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.