The Published Article!!

After waiting the better part of a year, my article is finally out! In December's edition of Interreligious Insights, under the title "The Mormon Godhead and the Christian Trinity" my research article was finally published.
Link to the article

Pride

"Proud to be an American," "The power of pride," "school pride," "gay pride," "national pride," "I'm proud of you," etc. The word pride, and it's variation proud, are often thrown about in colloquial conversation, as if something laudatory. We use the word pride often to describe something that we see as praiseworthy, such as when we say "I am proud of you," of "I am proud that..." However, I have come to the conclusion that either we greatly equivocate with the word "pride" or else we don't understand the true nature of the word pride.
For the sake of having something to write, I will assume that pride is often glossed over as being something more benign than it is. St Augustine, in the City of God, describes pride as the first sin, occurring almost simultaneously with creation (the full explanation takes care of the "God creating evil dilemma). Pride is also described as being the mother of all sins and the greatest of all sins by him.
Augustine's definition of pride was simply, "putting oneself before God." By this he means that in any instance, whether it be honor, devotion or service, we render to ourselves before we render to God, the universe, or else our fellow humans.
Later on, St Thomas Aquinas would list his "Seven Deadly Sins," a list of what he conceived to be the most vicious sins. The list includes several instances of pride, especially vanity. By applying Augustine's definition, we realize that not only vanity, but also at least gluttony, lust, sloth, greed and envy are also applicable, since they all depend on one putting himself above others.
Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to "Love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." Thus we can see that the commandment of Jesus Himself is a direct opposite to the demand of pride. If we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves, we no longer have the desire to put ourselves above either one of them.
But aside from theological talk, I must make a personal confession. I have found for myself that the time when I am the absolute most miserable is when I think I am not getting what is due to me. Whenever I get self-centered I never find myself being satisfied, but rather, being upset at what I have been given and what I perceive that I am missing.
On the contrary, the rare occasions where I find myself being generous, charitable and humble, I find myself more happy than any other time.
I have also noticed this quality in a lot of my family and friends. They're never happy when they think about themselves and what they think they ought to have. I've seen plenty of family torn apart because rather than loving people for who they are, they prefer to try to impose their own personality upon others. I have seen friends grow apart when one has had to call the other to reckoning and the other, in his or her own pride, has been loath to do so, or to admit that he or she does not have the ability to repay the debt.
Truly, pride is the most divisive vice there is. If there is a more destructive sin, I don't know what it could be.
Thus we're stuck in a bit of a contradiction. When we think of ourselves as being all-important, we exhibit hubris, one of the ugly heads of pride. However, it is against our nature and our experience to think in terms of anything besides ourselves. Thus, we get a plethora of philosophies and theologies that try to combat this problem. Even the scientifically based proposition that since humans are a relatively young species, on an infinitesimally small sphere in the vast universe, we are nothing, is itself based on a philosophy not unlike Nihilism. Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism all try to deal with overcoming the problem of pride, but they all also stop short of their mark, in that they are unable to show what else we should venerate (Platonism and Aristotelianism both advocate philosophy, but does not philosophy serve the needs of man? Stoicism takes the Nihilistic approach).
Theologies, on the other hand, get closer to dealing with this problem. Paganistic rites have always maintained that the gods need appeasing in order to take care of our problems, thus, in order to actually help ourselves, we need to do homage and sacrifice to them. Buddhism and Hinduism maintain that since we are reincarnated after death, we must respect all animals in order to bring about good Karma and to show respect to those which may be our ancestors. Zen teaches that the universe is nothingness, thus, one must only learn to respect the emptiness of the universe.
Monotheism, on the other hand, proposes that there IS a God, and that this God does have power over all things. There are various strains among the Judaism, Christianity and Islam which maintain that it is necessary to try to win God's favor, and thus, supplication and humility must be shown to God in order for blessings to be poured out to theists.
Christianity, specifically the versions of it that I find more orthodox, realizes, with a sort of Nihilistic understanding, that there can be no true prayer but, "Thy will be done." If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then our supplications will not sway God unless God specifically wants our supplication. Furthermore, if bad things happen to us, they are likely, "God's will," or in other words, a lot of times out of our hands to do change.
It is important to note, however that Christianity should not become nor be confused with stoicism, wherein the highest virtue is apathy and the virtuous man realizes that he cannot avoid all the things that happen to him in life. Christianity believes that in the end, the way a man lives his life will affect his eternal destiny. Thus, a man may not have control over some of the good and bad things that happen to him, but he can decide how to respond to them, and he can demonstrate by his faith and (to me, more importantly) his ethics that he is a good person. Thus, he must pay homage to God first of all, for the good Christian understands that he is truly nothing, that God is everything, and that without the intervention of God Incarnate he is damned, but he also knows he must live a Christian life or he loses all of that.
In my estimation, the reason why this theology is superior is because it puts humanity necessarily in debt to God for something God has already done and that man must try to earn back. There is nothing like servitude to bring about a humble and pride-less attitude.

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?"

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.

Ethos (parvae animae II ex III)

The appeal to the Ethos is partly one of the most shameful tactics that is widely used today, but also one of the most popular. I, myself, have appealed to the Ethos in some of my blog pieces.
The Ethos is the part of us that is who we are. It is our character, our morals, ethics, what we identify ourselves with and as. The word ethics is derived from Ethos. And our Ethos is called upon every day when we make decisions that demonstrate our loyalties and the groups with whom we associate.
Radio talk show hosts are some of the most Ethos oriented rhetoricians around. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage all call on their listeners to adopt certain beliefs and attitudes based on their political standing. Their particular brand of conservatism is recommended to all conservatives based on their identification as conservatives.
Patriotism too, is definitely an area of great Ethical appeal. We watch movies and read books about how great being America is. We justify our belacose actions by stating that those who don't like war are un-American. We have bumper stickers that tell us to support our wars and our corrupt politicians. Country artists tell us that putting "a boot up [terrorists' (or possibly just Middle Easterners')] ass is the American way."
Rhetoricians of ancient days did the same thing. King Leonidas appealed to the Spartans as Spartans to stand against the Persians. The Crusades appealed to Christians' sense of Christianity to wage war against the Muslims. Cicero himself often started his speeches with the phrase "Friends, Romans, country men" appealing to their national identity to attract their attention and sway their opinions.
Preachers and ministers today use Ethos as well. We rally upon people's sense of Christianity (which I myself have done), and ask them to do things unquestioningly because of this (which I try to avoid). When the phrase "as Christians" is used in a sermon or homily, we automatically feel duty-bound towards it.
But, this, of course, can have many negative implications. Last night, as I was speaking with Alexa on the phone, we discussed Evangelism and the many implications that have arisen with it. Many are the Christians who view themselves as Evangelicals and who unquestioningly follow the commands of their pastors. Jerry Falwell will say something like "as Christians we must prepare for the final days by preparing Jerusalem," and his congregation will send money to extremist militant Zionist factions for this exact purpose. Other congregations will protest anything that aids in the homosexual rights campaign because they're leaders tell them to "as Christians."
Truly, the worst part of Ethos is that it is mindless devotion. Pathos is served by our instincts and feelings, but Ethos is only defined by who we think that we are. As an American I might think that it is most important to support our battles. Even though it may not make sense to say that our soldiers who are in a completely foreign, far off country are fighting for our freedom, as an American I am appealed to in order to garner my support. My sense of Americanism is greater than my sense of logic.
Similarly, the question of ethics arose during the Englightenment. When Christianity lost its control of some peoples (the French most specifically), then on what authority should we follow the morals and ethics we have been taught to follow? Our sense of Christianity no longer applies, so why should we love our neighbor or do good to them who abuse us?
I think, as many philosophers, including Kierkegaard, Hume and Kant, that our sense of morals is not rooted in our belief, but in something greater.
Similarly, I think that we should not let ourselves be told to follow certain idealogies because of with whom we associate, but rather that we should apply more logic to our decisions and actions. If we truly identify ourselves as Christians, we should, in fact, follow the teachings of Jesus, but not without logical discussion and inquiry. Otherwise, we are liable to be swayed by any man or woman who claims to be an authority on Christian duty.

Anima Aeterna

So the thought occurred to me that one thing that most monotheistic faiths lack is a sense of the whatever comes before this life.
Of course that comes from the simple fact that as being travelers on this journey we call life,we are far more concerned with where we're going than where we're coming from. However, faiths such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormonism all provide explanations of what has come before. Socrates provided an explanation, as well, as did Vergil in the Aeneid.
I have to wonder, then, why it is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam does not seem to put such emphasis on this facet of our faith.Truly, if we claim that the soul is eternal, per Aquinas, then we have to ask where we came from.
I suppose this is a good opportunity to examine the case for eternality. Does eternality mean an infinite amount of time on both sides? Is eternity more like a geometric line or a ray? Does something eternal have a beginning or has it always existed?
Suppose we say that something is eternal. Therefore, it necessarily has an infinite amount of existence. Thus, it will continue to exist forever and whether or not it was created seems irrelevent because it will always exist. However, if we say it will always exist, this is different than saying it does always exist. If something is created but will never cease to be created once it's created, then we can always measure how long something has been around. On the other hand, if something's existence goes back ad infinitum then we can never say how long it has been around.
What I'm trying to say is this: If everything that is has always existed in some sense, then our souls necessarily have always existed in some sense. But, if we believe that at some point everything was created, then our souls were created as well. Simply because Newtonian laws dictate that everything that is will always be in some form or another does not mean that it always has been.
Here's the conundrum: if our souls have not always been around, how can we be sure that they will always exist? And if they were not created at some point, how can we say that our God is all powerful?
Perhaps this is the reason why monotheism has never addressed this issue. Buddhists have no real concept of an all-powerful God, therefore omnipotence isn't an issue. Hindus have a group of gods that work in concert, but none of them are all powerful either. The gods of the Greeks and Romans were little more than super-powered human beings. And Mormons' concept of divinity rings like a combination of monotheism with the Olympian gods, by which method humans can become gods and God himself is limited in the heavens.
Thus, the idea of our souls existing since forever seems to be absent from those who believe in a god who has all power in the universe.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Over the last year, I have heard professors offer their opinions on who the movers and shakers of the intellectual, especially theological and philosophical, world are. Names such as Martin Luther, Soren Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal, Karl Barth, John Calvin and others come up. However, I think the biggest person who influenced the shift in the theological world was Friedrich Nietzsche.
One must first understand all the things that happened before Nietzsche. In the three centuries preceding his life, the Christian world was rocked by the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and various political revolutions, not least of which was the French Revolution. All of these events laid the groundwork for this German philosopher.
The first time I read Nietzsche I felt uneasy. He came off to me like a out-of-reach itch on one's back. It was there, and it was impossible to ignore, but it was hard to alleviate the irritation it caused. I remember that as I read him, I saw the logic and truth of a lot of his philosophical obeservations, up until he reached his conclusions. This I have found to be the greatest problem with Nietzsche--rather than fixing what many would term the social ills, he only exacerbates them.
Point in case: Nietzsche says that all men follow the will to power, therefore there is nothing which we should allow to stand in our ways on the path to power (a very Raskolnikov notion). Rather than seeing this terrible proposition and fleeing from it, society has embraced it. All means justify their ends. All terrible, destructive behaviors, so long as they provide good for the person performing the actions, are worth-while, no matter the cost physically, emotionally, morally, environmentally, spiritually, socially or economically.
Second point in case: Nietzsche says that Judaism and Christianity ruined traditional ethics and man must return to the "Aryan," conquering ideology of the Romans. Big, conglomerate corporations put small businesses out of work with no remorse. Certain countries, rather than striving for peaceful co-existence, force the surrender of their enemies through the possession of superior weaponry. Men abuse their wives and children if they think that their family members are "acting up."
Shouldn't preachers be preaching against this from the pulpit? Shouldn't they be discouraging the philosophies of a man who could very well be considered the antichrist? Shouldn't they be defending traditional Christian ethics? Shouldn't they defend Christianity's transformation of Eros? Shouldn't they discourage the will to power? Shouldn't they discourage the peasants from "dancing in the streets with satyr-like gyrations"?
Then comes the second attack from Nietzsche. Not only has he pervaded Christianity and shown that it is our true nature to be defunct, baseless creatures, but he has also declared, "God is dead, and we have killed him." He laughs at the believers. He openly tells us that the preachers and theologians are men who are trying to deny humans their true potential. And people have heard his cry. They have taken up the banner and chant in the streets that their is no God. They ask themselves, as Zarthustra questioned after speaking to the old prophet, "Can it truly be that this man has not heard the news that God is dead?" They preach against the Christians as a blight on humanity, much the way that Nietzsche has.
So there we have it. Those who proclaim themselves to be the Christians Nietzsche so violently hates are secretly his disciples. Those who proclaim his very words have still stuck to Christian ethics. The true disciple of Christ is becoming rarer and rarer, while the disciples of Nietzsche are ever amassing. So, despite the radical theological ideas of Bultmann, Reimarus, Aquinas, Zwingli, Schleiermacher, and von Balthasar, Nietzsche is the one to whom we should turn to discover the source of the modern world-view of theology and ethics.

Quid Homo?

Several things recently have called me to ponder what it means to be human. Apparently this is Darwin's 200 year birthday and 150 year anniversary of his famous voyage on the HMS Beagle. And President Obama's visit to the Notre Dame campus to deliver a graduation speech called the issue of human life into question. Additionally, certain movies as of recent have made me ponder what it is to be human.
It seems that humans have always pondered our being. The writers of the Bible viewed humans as the culmination of God's creation, even as being in the image of God. Greek philosophers pondered what separates us from the animals via the virtues. The Hindus and Buddhists believed that the human form was the highest form our souls could take and the only one by which we could ascend to Nirvana. Jesus refers to God as our father. Athanasius says we are made in the image and likeness of God. Thomas Aquinas refers to man as the rational animal.
Today the question is even more relevant. Genetic research shows us that we are only separated from apes by a fraction of our DNA pattern. But beyond this, the ethical problems of science denote how we conceive of the human person. Stem cell research is highly controversial. Cloning is taboo and certain medical operations are viewed as wrong.
Despite all the efforts modern scientific thought uses to show that human kind is not special, it is clear that most people don't believe that. It is as Pope John Paul II said when he declared that the Darwinian formula does not account for the sacredness of human kind. We all believe, deep down inside of us, that human beings are something greater than bags of flesh. We strive to accomplish great feats. We seek to demonstrate our individuality, our uniqueness, our special essence that identifies us as being a separate specie of the human genus. We write books, paint portraits, film movies, build towers and monuments. We seek to know everything. We look to the skies and ponder the vastness of space. We look inside of us and ponder the human mind and body. We traverse the oceans, deserts, jungles and plains detailing the vegetation and animals we discover. We markedly separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom by the vast intellectual, emotional, creative and spiritual quests we undertake.
It seems to me that most of humanity has conceived of humans as being composed of at least a soul and a body. The Greeks viewed the highest part of the soul, the Logos, as the part that lived on past life. The Romans viewed the Anima as separate from the Corpus and the Spiritus, and the part that makes us who we are. Christians view the body and soul as parts of a whole person. Buddhists and Hindus view bodies as temporal but our essence as existing afterward. Even today, we speak of perhaps being "spiritual" but not "religious."
Even in our horror we can note how the body and soul are necessary parts of the person. From time immemorial we have been frightened of disembodied spirits. Vampires, on the other hand, are soulless bodies. Other undead, such as Frankenstein's Monster, mummies and zombies are also soulless bodies. In traditional horror (as of late, horror has focused more on the grotesque and disordered rather than on the genuinely unholy) the villain has always been some unholy, fractured human.
However, lately, there seems to have been a question as to whether or not this is legitimate. Alasdair MacIntyre suggests that during the Englightenment we lost the idea of having a purpose, a telos, for our morals. However, the philosophers of that time failed to explain adequately why we would have universal laws. For all the trying, they never fully explained to what end humans are moving. Here I feel the famous pseudo-theologian C. S. Lewis' explanation of a natural law that denotes a God comes into play. All humans have inside of us a something that pushes us toward universal ends. We all have similar morals, similar goals, similar emotions for similar things. We all have souls that guide and direct us.
Thus, I have concluded that the human is not a simple body. We are not merely animals. We are not a rung on the ladder of evolution. We are the culmination of all things. We all have inside of us an essence, a great something that distinguishes us from every other creature. Our minds and thoughts, our drives and inklings, and our very selves are distinct and unique.

Scandalus

What is it about Christians that makes a lot of the rest of the world despise us? Surely there is the conservative Christians that make a lot of people cringe. And our reservation and prudence also make us a bit peculiar. But what of our message itself?
"We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles" wrote Paul (1 Corinth 1:23). And really, how silly is it, from the outside, to say that God became man?
From one perspective, we look Greek. Our God is now encased in human flesh, much the way Hercules was. All the Olympic gods existed in a physical sense in this world. They all had bodies. They took on many forms.
"But," we might argue, "our god paid the price for sin and was exalted." This sounds like Odin, the "Allfather" of the Norsemen who hung on a tree for three days in order to give to mankind the sacred runes. After the three days, he regained his spot as head of the gods.
This is where we take on a monotheistic view of God. Not only did our god take on all of our sins, but he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, a notion that escapes the Romans, Greeks and Vikings. Truly, St. Augustine says that all things are held by our god, and our god is in all things.
So here our God seems more like the God of the Jews, who created the heaven and the earth and has the ability to manipulate time and space itself according to His wishes.
This is why it is a stumbling block. At first glance it looks nonsensical. The outsider gets lost in the trinitarian language of the Council of Nicaea and the message of Word become Flesh.
Here is where Athanasius seems to help out. To Athanasius, and in fact to St. Anselm as well, Christ is God's way of restoring humanity. We have fallen; fallen of our choosing. Because of this transgression against God, we, who are unholy and imperfect, cannot hope to dwell with God, who is holy and perfect. This is not in God's plan, so God comes to restore humanity.
Now, here is where it gets tricky. Man cannot redeem himself, for how can one restore what he never had attained. However, it was necessary for man to make restoration, since it was man who sinned. So God comes down in the person of Jesus, takes on our sins and dies. This process restores us to God.
Even with the explanation of our faith, it still seems incredible. It is a fantastic-sounding story that necessitates our faith. Even with the philosophical arguments for God, Christ's existence is not obvious.
So I say, since our message is one that is offensive enough, our call is to not be offensive. We are to go out with humility, meekness, mercy, temperance and all the commands that Christ laid upon us. St Francis of Assisi once wisely said, "Preach Christ crucified always, if necessary, use words." It is more important that our actions preach our message than our shouts. For, all of our words can be proven wrong by our actions, but our actions are never proven wrong by our words.

Being a Christian in today's world

So I've realized that I write a lot about what it means to be Christian and how different it is from what we normally view as Christianity.
To be fair, it seems to me that most of the people who act Christian tend to be more of the atheistic brand or adhere to some other religion. Those who go by the tag of Christian seem far more Nietzschean to my view.
The question, then, is how are we to reconcile the two camps? With the name of Christians being tarnished right and left, it becomes difficult to maintain a place in this world that is not completely looked down on. We hear people in the scientific and intellectual world tarnishing the name of Christians and the God of our faith. In the world of entertainment, we are represented by self-serving, war-mongering celebreties that portray us to the world in a negative light.
The problem is that there are not enough intellectual Christians to provide sustained dialogue between the atheist scholars and the Christian scholars.
So it is our duty to make a point of engaging the scientific world. One does not have to be an atheist to be a biologist or theoretical physicist. Christianity can engage in intelligent debate about the origins of man or the universe. Evolution is not against God's nature.
In reality, the sad truth is that Christianity has, for a long time, been behind the scientific world. Galileo discovers helio-centrism and is anathema. Charles Darwin discovers biogenetic diversity and is shunned. We cannot be afraid of the scienitfic world. All that that does for us is turns the learned man away from our faith.
Christianity has the honor of having some of the most famous philosophers learned men in its midst. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and others have all graced Christianity with their intelligence and skill. It is not incompatible to be Christian and a scholar.
So we need to take up the call to be scholars. We need to engage the scholastic world with substantial discussion instead of hurling insults and refusing rationality. We need to learn to be Christians in our contemporary world, not in years long past.

Our True Calling as Christians

I feel somewhat inclined to write about the Abortion issue and President Obama's visit to Notre Dame. However, because the issue has been so played out over the last few weeks, I do not feel the need.
Rather, I would like to discuss something that I think we often overlook as Christians. The word Christian is used so much to describe people and things. We can live a Christian way of life, visit a Christian bookstore or talk to Christians. We have Christian music, Christian movies, even Christian video games.
None of these things are truly Christian. None of them truly incapsulate the message of Christ. There's been so much debate about Eucharist, Grace, Tradition, Scripture and a plethora of other theological topics over the centuries that we have forgotten what Christ was really all about.
It doesn't matter where we stand on the abortion issue, or where we pledge our allegiances. It doesn't matter if we favor one politician over another. What it comes down to at the end of the day is how we demonstrate Christ-like love.
Christ told us simply that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is to love our neighbors (Matthew 22:38-40). "Upon these hang all the law and the prophets."
In the end we aren't judged by our faith, or who we protested or supported. It doesn't matter if we raised millions of dollars for a worthy cause. What does matter is that we love with a Christ-like love.
Even St Paul, in a letter to the Corinthians tells them that the greatest virtues to have are faith, hope and love, but love is the greatest of all of these (1 Corinth. 13:13). Love is greater than faith. This is said by the man who told us that we are only saved through our faith (Galatians 3:14).
So let us not call any cause "Christian" that is not centered fully on love. Let us not call ourselves Christian if we hold hatred in our hearts. Let us not call any lifestyle Christian that hates any people for any reason.
Rather, let us call those Christian who stand up for the oppressed. Let us call those Christian whose intentions and means are filled with love and not anger. Let us revere those as Christians who suffer gracefully the hatred and anger of an unjust world.
Soren Kierkegaard said that there was nothing of worldly value in being a Christian. There is no worldly success in the work of a Christian, nor is there any praise to be gained by his contemporaries. The Christian loves. That is all the Christian does.

pax aut bellum

One of the most peculiar things I have seen in American Christianity is the tendency towards violence. To be sure, Christianity has at times embraced violence in an unflattering way. However, in today's culture, it seems that being "A red-blooded American," being "A God-fearing Christian," and "supporting the war effort" have become synonymous.
Why is that? Since when does being a follower of Christ mean taking arms against others. The early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs. Many were submitted to savage punishments, such as crucifixion, and being part of the gladiatorial games. Origen of Alexandria, when his father was arrested for being a Christian, would have gladly turned himself in were it not for the fact that his mother hid his clothing and he would not run out naked (thank God for that!).
Today, though, one sees on the back of cars bumper stickers that proclaim the driver's undying faith in God, complete loyalty to the country and support of our wars.
Can being a Christian be reconcilable with supporting violence?
Many argue that we are liberating peoples. That we are granting them democracy. Is this really the case? Who brought democracy to us? On a purely historic basis, it was more the people of this nation who desired freedom from the oppression that allowed the revolution to take place than anything else.
So, what should we do if we wish to help those in oppressed nations? Do we try to give them democracy? I think that the present situation in Iraq should answer with a resounding "NO!" that this is a bad idea. If we want people to enjoy freedom, we have no right to imose it on them. Yes, one might argue that this was the case with the American Civil War, but I can assure you it is not. Slaves would escape to the Northern states for freedom. All would have done so if it were not for punishments incurred by slave owners. The Civil War also only changed one law. The North did not try to impose completely new governments on the South (though it did try to reunify them with the Union). The North didn't change the governmental system and try to impose new leaders.
Consider also the Quakers. These people are an exemplary instance of how one can be a Pacifist and still enact change. Quakers helped end the slave trade by civil disobedience. Instead of fighting in the war, they refused to purchase goods made by the labor of slaves.
There are a miriad of instances where Christianity has been shown to bring about good without violent means. Consider Mother Theresa's efforts, Martin Luther King Jr, St Stephen the Martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc.
How can we call ourselves Christians if we are not willing to "turn the other cheek?"

Odium et Caritas

It seems to me that when the Beatles sang "All you need is love," and Jackie DeShannon sang "What the world needs now is love" they were correct. How much hate is there in the world? How much fighting and bickering?
Recently, I've attracted more attention than I should because of my baptism and a letter to school newspaper about why we should invite Obama to the campus. The responses I've received have been diverse. Some people have praised what I've said. Others have condemned it. Others yet, have taken what I've said and contorted my words to make me say things that I have never said.
There are two interactions I have had with people that have had strong impacts on me personally. The first was an interaction on the Indy Star blog with a man who goes by the moniker "Roymondo." He exhibited a lot of anger and hostility to my conversion to Catholicism. Every chance he got, he tried to enlighten the world with what he thought to be the true reason why I converted. I was personally offended, but mostly I felt sad for him not being able to understand that I would truly convert out of a genuine movement of mysoul.
The second was with a friend of mine whom I shall call Steve for the sake of this post. He personally contacted me after reading my Observer post. He didn't respond with a whitty letter to the editor explaining why I loved abortion and hated God or anything of that nature. Rather, he advised me on staying true to the tenets of Catholicism and exercising obedience to the council of the bishops. After each message to me, he concluded with "With love" or "In the love of Christ." He never condemned me nor did he tell me that I was completely wrong. But he did warn me and tried to guide me.
The example of Steve is an example to me of truly Christ-like love. Roymondo's example is the opposite. There tends to be a fine line between Christ-like admonition and self-righteous condemnation. Sometimes the difference is obvious to those outside, though. Nobody on the Notre Dame campus views the actions of Randall Terry and the Center for BioEthics to be in Christ-like love. But to think that there are no people protesting Obama's invitation here who have no love in their intention is not only false, but an affront to those who respectfully and graciously demonstrate their feelings.
The real question we must ask is this: How do we show our distaste for something without exuding a condemnatory attitude? How can we respectfully display our disagreement? How do we know which battles are worth fighting?
I would suggest that Christ's counsel here is very applicable "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." (Matthew 5:25)

Civitas contra religionem

So many people laud the founding fathers' decision to establish a policy of separation of Church and state. But I have to ask: is this really the best thing for us?
A lot of the argument for the separation of Church and state lies in the fact that with a government tied with a church, there will be no freedom of religion. We have plenty of examples in the history of the world to draw from: England, Rome, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, etc. Some countries have failed to allow religious diversity, but not all. England no longer does. Israel and Lebanon have always allowed religious freedom. None of these countries are considered disasters (though, to be fair, none of them are really driven by the Church anymore).
So what does separation do for us here in the states? First and foremost, anybody can join whatever faith they'd like, for better or worse (viz Heaven's Gate, David Koresh and Jim Jones). Furthermore, politics supposedly isn't influenced by religions (like Hell it's not). But if politics is supposed to be fair, and representative, why is it that the most dominant Christian religion in America (the Catholic Church) has only ever had one of its members become president?
But what I really get upset about is this: American Christianity is so often influenced by the state. What does this mean? How many churches today in America are predominantly war-like? How many good Christians are afraid to protest what they think is unjust? How many Christians view the Beattitudes as a higher standard than political practice? How many consider the command to love one's neighbor more important than the constitution? How many people consider Jesus to be a more important political figure than George Washington?
The problem is that we live in a world affected by World War I nationalism that we have never overcome. Christians, in word, proclaim a life that is independent of the state. Jesus proclaimed "My kingdom is not of this world." The early Christians suffered at the hands of the state, often to imprisonment and even death.
Now, we live in Kierkegaard's Christendom. We don't actually need to be Christ-like in order to be Christians in our world. We go to war, we impose taxes on the poor and increase the wealth of the poor. We turn against our neighbor and engage in unvirtuous enterprises. Christianity in America is like a new Rome. We have lost our sense of Christianity for our sense of politics. We worship the God of the state, the God whose name is printed on our money, not the God of Christianity.

On Pascal

So a lot of theologians and philosophers have attempted to prove the existence of God. A lot of them have used tricky arguments and slightly unfounded premises or unsound conclusions. Some of them take assumptions that presuppose theistic notions.
Bultmann said that there were no perfect philosophies. Since there have been so many, and so many with such different conclusions, it seems that he's right. So what can we say?
If there is any way to prove God's existence, I think that C. S. Lewis has the best formula for it. However, I think this denies the need for faith, one of the defining characteristics of Christianity
So what of Pascal? The man neither tries to prove God, nor does he really speak about faith. Pascal is the gambler's philosopher.
Pascal's wager is one of the most famous "proofs" for Christianity. But I wouldn't call it a proof, just a reasonable supposition.
For those unaware of Pascal's wager, it goes something like this: There is either a god or there isn't. If there is a god, then the theists will be saved, and the atheists will not be. If there is not a god, then all human beings suffer the same fate, and it doesn't matter whether you believe or not. The only negative outcome in this proposition is that of the Atheist if there is a god. All others are either neutral or beneficial.
Pascal was the man who invented probability statistics. For him, it was all about playing the odds. The gambler, then, should definitely be a theist. And people who aren't gamblers still ought to play the odds.
However, this is not a preaching lesson. I like the man because he is an apologist for Christians. In a world where we are surrounded by irrational "believers," where the rational people have abandoned God in the name of science, and God is seen as a foolish notion, Pascal's arguments provide a refreshing boost for the believer.
Pascal also says that believing in God, or searching for God, is the only true rational thought process. How can one be satisfied with his life if he has nothing to look forward to after death? The rational person either finds God and is satisfied or is seeking to find God and is not satisfied.