After all, if God truly doesn't afford privelege based on creed, then why should Christians be saved while all others are damned, especially those living in remote areas of the world where Christianity is not a viable option? To me, this is what it truly means to say that God is love. God loves the Buddhist who worries that he may be walking on his ancestors as much as He loves the Christian who decorates evergreen trees in the winter time as part of some heathenistic tradition Christianity adopted hundreds of years ago. God loves the Muslim who prays to Him five times a day as much as God loves the Hindu who prays to many different gods, and countless avatars. God loves the Jew who will not eat pork out of respect as much as God loves the Mormon who won't drink coffee out of respect, or the atheist who parties all night with no respect.
Our perspective is radically shifted when we start to believe that we worship love. How can we afford to cast judgment on other people? How can we condemn other people's religious choices when God loves us no more than He loves them? How can we praise and glorify war if war is not a love-born response?
Furthermore, this should also put into perspective what lots befall us in our lives. Some believe that living righteously yields blessings while wickedness only renders sorrow. However, joy falls to the good and bad, as do the sorrows. Many people blame God when something bad happens. How can we blame God when we know that when bad things happen to us, it isn't a sign of disrepect for us, but possibly a chance for us to truly be in solidarity with others, or better yet, a chance for some great thing to come about from it? Furthermore, how can we gloat and boast of our fortunes when God could have easily and can still easily take them away?
We are at the mercy of an unbiased God. However, this should be a comfort to us. We believe that God is merciful. If God will reign down His mercy on us, as we believe, then He will also be merciful to the wicked or unjust. We are God's children, and with the parental metaphor comes the parental love that God exhibits for each of us. We may not have VIP seating in heaven, but if we're all at the same place, what is wrong with sitting with a Hindu, or a Taoist, or an agnostic? If we truly believe that Paradise is a utopia, then why would it lack diversity when the world that God created (which was good) is so full of different kinds of people?
So now we must ask, "Why Christianity?" I am reminded of the motto of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, "Ave crux, spes unica" (Hail, the cross, our only hope). As Christians, we have the unique theology of a universal redemption. We believe that our God took on the sins of all mankind in order to save all mankind. Thus, in my opinion, it makes more sense to posit faith in a belief system that theortically, and becoming ever more practically, openly embraces other faiths. If we can learn to look on all the people of the world as brothers and sisters, as Thomas Merton did, then perhaps we can all live in peace and harmony. With Christianity, we are able to look on others in love and acceptance. If we truly understand what love means, this means we pray for those who believe not as we do, not that they convert, but that we will all be together after this life in a happier state of existence.

Humanity vs the robots

No, I'm not speaking of some cheesy sci-fi B movie. I'm speaking of what it means to be human.
Normally I wax Theologic, but today I fear my tone will be more philosophical than anything else.
What does it mean to be human? Are we, as Aquinas defines us, the "rational animal?" Are we simply the most intellectually developed biological system? Are we evolution's greatest accomplishment?
We erect monuments and towers. We write books. We have history. All of these things I have noted before. And as I have noted, this denotes that there is more to us than the systems of organs and bones.
Psychology, which many accept as a branch of Philosophy, has long tried to unlock the real mystery behind that one organ which denotes us as superior to our animal cousins, the brain. While there are several schools of psychology, some of which are highly controversial and others which are more concretely scientific, there are a few which strike me for their approach to the human mind.
Gestalt theory, which comes from the German word for "whole" believes that 1+1 does not equal 2 but equals 3. There's a heavy emphasis that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Thus, the human mind is so much more than neurons firing impulses and neurotransmitters relaying signals. Their approach is to examine the person as a whole and prescribe treatment that emphasizes a holistic approach. A human then, is not simply a rung on the ladder of evolution nor is it a mass of biological material. A human is a human, and the definition of that is more than one can easily grasp.
Then comes my personal favorite psychological school. The humanists. Carl Rogers is often cited as the founder of this particular school. His theory of human sanity and the human mind was a system of needs. He believed that we must fulfill a certain set of needs, such as basic survival needs, before we can move on to more advanced needs, such as emotional needs. Eventually, when we have fulfilled all of our needs, we will find ourselves self-actualized. His list of self-actualized people reads like a list of "Who's Who in Philanthropy." To Rogers, self-actualization was the pinnacle of what it means to be human.
I take a lot of stock in the Rogerian system. However, it must be noted that many of the people on his list, such as Mother Teresa, were on that list despite not fulfilling some of their more "primitive" needs.
So it is that I have come to understand humanity as taking a two-course route through life. There are those who, as Rogers suggested, go through life seeking to fulfill some basic needs. These people often get caught up in some basic desire. They seek money, a survival asset at minimum. But they do it to excess. They become misers. There are also those who seek love too greatly. And rather than finding love they find cheap company and no sense of security. There are those who seek seek recognition and spend their lives working for the approval of others.
Most all of us are guilty of these things in some way or another. We all want to be able to feel like our needs are fulfilled. We do not want to feel as if we're lacking something. Worse yet, we don't want to feel deprived of something we need.
Then there are those who go straight for self-actualization. Some of these people are self-sacrificing. Others are simply philanthropists. Their needs are not as important for them to fulfill. They seek, rather, to fulfill the needs of others. These people are the ones who truly make the world go round. Their love and generosity are the warm fires by which all of humanity either stands or perishes in the cold.
Thus we come to another topic. The idea of human happiness and how it relates to the human person. Humans, at worst, are emotional, reckless, feckless, beasts which have the added disadvantage of questioning their purpose in the universe. It can be truly easy to be lost in the sea of humanity, wondering how to find happiness or to fulfill our destinies.
Those who genuinely seek to be happy and make others happy, seem to me to be true humans. They seek to fulfill their telos as humans. They seek to rise above the mechanical, simple biological functions passed on by millions of years of evolutionary instinct. They love more deeply, and they live more fully. These are the fortunate few who love life with a fulness that others who seek simply to survive lack.
Then there are the robots. These are the people simply trying to fulfill a basic need. Their evolutionary programming dictates what they do with their lives. They live by the pleasure principle. These people are like machines that have a basic programming that they seek neither to exceed nor to leave unaccomplished. They store money like squirrels for the winter. They mate like rabbits in the Spring. They preen and pout like peacoks in mating season.
How then are we different from the rest of the animal kingdom if we do not at least look at our direction? Socrates stated that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Have we examined our lives? Are we striving to fulfill biologic instincts or are we rising to our place among the heavens? Have we simply made our lives more convenient or have we truly contributed to this world?

Job and Hosea

As a theist, I have often encountered the Atheistically-aimed question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" to which all I can truly answer is, "Why the hell not?"
I don't seek to demean personal problems nor the faith crisis of "Why won't God deliver me?" but I think our faith is exhibited, as well as our general character, in how we respond to the difficulties in life. If we are bellacose and pugnacious for every insignificant problem or conflict we encounter, we display that we really don't believe what we preach.
So I suppose one reason why we have difficulties, and I realize how very cliche this will be, is to test us. If we really believe in turning the other cheek and blessing our enemies, how can we abandon God when He doesn't want us to be miserable? Our true faith is often displayed not by the world being at peace, but by our own peace while the world rages in chaos. Can we truly stand at God's right hand while the world goes to Hell in a handbasket?
But I truly believe that there is more to the story than this. I realize stories like Job and Hosea portray hardship and trial as object lessons for us to learn from, but I do not believe that this is the case for us by and large.
This isn't to say that we should embrace a Kierkegaardian view on suffering. We should, indeed, suffer cheerfully. However, we need not seek out suffering. And indeed, much of our suffering is not due to anything that we could have or would have avoided. Any suffering that involves the decisions of another person, or even naturally occuring activities, cannot be voluntarily assumed by us. We can, as Kierkegaard did, abandon romantic relationships. However, we cannot induce heart attacks nor can we single-handedly destroy the economy, eliminating much needed jobs. So it is safe to say that this kind of suffering is much different than the voluntary kind.
I would submit that often times there is some kind of secret gem in store for those who patiently wait out the storm. Job was given more than he had after the great trial of his faith. I cannot guarantee this kind of grandeur, but perhaps we will be blessed greatly. Perhaps a rough time is necessary for us to receive some greater blessing. Perhaps being laid off will provide the ability to get a better job. Perhaps a death in the family will enable us to learn to mourn with those who mourn and teach us to be more sensitive to grief and more aware of our own feelings.
I do not mean to say that we should expect something amazing to come from the ashes of our heartache. However, I will suggest that neither can we know the will of God, nor can we dictate our terms with Him. Perhaps we are to be martyrs and die so that others can live. Perhaps we are to sacrifice all of our time and money to be buried in a pauper's grave but to raise up those who are disadvantaged. Maybe we must suffer many losses to learn how to comfort those who stand in need of comfort.
One might further wonder, "Can't God teach me this lesson in an easier way?" Aquinas demonstrated why there needs to be bad things happening to good people. If the world were just, then any injustice committed must be fully restored. However, there are countless injustices committed which have none to punish, whether by accident or intent. And punishment does not truly rectify an injustice as much as it seeks to replace what was lost with something that will equally be lost. Thus, if everyone were justly compensated for what they had lost, there would inevitably be some kind of great cosmic debt owed to all citizens of the world, which would yet be an injustice.
So, the good people will necessarily suffer. However, the good people, be they truly good people, should, in fact, be able to handle the suffering. Our faith should not falter, though it often does. Our belief should be strengthened instead of being weakened. We should seek God more and praise Him more after the trial than to blame Him and turn from Him.
As a closing thought, I would like to imply that a cheerful and faithful outlook in dire straits will leave us feeling happier after the dust has settled. Whether or not God will reward us directly for our faith is somewhat debatable. However, whether or not we feel good about our own reaction to it is not.

Serenity

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things that I can; and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; enjoying one moment at a time; accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will; that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever in the next."
I know this prayer simply for one reason: my grandfather is an alcoholic. He has been sober for nineteen years, but he still regularly attends AA meetings. The Serenity Prayer was obviously written for alcoholics, however I feel that there is much to be learned from both the prayer itself and the Alcoholics Anonymous credo.
To begin with, alcoholics admit a truth that we as humans are loath to admit. They admit that they are weak, undisciplined and therefore are in actual need of help. While society looks down on them and visually condemns them by agreeing, we fail to acknowledge how much we tend to be like them. However, the scary truth about the world is that alcoholics are self-diagnosed, meaning that the ones who are in really bad shape are the ones who don't even fit under the category of alcoholic.
If we realize that these people whom we condemn on a regular basis are no different than us, we must listen to what they have to say. Once we realize that alcohol is as much of a drug as any pleasure or selfish pursuit, we realize that we have the same problems they do. Granted, an over-eager businessman is not as at risk as the drunk when either are put behind a wheel. The single man who trolls bars and clubs to pick up women may not drink himself into poverty either. And even the laborer who indulges in a simple vice every now and then shares in common with the alcoholic.
However, as the AA program clearly states, acknowledging you have a problem is step number one. But admitting we have a problem is seldom an easy task. We live in a society that embraces an anarchistic view of dependency rather than acknowledging the age-old truth that man is, in fact, a social animal. We live in a society where "getting ours" is more important that providing for the general welfare of the community. Men like Donald Trump and Bill Gates are lauded as examples of what we should aspire to, rather than the mundane civil servants who provide us with life-giving and life-saving graces. At the risk of sounding cliche, the fireman is more socially beneficial than the entrepreneur.
But I seek not to disuade people from entrepreneurial endeavors. Rather, I would encourage us to examine our own consciences. What do we feel about our interactions with our fellow men?
So often, we seek to get as much as we can. We want to take what we think is due to us. However, as Aquinas notes, if everyone were to demand just treatment, the universe would be unable to supply for the demand. Not everything is fair, and not everything can be fair.
And so, against many, and probably most, of my friends and family, I have come to realize something. We are not in control of much of our lives. We are at the whims of those who surround us. Certain branches of psychology, behaviorism most especially, espouse the idea that we are who we are based on what circumstances we have been in. Our minds are set by the events and people who affect us. I would venture to say that much of this is true.
However, I diverge from the behaviorists and state that we are shaped and the form of our personality determined by how we react to these situations. It is true that there is little we can verifiably control in our lives. We cannot force people's minds, nor can we create something from nothing. We are mostly left to the good or ill favor of those who surround us and make themselves our friends.
And so I take strength in saying the serenity prayer. For there is a great amount that I cannot change. It does take courage to change what I can. And sometimes I fail to see the difference. If I can but achieve the gifts asked for in this prayer, I can, in fact, find myself reasonably happy in this life.
On top of all of this, I have also adopted the alcoholic credo of "One day at a time." By this ideology, I shall not try to force the future or be daunted by it. If I can but live my life for the now, trying my hardest to make the future bright based on what is before me in the present, I can stop worrying and feel less anxiety.
I feel that we, though we claim not to be alcoholics (for most of my readers), can learn a lot by the AA system. I don't wish to force it on anyone, but serenity is not the worst prayer a person can pray. And if we can truly find the blessings asked for in the prayer, I cannot see how this world would be anything less than a paradise as nobody will seek to try to force anyone's hand nor will we find ourselves upset at what we have no control over.

Sacrificio

The idea of sacrifice has been laying heavy on my mind. Literally, sacrifice comes from Latin. Sacer, the root whereby we get words like sacred, sacrilege and sacrimonious, means holy. The ficio part is actually dervied from facio, or to make. Thus, to sacrifice is to make something holy.
This is particularly important in noting where we come to understand sacrifice as we do today. We described the ancient blood offerings of the Israelites as sacrifices because they were actions made, often times quite literally, to sanctify themselves. However, our understand and lexicon began to focus on the idea of giving something up, ie a newborn lamb, calf, or dove.
Fast forward many thousands of years. Now we connect sacrifice not to sanctifying, but to giving up something. However, we still retain the connection that sacrifice has a purpose. Thus we can say, "I have sacrificed a lot of family time to secure their financial future," though we have, in all reality, made nothing holy thereby.
Sacrifice, in the sense of abstaining from something for a greater purpose, has been a great factor in religions around the world for ages. Monks of all faiths and orders give up having families and social interactions in order to sanctify themselves. Certain carnal acts are generally given up to achieve a higher sense of holiness. Certain foods are banned in some cultures, certain rites are practiced in others and certain dress styles are embraced as well. Nowhere can you find a religion that doesn't ask for some kind of abstemious practice and yet is revered as a truly gratifying and respectable faith.
As Christians we have many examples to look at for how to sacrifice. We have the martyrs of days of old, especially those who lived during the reigns of Domitian and Diocletian, wherein Christians were legally persecuted and life and death hung by confessing Christ or not. We also have great saints to admire. St Francis of Assisi abandoned a wealthy life to embrace the mendicant lifestyle. St Augustine abandoned the sensual lifestyle he had embraced to follow Christ. St Paul went from being a respected scholar among the Jewish community with the added advantage of being a Roman citizen to losing his life for his conversion.
Even those who are not saints have provided examples for us. Thomas Merton left the luxurious and leisurely life of being a recent Columbia University graduate in New York to living in a small monastery in the heart of rural Kentucky. Mother Teresa left her family in Albania to help the poor in Calcutta India. Others, whom I feel that I've exhausted in their praises, also make this list.
These men and women were often times called upon to give all that they had for God. Not only did they "give away all that they had to the poor" but, in many cases, even gave their lives to God. Often times this is what we are asked to give. Sometimes we are not. Sometimes we are blessed with great fortune, ample opportunities and a luxurious lifestyle with little to no heartache.
However, I think it is important to be prepared to sacrifice. Bonhoeffer says that we must climb up on the cross of Christ, but perhaps it is more important that we be prepared to endure the sacrifices rather than giving up all that we have.
I have been reminded recently of the mysteriousness of God's movements. Often times God blesses us beyond what we think we deserve, and often times inflicts hardships on us that we think unfair. However, we do not know to what purpose we have been given the allotments that we have. Perhaps we are meant to be an example to people. Perhaps we are meant to encourage and directly impact someone's life. Perhaps our trials are merely to make ourselves stronger. To second guess God's purpose and goals would be to presume we are greater than God is.
And perhaps the greatest thing I have learned about sacrifice recently is that while self-sacrifice is often times a great blessing for those it benefits, we must also be mindful of ourselves. If we are too busy serving others to notice our own failings, we have failed as servants. As the Gospel says, if there is a problem in our own lives, we must seek to rid ourselves of those before we help others with their own (this is paraphrased, I realize). Self-sacrifice that prevents us from providing more service to others is, perhaps, also a form of disobedience and another example of not doing the best we can for the Kingdom. Yes, we must endeavor to build up others and build up the kingdom, but we are told not to run more than we have strength.

religio fidesque populis

The true Christian faces an unfair attack. Firstly, he must deal with the harrassment from the pugnacious non-believer. This includes not merely atheists and agnostics, but also those from other faiths as well. This isn't to say all people who are not Christian are bellacose, but there are those who attack Christianity from an outside perspective. Secondly, the Christian must also face the infidelity and persecution from other so-called Christians.
I shall address the issue of the so-called Christian first. Kierkegaard pointed out that not everyone who was under the banner of "Christianity" really followed Christ. For this purpose, SK preferred to refer to the Christian world, specifically Christian Europe, as Christendom.
I agree with this idea. Christianity has become too much of a world power. Granted, the Papal States are now reduced to simply the Vatican, but in America you can only get so far without claiming Christianity. Granted, Europe has lost it's Christian fervor, but here in the states, the name of the game is Evangelism and a great power lies behind it. However, the issue is not Christianity having a growing number of followers. On the contrary, the issue is Christianity relaxing the definition of what it means to be Christian. It is, however, the issue of abandoning basic Christian principles such as humility, charity, and patience while still claiming our actions to be the will of God. No person can take us seriously while we declare our selfish and destructive behaviors to be those of good Christians.
On the other hand are the non-believers. The true Christian faces ridicule from them precisely because of those so-called believers, Christendom. A person of good faith with works to support it and a true understanding of Christ's message is not the same as the person who attacks biological study on the basis of a message that doesn't align with the Genesis account of the beginning of the world. If we are truly working as Christ's messengers, then what atheists say should not become an issue for us to crucify them.
I am reminded of Islam from about 1000 to 1200. Muslim scholars endeavored to be scientifically minded and our own modern "scientific method" was devised by Muslim scientists. However, they didn't question their faith, no matter what results were found. A Muslim whose scientific data seemed to contradict his faith would normally choose one of the following options: either he was wrong about his experiment and misinterpreted the data, or he misunderstood his own faith. Never did they assume that their faith was completely incorrect. Nor did they ever question the empirical evidence before them. What they faced was a synthesis of science and faith, one that theologians and philosophers have been attempting to continue, but also one where the screams of the confused masses are heard loud and clear over the whispers of those who would seek to ease the tension.
Perhaps truly where Christianity started to go wrong was where every religion has. Historically speaking, religions tend to be ok until they become nationalized. Islamic theocracies tend to exhibit policies that are justified only because one امام (Emam) interpreted the اهدث (ahdith) and the قورأن (Qur'an) a certain way. Hindus in India exhibit violence because they are the national religion. Christianity went sour when Constantine made it the official religion of the empire. All of a sudden, what had been a way of life for those who truly believed in the teachings of Christ, now became a civil advantage to those in the Roman empire. A Christian, or at least someone who claimed to be such, had a measurable advantage over a pagan or a Jew. For Christianity in the rest of the world at the time, there were no such disadvantages. Thus, in the Middle East, Christians were a non-violent people, who still resembled their predecessors while those in Europe became increasingly more self-serving.
The same can be said for even sects of Christianity. A Lutheran in Germany had an advantage over a Catholic, to the point of blood, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In Northern Ireland today, a people who are officially protestant (the Northern Irish) are up against a people who had traditionally stayed Catholic (the Irish in general). And voters were surprised in 1960 when a Catholic was elected into the highest seat of power in a predominately Protestant nation.
But this even transcend the border of simple faith traditions. Nations that are officially atheist demonstrate this same kind of forced bullying with their ideals. The former Soviet Union took over many territories and nations that had been Christian and outlawed religion and atheist China went to arms against peace-loving, Buddhist Tibet. So we see that even the ban of religion is itself a national religion.
But the Christian man must overcome all this. He must truly be the Christian. He must not only be a martyr, but also an apologist. As Simone Weil said of her life, he must stand at the crossroads. He must be willing to bridge the gap that the human race is tearing into itself.
As men and women of faith, we ought to know that science cannot disprove our God. We cannot prove Him, but we cannot either disprove Him. Furthermore, we ought to know that because of this, we should net let our faith be shaken by this. We must stand firm in our faith, but must also be able to withstand the buffets of those who stand against our faith and those who parade about and make a mockery of it. The tragedy is that we are the minority trying to stand out against a majority that claims our name and another large group that associates us together. It is our duty to reach out to the world and show love and wisdom in our faith and lives.

Last Day in Il Inferno.

Today will be the last full day I will spend in Vernal. It's already half over. In the forefront of my mind I'm thinking constant thoughts of "Il hamdu l'illah!" (I'm on my parents' computer otherwise that would be in Arabic).
Honestly, though, living in Vernal gives me a lot of perspective. I know that many students coming back to Notre Dame this fall will complain about South Bend's lack of size, while I have only positive things to say about it. People from New York, Chicago and Los Angeles will all find the lack of diversity frustrating, while I will find the difference between the Vernal and South Bend to be refreshing.
I have also been wondering if my time living here will serve some greater purpose. Will the interaction with a people who are intellectually stunted and politically reactionary enable me to better interact with people who would normally be detestable to me? Will living in a town where the climate ranges from nearly a hundred in the summer to negative twenty in the winter make me grateful for any slightly more temperate region? Will being from a town that subsists by sucking the oil from the land as a tick sucks blood make me more aware of environmental problems?
I have also thought that perhaps this town is good for my soul. Living in unpleasant circumstances seems to purify and refine souls. Dorothy Day lived with the poor. Mother Theresa lived with the outcast. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was imprisoned. Simone Weil lived with the laborers and refugees. Monastics live in inconvenient settings. Hermits isolate themselves and Priests sometimes live alone in rectories. All these things help to cleanse the soul.
So I am also reminded of a silent retreat I went on over a year ago. It was conducted not in the Buddhist fashion, but rather in the Ignatian style. The silence could be overwhelming at times, and with no school work, or trips to do things, one had to learn how to be more comfortable with himself. I grew a lot spiritually over those five days.
I think Vernal has been similar for me. I have been confronted with what is uncomfortable for me. I have been a stranger in a strange land. Due to this, I feel that I have had to be more assured of my own thoughts and beliefs than ever before. I have felt isolated and alone, but I have emerged from it triumphant.
But lest I sound too proud, I must also admit that I have learned much from the people here. And one of the most important things I have learned has been to see people as people.
So I leave this town and move onto other things. What has happened here this summer will be a guiding influence for much of my life. What I have learned both academically and experientially will help me in life. And perhaps I will be a better person for what I have experienced.
I remember in high school a quote we had to memorize about attitude. The final thought of it was that life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we react to it. While the whole percentage thing might not be true, what I can say from personal observation is that while we have little control of individual events in our lives, we do control our reactions to them and whether or not we will be affected by them.
On a more humorous note, I have also been hoping that my time here in Vernal will allow me to get out of a few hundred years of purgatory.

Solo vir in terram

Over the course of the last few days, I have felt more alone than I have ever felt. I won't go into all the details, but let me just assure you that being a liberal Catholic in a rural, eastern Utah city is not the easiest thing to do.
Today I went to Mass. Yes, normally I don't spend too much time telling about my own personal experiences, but what I heard was very reassuring. Today is the Feast Day of the Transfiguration. All the readings had to do with Discipleship. Father Albert's homily, though, was most especially helpful. He told us that, as the Disciples, we must learn to stand with Christ especially when we are on the mountains of our life, both the good ones and the bad ones. It was an especially well-timed message about how God will never desert us and how we must, in turn, not abandon Him.
And so I am thinking about Discipleship. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whose name appears in this blog quite frequently, is my ideal model for Discipleship. Bonhoeffer was a devout Christian who was abandoned by his faith (the Lutherans), his country, and seemingly his God. His family never did abandon him, but his life was nonetheless nowhere near perfect.
In about 1930 he published a work entitled The Cost of Discipleship, in which he basically told his readers how difficult being a Christian can be. No, it didn't smack of the same self-sacrificial language that his fellow Lutheran and predecessor Kierkegaard embraces, but it did include plenty of self-denial. To him, we must be ready to "climb up on the cross with Jesus." This is a hard request, to deny ourselves of our comforts that we so often think are ours to take. It is a hard request to take upon ourselves shame and sorrow. It is hard to deny all that we have for Christ's name sake.
This is all very well and good to write about safely from the Seminary which he had founded. However, the true test of his Discipleship would come more than ten years later when he was imprisoned by the NAZIs for instructing his students to not enlist in the army. Now, it is important to understand that he had plenty of chances to avoid this. He had been to New York a few years prior and his friends there had asked him not to return to Germany, but to stay in the states where he would be safe. Even when he had returned to Germany, when rumors of his arrest began to circulate, his friends offered to help him escape. However, humble and submissive, he allowed the NAZIs to take him. He had many students, loving parents, a fiancee, and a group of faithful disciples that he left behind. His contemporaries, like Karl Barth, escaped NAZI persecution in other countries. Eventually, he was moved to a Concentration Camp and days before Allied relief, was hung by the SS. This is a man who never backed away from his principles and truly lived a Christian life.
Another figure I think of is the one of Job, from the Bible. He was a man who lost literally everything. He lost his children, his lands, his wife, his livestock and even his health. He had nothing going for him. Eventually, he did murmur against the Lord, but in the end he is taught a valuable lesson about how the Lord works.
Others have done the same. There are many, many Christian martyrs whose faith was sealed with their blood. Ss Perpetua and Felicity, St Joan of Arc, Justin Martyr, and countless others have stood by their Christian faith as others killed them.
Whatever reason we are put through trials and hardships, I firmly believe that our character there is a reason. Perhaps they will test our faith. Perhaps they will test our character. Perhaps they will strengthen us as people. Or perhaps others will watch and judge us by our actions. Do we suffer all things willingly, as Kierkegaard tells us to? Do we take on Christ's cross? Do we stay with our faith, rather than abandoning it?
Rather than getting overabundantly preachy on the subject, I offer this simple question: will we find ourselves more happy in life if we do not lose faith than if we do? We might feel like a shipwrecked sailor alone in the squall at times, but will we truly find peace by succumbing to the tempest? So perhaps, Christian or not, believer or atheist, we might find ourselves enjoying our lives a little more if we learn to accept difficulties gracefully.

Mercy

"Master, when did we see you hungry and give you food, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you naked and clothe you, imprisoned and did visit you, sick and did administer to you? And in that day the master shall say, 'Inasmuch as you did it to the least among you, you did it to me." (Matt 25:38-40)
The Corporal Works of Mercy are these: feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick, shelter the homeless, visit the imprisoned and bury the dead. As Christians we should work to carry these seven things out.
The ironic thing about our faith is this: we place more emphasis on the ten commandments than anything else that we should. The ten can be found within the two great commandments: Love God above all and love our neighbor as ourselves. In following these, things such as "Thou shalt not kill" become obvious. So instead of the emphasis on what we must not do, perhaps the seven Corporal Works should tell us what we should do.
We have a great many figures in our history to tell us how to live a merciful life. St. Francis of Assisi, and St. Therese of Lesieux. The Dominicans and the Franciscans were Mendicants who took on the life of the poor. In the twentieth century, Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa administered to the poor and wretched of the earth for all to see. And above all, we have Jesus himself whose entire life was a great act of mercy for the entire earth to see.
Even with the great works of those who came before, we have work to do still. There are still those who are poor and wretched. There are still the sick and diseased. There are those whose lives were miserable and their deaths are more so.
Perhaps we, who are generally speaking better off than we need to be, should impart our substance. The young man, whom Bonhoeffer likens to us, who was asked to give all of his stuff up to follow Jesus wasn't asked to destroy it, but to give it to the poor. We live in such a wealthy place, and most of us are priveleged to have enough.
However, when working with the poor, it is important to note, as Dorothy Day states, that it is not the most rewarding or the most enjoyable work. It is demeaning, disgusting and difficult. Yes, it is a job that will be rewarded in heaven, but it is not a job for the fainthearted.
But perhaps there are others in the world who deserve our attention as well. What of those who are persecuted simply because they were born differently? Do we act indifferent as we see on the news struggles for simple human rights? Do we walk by with our noses in the air, or worse, do we shun those who are standing for human dignity? Do we politely take the leaflets they hand us and trash them as soon as we find a garbage can?
Mercy. This is a fundamental Christian attribute, and a fundamental Christian challenge. We are to live merciful lives. We are to forgive, to give aid, to bless and to lift our brother up to where we are. We cannot afford to live lives of anger, hatred, or malice. And we cannot afford to declare justice and chance as the ruler of the universe.
I believe it was Aquinas who pointed out that if every man demanded what he thought was fair recompense, there would be no fair recompense. For every man is afforded injustices by those who don't know that they're committing injustice. There is not enough in the world to all be given "what's ours." Thus, we need to be forgiving and giving. We need to take as much or less than what we need. We need to give more than we think is necessary. And we must be ready to "suffer all things for [Christ's] name sake."
It is a hard thing to ask people to be selfless. It is hard because we know ourselves how difficult it is to do. But mercy should be our mantra. Mercy is often the action expressed by our love. If love is our life, then mercy is our duty. So let us be merciful. Let us do to others what we do for ourselves. Let us show our Christianity by our action and our mercy.

Kierkegaard's Masochism

I really think the title of this post wins "Best title of a blog post ever" award.
The truth of it is, the topic of suffering is one that I see haunt Christian Theologians of every time period. But why?
Kierkegaard, the father of Existentialism and great Theological writer of the eighteenth century, had quite the maochistic view when it comes to suffering. To Soren Kierkegaard, we are not only to suffer gladly, but we cannot call ourselves Christians unless we absolutely seek out suffering. And not suffering alone, but we cannot count ourselves among Christ's flock unless we have suffered like Christ has suffered. SK, not being a man to give simple lip service, was once engaged to a Miss Regina Olsen, but broke off the engagement, even though he still absolutely loved her. He spent the rest of his life in agony because he never married her, nor would he because he thought that having a partner in suffering was unChristian.
However, many others have had other things to say. Schleiermacher agrees that the way we suffer defines our Christianity, but he does not encourage us to seek out punishment. Augustine defines his own suffering as being necessary for his conversion. Von Balthasar seems to think that Christ's suffering is more to be in solidarity with us, and that we have no need to heap on ourselves more suffering. Dorothy Day and John Paul II both took on the idea of solidarity, or suffering with other people in order to be in communion with them.
Whatever specific theology you follow, what seems to be the case is that the way in which we suffer defines how Christian we are. As Christians we must learn to suffer. Perhaps we don't need to voluntarily seek out suffering, as Kierkegaard tells us to, but we do need to accept it. After all, our Christianity is not defined by how great our life is to ourselves, but to other people.
Perhaps Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of my favorite Theologians and a martyr of World War II can shed some light on the subject. To Bonoeffer, we must be prepared to, as Jesus asks the young rich man, "give up all that we have and follow [Christ]."
Giving up everything is not easy. As Tyler Durden, a character from a cult classic Fight Club states, "Hitting rock bottom isn't a weekend retreat." But, we don't have to give up everything necessarily. We do, however, need to be ready to "suffer all manner of affliction for [Christ's] name sake."
And so I think that we are not defined by how much suffering we voluntarily induce on ourselves. However, we are surely defined by the way we face it. Are we willing to forgive those who do us harm? Are we willing to accept unfair punishments? Will we comfort those who grieve themselves and take on their burden as well?
Kierkegaard may think that voluntarily submitting to pain and suffering is necessary, but as Christians are we not also to lift others spirits? Would Regina Olsen (who did marry later on, by the way) have been happier if they had married? Is not the Christian to suffer but all the while to do the work of God?
If then, we find happiness and joy in our work, how can we murmur against our lack of suffering? If we bring others peace and rest and our satisfied by our actions, I do not think that God will condemn us for having joy. After all, why would God create man if not to be happy? What purpose would our lives serve if there was no true joy to be found in this life?
Yes, the world we live in is full of grief and sorrow. There is much suffering, and we should work to eliminate it. But weeping and wailing in sackcloth and ashes will not build the kingdom.
Here I think Dorothy Day's preaching and example trumps Soren Kierkegaards. Day spent her days serving the poor. She worked among them and took no money for herself. She protested unfair conditions, poverty, war, the death penalty and other things. Truly, she carried about the corporal works of mercy. Did she suffer? Undoubtedly. A mind like hers, so in tune to the cries of humanity cannot but suffer. However, in her suffering, she alleviated the suffering of other men. Her protests brought about change. Her Worker Houses dot the country and provide aid for all those who are underprivileged financially.
And so it is that I say, yes, our suffering will demonstrate our allegiance to our Lord and God. Yes, by how we react to afflictions and trials we show the world the true nature of Christian spirit. And yes, we must not murmur in our toils nor complain about our lot. But at the same time, we should not seek out pain and suffering at the cost of other people's happiness.