1 CITY OF REFUGE [update]
https://youtu.be/BicEi6AvmFE
[city of refuge]
https://youtu.be/ykMNHjLqC6o
[real time update]
ON VIDEOS-
.Planned Parenthood shooting
.Suicide?
.Fire Dept. stuff
.Pops
.Manslayer
.Did he hang himself?
.He killed wife’s lover.
.She killed stepson
.Prosecutor sanctioned hit
.Sartre and Camus
PAST POSTS [verses below]
(1332) Been doing some reading on church
history/philosophy, it’s interesting to see the role that theology/Christianity
played in the universities. Theology is referred to as ‘the queen of the
sciences’ and philosophy was her ‘handmaid’. They saw the root of all learning
as originating with the study ‘of God’. Many modern universities have dropped
the term ‘theology’ and call it ‘the study of religion’. The study of religion
is really the study of how man relates to God, his view of God; this would fit
under anthropology/sociology, not under theology. Modern learning has lost the
importance of the study of God and the role it plays in all the other sciences.
The classic work of Homer [8th century BC] called the Iliad, has
Achilles debating whether or not he should ‘stay and fight along the city of
the Trojans’ and attain the legacy of a warrior; or to go ‘back to my homeland
and live a long life’. He chooses to fight and lay his life on the line. The
themes of the classics [courage, heroism, etc.] are biblical themes, even if
God is not directly mentioned. The point being to try and exclude God from
learning is silly, you can’t do it. Around the 17-18th century you had the philosophy of Existentialism rise
up, as an ‘ism’ it really is a misnomer; ‘ism’ is a suffix that you add to the
end of a word that makes it a system- ‘humanism’ ‘secularism’ etc. but
existentialism is a word that means ‘anti-system’. Nevertheless the person who
popularized this belief was a Christian, Soren Kierkegaard. The system he was
rebelling against was the dead institutionalism of the Danish church, he felt
that Christianity devolved into dead orthodoxy and lost all of its passion for
true living and experiencing God. Nietzsche would pick up on this philosophy
and apply it to atheism, and in the 20th century men like Albert
Camus and John Paul Sartre would also embrace it from an atheistic worldview.
They would say things like ‘man is a useless passion’ or write books titled
‘Nausea’ summing up the human condition. Though the 19th century
atheistic humanists tried to give value and exalt the state of man, in their
rejection of God and Christianity they were taking away the foundation for mans
value. If you tell society that they arrived on the scene by some cosmic
accident of evolution, and when you die you dissipate into nothingness, then
how do you at the same time glory in his natural abilities to reach some point
of Utopia? As the late Frances Schaeffer said ‘they were philosophers who had
both feet planted firmly in mid air’. The point being when you neglect the
reality and role that God and Christianity play in every sphere of life, you
are then removing the foundation that these spheres were built on, true science
and learning derive their basis from God. The greatest scientific minds of the
past were either Christians or Deists, they were too smart to try and reject
the reality of an eternal being.
[1586] FREUD-NIETZSCHE AND MARX- Today I need to do a little
more on our study of Modernity [the thinkers who have influenced Western
culture/thought from the 1700’s- 2000’s]. At this time I have 3 separate
studies I have started on-line; Classics of literature, Great Christian
thinkers of history, and Modernity. As time rolls on- I will gradually post all
new studies once a year in a monthly post [most of the time it will be
February] and as I update them you can read the most recent ones from the most
recent years.
Okay- I am skipping a bunch of stuff to jump into the
thinkers who represent the most popular forms of atheism- Marx, Nietzsche and
Freud. But first we need to take a look at Ludwig Feuerbach. L.F. [Ludwig
Feuerbach] laid the groundwork for these other more famous rejecters of God and
Christianity. During the enlightenment period it was rare for the critics of
religion to hold an outright atheistic view- men like Hume and Voltaire- though
true critics of the church- did not come out openly and deny the existence of
God. It was also difficult [impossible?] to hold professorships in the
universities if you were a doubter of God. Both Hume and Voltaire did not hold
positions. F.S. was Hegelian in a way [he followed Hegel’s idea that ‘God’ comes
to self consciousness thru the development of humanity] but F.S. was a
Materialist- Hegel was an Idealist. Remember- idealism is the philosophical
system that sees reality existing in forms/ideas first- then later comes the
material thing. The great ancient philosophers- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle
were all Idealists. F.S. espoused the idea that reality starts with the
material existence of man first- and thru religion man ‘projects’ the idea of
God/spirit into society- and as man and
[parts]
NEW STUFF- 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
[parts]
.
VERSES-
Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are
not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the
law, but under grace? God forbid.
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants
to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of
obedience unto righteousness?
Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin,
but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered
you.
Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants
of righteousness.
Romans 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the
infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to
uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members
servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Romans 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free
from righteousness.
Romans 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are
now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants
to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Numbers 35:2 Command the children of Israel, that they give unto
the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and ye
shall give also unto the Levites suburbs for the cities round about them.
Numbers 35:3 And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and the
suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods, and for all
their beasts.
Numbers 35:4 And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give
unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand
cubits round about.
Numbers 35:5 And ye shall measure from without the city on the
east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and
on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand
cubits; and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs
of the cities.
Numbers 35:6 And among the cities which ye shall give unto the
Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the
manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two
cities.
Numbers 35:7 So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites
shall be forty and eight cities: them shall ye give with their suburbs.
Numbers 35:8 And the cities which ye shall give shall be of the
possession of the children of Israel: from them that have many ye shall give
many; but from them that have few ye shall give few: every one shall give of
his cities unto the Levites according to his inheritance which he inheriteth.
Numbers 35:9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Numbers 35:10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto
them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan;
Numbers 35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of
refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at
unawares.
Numbers 35:12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from
the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation
in judgment.
Numbers 35:13 And of these cities which ye shall give six cities
shall ye have for refuge.
Numbers 35:14 Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and
three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of
refuge.
Numbers 35:15 These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the
children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them:
that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither.
Numbers 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so
that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Numbers 35:17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith
he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to
death.
Numbers 35:18 Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood,
wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely
be put to death.
Numbers 35:19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the
murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.
Numbers 35:20 But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by
laying of wait, that he die;
Numbers 35:21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die:
he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the
revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.
Numbers 35:22 But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or
have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
Numbers 35:23 Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing
him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither
sought his harm:
Numbers 35:24 Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer
and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:
Numbers 35:25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of
the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to
the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the
death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.
Numbers 35:26 But if the slayer shall at any time come without the
border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;
Numbers 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders
of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall
not be guilty of blood:
Numbers 35:28 Because he should have remained in the city of his
refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high
priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.
Numbers 35:29 So these things shall be for a statute of judgment
unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
Numbers 35:30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put
to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against
any person to cause him to die.
Numbers 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life
of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.
Numbers 35:32 And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is
fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land,
until the death of the priest.
Numbers 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for
blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that
is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Numbers 35:34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall
inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
Note- 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. Thanks- John.*
No comments:
Post a Comment