the empirical logic of love

To continue from my last post:

I had a great discussion about evangelization with some 3rd floor scholars, as we call them. I started thinking about this blog again even though it's been a long time. I can go more into our discussion of evangelism later but to stay on topic, I'll just briefly address that my views stem from an understanding of the Trinity as "Creator, Savior, Love" rather than a hierarchical trio of masculinity. To preach the salvific truth to someone, especially of another faith than Christianity does not necessitate the word "Christ" in my opinion. However, the WORD does need to be there.

So how does this relate to empiricism? I believe that at the moment of our creation, we come into relationship with our Creator. Here we experience an unconditional love for the first time. We are placed into an imperfect setting and now have need for a savior since we know that this love is possible. We crave this in our entire being, wanting to settle for nothing less.

Christians would, of course, name this savior as Christ or Lord. In no way am I saying this is wrong. Though I am suggesting that evangelization need not focus only on a word that means "oily" or "anointed one." If anything, Christians would then be talking about themselves since we profess to have been baptized into this role as well. To preach this title would only be beneficial to urge our brothers and sisters in Christ to see not only the world, but themselves as the Imago Dei.

The rest of the world is no less the image of God. However, our vocabulary might need to be more inclusive, less limiting. Christ Jesus is our ultimate source of love and hope and peace. But why are we preaching this to other people? Because we care about our eternal salvation? theirs? we feel the command of Christ to be crucial to a realized eschatology? sure.
Is it possible that we can learn about the Christian Savior from another religion? In my opinion, ABSOLUTELY!

Of course, I believe in a God who is beyond my imagination, beyond my abilities with language, and beyond my own capacity. Why would I bother with anyone less? I mean, you really wouldn't want me as the savior--I'm pretty powerless, though I talk big sometimes. But if I can experience this eternal LOVE in my own life, then others must be just as able to as well...and through different ways than me.

So the cool thing is that this love that we experienced in the moment of our creation is still available to us anywhere and everywhere and at any time. The wonderful thing about love is that it keeps expanding itself throughout our role in creation. We are created out of love; then we share it, lose it, find it, mistreat it or misrepresent it, and finally we grab hold again and figure out that when we give it away it doesn't leave us. Instead, magically...no rather...mystically it stays with us and grows to another person. Love is the means and the end to our creation. Miraculous!

it's all in your head.

So I hadn't (and perspectively still haven't) taken much time to think about empiricism and where I fall among the beliefs, but the other day I was asked a simple question that forced me to stop about 3 hours after I answered it. I was sitting around with some family in town for a few days, about to say my goodbye's before heading off to work [some might argue that "work" should be contained in quotations when dealing with me, but that'll be for another day and post.]

N. was talking about how she can never seem to remember past trips or events when people will remind her of a funny story from their time together. Her response usually consists of a confused look and invitation for further story-telling. She thinks it's weird that we "don't remember most of our life." I chuckled, and then received a few, not unkind, looks.
I explained that I thought we remember A LOT of life; we mustn't be contantly reliving the past lest we cease living in the present. T. went on to ask us all to share our earliest memory. Mine is of this translucent pink bottle I had as an infant/toddler. It was an oval shaped with an opening in the middle so I could easily hold onto it. I also remember my time in the hospital when I had shingles as a toddler.

Now, I might argue that there is an earlier memory we all have AND remember in present life -- the memory of love.
This is where empiricism comes into play. I used to think it was ignorant to believe that only what we experience is reality. However the more I think about an omniscient Creator, the more validity I find in it. If the one who made us knows it all, and we are made in the image of our Creator, then through our creation we experience the omniscience of the Creator.
This has a possibility of being defined as "innate ideas." Perhaps the hope we hold in our minds is inevitable due to the nature of creation. When we sense things are unfair or unjust in this life, we do so naturally because we inherently know love. This is where I find problems in life, where contradictions lead to anger. Anger in my sentiments comes from unconditional love of a person and disapproval of their actions.

I will continue this most likely during the Lenten season.

Divine Chats

I forgot I had this thing for a second but now focus on remembering...

Two days ago was the tragedy at Virginia Tech where one man who couldn't claim his own life took them from many. It has been the talk of the town since [as it should be], and has stayed on my mind without the constant "this just in" on the television news.

I've also run into the fact that many people around me are struggling with something big, something painful. I still have no idea what to do for any of these people, but I know they deserve better so I cry randomly throughout the day. Why do I have such an amazing life, full of blessings, and others have never been treated humanely?

Even in all of this, I found myself with no outlet to express the build up of thoughts pressuring the sides of my brain. It happened last Friday as well. I was at a conference on the virtue of justice when I had all this potential inside of me with no direction. I left the conference in hysteria hoping for another. Earl's office was only a building and three floors away. Luckily he was in his office and able to spare a moment. I had decided I would put my musings to pen and paper [or keys and screen]. Then it hit me that here I am, manic over the direction of my life which had to be solved that second lest I lose all self control, and this man is compassionately and calmly focusing on what he can do to aid me even though he just completed his ninth treatment of chemotherapy the day earlier.

Tonight I had no clue where to turn as I carried the pain and injustice of the world on my shoulders for once. Then a woman, known well and adored by many of my friends, gave a talk on everything I needed to hear. Afterwards she even hugged me, which meant more than she could have said. Somehow in all the crazy moments of my life, when I'm going entirely mad, I run into the Divine, and this healing process begins instantly.

So what's this all about? It's the point that there are days when I go berserk [over something wonderful or less than] and am greeted by a simple reminder that I'm not alone. From here I must greet others with that continuously until I lose sight again and need another divine council.

The Fourth Day

He Looks at us
all burning out;
so sees only beauty.

Look up and know
what you are, God's
creation set in the dome.

"...And He made the stars
to shed light upon the earth,
to govern the day and night."

All we can do is admire
from afar; we fail to comprehend
the reality of the light we offer.

Each unique in its own
but made from One.
Some seen less clearly.

Turn off the imposters
and burn as is your nature.
You're not alone.

Retreat to the dust of your formation.
Don't cling to the grass;
let go of the world on your back,

And fall into existence.
And fall into glory.
And fall into place.

An Intelligent Apple

So I have this new friend whom I should have met years ago, but I don't believe I was smart enough then. Anyways, he hangs out at Jules' too so that makes us friends; that and the fact that he thinks a lot about things due to one of his majors being Philosophy. I still don't think I've found anyone who devotes as much time as I do to thoughts, but he comes closer than most.

One glorious evening, we started talking about Taoism and philosophy and the problem of Evil. I have no problem with God and Evil coexisting, but this conversation focused on the creation of evil. That was a problem for me since I believe Evil is the absence of God [not to say that God is the absence of Evil]; I couldn't get my mind around even an omnipotent God creating the absence of Himself. That is until another friend was discussing the idea that God can remove Himself. Let me explain in a more tangible concept:

I used to throw pots [clay on a potter's wheel] and absolutely loved it. I still have a notion that I will have a pottery shed near or in my house one day. Anyways, when you begin making a vessel it starts with a solid lump of clay; it has to be free of air pockets or it will ruin the vessel. After centering the lump on the center of the wheel, you begin to form it into a cone-like shape and manipulate the form with your fingers. If you press your thumbs into the center, the clay is dispersed and removed from that area. Such a simple event has always fascinated me and now I understand why.

This is what God has done: He is the lump of clay [I may go to hell for comparing Him to something so minimal...] and He removes Himself to create this void, He removes Himself. This creates a vessel! That is important because a vessel is functional, just as Evil is functional. [Free Will is only possible with the possibility of us choosing Evil over Good.] Without the absence of clay, nothing will be contained; the vessel is merely clay. [Below is a paper I wrote a while ago for an Intro class to Philosophy; nothing special but it may help clarify.]

God did not NEED to create evil and has no intention for us to live there, but He is not self-interested, not just clay, so He has emptied and removed part of Himself so that we could be contained in His love, in Him. He has created Evil for our sake, but HE DID NOT CREATE US FOR EVIL.

So the balance of Good and Evil comes through the possibility of Evil with Good; it is the removal of God by God, perhaps His justice. We have a hard time understanding Good without Evil, but we never needed Evil to understand Good. A hunch of mine is that perhaps the Tree of Knowledge from which we took the apple contained the knowledge of Evil.





Phil 101
Dr. Harwood
April 29, 2006

Both skilled and unskilled philosophers have discussed the questions about why good people suffer and bad people thrive. There seems to be multiple perspectives that would adequately address or solve the issues of compatibility between moral evil and God. The most highly accredited and frequently used are that of atheism, the claim that there is evil because there is no God, and the free will defense, which claims that God gave us free will because without it there would be no genuine relationship between God and humans. The issue of natural evil, however, is not as popular and poses a greater threat on the belief in God.

Natural or ontic evil is the result of the way the world operates. The proper use of the word ‘evil’ is questionable; it is my understanding that natural evil should simply be referred to as ‘pain.’ Something is only evil if it causes pain. For example, is a tsunami evil if it does not hurt anyone or anything? The question still arises of why there is pain in the world.

Much of natural evil is unexplainable without encompassing the idea of a supreme being. How can an omnipotent God create such evil? First one must either accept the idea that God exists. Atheism leaves no explanation for natural evil but addresses the confusion involving God. If one does believe there is an omnipotent God then there is more work to be done.

The free will defense and question of moral evil is easy to understand because humans are visibly fallible and chose to sin. Some natural occurrences can even be put into the morally evil category. The cause of many future health problems and higher death rates is strongly correlated to our poor environmentalism. However, hurricane Katrina is not as easily attributed to human behavior; it was beyond our control. Belief in an omnipotent God would suggest that natural evil is God’s doing.

This idea is highly debatable. To accept an omnipotent God leads to two premises. One can understand God as a puppet master who controls everything. The second possibility is that God allows randomness despite His omnipotence; just because God can do anything doesn’t mean He will.

The former premise can lead to altered views of a just God, or that all evil is moral; the natural occurrences are punishment for something of our own doings. Pain could possibly exist in order for us to experience the good in life, a way of measuring happiness through contrast. The latter involves more of an understanding of spontaneity and mitigates the need to interpret God’s motives.

These ideas based upon an omnipotent God do not satisfy those who believe in a God who is all-good. The question of why God created us with the ability to experience pain is confusing. If God cares about us then there must be some reason for the sensation of pain. The most plausible explanation is that without pain we would destroy ourselves.

Take for instance a hot stove or fire. Without pain we would not know that our bodies cannot bear those conditions causing a lot of unknown damage [and possibly death] to ourselves. Pain serves a positive purpose; it purifies us and makes us do things that we would never do without it.

I agree with the statement that whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. Without pain we are lazy. We need pain to rock the boat and activate us; if we had no need for food or shelter we would have no need to work. In a world without pain there are no needs, and without needs there is no progress. Extraordinary people are that way because they have overcome great sufferings and have grown from their experiences. This does not mean that pain does not hurt; it’s very painful.

Perhaps this is a gift that God has given us, and we let our painful sensations override the fact that we benefit from some suffering. This does not excuse moral evil however. Moral evil may appear to be acceptable because the end result might also be that of increased strength, but pain is not ours in inflict on someone else. We do not have the right to control what belongs to God. We should not push others to progress but rather acknowledge the positive purpose that pain has served.

Overall the idea that pain is evil is a misconception. Pain serves a purpose; it protects us. Even though the painful experience can feel like a punishment, suffering can have a redeeming value. That is, of course, if it does not ruin the person. The all-good God is still all-good, and the omnipotent God is still all-powerful even if He chooses not to use those powers.

24/24

Sometimes I absolutely love my roommate, Kat. She will say a simple thing to me, and it escalates into a moment of belly laughter+tears of joy. The most recent of which involved the obsession with weight loss and milk [we have 2 gallons by accident].

We drink skim, but it's not because we think we are fat because we could drink whole if we wanted...

Anyways, the real story lies behind the studies about how milk can help you lose weight. The ideal is to drink 24 ounces every day, hence the 24/24. Well we decided that they should market this idea to the crazy college crowd with the idea of a milk power day. It would be like a power hour but with milk and over the course of a whole day. Every hour you would take a shot of milk whether it be at 2 in the morning as you wake up to your alarm every hour or in the middle of class.

My stomach hurts from laughing...

Inner Beauty

During some down time this past summer, I was reading a friend's blog, which talked about the sermon on the mount, and I found myself thoughtless. [It's like being speechless when I am solitary.] I decided that I better reacquaint myself with what might be considered one of the most important speeches ever recorded.

Of course Jules' was my first choice to read through the Gospel of Matthew with some inspiring music and delicious java. It's a wonderful book, sometimes my favorite version of the good news.

Lectio Divina is a method of prayer & contemplation involving scripture. The idea is to get stuck on a word or phrase in order to delve deeper. Well I couldn't get away from a big chunk, the Beatitudes.

I've always accepted them and put them aside, but this time was different. I no longer believe it is a coinicidence that "Beatitude" looks extremely similar to "Beauty." I was trying to figure out what made someone beautiful; these are the qualities.

I've translated the NAB version of Matthew 5:3-12a, the Beatitudes, into what I refer to as the Inner Beauties [directly underneath each one].

Enjoy...

The Beatitudes; The Inner Beauties

Blessed are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who understand that being dependent on God is what it means to live in the kingdom, now and forever

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are those who do not pretend and bottle up their problems, for they allow others to love them. How else can we achieve God’s call for us to be in relation and love our neighbor as ourselves if love is not accepted?

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.
Blessed are those who are free from the material world, for they are truly the masters of what God has given them.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are those who search for God in prayer and community, for they will find love and meaning in life.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are those who do not waste their time in hatred towards others, for they will find many occasions for peace and joy in their lives.

Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are those who have no affliction, which would distort their ability to see God in the everyday.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who experience the magnificence of belonging to God, for they will create peace in virtue of their Father’s unconditional love.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who choose to live in accordance with God’s will, for even when others abuse them they remain living the good life.

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven.
Blessed are we [am I] who believe in something greater than any criticism brought our [my] way. For when others are persecuted and despair, we [I] remain hopeful and assured of a resurrected life.

Better than drugs? Probably not.

Here we are, in the beginning….
Who knows what this journey entails and who is coming along for the ride.

I shouldn’t even be doing this, what good is it?
[I often change my mind within momentitos.]

This is my gift: to anyone with little human interaction-perhaps I will seem humane; to anyone with a head full of thoughts-sometimes it makes one feel good to know there is someone more confused; to anyone with some time to fill-guaranteed to provoke thoughts (if only for my extreme “uniqueness”).
[I don’t even consider myself frugal, I’m cheap. The only monetary cost of this gift for you could be found in a cup of coffee or literary form; I don’t regret a penny of it.]

To anyone of solid mind and advanced thought: I will only make you feel more intelligent.

***I take no blame for life-altering events. I obtain no such power and feel responsible for no such incurrence.***

That being said, “Welcome to my mind?”