IF YOU HEAR GOD-
DON’T GET MAD
15 And he said unto them, Take
heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the
abundance of the things which he possesseth. Jesus Christ- God’s Son said it.
https://youtu.be/TIa8ng2njWs If you hear God- don’t get mad
https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/house-of-prayer-or-den-of-thieves/ [1st book I
wrote]
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his
commandments: for this is the whole
duty of man. Ecc. 12:13
ON VIDEO-
.Hemingway
.The sun also rises
.Brake lights n boards
.The Byrds
.Nihilism
.Hedonism
.sun also rises
.Key West, Cuba- Idaho
.The consequences of ideas
.See my kids inheritance!
NEW STUFF [past posts- verses below]
On today’s video I talk about Hemingway [1899-1961]
The noted author of the 20th century- won the
Pulitzer Prize for his great works [Old man and the sea- Sun also rises- etc.]
Hemingway believed in the philosophy of Nihilism- meaning
man has no real purpose in life.
He was an atheist- and his beliefs affected him and his
family.
He owned homes in Key West Florida and Cuba.
In 1959 he moved to Idaho- was diagnosed with hemochromatosis-
And in 1961 shot himself in the head.
His brother and sister killed themselves the same year.
His famous daughter would later do the same.
All in all 7 of the family eventually committed suicide.
Why?
Their famous patriarch- who they all looked up to- held to
beliefs that eventually affected the whole family.
In his book The Sun also Rises- he took the title from the
bible book- Ecclesiastes.
Solomon wrote the book when in depression.
The theme throughout most of the book is ‘everything is a vain
pursuit- nothing has meaning’.
‘The sun rises- sets- it’s all one big cycle’.
Though Hemingway was a great author- yet- in the end- if you
have no real hope in God- then what’s it all about?
It’s sad that such a gifted man- who served his country during
a time of war-
Would conclude his life this way.
It’s sad that his family followed his beliefs- and many of
them did the same.
Yes- many great thinkers held to do this view [Sartre].
But in their intellectualism- they denied the reality of the
one who made all things- who gave to man the skills- to write- to think- to be
‘self-aware’.
The bible says the
fool- in is heart- denies God.
It’s really not in the mind- the atheist will say ‘no
thinking man could believe in God’.
Actually many have- but no man- in sin- wants to really
believe.
PAST POSTS/LINKS
ON VIDEO-
.Sartre’s unique atheism
.Telos
.Objects or subjects?
.Useless passion?
.Hemingway
Sartre is one of the
most famous 20th century philosophers- also described as the father
of existentialism.
I say ‘also’ because
when we covered Kierkegaard- I said the same of him.
How can this be?
Well- Kierkegaard was a Christian- Sartre an atheist.
So you can divide existentialism between ‘Christian
existentialists- and atheistic’.
Ok- it would be a lot to try and cover all of his ideas- but
what I want to do is sort of contrast the thinkers who trended away from God with those who continued to believe in a
creator- while at the same time engage in the intellectual world [many I could
name- Descartes- Kant- etc.].
Though Sartre- like Camus- was indeed an intelligent man-
when they tried to develop philosophies- ways to explain man- his purpose- what
‘it’s’ all about.
They have difficulty giving any real purpose or meaning to
man.
Why?
Because if you believe [and teach] that man is really some
sort of a cosmic accident- with no creator who made him- then how do you teach
‘that man’ that he has a purpose?
This would apply to all the great thinkers- who rejected
God.
In the end- if you were born without a preceding purpose
[which Christians teach is to glorify God] and when you die- there is no after
life- then it’s common sense to see your life ‘without purpose’.
Sartre's most famous work ‘being and nothingness’ says it
all in the title.
Some of his most famous ideas are ‘no essence before
existence’.
Now- Christians usually criticize him for this [which I just
did in a way].
But he sort of tried to apply this idea- and say ‘because we
are not predetermined- then we are indeed responsible for our actions- we are
‘left alone- without excuse’.
When you study Philosophy- along with Theology [the study of
God]. A big thing that is debated is predestination.
Many misunderstand the historic reformation doctrine of
Predestination –and they see it as a form of fatalism- meaning ‘whatever will
be- was meant to be’.
You can do a whole debate on this subject- in studying
theology alone.
Yet it also ‘bleeds’ into philosophy- because many thinkers
were trying to figure out the problems of man- and some thought the doctrine of
original sin taught a form of fatalism.
Actually- it does not.
But that’s why you see these ideas pop up – that we can act
without our past having power over us.
So- in a sense- though Sartre was an atheist- this was an
attempt [I think] to try and give man the ‘freedom’ to act on his own will.
But without belief in God- there really is no grounding
authority to values- ethics.
Where would they come from? [that’s a long debate- but if in
effect ethics- right and wrong- were simply some sort of value system that was
majority rule- then when the majority gets it wrong- slavery- abortion- etc.-
then these values do not really ‘mean’ anything].
From the Christian view [they do debate between
predestination by the way] Values- worth- purpose- do indeed ‘precede’
existence.
God had a purpose for us before we were born- and values are
the revealed ‘rules’ that God gave to man.
The Nihilistic thinkers [those who admit that there really
is no purpose] in the end have a hard time teaching their ideas- and at the
same time instilling self-worth in people.
Camus summed it up when he said-“There
is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide” (MS,
3).Oct 27,
2011
Sartre [like Kierkegaard] wrote plays- poetry- etc.
One of Sartre’s dramas was called ‘NO EXIT’
He depicted Hell as a place where people are forever
‘observing’ one another- with no way out [obviously he did not really believe
in Hell].
But why would he see it this way?
Sartre had a unique insight [though an atheist- he was
indeed smart].
One of the things that Sartre believed- was subjectivity- he
taught that if man were to be truly Free- he could not be an Object [lots has
been said in the last few years on objectifying people- seeing them as objects
degrades them].
So in Sartre's mind- belief in God objectifies people.
How?
If there is an ‘all seeing’ creator who is always
looking/seeing into people’s lives [and intents- hearts] then they are not
truly free.
All the thinkers who rejected God- did not do so for the
same reasons.
Freud- and those who taught Hedonism- said it was the moral
constraints on man [from God and the church] that was the problem.
So in Freud’s mind- we should deny God- and man should live
out all of his most base desires.
It was a failed idea for sure- but that was the Hedonists
view.
Sartre did not espouse unrestrained passion- actually even
though he was an atheist- he believed that men should live with some type of
ethic.
So his rejection of God was based on the idea that God is
always ‘watching you’ and a man cannot truly be free- if someone is always
watching him. It was an interesting idea [and yes- God is always watching- but
from the Christian view he is not watching as some type of cosmic voyeur- but
as a Father watches over his children.
Or- as the bible says ‘as a mother hen watches over her
chicks’. So Sartre was right about God always seeing us- but he disagreed with the
Christian view of omniscience [all knowing God] and said this ‘constant
watching’ makes us an object- and to Sartre- the basic attribute of human
character is subjectivity- if he is not a subject- with no previous ‘essence’
[remember- his other famous idea was ‘existence precedes essence’] he is not
truly free.
So to Sartre- man and reality are simply things- and we
develop life from this materialistic view.
He rejected universals- there is not a universal category of
‘mankind’ but simply individual people.
Another famous atheist thinker was Camus [‘there is only one
really serious question left- suicide’].
Even though some of the atheistic thinkers ‘meant well’ yet-
in the end- as Kant said- if there is no God- then society cannot function
without the basic understanding that we are all accountable- and will someday
give an account.
In Kant’s view- he rejected the classical idea that you
could ‘prove God’ from reason and nature.
But some said he ‘let God in the back door’.
Because for Kant- if you reject God outright- then society
cannot function.
For instance- if there is some type of injustice- maybe
framed for murder and you sit in jail your whole life- never being vindicated.
For Kant- the person can survive- because he knows- in the
end- the truth will come out [if there is a God].
And not only will it come out- but those who wronged the man
will give an account.
So Kant saw the need for there not only to be an ‘all seeing
God/judge’.
But that Judge had to also have all power- so he could carry
out justice in the end.
But for Sartre- and Camus- and the other atheists- they
grappled with the problem of where moral laws come from [or if there is even
such a thing].
How can we really define ethics if there is no real meaning
to our existence?
If ‘nothing matters’ [no essence before existence] then in
the end- WE don’t matter.
And you come to the same conclusion as Camus.
The question of suicide has been pondered for centuries- it
has made it into the plays of Shakespeare [below]
Many are familiar with this famous line- but read it
carefully- it’s Hamlet’s struggle- whether it’s nobler to ‘go thru stuff’ or-
end it.
That’s why I think the Camus’ and Sartres of the world don’t
help- in the end.
To be, or not to be, that is
the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.
PAST POSTS I WROTE THAT RELATE-
.
TELOS [What’s your purpose?]
https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/7-3-15-telos-or-jack-nichols-n-the-3-dollar-tip.zip
A telos (from the Greek τέλος for
"end", "purpose", or "goal") is an end or
purpose, in a fairly constrained sense used by philosophers such as Aristotle. It is
the root of the term "teleology,"
roughly the study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to
their aims, purposes, or intentions. Teleology figures centrally in Aristotle's biology and in his theory of causes. It is
central to nearly all philosophical theories of history, such as those of Hegel and Marx. One
running debate in contemporary philosophy of biology is to what extent teleological language (as
in the "purposes" of various organs or life-processes) is
unavoidable, or is simply a shorthand for ideas that can ultimately be spelled
out nonteleologically. Philosophy of action also makes essential use of teleological
vocabulary: on Davidson's account, an action is
just something an agent does with an intention--that
is, looking forward to some end to be achieved by the action.
In contrast to telos, techne is the rational method involved in
producing an object or accomplishing a goal or objective; however, the two
methods are not mutually exclusive in principle.
Q. 1. What is the
chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]
1Peter
2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and
envies, all evil speakings,A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]
1Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
1Peter 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
1Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
1Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
[parts]
In high school I had a teacher- Mr. Steinberg. Mr. Steinberg
was not ‘cool’ as a matter of fact- he seemed a little nerdy. He was Jewish-
and at times wore a Star of David necklace- it was big- it was like he was
asking for the persecution.
I liked Mr. Steinberg- and respected him for not being
ashamed of his faith. It was in his class [English] that I was introduced to
the great classics. Grapes of Wrath, Old man and the sea- all the classics.
After we covered a book- he would check the TV Guide and when the made for TV
movie was on- he assigned us to watch it.
Both of the above books/movies became favorites of mine-
till this day I’ll watch them when they pop up on the classic channel. I
actually have the Grapes of Wrath book sitting right here.
But the movie- Old man and the Sea- enthralled me. The
struggle of the old man- his fight with the great fish- his arm wrestling bouts
with the younger guys- the whole mystique was my thing.
The author- Hemingway- was himself a ‘mans man’ he lived
large- took in all the experiences of life- and embraced a philosophy of life
called Nihilism. This world view was popularized by men like Sartre, Camus and
Freud. It basically is atheistic and says ‘there is no real meaning to life-
man is a ‘useless passion’- he exists, only for the purpose of experiencing
life- when the pain exceeds the pleasure- that the responsible thing to do is
check out’. Yes- this philosophy advocates suicide.
Sartre [John Paul Sartre] actually said that the only
philosophical question left is suicide- that we need to ask ourselves- as a
society- should we allow ourselves to check out- for the good of the whole-
when the pain exceeds the pleasure.
Another great work of Hemingway is titled ‘the Sun also
rises’. He took the title from the biblical book of Ecclesiastes- written by
Solomon [you know- to everything there is a season]. Solomon also embraces a
sort of nihilistic view in this book- though it is in the bible- it is a form
of literature called ‘pessimistic wisdom literature’. Sort of the philosophy
Hemingway embraced.
Hemingway spoke about this view all thru out his life-
though he was a brilliant writer- he had no hope ‘in the world’ [Apostle Paul].
One night, after he went to bed with his wife- he woke up- went downstairs and
rigged up his favorite hunting rifle- and blew his head off. His daughter
followed him a few years later.
I don’t know what’s down the road for our world right now-
there are many people feeling hopeless today because they have lost- yes once
again- a big portion of their wealth. As Christians we can say ‘yes- life is
hard- we struggle at times- but in the end our struggles are working out a
higher purpose- we have meaning in life’ but the atheist/nihilist- to them
there is no redemptive purpose to the struggle- when the pain exceeds the
pleasure- well yes- they check out.
Over the next few weeks- wherever you are at- think for
yourself. If all the professional investors take their money out of stocks- and
at the same time they advise you different- then stop listening to them. If
your mad at the right [or left] then don’t keep watching people who are coming
up with diagnosis’ that say the country is being run by actual Oslo killers-
that’s just not true- no matter how much you might hate their point of view.
And at the end of the day- we as believers- we do have hope
in the world. Mr. Steinberg wore that star of David- proudly. And in a recent
post [Last?] I spoke about the promise that God made to king David- that he
would raise up one of his sons and this Son would rule on the throne for ever.
Yes- today this promise has been fulfilled through Christ- who sits at the
right hand of God.
I don’t know- maybe I’ll rent the Old man and the Sea later
[I tried in the past but couldn’t find it] and I’ll see the struggle of the old
man [played excellently by Spencer Tracy] but instead of embracing his creators
view [that is his earthly creator- Hemingway] I’ll ‘give’ my sufferings up- as
the Catholics say- I’ll offer them to the Lord. Hemingway took the cowards way
out- at the end of the day- he wasn’t the man we thought he was- he copped out.
[parts]
I mention on the video Nietzsche’s book ‘Twilight of the
idols’.
It is considered a classic of Western Literature- though he
espouses anti-Christian themes- to say the least.
I don’t think I’ve written on Nietzsche before- so I’ll do a
quick teaching.
He was a German philosopher/thinker that challenged
traditional ideas of morality and truth.
He believed classical philosophy [Socrates] made a mistake
in teaching that man was to strive be moral-
Nietzsche believed that truth did not really exist- that
‘truth’ was simply words that the powerfully use to impose ‘standards’ on
people.
He was initially a philologist- one who studied language-
Greek and Roman textual criticism.
He later turned to Philosophy.
Nietzsche believed in ‘the death of God’- and rejected right
or wrong.
To him these were simply ‘artistic expressions’ that the
powerful foisted upon man.
Now- in the field of philosophy- those who reject ultimate
truth- are called relativists.
And relativists- who reject objective truth- and God [not
all do] are usually categorized as Nihilists.
Meaning if there is no real purpose to our existence- than
in the end- we are without- well- ‘purpose’.
Some believe Nietzsche tried to create a purpose in his
denying of God and ultimate truth-
His idea of ‘Affirmation’ and Becoming- taught that man
should strive- without moral constraint [meaning if you have to- step on your
fellow man- after all- to ‘love they neighbor’ is simply some false ‘truth’
that Christianity- and God [which to him are not true] have tricked man into a
false value system].
So in Nietzsche’s world- the true purpose of man is to
become the powerful one [the superman] who now has the right- thru language- to
determine what ‘truth ‘ is.
I still think- in the end- this worldview is Nihilistic [no
hope] and foolish. But- being his works have had a great influence on western
Thought- that’s why I covered him on the video.
The book I mentioned [Twilight of the idols] had the
sub-heading ‘How to philosophize with a hammer’.
He went all out- in a sort of fury- to challenge the
Christian world view- and God himself.
The ‘idols’ he was smashing were God- and the upper class.
Like Marx- some of the thinkers who challenged Christianity-
at times saw the church as a great hindrance to man.
Nietzsche was one of these men.
In the book mentioned above he said ‘morality is
anti-nature’.
In actuality- that’s what Christianity teaches.
That man has a sinful nature- and he can only be free from
this bondage- thru the redemption in Jesus Christ.
Nietzsche went insane later in life- he had contracted
Syphilis- world views do indeed have consequences.
In the book he saw art as an expression of ‘the human will
to power’. He said all language is an expression of art.
So- relationships of language to reality are established by
acts of violence and power.
If you have the upper hand- and the power to impose your
reality on others- then the words/morals you choose to impose- become the
standards-
And there is really no other ‘outside’ truth or reality.
His ideas were insightful—but simply not true.
Since Nietzsche many thinkers have advocated a view that
language has no real meaning- that truth does not exist.
Yet- all of them live their lives by some ‘objective
reality’.
And they use language- all the time- to defend their views
[if language is simply a form of art- that the hearer can put his own
interpretation to- then it would be impossible to teach anything- even
Nietzsche's own views].
Nietzsche said ‘Christian morality is a command- it
possesses truth only if God is truth’.
Actually- I agree with him on this.
PARTS OF PAST POSTS
VERSES-
Vanity of vanities, saith the
Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and,
behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
3 To every
thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to
be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which
is planted;
3 A time to
kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to
weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to
cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and
a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to
get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to
rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to
love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
15 And he
said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life
consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
16 And he
spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought
forth plentifully:
17 And he
thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where
to bestow my fruits?
18 And he
said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there
will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I
will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine
ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
20 But God
said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then
whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
21 So is he
that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.
Lk.
Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly
calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
Hebrews 3:2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also
Moses was faithful in all his house.
Hebrews 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than
Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the
house.
Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that
built all things is God.
Hebrews 3:5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a
servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
Hebrews 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house
are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto
the end.
Hebrews 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will
hear his voice,
Hebrews 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the
day of temptation in the wilderness:
https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/hebrews-updated-2015/ My complete teaching on Hebrews
NEWS-
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts-
re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. I deal with
issues at times that it would be beneficial for some of you to download and
save the file from the Word Press link. This creates a permanent record. The
on-line videos are only good if sites are not hacked- which has happened in the
past. Thanks- John.#
No comments:
Post a Comment