Archive for ‘Second Blog Post’

The Beauty of Change: Darwin and Creation

2 Commentsby   |  10.18.13  |  Second Blog Post

Darwin was an amazing scientist who began to see the world in a way that was unconventional during his time.  He theorized that every species on the planet began to develop into something more complex and environmentally sturdy.  He called this theory evolution.  This is why I relate Darwin with Creation.  Although I believe that in certain areas Darwin’s views were taken to an extreme, I do understand and agree with the fact that every species on earth must evolve to survive, even human beings.  I see in this theory that when God created man, he gave us an underlying skill set in our genes that would allow us to grow and ultimately survive throughout the ages.  Many people see evolution as contradictory to Christianity; however, I encourage those who feel that way to see Darwin’s theory in a different light.  God loved us so much, that although we were unworthy of survival, God equipped us with the genetics necessary to continue on and become prosperous.  Everything in God’s kingdom was created to evolve and produce a world that is beautiful and ever changing.  As people we love to discover new things and search the world for new beauties, and I believe that to delight us, God created the world to change.  Therefore, I relate Darwin very strongly to creation.

beauty-nature-here-free-free

Darwin

1 Commentby   |  10.17.13  |  Second Blog Post

I used to be a biology major, and I love studying Darwin. He is seriously one of my favorite characters from history.  I would definitely classify Darwin with creation. I know that might not make a ton of sense to some people, but let me explain.

So most conservative christians, like myself, are raised to believe every word the Bible has in it as pretty literal, and that evolution is of the devil (that might be a slight exaggeration, but it’s pretty close).  But if every word in the Bible is completely literal then the world is even more confusing because the Bible contradicts itself. For example, the gospels have differing versions of the same stories.

With this wonderful knowledge in mind, I started reading about Darwin’s life. That’s when I first learned he was a Christian and even went to Seminary at one point. Now armed with the knowledge that Darwin was a Christian and the Bible (in it’s entirety)  wasn’t meant to be taken literally I took a closer look at evolution.  I now view creation much like a progressive creationist, which is what allows me to classify Darwin with Creation.

I choose to believe both science and the Bible, in that I believe God created the world, but I believe he used evolution to do it. There fore, Darwin and his theories belong under the Creation heading.

images

 

Then again an argument can definitely be made that Darwin belongs under the fall. I think it all depends on what period in his life you analyze. I would say that earlier in life he belonged in the Fall category but ended his life more in the creation category. Earlier in his life however, he was credited with many anti-biblical/anti-christian quotes, that make it quite obvious he did not put much stock in religion.

 

images-1

Goethe and Redemption

6 Commentsby   |  10.04.13  |  Second Blog Post

goethe-quote-treat-a-man
Goethe was a poet, dramatist, scientist, and philosopher. He view of humans showed that we are torn by stressors and conflicts of life. He believed that there were always opposing forces, such as love and hate. He stated that the goal of life should be to embrace these forces rather than to deny them (200). He is also known for his idea of phenomenology, which means that meaningful experiences should be studied. He was very intrigued with humans and how we view the different forces in life. I enjoyed how he explored life through different aspects, such as biology and poetry. It gave many different perspectives on how to look at life.
I think that Goethe has to do with redemption because he explains that we need to embrace the bad things in our lives. Goethe explained that one should live life with a passion and aspire continuously for personal growth (200). Yes, bad things are going to happen, but there is also good out there. I think that is a great example of redemption. Jesus died for us so that the bad things that do happen will help us show to lean on him. We are to learn to live with these different aspects of life and face them in a positive way. It is how we grow. Even though we go through hard times, we always have God to lean on. He will help us grow, but we must embrace the bad things to help us move on. Redemption is important because it shows that we have someone to lean on. Hardships are a part of life, but through God we can get through them.  Goethe’s opinion about embracing the different forces in life is a great example of how we need to follow God through anything.

Rousseau and Creation

5 Commentsby   |  10.04.13  |  Second Blog Post

I would categorize Rousseau as a Creation philosopher because he attempts to reCREATE the meaning of man.  He says that, “man is born free and yet we see him everywhere in chains.”  Rousseau aims to deconstruct the social structures and expectations that other people and societies put on individuals.  He describes a social contract where, “each of us places in common his person and all of his power under the supreme direction of the general will; and as one body we all receive each member as indivisible part of the whole”  This is an interesting quote to me because it reminds me of several verses in the Bible about the Body of Christ– that each member of the Body has something unique and specific to offer, and all together we make a fully functioning body– and this to the point that one member cannot say to the other, “I do not need you.”  This is a creation idea because all things work together in harmony.  The individuals act in accordance with their own good nature (in the creation story, God creates it and says it is good).  In Rousseau’s utopia “The state, in relation to its members, is master of all their wealth.” Rousseau says something else that reminds me of Creation: “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil.  He forces one soil to yield the products of another, one tree to bear another’s fruit.  He confuses and confounds time, place, and natural conditions… He destroys and defaces all things.”  Rousseau thought that education should concentrate on natural impulses rather than correct and change them.  This kind of thinking brings us back to our beginnings and restores dignity and value to the natural state of man.  I wanted to categorize him as creation rather than recreation/ restoration because these ideas, while they may have been good and restorative, also set up the thinking that set the stage for many disastrous events in history– it set the premise for the “fall” if you will.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

2 Commentsby   |  10.04.13  |  Second Blog Post

Despite a tragic upbringing and delinquent adolescence, Rousseau found himself on a colorful journey to knowledge. What we know about this figure is a life of hard knocks. Rousseau was quoted as having said, “Man is born free and yet we see hum everywhere in chains.” This was intended to speak out about government control and give power back to the people but there are many alternative explanations for this. I consider his thoughts and others like it to be Redemption-esque. Moving forward, what are things we can change about ourselves, our culture?

Another interesting perspective from Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of personal feeling as a motivator for action. This means that we often discount the importance of our feelings. This position may have been heavily influenced by his personal outsider experience with the church and their mandates that seem to not take human nature into consideration. Many of his closest colleagues were religious, and he once falsely entered the Catholic church to receive benefits from the church. The idea of appealing to one anothers sensitive side is mildly reminiscent of redemption to me also because, although he may have intended to be pointing out a flaw in humanity, we can draw a lot from this as counselors and psychologists. The bright albeit cynical philosopher Rousseau gave light to a perspective on how people should conduct themselves and how we should relate to one another with compassion and understanding.
One personal reflection I would like to submit relates to anxiety and social phobias. These are a metaphorical example of the “chains” brought on by ourselves. Fear is something very fictitious from the outside looking in, yet is real and impossible to the one experiencing it. The humanistic perspective is one that identifies personal experience as a truth and suggests that we always consider one anothers feelings.

Kierkegaard’s Redemption

4 Commentsby   |  10.04.13  |  Second Blog Post

Soren Kierkegaard was both a philosopher and a theologian. While he was one of the first major voices who seemed to fit into the existentialist mold he also was a devout Christian, which was rare among the existentialists, especially later on. I feel that he fits into the category of Redemption for several reasons. He exemplified redemption in his own life from rejecting religion after his father told of his marital unfaithfulness when Soren was young. He then returned to faith when he was 25. Existentialism does not seem like a theory that necessarily speaks of hope and redemption but the way Kierkegaard explained it is. You can see Redemption in how he explained faith as well as his Stages. He tries to redeem the faith of his time which was very much in the mold of Luther and therefore was quite rigid. He came in with the spirit of a Romantic and spoke in terms of having a Love affair with God. He believed that faith shouldn’t be based on rules in regulations but instead the individual having a relationship with God. This in many ways sounds like the way much of the church feels now. Another way that Kierkegaard fits the redemption mold is the stages he thinks people go through. He thinks they start out in the aesthetic stage, in which they broken and hedonistic. They search for pleasure. The next level is the ethical stage where they make their choices on ethical principles but they are principles learned from others. Finally is the religious stage which is described as the highest level of existence. This is where they are accepting of their responsibility and have a personal relationship with God. This exemplifies an attempt at redemption because Kierkegaard is disagreeing with many others of the time who say that faith is weakness he is trying to bring faith back into the equation saying that not only is valid but in fact, the most valid way to live.

 

 

 

First we Fall, then we Soren

2 Commentsby   |  10.04.13  |  Second Blog Post

I think it can be argued that Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher and theologian, has something to say about creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.  However, I would like to place my focus on two of these in particular.  I think that Kierkegaard really contributes significantly to the fall and to restoration.  Soren Kierkegaard’s father taught him quickly about the fall of man.  For awhile, Kierkegaard equated his father with God.  That was, until his father confessed his rebellion and sinfulness.  The book describes that Kierkegaard was rebellious after the earth-shattering news of his sinful father, but then later accepted God back into his life and experienced much joy.  It seems that throughout his life, Soren Kierkegaard, constantly battled himself and the actions/beliefs of others.  In addition to this troubling time with his father, he called off an engagement with his dearly loved women because he felt God was veto-ing it.  Kierkegaard rejected church ideals and believed “that the most meaningful relationship with God was a purely personal one that was arrived at through an individual’s free choice, not one whose nature and content were dictated by the church.”  Additionally, he thought religion was too rational and mechanical and that we needed to experience the irrational and emotional side to fully connect with God.  It appears as though Kierkegaard was in touch with his emotional side, and perhaps this causes his internal emotional struggle.  He internally battled his feelings, sharing that he often felt like the life of the party and knew everyone loved and admired him, but he recalled feeling like he “wanted to shoot himself” (206).

It seems to me that Soren Kierkegaard was well in touch with the fall.  He knew of his father’s sinfulness, and that crushed his world.  He believe the church was failing people, and that was a fall.  He hurt a woman he loved very much, and that recognizes the fall of man.  He discusses relationship with God as a Love Affair because “it is simultaneously passionate, happy, and painful” (207).  He struggles with the way he thinks and feels about himself, therefore being an example of the fall of mankind. He even had a physical impairment, a hunchback, which again, teaches us that we are not perfect creations, rather broken and faulted human beings.

On a more positive note, I believe Kierkegaard also teaches us about restoration.  He teaches us about faith.  The book explains some of Kierkegaard’s ideas:

“Attempting to understand Jesus objectively reveals a number of paradoxes. Christ is both God and man; he is eternal truth existing in finite time; he lived almost 2,000 years ago but also exists presently; and he violates natural law with his miracles. Facts or logic do not remove these paradoxes; they create them.  Belief alone can resolve them; subjectivity, not objectivity, is truth.  Christian faith is something that must be lived; it must be felt emotionally. For it can be neither understood nor truly appreciated as rational abstraction.”

This quote holds a theme of faith that Kierkegaard seems to have.  Kierkegaard talks about the love affair with God, and about the faith that it takes to be in an effective relationship with God.  He speaks about God being unfathomable, and untamable.  He even discusses stages of personal freedom.  In my opinion, these things speak to the longing in Kierkegaard’s heart to know more about God, to desire Him, to be in awe of Him, to recognize His greatness.  All of these things remind me of restoration. That one day we will be restored to our Father.  But until then, we will continue to long and not be able to understand.  We must use faith. 1 Corinthians 13:12 says, “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”  Restoration includes future hope, and I think Kierkegaard demonstrates future hope through his ideologies of a great love affair with God that requires faith, is personal, emotional, and maybe even irrational.

Kierkegaard: Creation or Redemption?

5 Commentsby   |  10.04.13  |  Second Blog Post

Personally, I find existentialism difficult to categorize. On one end of the spectrum, it could fall under Creation. To the existentialist, the human experience, freedom of choice, and fullness of life are what drives existence. This explores the question of human meaning and purpose.

But in Kierkegaard’s case, freedom and experience was most needed in the institution of the church. He believed the mundane laws and rituals to be a shallow religious experience that did not create an adequate connection with God. That’s why his ideals fall in line with Redemption. His call for a personal relationship with God introduces a paradigm shift within the church that was very similar to the effect of Jesus’ teachings among the Jews. Because of their history and their rituals, the Jews had specific expectations for their culture based on their own understanding and not of God’s will. Kierkegaard also lived in a place where religious officials and doctrine dictated society. He rejected this social structure that lacked emphasis on qualities unique to human beings.

I find Kierkegaard to have been a bold individual of his time. His ideals reflect modern struggles of both Christianity and evangelism today. Humans do desire real experiences and without those experiences many individuals question the existence of God.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

3 Commentsby   |  10.04.13  |  Second Blog Post

Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy can be related to the category of Creation or Fall. Here I want to discuss about Creation, about “who are we” and “what we ought to do”. To understand his moral philosophy, it is important to know Kant’s view of human being. He thinks we are beings who are capable of reasons and choosing freely. Rational capacity separates us from animals.  Kant’s analysis of moral behavior is based on reason and free will: “there is reason fro acting morally and if that reason if freely chosen, moral behavior results.” In his opinion, to choose or act freely is to act according to a law that is not imposed on us, not like the laws of nature or laws that involve personal needs. For Kant, Such a law comes from reason, and categorical imperative is a command of reason

According to Kant, categorical imperative is the supreme principle that governs our moral behavior, from which all moral principles could be derived. There are three formulations of the categorical imperative. The textbook describes the formulation of universal law, which is “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” Kant took the maxim “lying under certain circumstances is justified” and “always tells the truth” as examples. When we universalize the first maxim-everyone one can tell lies, distrust will grow on. Therefore, the result is terrible and the Maxim doesn’t correspond with the categorical imperative. However, when the second maxim is made to a universal moral law-everyone always tells the truth, trust will be built. So the result is good and the Maxim corresponds with the categorical imperative.  From universalization, we can know lying is wrong and telling the truth is right.  I do not completely agree with the examples, for there are white lies that may be harmless and in reality, always telling the truth may not lead to trust and harmony. But the main point of universal moral law is to test whether the reason for the behavior is independent of personal needs and the result that people will be free and equal due to categorical imperative is ideal.

Kierkegaard and Humanity

4 Commentsby   |  10.04.13  |  Second Blog Post

Soren Kierkegaard is a very what-if-everyone-actually-understands-kierkegaard-fine-and-just-pretends-not-to-get-it-so-they-dont-have-to-explain-it-to-me-thumb person. I think a lot of his ideas are somewhat contradictory. Within his 3 stages of life I find several different stages of our salvation line. His first stage, the “aesthetic” stage, is a starting point for the human condition. There is no control over self or anything around you. Humans lack commitment and almost cannot take responsibility for anything they do. In this stage, I see his theories fitting into the fallen category. His next stage is the “ethical” stage. In this stage, humans begin to take a true direction in life and become more personally responsible. They begin to understand right and wrong and morals take priority over pleasure. Their autonomy, reflection and social awareness begins to increase. I believe that this stage shows redemption. Not only is he saying that humans are flawed, but he is saying that we can be fixed. As we grow older we can be saved. The third stage of individual existence is “religious”. This stage requires some commitment to some moral absolute. He considers religion to be the highest stage of human existence. If one can achieve this level of human development, they have come to fully understand the incarnation and human sinfulness. So in that respect, I find it hard to categorize Kierkegaard. I think that his development of human existence speaks very fully into all of the stages of humanity in general. His theory is almost an allegory for humanity in the way we must grow. There is creation, the fall, redemption and a new creation; Kierkegaard speaks our own development into each of these.