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
Showing posts with label Mormon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mormon. Show all posts
Friday, January 14, 2011
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
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
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
Monday, June 29, 2009
Blind Faith
My last real post was on the irrationality of atheism. I feel in fairness, I need to address blind faith as well.
The funny thing about faith is that true faith necessitates that all you can honestly state is "I believe X." Faith, as faith, is different than knowledge. And from a purely philosophical and psychological point of view, the concept of knowledge is even a bit shaky.
But before I delve too much into that, I think it is important to note that faith should not be blind. No one should ever take the word of their parents or teachers as the word of God. Faith is the kind of substance that continually needs to be tried. This is how theology evolves.
It is all very well and good to believe in something, but it is important to know what it is that you believe in, and why it is that you believe that. For this reason, theology has changed in every single century for the last two thousand years. And within the last century, when humanism presented its case before faith, many theologians stepped up to greet the challenge and the emphases of the twentieth century reflect this.
Also, it is important to have people to look to for faith. Augustine makes it clear that the authority that Christians look toward helps direct them and gets them through the more puzzling aspects of being a believer. Authorities show the way and answer difficult questions. However, in today's world, there are so many different authorities saying so many different things, that it is important to be aware of what they are actually saying.
The biggest problem that I do see in people's faith is that they often take faith itself as the authority. It seems that many people follow the mantra "Well, I believe it, so it must be so." This is one of the greatest follies to which we as believers can fall. Simple belief in something does not make it so. It makes it even less so if there is no evidence to reinforce one's beliefs. I might believe that little leprechauns are stealing my socks from the dryer, but unless I can offer a plausible explanation, or at least one that is not completely preposterous, then my faith has no merit. Belief in a god, however, is plausible, as illustrated by Aquinas' defense from Sufficient Reason, which states that if something is, then there must be a cause for it. The cause for our universe can be a god, especially the way that philosophers and theologians account for the creation.
A quick anecdote will illustrate my point about faith. Growing up Mormon, my friends and family always encouraged us to "develop" what they called "a testimony." Essentially, a Mormon's testimony is his specific set of beliefs, most of which have very specific properties to them, such as the belief that Joseph Smith was God's prophet, and most of which are stated as matters of fact. The way a Mormon will usually present his testimony is like this, "I know that X" where X is something like "Joseph Smith was a prophet," "The Book of Mormon is true" or "Jesus is God's only Son." None of these things are reasonable to know, the way that most people talk about knowing anything. I can neither vouch for Joseph Smith's conversations with God, nor can I verify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon or even Jesus' actual life. All of these things must be taken on faith. However, Mormons not only generally state these beliefs as facts, but they use them as arguments for their positions.
But they are not alone. There are several faiths which encourage strict adherence to faith and reject normal methods of questioning or investigating. These groups discourage me. These faiths make me depressed about the state of faith in America. If we blindly follow what our leaders say, no matter how horrific it truly is, then we are no better than many of the nonbelievers say that we are.
But, I do also believe that we need something to believe in. It is perfectly fine to believe that in the hereafter, there will be a glorious reward for those who live righteous lives. It is normal to hope for a greater future, or a justification of souls. However, we cannot allow this faith to cause us to lose track of what it really is that we believe in.
The funny thing about faith is that true faith necessitates that all you can honestly state is "I believe X." Faith, as faith, is different than knowledge. And from a purely philosophical and psychological point of view, the concept of knowledge is even a bit shaky.
But before I delve too much into that, I think it is important to note that faith should not be blind. No one should ever take the word of their parents or teachers as the word of God. Faith is the kind of substance that continually needs to be tried. This is how theology evolves.
It is all very well and good to believe in something, but it is important to know what it is that you believe in, and why it is that you believe that. For this reason, theology has changed in every single century for the last two thousand years. And within the last century, when humanism presented its case before faith, many theologians stepped up to greet the challenge and the emphases of the twentieth century reflect this.
Also, it is important to have people to look to for faith. Augustine makes it clear that the authority that Christians look toward helps direct them and gets them through the more puzzling aspects of being a believer. Authorities show the way and answer difficult questions. However, in today's world, there are so many different authorities saying so many different things, that it is important to be aware of what they are actually saying.
The biggest problem that I do see in people's faith is that they often take faith itself as the authority. It seems that many people follow the mantra "Well, I believe it, so it must be so." This is one of the greatest follies to which we as believers can fall. Simple belief in something does not make it so. It makes it even less so if there is no evidence to reinforce one's beliefs. I might believe that little leprechauns are stealing my socks from the dryer, but unless I can offer a plausible explanation, or at least one that is not completely preposterous, then my faith has no merit. Belief in a god, however, is plausible, as illustrated by Aquinas' defense from Sufficient Reason, which states that if something is, then there must be a cause for it. The cause for our universe can be a god, especially the way that philosophers and theologians account for the creation.
A quick anecdote will illustrate my point about faith. Growing up Mormon, my friends and family always encouraged us to "develop" what they called "a testimony." Essentially, a Mormon's testimony is his specific set of beliefs, most of which have very specific properties to them, such as the belief that Joseph Smith was God's prophet, and most of which are stated as matters of fact. The way a Mormon will usually present his testimony is like this, "I know that X" where X is something like "Joseph Smith was a prophet," "The Book of Mormon is true" or "Jesus is God's only Son." None of these things are reasonable to know, the way that most people talk about knowing anything. I can neither vouch for Joseph Smith's conversations with God, nor can I verify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon or even Jesus' actual life. All of these things must be taken on faith. However, Mormons not only generally state these beliefs as facts, but they use them as arguments for their positions.
But they are not alone. There are several faiths which encourage strict adherence to faith and reject normal methods of questioning or investigating. These groups discourage me. These faiths make me depressed about the state of faith in America. If we blindly follow what our leaders say, no matter how horrific it truly is, then we are no better than many of the nonbelievers say that we are.
But, I do also believe that we need something to believe in. It is perfectly fine to believe that in the hereafter, there will be a glorious reward for those who live righteous lives. It is normal to hope for a greater future, or a justification of souls. However, we cannot allow this faith to cause us to lose track of what it really is that we believe in.
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Triune God
Yesterday was Trinity Sunday. As a convert to Catholicism from Mormonism, the whole notion of the Trinity was one that took some time to fully wrap my head around. However, at this point in my career I feel confident that I not only understand it better than most, but I am also in the process of doing research on how others (specifically Mormons) view the Trinitarian relationship.
So it seems to me that this deserves some attention. The early Christians faced several difficult challenges in defining the Trinitarian relationship. The Arians thought that Jesus couldn't be God, but only human. The Manicheans separated Jesus' humanity from His Divinity.
But it goes back further than that. The early Christians were faced with the difficulty of believing somehow that Jesus was a lot more than a human being. The Gospel of John makes Jesus out to be God. The opening words are "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thus the tone of Trinitarian existence is set forth from even the first century.
The gospels all set out the tone of Jesus being God. Then comes the Acts of the Apostles. With Pentecost (last week, by the way), the problem of the Holy Spirit comes onto the scene. Whereas the issue of Jesus' Divinity is somewhat problematic, especially with His unity with the Father, the Holy Spirit is a whole new problem all together. Who is this Holy Spirit that does not enter the scene (apparently) until at least Jesus' baptism? After much discussion, and careful prayer, the early Fathers decided that the Holy Spirit must also be God, and also unified with the Father and the Son.
But as most who have taken a basic course in Christian Theology or Sunday School know, the official stance of the Trinitarian formula was not fully developed until the Early councils, especially Nicaea and Chalcedon.
The one tragic part of the Trinitarian doctrine is that the more it was explained and developed, the more people that became Anathema. The Arians, the Manicheans, the Coptics, the Syriacs, the Assyrians, the Chalcedonians, the Nestorians (I apologize), the Maronites, and eventually the Orthodox Church all eventually were cut off from the Roman Church. Ideas such as the theotokos (God bearer), homousious, and the phrase "proceeds through the Father and the Son" as opposed to "proceeds through the Father through the Son" became operative in the the schismatic process.
Similarly, my sister yesterday went with me to Mass and liked to interject at every point that she thought that the doctrine supported her views. That's the real problem. The Trinity is such a blessed mystery that a lot of ways that we use to describe the relationship murkies up the water. Nobody who claims to be God has completely anti-Trinitarian views on the subject, but a lot of the explanations vary.
I think that St Augustine, one of my personal favorites among the philosopher/theologians and a Doctor of the Church explained it best. He described the relationship thus: the Son is God's word, eternally proclaimed, from time immemorial even until now. The Holy Spirit is the love shared between the Father and the Son. The Love is emitted from God to us, the Son is eternally proclaimed to us and the Father is eternally reigning over the heavens and earth.
This is not an easy notion to understand. However, to be fair, I do not believe that having a perfect understanding and knowledge of the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is necessary for our salvation.
So it seems to me that this deserves some attention. The early Christians faced several difficult challenges in defining the Trinitarian relationship. The Arians thought that Jesus couldn't be God, but only human. The Manicheans separated Jesus' humanity from His Divinity.
But it goes back further than that. The early Christians were faced with the difficulty of believing somehow that Jesus was a lot more than a human being. The Gospel of John makes Jesus out to be God. The opening words are "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thus the tone of Trinitarian existence is set forth from even the first century.
The gospels all set out the tone of Jesus being God. Then comes the Acts of the Apostles. With Pentecost (last week, by the way), the problem of the Holy Spirit comes onto the scene. Whereas the issue of Jesus' Divinity is somewhat problematic, especially with His unity with the Father, the Holy Spirit is a whole new problem all together. Who is this Holy Spirit that does not enter the scene (apparently) until at least Jesus' baptism? After much discussion, and careful prayer, the early Fathers decided that the Holy Spirit must also be God, and also unified with the Father and the Son.
But as most who have taken a basic course in Christian Theology or Sunday School know, the official stance of the Trinitarian formula was not fully developed until the Early councils, especially Nicaea and Chalcedon.
The one tragic part of the Trinitarian doctrine is that the more it was explained and developed, the more people that became Anathema. The Arians, the Manicheans, the Coptics, the Syriacs, the Assyrians, the Chalcedonians, the Nestorians (I apologize), the Maronites, and eventually the Orthodox Church all eventually were cut off from the Roman Church. Ideas such as the theotokos (God bearer), homousious, and the phrase "proceeds through the Father and the Son" as opposed to "proceeds through the Father through the Son" became operative in the the schismatic process.
Similarly, my sister yesterday went with me to Mass and liked to interject at every point that she thought that the doctrine supported her views. That's the real problem. The Trinity is such a blessed mystery that a lot of ways that we use to describe the relationship murkies up the water. Nobody who claims to be God has completely anti-Trinitarian views on the subject, but a lot of the explanations vary.
I think that St Augustine, one of my personal favorites among the philosopher/theologians and a Doctor of the Church explained it best. He described the relationship thus: the Son is God's word, eternally proclaimed, from time immemorial even until now. The Holy Spirit is the love shared between the Father and the Son. The Love is emitted from God to us, the Son is eternally proclaimed to us and the Father is eternally reigning over the heavens and earth.
This is not an easy notion to understand. However, to be fair, I do not believe that having a perfect understanding and knowledge of the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is necessary for our salvation.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Souls intertwined
I feel remiss in never mentioning my girlfriend in any of these blog posts. In a blog about personal theological reflections, I think it is somewhat excusable, but nonetheless I wish to make up for it. So this blog post is dedicated to my darling Alexa, who brings so much joy into my life.
When it comes to love, I have a hard time taking a strictly Catholic view on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that there are some people that God wants to be married and some that he doesn't, but I have a hard time with some of the subtler doctrines.
Like homosexuality, for example. The official stance of the Church, as outlined in the Catechism is that homosexuality is not a choice nor is it a sin, and that we are to welcome our gay brothers and sisters into the Church with open arms. However, the Church officially does not recognize homosexual marriage and it condemns sex outside of marriage.
But that is a topic for a different time and place.
Being raised Mormon, I have certain ideas about marriage and love that other faiths do not have. My parents, and my two older brothers and their wives were married in Mormon temples. Mormons believe that they can be married forever, and that when they're married here on earth, they'll be married in heaven as well.
And while there are a lot of Mormon doctrines that I don't like (especially the deification that comes along with the Mormon idea of eternal marriage), I am somewhat partial to this one. Of course, the Roman Church cannot espouse this idea because this would undermine the whole idea of the celibacy of the clergy.
So here's where I'm torn: I understand why it's important for priests to be celibate. How can one devote his whole self to the Church when he has familial obligations? How can one be encouraged to have a family if he has no time to devote to them? Of course, other traditions, most notably the Orthodox Church, allow their priests to marry, but not the bishops.
But what of the families? What about those who are so happy in their marriage that they never want it to end? What salvific value does the sacrament of marriage have, if it all ends at death?
My first post was about love. I want to reiterate it. Love is what it's all about. If you are able to find someone who loves you, you'll understand. Love makes every day worthwhile. Love makes the dreadgery of life exciting. Love makes us do things we would never do. Love transforms us.
This is why the Evangelist John proclaims that God is love. God is all that is good and right. Love is all that is good and right. I believe that perhaps God, in His infinite wisdom and glory, will not end whatever relationships we have on this earth. Those we love here, we will be able to infinitely love in the afterlife. As we become engulfed in the ultimate love that is God, I believe we will not lose whatever love we have for each other here.
Can you imagine a sadder ending to life than for everything to be over? Instead of the story ending "happily ever after" it ends "and then they died and their love was lost forever." Why would a God, who is love, who is all that is good, and whose ends are always just, allow the brightest thing in the universe to die out while our souls live on?
I believe that in the eternal communion of souls, those who find their souls intertwined shall still be intertwined. I believe that God does not allow our love to die with our bodies.
When it comes to love, I have a hard time taking a strictly Catholic view on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that there are some people that God wants to be married and some that he doesn't, but I have a hard time with some of the subtler doctrines.
Like homosexuality, for example. The official stance of the Church, as outlined in the Catechism is that homosexuality is not a choice nor is it a sin, and that we are to welcome our gay brothers and sisters into the Church with open arms. However, the Church officially does not recognize homosexual marriage and it condemns sex outside of marriage.
But that is a topic for a different time and place.
Being raised Mormon, I have certain ideas about marriage and love that other faiths do not have. My parents, and my two older brothers and their wives were married in Mormon temples. Mormons believe that they can be married forever, and that when they're married here on earth, they'll be married in heaven as well.
And while there are a lot of Mormon doctrines that I don't like (especially the deification that comes along with the Mormon idea of eternal marriage), I am somewhat partial to this one. Of course, the Roman Church cannot espouse this idea because this would undermine the whole idea of the celibacy of the clergy.
So here's where I'm torn: I understand why it's important for priests to be celibate. How can one devote his whole self to the Church when he has familial obligations? How can one be encouraged to have a family if he has no time to devote to them? Of course, other traditions, most notably the Orthodox Church, allow their priests to marry, but not the bishops.
But what of the families? What about those who are so happy in their marriage that they never want it to end? What salvific value does the sacrament of marriage have, if it all ends at death?
My first post was about love. I want to reiterate it. Love is what it's all about. If you are able to find someone who loves you, you'll understand. Love makes every day worthwhile. Love makes the dreadgery of life exciting. Love makes us do things we would never do. Love transforms us.
This is why the Evangelist John proclaims that God is love. God is all that is good and right. Love is all that is good and right. I believe that perhaps God, in His infinite wisdom and glory, will not end whatever relationships we have on this earth. Those we love here, we will be able to infinitely love in the afterlife. As we become engulfed in the ultimate love that is God, I believe we will not lose whatever love we have for each other here.
Can you imagine a sadder ending to life than for everything to be over? Instead of the story ending "happily ever after" it ends "and then they died and their love was lost forever." Why would a God, who is love, who is all that is good, and whose ends are always just, allow the brightest thing in the universe to die out while our souls live on?
I believe that in the eternal communion of souls, those who find their souls intertwined shall still be intertwined. I believe that God does not allow our love to die with our bodies.
Friday, May 29, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Post mortem (Eschatology part 1)
I will first admit that I do not have any hidden knowledge about the "hereafter." Like a good Christian, I believe that there is a glorious afterlife in store for us as part of God's Grace. However, whether this will literally be in the clouds or rather some other, noncorporeal setting, I don't know.
What intrigues me, though, is that there have been so many different accounts of the afterlife. Dante presents a three leveled system that many Catholics hold to today. Many Christians today imagine "heaven" as a place in the clouds. Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation--for the Buddhists until one reaches Nirvana. Muslims and Jews hold to a similar afterlife experience as Christians do, one in which we dwell with God. Mormons believe that eventually they may become like God (a topic for another day).
But we have not held on, for time imemorial, to the idea of a glorious and perfect dwelling with God. In the Old Testament, the afterlife is referred to as Sheol. Eventually, as seen in Luke 16:19-28, the idea that we could dwell with exalted relatives started to emerge. Similarly, in the ancient Greek and Roman system, the Elysian Fields came far after the idea of Hades.
There's where we run into the peculiar thing. For some reason, accounts of suffering and torture are more prominent in our ideas of the afterlife than of glory. The Egyptian Book of the Dead proscribes all sorts of punishments that can befall one's soul if one is not absolutely careful on the way to the underworld. Dante's Inferno is far more popular than Il Purgatorio or Il Paradiso. Even in Norse myth, the realm of Hel is solely devoted to punishing souls while the valiant only get a hall in the vast kingdom of Asgard.
From these facts I gather two observations. The first is that mankind has almost always believed in A) a soul and B) its eternality. Even in the most ancient Epic of Gilgamesh, an afterlife is described (though many scholars believe it to be an addendum to the original text). After we have finished our existence here, we go on to still exist. It is as if, like Pascal says, we are afraid of being hurled into non-existence. Man cannot bear the thought that at some future date he will not exist. Hence, we live our lives as if we will live forever. We amass fortunes that we can never spend. We put events off indefinitely. We trash our bodies as if they're indestructible. Man cannot bear to even dwell on the thought that there isn't something after this without falling into utter despair.
This is what confuses me about atheism. How can atheists really hope for becoming a nonentity? The greatest one can hope for, at that point, is to attain the kind of fame that men like Homer, Cicero, Socrates and Vergil have attained--fame that spans the eons. However, in a world with a population ove six billion, this is more of a pipe dream than any kind of reality. Really, our sole source of hope lies in having something to look forward to once this is done.
The second thing that I observe is that mankind assumes more often than not that he (or at least his enemies) will inherit an eternal punishment. Hell, Hades, Sheol, Hel, Outer Darkness or a lesser reincarnation--all of these stand as unfavorable destinies, some of which are unavoidable (most likely because we are corrupt and sinful) and others of which are inherited because of our infidelity. We get what we earn. For some reason, man cannot either escape the idea of being eternally punished, just as he cannot escape the idea of nonentity.
The implications of this problem are easy enough to solve. Catholicism (viz Vatican II), Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism (to a certain extent) and most ecumenically-minded people all agree that good works will grant you happiness in the hereafter. So, the logical conclusion would be to take on a two-fold effort: first, to conduct good works; and second, to follow Pascal's wager and have faith in a god.
What intrigues me, though, is that there have been so many different accounts of the afterlife. Dante presents a three leveled system that many Catholics hold to today. Many Christians today imagine "heaven" as a place in the clouds. Buddhists and Hindus believe in reincarnation--for the Buddhists until one reaches Nirvana. Muslims and Jews hold to a similar afterlife experience as Christians do, one in which we dwell with God. Mormons believe that eventually they may become like God (a topic for another day).
But we have not held on, for time imemorial, to the idea of a glorious and perfect dwelling with God. In the Old Testament, the afterlife is referred to as Sheol. Eventually, as seen in Luke 16:19-28, the idea that we could dwell with exalted relatives started to emerge. Similarly, in the ancient Greek and Roman system, the Elysian Fields came far after the idea of Hades.
There's where we run into the peculiar thing. For some reason, accounts of suffering and torture are more prominent in our ideas of the afterlife than of glory. The Egyptian Book of the Dead proscribes all sorts of punishments that can befall one's soul if one is not absolutely careful on the way to the underworld. Dante's Inferno is far more popular than Il Purgatorio or Il Paradiso. Even in Norse myth, the realm of Hel is solely devoted to punishing souls while the valiant only get a hall in the vast kingdom of Asgard.
From these facts I gather two observations. The first is that mankind has almost always believed in A) a soul and B) its eternality. Even in the most ancient Epic of Gilgamesh, an afterlife is described (though many scholars believe it to be an addendum to the original text). After we have finished our existence here, we go on to still exist. It is as if, like Pascal says, we are afraid of being hurled into non-existence. Man cannot bear the thought that at some future date he will not exist. Hence, we live our lives as if we will live forever. We amass fortunes that we can never spend. We put events off indefinitely. We trash our bodies as if they're indestructible. Man cannot bear to even dwell on the thought that there isn't something after this without falling into utter despair.
This is what confuses me about atheism. How can atheists really hope for becoming a nonentity? The greatest one can hope for, at that point, is to attain the kind of fame that men like Homer, Cicero, Socrates and Vergil have attained--fame that spans the eons. However, in a world with a population ove six billion, this is more of a pipe dream than any kind of reality. Really, our sole source of hope lies in having something to look forward to once this is done.
The second thing that I observe is that mankind assumes more often than not that he (or at least his enemies) will inherit an eternal punishment. Hell, Hades, Sheol, Hel, Outer Darkness or a lesser reincarnation--all of these stand as unfavorable destinies, some of which are unavoidable (most likely because we are corrupt and sinful) and others of which are inherited because of our infidelity. We get what we earn. For some reason, man cannot either escape the idea of being eternally punished, just as he cannot escape the idea of nonentity.
The implications of this problem are easy enough to solve. Catholicism (viz Vatican II), Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism (to a certain extent) and most ecumenically-minded people all agree that good works will grant you happiness in the hereafter. So, the logical conclusion would be to take on a two-fold effort: first, to conduct good works; and second, to follow Pascal's wager and have faith in a god.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Martyrs
Lately I've been thinking about what martyrdom means. For many Christians, martyrdom is the ultimate way to show one's devotion to Christ. Kierkegaard says that unless we are willing to lay down our lives for Christ, we are not true Christians.
In the early parts of the Christian Church, there were many martyrs killed by the Roman Empire. These martyrs are widely looked up to for their courage and fidelity. Most became saints because of their martyrdom. The Emperors Domitian and Diocletian persecuted Christians openly and sent many to their deaths in grueling manners.
St Stephen is widely viewed as the first Christian martyr, and his death is recorded in the Book of Acts. Most of the Apostles were martyred. Peter was crucified upside-down. Paul was beheaded by Emperor Nero because he was a Roman Citizen.
With all the praise that goes to the Christian martyrs, it is also important to note that not every martyr's cause is a true cause.
Many unjust men and faulty causes have used martyrdom to prove correctness. Jim Jones thought that the fact that government was pursuing him proved that he was correct. Many suicide bombers and terrorists view their deaths as proving their point. The Heaven's Gate cult thought their suicides would bring them eternal joy on Hale's Comet. The arrest of Warren Jeffs only strengthened the FLDS Church's resolve.
In addition to this, what of the different martyrs from different faiths? There were the Christian martyrs, there were Jewish martyrs, Muslim martyrs, Buddhist martyrs, and Mormon martyrs. How do we reconcile so many martyrs with so many different faith traditions? Do we just look at the faith that has yielded the most martyrs?
I have heard that the Twentieth Century brought about the most Christian martyrs, especially with the wars that were fought and the genocides that occurred. How are the deaths of men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be compared with men like David Koresh?
We can look up to martyrs, but we cannot say that because somebody is a martyr, their faith is valid. Plenty of men have died for unworthy causes. Plenty have lived for worthy causes. Where we really need to look is not on the actual martyr, but on the cause that the martyr defended.
In the early parts of the Christian Church, there were many martyrs killed by the Roman Empire. These martyrs are widely looked up to for their courage and fidelity. Most became saints because of their martyrdom. The Emperors Domitian and Diocletian persecuted Christians openly and sent many to their deaths in grueling manners.
St Stephen is widely viewed as the first Christian martyr, and his death is recorded in the Book of Acts. Most of the Apostles were martyred. Peter was crucified upside-down. Paul was beheaded by Emperor Nero because he was a Roman Citizen.
With all the praise that goes to the Christian martyrs, it is also important to note that not every martyr's cause is a true cause.
Many unjust men and faulty causes have used martyrdom to prove correctness. Jim Jones thought that the fact that government was pursuing him proved that he was correct. Many suicide bombers and terrorists view their deaths as proving their point. The Heaven's Gate cult thought their suicides would bring them eternal joy on Hale's Comet. The arrest of Warren Jeffs only strengthened the FLDS Church's resolve.
In addition to this, what of the different martyrs from different faiths? There were the Christian martyrs, there were Jewish martyrs, Muslim martyrs, Buddhist martyrs, and Mormon martyrs. How do we reconcile so many martyrs with so many different faith traditions? Do we just look at the faith that has yielded the most martyrs?
I have heard that the Twentieth Century brought about the most Christian martyrs, especially with the wars that were fought and the genocides that occurred. How are the deaths of men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be compared with men like David Koresh?
We can look up to martyrs, but we cannot say that because somebody is a martyr, their faith is valid. Plenty of men have died for unworthy causes. Plenty have lived for worthy causes. Where we really need to look is not on the actual martyr, but on the cause that the martyr defended.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
In nomine Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancte
Yikes, this is a hard topic to discuss.
But, I will be giving a lecture on the subject tomorrow, with respect to how the Mormon Church views it, so I better be able to say something.
The Mormon view of the Trinity is that the Trinitarian formula has specifically Hellenic formulaic components. I'm not sure how this is the case. With Platonic and Aristotelian Providential formulae, God is seen as a single source of wisdom, light, goodness and truth in the universe. But Hellenism generally has polytheistic roots (viz Zeus, Hercules, Hermes, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, etc).
But I have specific reasons for believing in a Trinitarian formula. I will explain this as I explained it to my sister. When we speak of perfection, we generally speak of it in terms of some specific quality. A perfect circle would only be perfect in terms of its roundness. But, there could be other perfect circles because if the circle is only perfect in terms of its roundness, then other cirlces, of different sizes can also be perfect.
However, if the circle is perfect in all aspects, then there can be no other perfect circle. Another perfect circle would be the exact same circle (mathematically speaking). If a perfect circle has a radius of 2 centimeters, then every perfect circle has a radius of 2 centimeters, but there every single perfectly round circle that has a radius of 2 centimeters is exactly the same in every way possible with regards to its circleness. Thus, it can only be the same circle. If there are no differences, there can be no way of distinguishing between them, then they cannot be different.
With regards to human beings, we can say that people are different because they also have some distinguishing characteristics that mark them as separate. There cannot be more than one perfect thing of any particular genus. Otherwise, the two would be indistinguishable from each other.
So, let's say there's something that is complete perfection. Not "a perfect thing x," but actual perfection itself. Thus everything about this particular thing would be perfect. There would be no flaws, no problems, nothing "wrong" about this thing. Then obviously, as I think I've explained there could never be anything else that could be perfect.
So we'd have to call this one perfect thing something. Let's call it God. This fits in with a Thomist metaphysical view of God. God is Goodness, Beauty, Oneness, and Truth. Furthermore, this fits the "omni"s: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. So let's say there's one of these. How can there be a second perfect thing? There can't. So, if there's a God that fits these descriptions, there can be only one.
Then, if Jesus is God, if the Father is God and if the Holy Spirit is God, then there can be only one God. These three can be perfect, and perfection, but if and only if they are one.
But, I will be giving a lecture on the subject tomorrow, with respect to how the Mormon Church views it, so I better be able to say something.
The Mormon view of the Trinity is that the Trinitarian formula has specifically Hellenic formulaic components. I'm not sure how this is the case. With Platonic and Aristotelian Providential formulae, God is seen as a single source of wisdom, light, goodness and truth in the universe. But Hellenism generally has polytheistic roots (viz Zeus, Hercules, Hermes, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, etc).
But I have specific reasons for believing in a Trinitarian formula. I will explain this as I explained it to my sister. When we speak of perfection, we generally speak of it in terms of some specific quality. A perfect circle would only be perfect in terms of its roundness. But, there could be other perfect circles because if the circle is only perfect in terms of its roundness, then other cirlces, of different sizes can also be perfect.
However, if the circle is perfect in all aspects, then there can be no other perfect circle. Another perfect circle would be the exact same circle (mathematically speaking). If a perfect circle has a radius of 2 centimeters, then every perfect circle has a radius of 2 centimeters, but there every single perfectly round circle that has a radius of 2 centimeters is exactly the same in every way possible with regards to its circleness. Thus, it can only be the same circle. If there are no differences, there can be no way of distinguishing between them, then they cannot be different.
With regards to human beings, we can say that people are different because they also have some distinguishing characteristics that mark them as separate. There cannot be more than one perfect thing of any particular genus. Otherwise, the two would be indistinguishable from each other.
So, let's say there's something that is complete perfection. Not "a perfect thing x," but actual perfection itself. Thus everything about this particular thing would be perfect. There would be no flaws, no problems, nothing "wrong" about this thing. Then obviously, as I think I've explained there could never be anything else that could be perfect.
So we'd have to call this one perfect thing something. Let's call it God. This fits in with a Thomist metaphysical view of God. God is Goodness, Beauty, Oneness, and Truth. Furthermore, this fits the "omni"s: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. So let's say there's one of these. How can there be a second perfect thing? There can't. So, if there's a God that fits these descriptions, there can be only one.
Then, if Jesus is God, if the Father is God and if the Holy Spirit is God, then there can be only one God. These three can be perfect, and perfection, but if and only if they are one.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Apology
Not apology in the "I'm sorry" sense. Apology in the sense of the apologists, defending their faith.
Recently, I've come to have to defend my reasons for converting in different venues, at different times. I have yet to truly give my real reasons in complete explanation. So I will try to do so here. Please keep in mind, this is not my conversion story, not my Confessions, if you will. This is merely a defense against my previous religious beliefs and for my new ones.
A lot of the reasons why I don't believe in Mormonism are simple and sensible. I say sensible because I believe that the single biggest gift that God has given humankind is our intellect. This is truly the one thing that separates us from other animals, what makes us the "rational animal." I have seen this time and again in my theological studies when I read such men as Augustine, Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Bonaventure, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and others have verified this fact. I have read the accounts of some of the greatest minds, read some of the greatest conversion stories and some of the most compelling arguments.
Then comes a 14 year-old farmboy who says that God has called him, and has told him that there are no correct Churches on the earth. 2000 years of the greatest thinkers and most devout believers are wrong. And then some farm boy is called to reveal the truth? Of course, as a Christian, I cannot dismiss the seemingly miniscule, as Christ comes from humble beginnings. But the wise men found him. The prophets of old weren't considered wrong. So why were the previous theologians dismissed?
Furthermore, there's the issue of scripture. So much of the Book of Mormon is derived from the Bible. Chapters from Isaiah are lifted straight from the source. Matthew 5-7 is also copied. There's not a lot of evidence for the peoples of the Book of Mormon. I don't see the resemblence between Native Americans and Jews. The timeline doesn't make sense to me either. Nor does the use of steel. Finally, I have problems with the Bible itself, which creates a multitude of problems for my beliefs in the Book of Mormon.
I guess if I were to sum it up, I find a lot of comfort in the intellectual tradition of the Roman Church. The Mormon Church does have its scholars, but theology is not something one can practice therein, nor is there any room for debate on doctrines.
Recently, I've come to have to defend my reasons for converting in different venues, at different times. I have yet to truly give my real reasons in complete explanation. So I will try to do so here. Please keep in mind, this is not my conversion story, not my Confessions, if you will. This is merely a defense against my previous religious beliefs and for my new ones.
A lot of the reasons why I don't believe in Mormonism are simple and sensible. I say sensible because I believe that the single biggest gift that God has given humankind is our intellect. This is truly the one thing that separates us from other animals, what makes us the "rational animal." I have seen this time and again in my theological studies when I read such men as Augustine, Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Bonaventure, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and others have verified this fact. I have read the accounts of some of the greatest minds, read some of the greatest conversion stories and some of the most compelling arguments.
Then comes a 14 year-old farmboy who says that God has called him, and has told him that there are no correct Churches on the earth. 2000 years of the greatest thinkers and most devout believers are wrong. And then some farm boy is called to reveal the truth? Of course, as a Christian, I cannot dismiss the seemingly miniscule, as Christ comes from humble beginnings. But the wise men found him. The prophets of old weren't considered wrong. So why were the previous theologians dismissed?
Furthermore, there's the issue of scripture. So much of the Book of Mormon is derived from the Bible. Chapters from Isaiah are lifted straight from the source. Matthew 5-7 is also copied. There's not a lot of evidence for the peoples of the Book of Mormon. I don't see the resemblence between Native Americans and Jews. The timeline doesn't make sense to me either. Nor does the use of steel. Finally, I have problems with the Bible itself, which creates a multitude of problems for my beliefs in the Book of Mormon.
I guess if I were to sum it up, I find a lot of comfort in the intellectual tradition of the Roman Church. The Mormon Church does have its scholars, but theology is not something one can practice therein, nor is there any room for debate on doctrines.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Ex nihilo ad Omnium
Please excuse my Latin.
I was reminded earlier today of a key difference in Mormon theology and Catholic theology. That difference is the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" or "creation out of nothing." What it basically means is that God created the entire universe from nothing.
Mormons believe that God "fashioned" the universe. He was more of a cosmic carpenter or watchmaker. Along with this doctrine comes the notion of divination and a procession of Gods (not to be confused with gods). For Mormons, there's a pseudo-doctrinal idea that God became God in such a way that mankind may also become God. This leads to a question of whether or not God had a God, and that God had a God.
However, St. Thomas Aquinas assures us that it is impossible for there to be an unending procession of necessary things (viz the Third Way). A necessary thing for Aquinas is something which is not "contingent," that is, generated and corrupted. God is neither generated nor corrupted. God is. "I am that I AM" He proclaims in Exodus to Moses. He is Aquinas' "first mover," that which cannot be moved by His own creations.
But what of creation then? Well, Genesis tells us that God "created" all things. Christians believe that God created all that is. The Big Bang theory suggests that everything that is exploded from nothingness. Is this the same? Perhaps it is. Nothing in the Big Bang theory suggests that there was no cause of the explosion. Perhaps God said, "let there be everything."
Then we come to the tricky business of creation of mankind. Evolutionary theory suggests that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Pope John Paul II allows for this, provided that humankind shares one original set of parents, an Adam and Eve, if you will.
But what about all the diversity in the world? We cannot hold to the assumption that in 6 thousand years (according to the Bible), the human race went from being 2 people of similar traits to all the different ethnicities to be found throughout the world. Furthermore, the Bible was not written in real time. The Torah was written about 1000 BC. At this point, everything written therein is orally handed down. So the question of the authenticity of the accounts comes into question (a topic which I hope to further discuss in later posts).
So, with this new information brought to light, what are we to think of humanity? Anselm, Athanasius, and almost every other theologian asserts that humankind was made in God's image and likeness. This is where I think our true question must be answered: If man is in God's image, how can we know this, and what does this say about evolution?
I was reminded earlier today of a key difference in Mormon theology and Catholic theology. That difference is the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" or "creation out of nothing." What it basically means is that God created the entire universe from nothing.
Mormons believe that God "fashioned" the universe. He was more of a cosmic carpenter or watchmaker. Along with this doctrine comes the notion of divination and a procession of Gods (not to be confused with gods). For Mormons, there's a pseudo-doctrinal idea that God became God in such a way that mankind may also become God. This leads to a question of whether or not God had a God, and that God had a God.
However, St. Thomas Aquinas assures us that it is impossible for there to be an unending procession of necessary things (viz the Third Way). A necessary thing for Aquinas is something which is not "contingent," that is, generated and corrupted. God is neither generated nor corrupted. God is. "I am that I AM" He proclaims in Exodus to Moses. He is Aquinas' "first mover," that which cannot be moved by His own creations.
But what of creation then? Well, Genesis tells us that God "created" all things. Christians believe that God created all that is. The Big Bang theory suggests that everything that is exploded from nothingness. Is this the same? Perhaps it is. Nothing in the Big Bang theory suggests that there was no cause of the explosion. Perhaps God said, "let there be everything."
Then we come to the tricky business of creation of mankind. Evolutionary theory suggests that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Pope John Paul II allows for this, provided that humankind shares one original set of parents, an Adam and Eve, if you will.
But what about all the diversity in the world? We cannot hold to the assumption that in 6 thousand years (according to the Bible), the human race went from being 2 people of similar traits to all the different ethnicities to be found throughout the world. Furthermore, the Bible was not written in real time. The Torah was written about 1000 BC. At this point, everything written therein is orally handed down. So the question of the authenticity of the accounts comes into question (a topic which I hope to further discuss in later posts).
So, with this new information brought to light, what are we to think of humanity? Anselm, Athanasius, and almost every other theologian asserts that humankind was made in God's image and likeness. This is where I think our true question must be answered: If man is in God's image, how can we know this, and what does this say about evolution?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Being blogged about
This is kind of a weird post. Recently, I was interviewed by a guy at the Indianapolis Star about my faith journey. He blogged about our discussion. It can be found here
Pay special attention to the comments made by "Roymondo." I would hate to meet this man in real life.
I posted a comment in apologetic form, we'll see how well that goes over. Also, they're going to run a full story with the interview he conducted with me and with Father Tom with the pictures they took from Mass. I'll keep you updated when that happens. But for now, the reporter also jotted down a bit about Notre Dame here.
Pay special attention to the comments made by "Roymondo." I would hate to meet this man in real life.
I posted a comment in apologetic form, we'll see how well that goes over. Also, they're going to run a full story with the interview he conducted with me and with Father Tom with the pictures they took from Mass. I'll keep you updated when that happens. But for now, the reporter also jotted down a bit about Notre Dame here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
