tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38831676541911536932024-02-08T13:16:51.472-07:00Pillar of SaltCaphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-76064849765588676762015-07-10T16:39:00.004-06:002015-07-10T19:46:13.490-06:00Redefining the Self: Further Exploration into Empathy<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 100%;">I feel that in any discussion of the self, the definitions of what we mean by "the self" can always become muddled as we are still only in the </span><span style="line-height: 16px;">frontiers</span><span style="line-height: 100%;"> of discovery regarding consciousness, what it is, or what it means to have consciousness, or be conscious. Therefore, as this essay deals heavily with ideas of the self, or the lack thereof, please be patient if definitions waver and employ some level of </span><span style="line-height: 16px;">suspension</span><span style="line-height: 100%;"> of belief in order to better appreciate the overall ideas discussed. </span></span></i></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 100%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 100%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://iqquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/buddha-quotes-10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="http://iqquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/buddha-quotes-10.jpg" height="183" width="320" /></span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 100%;">The Buddha
describes the self as the essence of a person. It is the part of a
person that is non-changing, though the individual does change. The
self is enduring and strives to continually endure, regardless of
change in the individual, including that of death. However, the
Buddha denies that there is such a self. In his book, </span><i style="line-height: 100%;">Buddhism As
Philosophy, </i><span style="line-height: 100%;">Mark Siderits
defines the Buddhist view of the self as, “the essence of a
person—the one part whose continued existence is required for that
person to continue to exist” (32). However, there is no one part of
a person that seems to fall into this category. Take something like
the human brain. While much research has been done in neuroscience,
it is evident that the brain is continually changing (Pascual-Leone
et al 383). Siderits goes on to say that it is likely that there is
no part of an individual that must continually exist in order for
that person to continue in existence (34). There is constant change.
The Buddha tells us, however, that in order for there to be a self it
must endure, or be eternal. However, there is no definition of what
the self is, or can be—only what it cannot be through the idea of
enduring. It then follows that something that can fit into the
different skandha's that the Buddha lay's out—that of body,
perception, ones volition, and conscious awareness—that that </span><i style="line-height: 100%;">thing</i><span style="line-height: 100%;">
could be considered the self. This definition of the self then can be
seen as the solver of Suffering, enlightenment. It can then be
understood that what the Buddha discovered is correct, but his
definitions were not. We can see the self through observing nature—or
the universe—and its ability to allow things, essences, to endure.
There are many ways the physical universe allows for this, through a
scientific understanding of connections that can be made within
existence.</span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 100%;"></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In Albert Camus'
essay, “They Myth of Sisyphus,” where he discusses the notion of
the ancient Greek tale of Sisyphus, a man doomed to roll a large rock
up a hill only to have it roll back down once at the top. The
Buddha's discussions on non-self help support the suffering Sisyphus
endures and Camus' treatment of how one can overcome
suffering—resolving the existential crisis suffering brings.
However, there is one major distinction between the two. The
treatment of suffering in “The Myth of Sisyphus” allows for a
mastery over it. Acknowledging the suffering as a part of existence
brings a moment “when man glances backward over his life . . .
returning to [one's] rock . . . he contemplates that series of
unrelated actions which becomes his fate . . . combined under his
memories eye and soon sealed by his death” (Camus 123). It is not
his ability to call upon memory, but that he has memories, or events
that are shared with other's. His importance is not only in the life
that he led or the actions he performed, but in the lives that he
affected, (or in the case of Sisyphus the lives affected through his
story). In this, existence can be viewed as the effects humanity
brings upon each other; the “self” is that of empathy, or
relations. Therefore, the self is viewed through the relationships
that can be made, and a responsibility in keeping those relationships
not only alive, but alive in memory.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> The
self cannot only be accounted for through human connections, but
through the physicality of the universe. And so, perhaps, viewing the
self should not be on such a narrow bases as one human or one being,
but the whole of beginnings, or the whole of “all things.” The
seventeenth century philosopher, Benedict de Spinoza wrote in his
book, </span><i>The Ethics</i><span style="font-style: normal;">, on
substances. “By substance I understand what is in itself and is
conceived through itself, that is, that whose concept does not
require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed”
(1). In other words X—or in this case the Self—is a substance if
you don't need to look outside the idea of X in order to explain it.
Spinoza later labels this substance “God in nature” (10). His
ideas, in essence, are the same as the Buddha's non-self. The Buddha
says that if there were a self, it would not tend towards destruction
(Siderits 38), but that it would be enduring. Spinoza sees this same
dilemma but looks at all nature as God. Or rather, all things
perceivable as God, as it is essential in his philosophy that the
only substance that can exist is the substance of all things—God.
For the buddha, we can replace the word “God” and put in its
place “Self”.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> In
this idea of the self is the ability to look for the self not only
within </span><i>one</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> of the skandhas, but in </span><i>all</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. The skandha </span><i>vijnana
</i><span style="font-style: normal;">describes an objects awareness,
or its consciousness and we can see this through humanities awareness
of the universe. Through the many species and races of intelligent
life the universe is aware of itself and will continue to be aware of
itself through the notion of energy, and how it can neither be created nor
destroyed. The author, Dan Simmons, in his essay on writing well,
“Zen and the Art of Writing Well,” says, in regards to this idea,
</span>
</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.52in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“<span style="font-style: normal;">We
have become one of the universe’s eyes and hearts and minds by
which the universe can contemplate itself. The mistake there is to
start believing that you, part of that observing </span><i>We</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,
are somehow more important or central than the universe we are so
imperfectly designed to observe. It is as if one photoreceptive cell
in one’s eye were to suddenly believe that it was the pinnacle of
all evolution and the darling of creation simply because it can
receive the impression of a photon.”</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This self, we can begin to understand is all encompassing, and not simply that of individual beings. Furthermore, we see
that impression must be accompanied with expression. It is through
one's expression that we are able to understand the impressions of
the universe—or rather, the expression given through the universe's
structure allow for impressions of the self.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> The
skandha </span><i>sankharas, </i><span style="font-style: normal;">that
of habit, desire, volition, etc., can be viewed in a multitude of
ways. They can again be expressed through those things of
intelligence, or through the “habits” of the universe. Such as
laws or those unchanging aspects that govern how the universe works. </span>
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
Further, the Buddha
teaches that the self is unchanging. “Anything dependent on what is
not-Self much itself be not-Self.” (Edelglass et al 270). The self,
in the case of Spinoza's God in nature, or the entirety of the
universe can be explained through the underbelly of cause that brings
the universe about. Those laws of physics that govern the universe
allow for its diversity, while yet, remaining unchanged and constant.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It therefore seems that the Buddha's understanding of the self was too narrow. It is a broader view of the self that allows
a greater importance, or even a necessity of empathy; it allows for
empathy to play a major role within the whole view of what the self
can contain, or the notion that the universe is a self. One that is
enduring, and whose purpose and essence (the underlining structure)
is non-changing (laws of nature, etc). While the facets, or
“personality” is continually progressing forward.
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Works Cited</span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">1. Camus,
Albert. </span><i>The Myth of Sisyphus, and Other Essays</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.
New York: Vintage, 1991. Print.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;">2. Simmons,
Dan. "Zen and the Art of Writing Well." </span><i>Dansimmons.com</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.
N.p., June 2008. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. Pascual-Leone,
Alvaro, Amir Amedi, Felipe Fregni, and Lotfi B. Merabet. "The
Plastic Human Brain Cortex." Annual Review of Neuroscience 28.1
(2005): 377-401. Print.</span></div>
<div align="CENTER" class="western" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. Spinoza,
Benedictus De. <i>Ethics</i>.
Trans. E. M. Curley. London: Penguin, 1996. Print.</span></div>
Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-4984685852345923742015-07-09T09:24:00.001-06:002015-08-01T11:07:54.397-06:00The Body is . . .<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/04/article-2256577-16C00A54000005DC-684_634x535.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/04/article-2256577-16C00A54000005DC-684_634x535.jpg" height="270" width="320" /></a></div>
On December fifth, 1914 Ernest Shackleton headed out on an expedition to the North Pole, with hopes of being the first to reach its center. He and his crew sailed south from England and over a month and a half later, were stuck in the thick ice. For some time Shackleton and his men worked hard to break the ship free from the ice, moving at an alarmingly slow pace until, on February 24th the ship was abandoned of any routine and converted to a winter station as the boat drifted northward with the ice it had been lodged in. The crew remained on the converted ship for months, eating the sparse rations they had brought for the voyage, hoping for a spring thaw to release them from the ice, however, in October (Antarctica's spring) the hull could no longer take the pressure and water began pouring in, forcing the men to abandon the ship towards the end of November--almost a full year after leaving England.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Shackleton and his men remained on the ice flow for nearly two months as it continued to drift north towards Elephant Island, constantly making attempts to reach nearer to the coast by sled. On March 17, 1916, the ice camps on the moving flow of ice began to break apart sixty miles from Elephant Island. 346 miles away from their abandoned ship, the <i>Endurance</i>, the men got into their lifeboats and sailed for twenty-four days, finally making it to the distant island.<br />
<br />
After some time to recuperate, Shackleton, along with two others left in one of the small dingy's and made their way to South Georgia--a small island, and harbor for whalers. After nearly two weeks on the small boat, sailing through terrible storms, they arrived on the opposite side of the island as the whaler station. Ernest, and his companions soon left to hike over the mountain--a 32-mile journey--that stood between them and the small town. Arriving the following day, covered in grime, oil, and looking much worse for the wear they spent the next four months attempting to sail back to Elephant Island. Finally, on the third attempt they reached the small island, finding all of the men still there, alive, having lived off of seal meat for the four months they'd been trapped there.<br />
<br />
This story is remarkable. Not only is it a survival story of the finest, but it is complemented by the fact that not one man was lost during the struggle. It was through the men's shared interest (in living) that got them through the year and a half's experience. It was not only their interest in survival for their own preservation but in the mutual desire to help one another survive the ordeal.<br />
<br />
In 1 Corinthians 12:12-25 we read of the importance of unity<i> and</i> diversity in the body of Christ.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts from one body, so it is with Christ. 1 Cor 12:12, (NIV)</blockquote>
In Romans, chapter 12, Paul further expounds on this idea by adding, "and each member belongs to the others." This small distinction makes a very important point in our understanding of the body of Christ. Not only are we to act together, as one, but we <i>belong</i> to one another. It is this connection that I find is an important one to understand. The word "belong" implies much more than simply working together, it gives an obligation to each of us to be an active participant within others lives. More specifically, an active participant in each other's "survival". Samuel Brown, in his book <i>First Principles and Ordinances</i> says of this idea, "our participation in physical existence is part of what unites us with Christ" (143).<br />
<br />
When we hear, "your body is a temple," taken from 1 Cor. 6:19, we are typically reminded of the false understanding of the "body" representing ourselves in an attempt to get us to treat our own persons with one form of respect or another. While this sentiment is not to be discouraged, it false short of the mark that the scripture <i>actually</i> represents. Rather than viewing the body on an individualized scale, it is important that we remember that this scripture references the "body of Christ" rather than ourselves. Furthermore, the use of the word "temple" helps us understand the sanctity and importance of the message being addressed in the sixth chapter of Corinthians.<br />
<br />
Again, in regards to this, Samuel Brown says, "When we worship in the temple, we are locating ourselves in the universe, in the interlocking networks of particles, people, and planets" (145). Having this connection, belonging to one another, being an intricate part of everything (persons, places, and things--all nouns) in ways that bring about empathetic relationships must be the way to allow all of us to be saved--<i>all.</i> It is through Christ's infinite (infinite must be an important word here) atonement that each and every person may--no, will--be saved. If we are to truly believe that the atonement is infinite, we must also believe that our ability to unite with Christ is also infinite.<br />
<br />
In my mind, the phrase "your body is a temple" unites us in significant ways. Not only through our mutual benefit, but through a mutual understanding of "belonging" to one another. Through seeing not others as a part of ourselves, but ourselves a part of others.Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-68212380905124586412015-07-07T08:00:00.000-06:002015-08-01T11:08:20.214-06:00Mowing the Lawn, HeroicallyIn W. H. Auden's poem, <i>The Quest, </i>he describes a man who undertakes a heroes journey. While the object of the man's quest is not laid our plainly before us we are able to get a sense of the struggles that not only this man faces (internal and external), but we are able to relate each even to ourselves, finding truth in our own 'mini-quests', or even on grandeur scales as may be. Within the poem we find several different sections underlining different attributes and events of the hero and his journey, as well as other's perspectives of the hero. One in particular brings to mind an interesting discussion of the heroes awareness of his own greatness, or heroism, as it were. In the section, "The Average" W. H. Auden writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The pressure of their fond ambition made<br />
Their Shy and country-loving cild afraid<br />
No sensible career was good enough,<br />
Only a hero could deserve such love.</blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Here we see a glimpse of what is perhaps shared by the majority of people: that <i>you</i> are average, not a hero, and will not succeed as the hero is able to. I find it interesting that this poem is about the hero and that we are hearing the heroes inner voice at this time (in a manner of speaking). The hero, Auden seems to be saying, does not often recognize his own heroism, even while he is doing great acts.<br />
<br />
In the last stanza of the poem Auden leaves us with the actions of the hero, allowing us to understand that despite his actions he does not recognize that he is not average but something more.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The silence roared displeasure: looking down,<br />
He saw the shadow of an Average Man<br />
Attempting the Exceptional, and ran.</blockquote>
We questions, in reading this whether or not the hero understood that he was a hero. What makes a <br />
man average or a hero, or are all men average only performing great acts. These are common questions with many answers. Auden further shows the "averageness" of this man later in his poem, under the section titled, "The Hero" where he writes of the towns people who disbelieve the heroes stories upon his return<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
For he was always glad to mow the grass,<br />
Pour liquids from large bottles into small,<br />
Or look at clouds through bits of coloured glass.</blockquote>
<a href="http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/04/20/1226042/370130-lawn-mower.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/04/20/1226042/370130-lawn-mower.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a>Auden is showing us the plainness of a man who has done great things. Not only can we understand the complexity of what makes up a person, but we are able to put ourselves in the place of the hero in significant ways. The comparison to a man who acted greatly, but still mows his lawn with pride is an important one when we place ourselves within the poem. It is, therefore, the "average" man that is capable of doing great things.<br />
<br />
The Hebrew word for "man" or "mankind" is Enos. When we read of Enos in the Book of Mormon we are introduced "literally" to a man. There is little detail given of his life and who he was, specifically during the time of his writing the self-named record. Enos, according to his account went out to hunt beasts in the forest when he had a strong desire to know of the things which his father taught. This desire, and the resulting events, came not to a man who was highly esteemed of the Lord as his father, Jacob was, but to someone who went hunting. In his hunting he find himself "struggling in the spirit" (En. 1:10) and praying not only for his people, the Nephites, but his brethren, the Lamanites (a relation perhaps can be made again to his names meaning "mankind" in his prayer). Through these events we see the actions of a simple man made great--almost unbelievable.<br />
<br />
Like W. H. Auden's poem, we can place ourselves in Enos's place to understand the events that have taken place within our own lives. What makes a person great, or a hero? Does simple tasks like mowing, or hunting keep us from this potential? Rather than seeing this in a perspective of "potential" and "action" I'd prefer to view our actions as ordinary, but necessary. The only difference between the truly average person and the hero is little. Perhaps it is being in the right place at the right time, or perhaps it is something greater. Perhaps the difference is a willingness to see ones simplicity, accept it, and still act in the best possible way. Rather than seeing the "average" person as an unassuming hero, or someone who simply doesn't recognize their greatness, we should see them, or us, as "the average;" the only difference is that we've accepted our "man-ness" or "Enos-ness" regardless of the heroic actions, or the Quest we have undertaken.<br />
<br />
It is in this way that we relate to Enos, to the hero, to our fellow men in <i>real</i> ways.Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-23934549986752984972015-07-05T07:00:00.000-06:002015-07-05T10:15:46.821-06:00The Brilliance of Spinoza<a href="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSisBuC1I4RdqFMF0llGv5reSgquLRFbvSWBZkh-whtzDV9FRNPhg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSisBuC1I4RdqFMF0llGv5reSgquLRFbvSWBZkh-whtzDV9FRNPhg" width="320" /></a>You see a man walking down the road in seventeenth century Denmark, on his way to the marked when a rock, from seemingly nowhere falls from the sky and onto his head. The man crumbles to the ground as you run over to him. He is breathing, but is obviously hurt but in a matter of minutes he sits up and rests along the wall of the building at the edge of the street. One man near by is heard saying, "where did that rock come from? Did you see it?" and soon a conversation is started.<br />
<br />
"It must have fallen from the building," another says, joining in.<br />
"But what caused it's fall?"<br />
"Perhaps it was the wind that blew it?"<br />
"Likely," you say, nodding your head. "But what caused the wind to blow such?"<br />
"Ah, the waves, just beyond the city brought them."<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The conversation goes on like this for some time, giving reason and explanation to each cause until all present are finally stumped.<br />
<br />
"Well," says the man sitting against the building, rag pressed to his bloodied head, "it must then be the will of God."<br />
<br />
I love this analogy of Spinoza's in the appendix to his 1st part of his book Ethics, "Of God" for he says, that to attribute anything as "the will of God" is "the sanctuary of ignorance." While he compares this to many things that are still relevant today, such as the human body and evolution, today I want to focus on one of my favorite subjects, suffering. Specifically, the suffering of the man struck by the rock on his head.<br />
<br />
It is interesting that Spinoza keys in on this understanding of people that when something is unexplainable that we must ultimately attribute it to "the will of God" or some variation. We see this in Job. Job's suffering, as his friends readily point out, is due to his own fault, causing God to bring about his suffering. They cannot grasp the concept in this narrative (mostly due to culture) of his suffering just being that--suffering. There is no cause to it, especially none from God.<br />
<br />
Spinoza argues that it is pointless and absurd to attribute any suffering to God for several reasons. Mainly, because (in his understanding) God is everything. He titles God as <i>the</i> substance. "By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself, that is, that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed." In other (clearer) words, God, in order to be capital "G" God must contain within himself <i>all</i> things. He is everything, everywhere, etc.<br />
<br />
So, how does this help us Mormons whom have a God that is not everywhere and in everything? Well, there are many ways that I could argue, but let's stick with one for now. It is in the results of this view of God, coupled with an understanding of suffering <i>just</i> being suffering that Spinoza then argues how we are to treat things in life that effect us. Spinoza goes on to say that we are to reach for a higher perfection constantly, and in order to do this we must recognize first that we will always experience suffering. Things will constantly be acting towards us in negative ways, but that in having a greater knowledge of those things will help alleviate the pain.<br />
<br />
So, rather than the man, bleeding on the sidewalk, shrugging his shoulders saying that his pain was ultimately God's will, his is empowered by understanding (or recognizing that he does not have a full comprehension) why he was hurt. Simply put, the rock fell. Spinoza argues that it is <i>reason</i> that helps combat against suffering more than labeling its cause (falsely) ever could. Like Job, if his friends could realize that his suffering was not caused by God's vengeance they likely would have been better comforters.<br />
<br />
Our view of God is not one of an omnipotent being. It can't be and shouldn't be. There are too many holes in that view. But, through reason, we can understand that omnipotence is not needed and that God has nothing to do with the cause of our suffering. We arrive (through different means) at the same conclusion that Spinoza does. God does not cause our suffering, but is a part of it through <a href="http://pillarsalt.blogspot.com/2015/06/suffering-empathy-and-living-among.html" target="_blank">empathy and grace</a>. And in being a part of it, it allows us to accept it and attempt to over come it or at least accept it. This isn't to say that this knowledge, and through reason we will easily overcome anything that comes our way. But through the use of reason, and understanding what Spinoza argues we can slowly (so slowly) move to a greater perfection, which is, ultimately, what this gospel (a gospel centered around progression) is about. <br />
<br />Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-58859530575761973792015-07-03T09:00:00.000-06:002015-07-03T10:08:49.436-06:00Why Nephi Killed Laban: Part 4<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/magazine/ensignlp.nfo:o:617.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/magazine/ensignlp.nfo:o:617.jpg" width="307" /></a></div>
<div>
It seems that ultimately we cannot know for sure why Nephi killed Laban. Unfortunately, we do not have enough of the right details to come to a solid conclusion. We cannot prove Nephi's (or Lehi's) upbringing, their knowledge, and adherence to Jewish law, Laban's actual actions (what the actual threat level was), the secular traditions and treatment of death at the time were, and we cannot know Nephi's state of mind at the time of the killing. Ultimately, the question becomes unanswerable. All we can do is understand the conditions at the time and make guesses as to what may have caused Nephi to kill Laban. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Furthermore, we cannot know the type of interaction Nephi actually had with the spirit, what outside influences may have helped, or if he really, truly felt that he and his brothers (as well as the nations they would start) would be unsafe if Laban lived. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So what can we learn?</div>
<div>
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
I think there are several great lessons that we can gain from a reading of these passages. Because the question is--in my mind--unanswerable, we need to look at the scripture differently. There are great things within its words that we can understand and take into our treatment of the gospel. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
First, that we must interrogate the Spirit, or rather, we must be critical of what we learn and are taught, or even the answers we get from prayer. We should continually ask to receive witnesses to our questions, and repeated answers so that we may know the truth of all things. I feel that this shows that inquiry to God should consist of a running conversation. This is exemplified through the Book of Mormon as the brother of Jared shows us in coming up with solutions himself, after inquiring of God on multiple occasions. We too must pray fervently in order to not only receive an answer, but to comprehend the answer that is being given to us. As Nephi had a running dialogue with the spirit during this time, so should we in our prayers. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Second, we must doubt our actions and the actions we are told to take. We must ask why we are doing the things that we are doing. Why do we believe or behave the way we behave? In order to gain a true testimony, I understand it to be imperative that we question our beliefs and our actions. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Third, are clear-cut rules to be praised? When can they, or should they be altered or broken? This is an important question that everyone should ask themselves. I truly believe that God provides laws and commandments to us in our time and present culture. What Nephi said God commanded him to do cannot be judged off of our current cultural beliefs. We live in a very different time and within a very different culture. It is hard to place our moral understandings and beliefs on Nephi's actions. We can only analyze it from his possible perspective to gain an understanding of what could have taken place. This also means that we must constantly look at God's law verse reason or logic to determine the best course of action. Are God's laws the same for everyone in every instance? I do not believe that is the case. Humans are too complex to say simply that one law/commandment fits all. They are conditional, and often times fluid. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
None of these things are detrimental to one's faith unless you allow it to become so. Rather, it is an opportunity to evaluate critically, and understand what questions are important and answerable. If the questions are unanswerable (as I feel this one is) how should the questions be treated? I believe the answer is to treat them (and all questions) critically, tentatively, and even suspiciously. However, we should also allow Nephi to be believed and given the benefit of the doubt in order to take what we can from passages of scripture that may, ultimately, be entirely unanswerable. </div>
Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-44026745494046205592015-07-02T09:00:00.000-06:002015-07-02T09:00:06.992-06:00Why Nephi Killed Laban: Part 3So far, we have briefly discussed what other prominent scholars have said regarding the reasons Nephi killed Laban, and have also shown the typical beliefs of the time in order to show the type of understanding and upbringing Nephi would have had at the time of his life. So now, after understanding a bit more where Nephi may have been coming from we can look at the actual events to explore our main question further.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://stepbystep.alancminer.com/helper/Generate/131N3.25%20fleeing%20Laban.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://stepbystep.alancminer.com/helper/Generate/131N3.25%20fleeing%20Laban.JPG" /></a>In my previous post I first discussed Laban's actions against Laman directly, as well as the other brothers. Upon receiving the treasures from Lehi's son's, he sent his men after the brothers that they may "slay" them (1 Ne. 25-26). This action alone, according to Jewish law can be viewed as actions worthy of a death sentence. Here we must again speculate as to Nephi's views of these laws. It is reasonable that he would see these malicious actions as worthy of some sort of retribution. The extent of that retribution, of if Nephi felt it was necessary or plausible is mostly up to speculation. This may, however, shed some light onto Nephi's actions and willingness to kill Laban.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Furthermore, if Nephi was aware of such stories as was demonstrated in 2 Samuel 20 (Sheba leading the Israelites away) then when the spirit beckons to him that it would be "better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Ne. 4:13), he remembers the results of Sheba leading away many. Again, it is likely, or at the very least, plausible that Nephi is aware of these stories and may draw some of his actions off of what he had known others to do.<br />
<br />
Regardless of cultural influences of the time, and upbringing, etc. we must also consider Nephi directly. Is he a reliable narrator? How accurate is his account? I believe there are clues in the text that can shed light on these things.<br />
<br />
I believe that if we are to analyze this scripture accurately, and from a Mormon perspective, we must exercise some sort of faith in its accuracy and importance. Not only did Nephi feel that it was important to write these details (for any number of reasons) but also Mormon felt it necessary to include in the abridgment of all the records. We then must assume that the events unfolded as they were written to the best of Nephi's knowledge. This, however, doesn't excuse Nephi in any way, and may help us understand his perception better according to his writing.<br />
<br />
First, we understand that Nephi, for his part, had a strong testimony. This may not have been purely his own, but perhaps borrowed from his father, but it was strong. It would have been built through the first four chapters in Nephi as well. He follows his father unquestioningly, see's an angel and converses with the spirit. The events he had undergone show that he would have trusted the Lord.<br />
<br />
We also must examine his writing style. I believe Eugene England was correct in assuming that there was post-justification in Nephi's writing. Nephi (and this is a huge part of the problem in answering this question) is often vague. He gives little details in any of this writing. But you get to his descriptions of Laban and the sword, and suddenly there is a change. This, more than anything, shows that in his wisdom of years, when writing this he is attempting to justify his actions to make sense to himself. He may have regretted, ultimately, killing Laban. And I think that we can't be too hard on Nephi here. At the time he was a young man, he had not had many of the experiences he later had and killing anyone would be a difficult task, regardless of whether or not it was commanded by God or not.<br />
<br />
We also see how Nephi is critical in his responses to the Spirit. This Brad Kramer points out in that Nephi shrinks when told to kill Laban. Not only that, but he questions the spirit and demands repetition. We read multiple times, "the Spirit said unto me again." The "again" is important here, showing that Nephi did not simply shrug his shoulders, pick up the sword and slay Laban. He interrogated the Spirit. He had to be sure.<br />
<br />
Does this justify the killing of Laban? I think not. I do not think it answers the question thoroughly enough to have a conclusive, "yes" but it also doesn't mean Nephi (by any means) is condemned. I think through this analyzation we can see the difficulty Nephi himself had with the situation, and perhaps he is in the same boat as we are in: can he explain why he killed Laban?<br />
<br />
So, what can we learn from these passages? I hope to address this in the last part in this series of why Nephi killed Laban.Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-53440105254108521902015-07-01T09:00:00.000-06:002015-07-01T09:00:00.381-06:00Why Nephi Killed Laban: Part 2In order to explore this question, I first want to address several aspects of ancient Judaism. I believe it is safe to say that Nephi was fairly familiar with many aspects of Judaism at the time of his life. There are several things that make me think this. One being the state of Lehi and his families living conditions. It is made fairly obvious that his family was rich. The reasons can vary for this, but truthfully, there were little stations in life at the time that could bring about true wealth. While some, like Hugh B. Nibley, argued that Lehi was likely a merchant in the city, I feel the issue of importance is not what Lehi did, but that he had wealth; enough to make Laban willing to kill or capture Lehi's sons for the treasures (1 Ne. 3:26). This wealth can then easily be associated with intellectual learning, a large part of this learning being of their scripture. Furthermore, Lehi knowing about the brass plates helps to indicate his access to that type of information.<br />
<a href="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54adcceee4b0212b1fb122c5/t/555d3e72e4b01b86dc713b57/1432174194976/cremation+and+law+.jpg?format=1500w" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54adcceee4b0212b1fb122c5/t/555d3e72e4b01b86dc713b57/1432174194976/cremation+and+law+.jpg?format=1500w" height="213" width="320" /></a><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
So what laws, etc. would Nephi have been aware? Well, any, if not all of this is speculative (which causes some real issues in ultimately answering our big question), and must remain speculative in order to come to some type of understanding of how Nephi could have addressed the killing of Laban.<br />
<br />
Starting with Laban's treatment of the four brothers, we see malicious attempts to capture them. What he intended to do with them is of not much importance as the consequence (as I read it) for such actions are ultimately the same: death (Exodus 21:16). In this scripture, we learn that enslaving another man is punishable by Jewish law by death. I have seen some accounts attribute Exodus 22:2 as justification for killing one who robs you, but the scripture is misinterpreted. The justification lies and not recognizing your robber at night. If you defend yourself and property at that moment, it is, according to Exodus, not a crime.<br />
<br />
However, we see many examples where laws, requiring the eradication of evil and sometimes using violent means, exist in the Jewish tradition. We see in 2 Sam. 20:1 Sheba, the Israelite, rebelling against David, leading tribes away (an interesting comparison to the "dwindle in unbelief" idea). For this, Sheba was beheaded.<br />
<br />
We also find scriptures saying, "I the LORD have spoken" (Ez. 24:14) indicating a finality to what God says--he has the final word.<br />
<br />
It may also be worthwhile to look at the Babylonian influence at the time of Nephi's life. While it may not have had much impact on his belief system, the culture he is ingrained in (much like today) would have to have an effect on his perceptions. During these times, perceptions of death were met greatly with no judgment for the good or bad. All received a common fate. This can have a powerful effect on Nephi's Judaism beliefs, especially regarding an ambiguous understanding of the afterlife (presumably at this time in his life).<br />
<br />
Each of the cultural beliefs and commonalities, I feel would have been known by Lehi, and, therefore, presumably Nephi. Again, whether it had an effect on his understanding of death and killing cannot be known, but through his actions, I believe we can make certain assumptions of how things in his mind may have played out. In the third installment of this topic, I will show a comparison to these beliefs to Nephi's actions to hopefully shed some further light on why Nephi killed Laban.Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-42917159235221272142015-06-30T13:53:00.001-06:002015-06-30T13:53:13.665-06:00Why Nephi Killed Laban: Part 1<a href="http://stepbystep.alancminer.com/helper/Generate/05_1n4_11.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://stepbystep.alancminer.com/helper/Generate/05_1n4_11.JPG" height="250" width="320" /></a><br />
To say I have struggles with the question of why Nephi killed Laban is not entirely accurate. I would not categorize my relation with this question a struggle, but rather a constant area of intrigue. For some time now I have considered this question, hoping to find some solace in why Nephi felt, or was prompted to kill Laban, however, regrettably, the questions is harder to answer than I had originally thought.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I started my search for the answer in reading Eugene England's essay, "Why Nephi Killed Laban". Ultimately, what he boils it down to is another but, "I don't know," but he does provide a starting place. Firstly, he feels that it may have been some Abrahamic test, but for Nephi. I don't buy this as I question the Abrahamic test (in him having to sacrifice Isaac) already (but that is for another post). However, secondly, one important understanding that he highlights is the way that Nephi writes about this event. It should be said, also that Nephi is not writing this as a journal entry. He did not get back to his brothers camp and sit down to chisel these events out. These are written years later, in the Americas by (a supposedly) wiser man. England argues that the details that Nephi gives of this account, describing the hilt of the sword, etc. (and which is not typical of Nephi) indicate a type of post-justification. As if what he had done, in his later understanding needed to be justified. This brings up some important points that I'll discuss later on.<br />
<br />
Some time later, I came across another discussion brought by Brad Kramer, in his book Beholding the Tree of Life. Through his deep reading, he compares the phrase "smote off his head" to the same (an only other) scripture where those lines are used. In Ether, we read of Coriantumer decapitating (mostly) Shiz's head. He compares the act's, showing the difference in how they are justified, further arguing the famous line, "it is better that one man should perish than a nation should dwindle in unbelief." It was without the plates that the to-be Nephites would have no doctrine to help them continue the faith. Kramer also points out that Nephi did not make his decision lightly but interrogated the spirit's communications several times, unsure of what to do.<br />
<br />
Both of these arguments have valid points; points that need to be taken seriously. I feel that both contribute to our understanding of the question and what ultimately is at stake. However, I feel that to really analyze Nephi's decisions, we need to look deeper into the culture he was a part of; what we know of his and his family, what we can guess, and the reliability of the events. Furthermore, I believe it is important that we look into the character of Nephi, the events he'd recently been in, and finally, can we come to an answer?<br />
<br />
In the following post, I will attempt to address these concerns to paint a picture of the events as I see them taking into account the above and discuss the ultimate question further; why did Nephi kill Laban?Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-25474045905474400652015-06-27T11:29:00.000-06:002015-06-27T11:32:07.258-06:00Suffering, Empathy, and Living Among Others<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Many of my beliefs stem from a fascination with empathy. In my opinion I feel as though it is through empathy towards one another that brings us closer to God. In recent years many Mormon authors have used idea's of empathy (while maybe not addressing it directly) to show a more complete view of what the gospel can do for us.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Samuel Brown, in his book <i>First Principles and Ordinances </i>argues that it is through baptism and the temple that we join the "family" of the church. We are adopted into a group of others that similarly have accepted this adoption. An important attribute of this adoption is our ability to empathize with one another.<br />
<br />
Adam Miller in much of his writing also addresses this topic through the use and understanding of Grace. He explains that his understanding to God is through his exposure to the grace of interacting with other people. In other words, he understands many aspects of God, and in turn, the gospel through his interactions with others. He further understands the atonement through our connections with one another. In his book <i>Rube Goldberg Machines</i> he writes that the effects of the atonement are such that all must eventually receive of its blessings.<br />
<br />
This idea of each coming back to the fold of God through grace is beautifully illustrated through Steven L. Peck's novella <i>A Short Stay in Hell</i> where, while the stay (in our human understanding) is long . . . very long it is only a method to allow those of an incorrect faith to enter into heaven eventually. A major part of this novella centers around the loneliness and need for human connection (and a severe lack thereof) in this hell. More specifically, this connection is needed in order to endure great suffering.<br />
<a href="http://biblestudyoutlines.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/18002011-BTH-Job-2-11-Job-and-his-comforters.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://biblestudyoutlines.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/18002011-BTH-Job-2-11-Job-and-his-comforters.jpg" height="272" width="400" /></a><br />
Michael Austin, in his book <i>Re-reading Job</i> also points this out in the way that Job's companions treat him in his suffering, suggesting the question, are we treating those that suffer as if they are a problem in need of fixing, or as humans in need of love and companionship. One of the most moving parts in Job is a small line where his companions simply sit with him, silently enduring (to some extent) his pain. They do not speak with him but share the experience. They empathize with his suffering.<br />
<br />
Through these readings and many, many others I have come to understand that life is not a test. At least, not in the traditional Sunday-school view. Rather, life, or mortality is a necessary means to understand and experience suffering, but not only suffering, but learn how to empathize with others through that suffering. Through mortality we gain a perspective of our inevitable death, we experience events in our lives through that perspective, tainting our understanding of suffering with death as a backdrop. And it is through empathy with one another that we gain a oneness. It is through empathy that we can best understand Jesus's atonement as he empathizes with us. As Adam Miller pointed out beautifully in his Romans translation, <i>Grace Is Not God's Backup Plan</i>, we receive grace from God for free; it is through our obedience that we show him our gratitude of that grace. It is this obedience that we display that leads to empathetic thoughts and actions as we become a part of the body of Christ, showing our understanding of what we do affects others as well as our selves in positive and negative aspects.<br />
<br />
Life, therefore, is not a test as much as it is a class in which we learn through interactive involvement how to be better versions of our selves, and help others through our own learning to be better versions of themselves.Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-19660239781531405532015-06-25T21:47:00.000-06:002015-06-26T20:40:37.076-06:00Job, Vonnegut, and Lot's Wife<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/aag/large/abd_aag_003825_large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/aag/large/abd_aag_003825_large.jpg" height="262" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Kurt Vonnegut wrote, in my opinion, one of the most honest lines ever written in his book, <i>Slaughterhouse-five. </i>In the first chapter he wrote of Lot's wife turning back to look back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,<br />
<br />
"And Lot's wife, of course, was told not to look back where all those people and their homes had been. But she <i>did</i> look back, and I love her for that, because it was so human. So she was turned into a pillar of salt."<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
It is this quote, in fact, that gave me the name of this blog. The notion of a pillar of salt in the classic biblical sense gives the reader the sense of punishment--the result of her looking back at the city after being commanded not to. The Hebrew word that represents the "looking back" means more than just the glancing over one's shoulder. It is a consideration, or paying specific attention to something. So in this sense, Lot's wife did not simply look back but considered the city in a meaningful way. Traditionally, it seems that we look at this act as a sin. She was unwilling to take heed of God's words.<br />
<br />
However, it is Vonnegut that gives us a different perspective of this. The act of "looking back" he says was so human. One of the most human things we can do. She missed her life, sure, but she considered what was being told to her. She questioned God critically.<br />
<br />
It is near the end of Job that we read:<br />
<br />
"After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has." (42:7)<br />
<br />
Michael Austin, in his book <i>Re-reading Job</i> gives us great insight into this verse, stating that through it we can understand that God would rather us question him critically (as Job had done in demanding to know why he had to go through this suffering) then simply accept what we "understand" to be true. It is to critically question something that allows us to further develop and grow in the gospel and to better understand God.<br />
<br />
Lot's wife is a pillar of salt. She is a woman who was given a commandment and questioned it. While taking the story to be factual seems silly to me, looking at it as a story gives us a lot of insight (similar to the story of Job) as to our relationship to commandments. Do we simply take what we hear as unadulterated truth? Or do we consider it carefully, weigh it in our hands, search out its truth on our own, carefully considering what is being told to us? Salt, throughout the bible, is represented as virtue through covenants and sacrifice, and through the story of Job we find his virtue not through his patiently suffering his afflictions (because that is not the case) but through his virtue of questioning God's actions.<br />
<br />
It seems then that God would rather us critically examine our lives and the commandments and traditions we hold, then simply following them unquestioningly.<br />
<br />Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-86405188753767939352015-03-01T10:23:00.000-07:002015-06-26T20:40:27.505-06:00This Is How Romans Should Be Read<a href="https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1424999522l/25028680.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Grace Is Not God's Backup Plan: An Urgent Paraphrase of Paul's Letter to the Romans" border="0" height="320" src="https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1424999522l/25028680.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="200" /></a>Recently I had the great pleasure of reading Adam Millers latest book, <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grace-Not-Gods-Backup-Plan-ebook/dp/B00U1WBCXQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425229678&sr=8-1&keywords=Grace+is+not+gods+backup+plan" target="_blank">Grace Is Not God's Backup Plan</a></i>. I went into this only knowing that I have enjoyed other works by Adam Miller, but not knowing even what the book contained, or what it was about. Let me just say, I was blown away.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Adam Miller shows a deep understanding of the scriptures through this translation of Paul's letters to the Romans in his language, and in how he addresses the book as a whole. He brings a new level of clarity to the book of Romans through a personal translation that is not based word for word (or even idea for idea like some translations have done) but rather, by incorporating the whole aspect of Romans--the purpose and placement of grace within our lives--to bring the whole book of Romans to life.<br />
<br />
Miller brings the book of Romans to life through his show of the importance of grace. Through his close reading he shares an important insight that Paul shares: Grace is not something that has come about due to our sins, or the "fall" but that grace has always been working for us. Furthermore, grace is such an important and rooted part of life that one of the important aspects of it is to seal us to both God and our neighbors. Through Millers idea's (translations) of Paul's view of grace we can come to better understand the workings of empathy for our neighbors, whether they are similar in thought/action or different than us. Regardless, we find that Paul asks us to accept all, as God has already accepted all, and grace already covers all.<br />
<br />
This book is a wonderful addition to any New Testament study. Whether you've read the book of Romans many times, through many different translations, you will gain a whole new view of what Paul was getting at, and the absolute importance of grace, and God's us of grace. Through Adam Millers translation of Romans we find a unique, relevant, and modern use of Paul's words.Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-21366328170166137492014-12-30T11:00:00.000-07:002015-06-26T20:40:18.357-06:00Empathy, Spinoza, and the First and Greatest Commandment<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Several
years back, while working on a Philosophy minor degree at the Utah
Valley University, I was introduced to the philosopher Benedict de
Spinoza. At the time I was taking an early-modern philosophy class
and learning about the prominent philosophers of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. However, it was Spinoza that really stuck out
to me. While I never really agreed with his treatment of God (Spinoza argued that in order for God to be omnipotent, omniscient, etc. he must be a substance that contained all essences. Or, basically, in order for God to be God he must contain all things in existence. This is basically a fancy way of saying that God is in and apart of everything, rather than a physical entity) I did appreciate how he was willing to go the extra mile in order to
resolve the ontological problem of evil. However, it is through his
treatment of God that I was first <i>really</i>
introduced to the idea of the expression of empathy in order to
understand or better perceive God. Spinoza has heavily influenced the
way I look at others, nature, and the world (or even the universe) in
general, especially in relation to God.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Spinoza
spoke to me on many levels. One of my favorite treatments that
Spinoza offers, towards the end of his book on God, is one where he
provides the scenario of a rock falling from a high place onto a
passerby. He then goes on to say that men will see this happen and
say that the wind was blowing in such and such a way as to cause the
rock fall. If they are asked where the wind came from they will then
reply with an answer possibly detailing the ocean currents causing
wind to blow in such a way, etc. until they continue backwards until
they are no longer able to explain the cause of an incident, where
they will then say, “it is the will of God,” which Spinoza then
says, is the sanctuary of ignorance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In
his second book (contained within his book <i>Ethics</i>)
he gives an argument on how one can obtain a higher degree of
perfection. Perfection for Spinoza deals with a persons ability to
act outwardly in a <i>right</i> manner, rather than allowing things to act upon us. Acting outwardly
is a conscious effort including not only thinking positively about
ones situations, but acting in a way according to those thoughts. It
also involves a high level of empathy and implementing that empathy
in order to become more “perfect”.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And
example of this that my professor at the time used in order to
understand what Spinoza meant in acting outwardly involved driving in
heavy traffic. When the car in front of you is driving under the
speed limit you have two basic options: to let the incident act on
you or to act outwardly (and rightly). To allow the incident to act
on one's self would be to allow it to upset you (this is definitely
the case for me more often then not, unfortunately). You are allowing
the situation to determine your actions. However, to act outwardly
would be to utilize empathy. While this is not how Spinoza words his
treatment of actions it is heavily implied. Going back to the example
of the slow driver, using empathy in this situation is to make an
assumption of the persons situation. For example, rather than
thinking they are some low-life sent from the pits of hell to cause
you annoyance, you can rather see them as human, either making a
mistake, or perhaps placing a situation for them to explain their
behavior. Perhaps they were recently in an accident which has caused
them to drive more cautiously, or maybe they are a new driver,
intimidated by the amount of traffic on the road. Spinoza explains
that in placing a method of understanding on the individual you give
them their own humanity back in utilizing your own empathy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Since
my humble beginnings in an undergraduate philosophy class I have come
to appreciate what I learned of humanity and our relations among one
another to a far greater extent. This relationship heavily is (or can
be) influenced by our understanding and utilization of empathy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In
Matt 22:37 we are told that the first and greatest
commandment is to love God. But this greatest commandment is
immediately followed up by a second, to love your neighbor. I find it
interesting and important that these two commandments are those that
replace centuries of strict practice and worship. Loving God is
central to religious thought, however, it is how one loves God that
had changed. Rather than showing him your loyalty and love through
adherence to a set of guidelines we are given the impression that to
show God our love for him we are to obey the second greatest
commandment by loving our neighbors. </span>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
</div>
Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-11126989689122816782014-11-12T08:51:00.000-07:002014-11-12T08:51:00.486-07:00The Twelfth ApostleWhile on my mission, I came upon a scripture that caused me to think of the status of Judas. Judas is painted as this bad guy, he is associated with the worst of sins -- the unpardonable sin of denying the holy ghost. But how much of this is accurate? Could we go so far to say that he was or is a son of perdition?<br />
<br />
The scripture that first got me thinking about this was D&C 29:12, which reads,<br />
<br />
<i>"And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, and it hath gone forth in a firm decree, but the will of the Father, that mine apostles, the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem, shall stand at my right hand at the day of my coming in a pillar of fire, being clothed with robes of righteousness, with crowns upon their heads, in glory even as I am, to judge the whole house of Israel, even as many as have loved me and kept my commandments, and none else."</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The line that caught my eye was, "the Twelve which were with me in my ministry at Jerusalem . . ." Now, there are several possibilities to explain this (among other) scripture. I would first like to point out that the scripture itself could be flawed. There are other's (few others) to support the claim that essentially Judas will be one of those to come down with Christ in the last days, however there are also scriptures condemning Judas for betraying Christ. I propose that Judas very well could be one of the twelve, and will show alternatives to this as well.<br />
<br />
In Matthew 27: 3-5, there is a different perspective as to Judas' death and final hours,<br />
<br />
<i>"3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,</i><br />
<i>4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.</i><br />
<i>5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."</i><br />
<br />
This scripture indicates that Judas "repented himself". This very well could explain why the scripture indicates who will be with Christ. This also takes away any belief that Judas committed the unpardonable sin. (Remember that to commit the unpardonable sin one would have to deny the Holy Ghost after having a <i>perfect</i> knowledge). Judas, I do not think, committed this sin. It was impossible, I feel, for the apostles to have a perfect knowledge of Christs messiahship--we have the example of Peter denying that he knew Christ three times and Thomas doubting saying that he must see Christ having resurrected to believe it. So it is perfectly possible that Judas repented of his sins. In fact, I would say that it is more plausible that he had a moment of weakness and betrayed Christ and upon seeing the results of that betrayal he repented and because of his sorrow killed himself.<br />
<br />
I feel that this explanation--Judas repenting himself--is logical and plausible. However, there is another that (maybe) could fit the profile of the twelfth apostle. This is Matthias.<br />
<br />
In Acts we learn that in order for the man who was to replace Judas to be considered for apostleship he would need to have been with Christ during his ministry, and followed him an his teachings those three years. There were two who the apostles chose. Matthias was ordained. This, in a round about way, would give us our twelfth apostle who was with Christ in his ministry--however he was not an apostle during his ministry. However, it is a logical and acceptable answer.<br />
<br />
There are several reasons to believe either way, however, we must consider the vagueness of the scripture(s) that indicate this. We do not know why the scripture was worded the way it was and how literally accurate we should acknowledge its worth. It could be very figuratively written.<br />
<br />
I feel that these explanations will suffice and are both very likely. I have been grappling for some time as to why Judas betrayed Christ. There are a lot of different theories; he was evil, he was close to Christ and was asked to do this, he was weak. I find that the most logical answer fits well with us. He was <i>weak</i>. He saw an opportunity--an evil one, but still there is that weakness--and he took it. He, like us, showed great remorse because of his decision--his being so great it lead to him killing himself.<br />
<br />
I feel that we should be less quick to judge Judas and try to see that maybe, just maybe, he was more human than we see him. And although his actions were horrible he eventually recognized his savior and (we can hope) repented.Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-64804467366228711492014-11-10T09:44:00.000-07:002014-11-10T09:44:00.852-07:00NatureI love nature.<br />
<br />
I guess I could leave the whole blog with just that, but maybe I should elaborate. After all, anyone who is reading and commenting on this I am probably paying off, and those of you not getting a weekly check are missing out.<br />
<br />
I love nature. I love being in it, I love experiencing it and sharing it with my kids. It's wonderful. I suspect I got this from my parents. We would go on hikes in Schenck Forest when I grew up in North Carolina and my Dad would take my brother and me on "Journey's of Discovery" where we would hike down rivers, bike in the rain and explore the many forests in NC. We learned about bugs and trees and more bugs and other animals and we learned to appreciate what nature has to offer. We learned the importance of preserving it. We learned that our awareness of God grows and is determined through our interactions with nature.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
We need nature.<br />
<br />
Through this appreciation of nature I have become very strong in my opinions in regards to global warming. I feel, and have learned through careful reading and studying that it is our moral obligation to treat this planet with respect and to do all we can to make sure our stewardship over this planet is taken seriously. It is discouraging to me that there is little I can personally do. But I still feel morally obligated to do what I can. I now bike to work and school, my wife and I have started a garden to become more self sufficient, and there are other things. It's little, but honestly it makes me feel better.<br />
<br />
The morality of global warming has become and important issue . . . or rather, should be an important issue. However, still there are so many who simply refuse to "believe" in it, or decide that they do not care. They disregard the fact that through the scriptures our stewardship over the Earth is apparent and emphasized. In fact, "much of what can be done to fight climate change is consistent with traditional Christian values of good stewardship and modest living" (Hadley, Faith and Ethics of Climate Change, Dialogue 2011).<br />
<br />
There is uncertainty, there will need to be some level of faith involved. Although the science is accurate and nearly unanimous, there is still <i>faith</i> needed. And this is exactly why it is an issue of morality, because there is that uncertainty, but with that comes our obligation to do what is ethically right to prevent something that could (and <i>will</i>) happen. It is important that we understand that we can make changes and we should do all we can in order to make the world a better place for our children and their children<br />
<br />
"The complexity of the problem requires that the solutions we offer must meet the depth and range of the problems; they must be global, they must reach into the very marrow of how we define ourselves as human beings, into what we believe to be our place on this planet, and what, ultimately is the meaning and nature of death, of dying, and of our biology. This is certainly too much to ask of capitalism, politics, science, and technology, but it certainly shouldn't be too much to ask of religion" (Hadley).Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-9157730658536602052014-11-07T08:00:00.000-07:002014-11-07T08:26:32.059-07:00One Sentence On How You Perceive God<i><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;">A while back I began asking people the question, "How do you perceive God?" and I got a number of responses back. All were wonderful. I left the question wide open and let them answer in any way they wished. Now, I want to share some of the responses I got. (Some may be longer than 1 sentence. The title is a lie).</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><i></i><br />
</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><i>"</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think he is most interested in people and how we treat each other."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">He is the supreme overseer and director of the universe and he is the father of all mankind . . . I</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">n order to discover God one must be humble, sincere, and honest with him."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span id="docs-internal-guid-3a27df57-7738-5759-f526-814075fd9a89"></span>
</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"I was always told, that he is everywhere, He is in everything. It is through my experience that I have learned, that even as he is in everything, he is very much so, also in our hate, for hate drives us to see. But do we see clarity, or do we see madness."</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">He is a loving Father that loves us no matter what . . . </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am loved with more energy that the sun will ever produce."</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">He is my Father and since I am His child, I must have some qualities that are in me. Same with the rest of the human race. Everyone has a piece of God in them."</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">I'm at a point now, where if I can get to a place of stillness and openness of mind, I perceive God in everything. Mostly in people."</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; white-space: pre-wrap;">"I met God, she is black . . .</span><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am grateful for my God who has taught me compassion and connection. And who continues to push the boundaries of the view I have of Him, of Her, of this life, and of this universe."</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-3a27df57-773f-e4d7-bc9a-6e561add2c7f"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"God is something else entirely. He was never human like you and I are. </span></span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">He does not have a father or mother he just simply exists. He was here first he was the one that created all things. He is in a way all things."</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; white-space: pre-wrap;">"</span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">All my exposure to God (God as a person) is second or third hand. Second hand in my exposure to the grace of interacting with other people. Third hand in my exposure to the grace reported by others (esp. in scripture). Both boil down, I guess, to my acquaintance with grace."</span></span></div>
Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-45229395172721998182014-11-05T08:00:00.000-07:002014-11-06T09:37:20.612-07:00On Polygamy and Human ComplexityIn recent years, and even more so in the last few weeks, a lot of information has come about dealing with Joseph Smith and polygamy. Information has been brought to light that he'd married others as early as 1830 and some as young as fourteen. Evidence has also come about showing that he had married women who were already married. While learning this of the man who founded the church I believe in is hard, it still has no affect on my faith and testimony.<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that over the last few decades our church has put its leaders on a pedestal -- expecting no fault from them and taking every utterance as doctrine. However, this was never the case.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I like this quote from <a href="http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/10/new-polygamy-essays/">Julie M. Smith from Times and Seasons</a>:<br />
<br />
"I think the odd confluence of 1950's American corporate culture, historical amnesia, and rapid world-wide growth led Mormonism to advance the idea that a CEO-like prophet got regular memo's from God, bullet-pointed with precise operating instructions designed to maximize return for the next quarter."<br />
<br />
There is a lot to take from the quote. Not only are we imagining our leaders as being high above us, but that they have constant revelation flowing through them, directing them in literally all things. This method of belief is simply not true.<br />
<br />
While what Joseph Smith had done can most certainly be held in a negative light (and perhaps deservedly so), to view him as infallible is taking away a very human element in not only his life but in any of the prophets lives--ancient or modern. It makes these men simple creatures. Much of what Joseph Smith had taught was good and relevant and meaningful. Much of what he had done was good. And I'm not trying to vindicate what he'd done in regards to polygamy (as well as the many other mistakes he'd made and sins he'd committed) I do not agree with it, but I am simply addressing the fact that humans are a sum of many part, good and bad, weak and strong, many of which may not make sense. Despite occasional direction from God Joseph Smith was no where near perfect.<br />
<br />
Even despite evidence of prophets humanness we still have a tendency to elevate them above humanity. Within the scriptures we have examples of important men--prophets, apostles, ordained persons--who made bad decisions, who were unforgiving, or ignorant but we tend to leave out those parts when perhaps we shouldn't. Look at Abraham, Jonah, Lot, Elisha, David, Solomon, Judas, Peter, Paul . . . each of which had faults--major faults.<br />
<br />
It is for these reasons (and more) that I find no real value on basing my faith (in really any capacity) in men, even those ordained to high office. This doesn't discount their advice. This doesn't diminish their importance or influence. It means that I can allow them to make mistakes, believe things in different ways than I believe but still sustain them as leaders of the church.<br />
<br />Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-24712260401902430592014-11-03T10:49:00.000-07:002014-11-06T09:35:39.441-07:00A Wild "Mormonism" Appears<i>A short simple thought that occurred to me . . .</i><br />
<br />
I couldn't sleep last night. I stayed up thinking of God, and religion, and the many questions I have. An analogy came to me then -- I guess it was some kind of realization on how it is that the church functions and grows. A metaphor for its functionality, if you will.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
You hear things thrown around like, "the church is an organism," but I came to the realize that it isn't simply -- or perhaps not so simply -- an organism. An organism implies a single entity. One "thing" with parts that each person must contribute to. "I am the arm," or "I am the eyes" or, we compare it to "I must do my part for the whole to function." But this is, again to simplistic. The church, I came to realize in my metaphoric state is a species. The church has to change over a greater amount of time. It needs to evolve, as a species does (where an organism does not). It must evolve according to its environment, its culture, and population. Part of this evolution must involve -- through time -- weeding our parts, and adding others.<br />
<br />
This perhaps can be broken down into further, more individualistic parts, but to do so can also diminish its meaning as a whole analogy. Rather, suffice it to say that all parts are present, and needed in many different capacities, even in negative (or maybe seemingly so) ones.Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3883167654191153693.post-76680605494898784312014-10-29T11:43:00.000-06:002014-11-06T09:36:07.268-07:00Perceiving God Through Empathy<i>"Both insofar as the mind has clear and distinct, and insofar as it has confused ideas, it strives, for an indefinite duration, to persevere in its being and it is conscious of this striving it has."</i><br />
<div>
<i>-Ethics, </i>Spinoza, pp. 76</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While not entirely linear, this idea pushes the importance of knowledge to bring about empathy. Spinoza explains that to the extent we understand the world the better we are, or become. Or, the more you understand the more you'll act from your own <i>essence -- </i>act, rather that be acted upon. </div>
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div>
Acting according to our knowledge in ways that enhance one's perfection (II/191) brings, or encourages empathy. This knowledge is that of understanding one's situations. This can be shown through relating to what others may be going through at any given time. For instance, watching behavior of drivers, one's first reaction to another drivers mistake is annoyance. However, knowledge of one's own experience -- in relation to others -- you can show empathy to how they may react. or their own mistakes, in relation to your own mistakes. You are able to recognize that their may be other reasons for their behavior, such as having undergone a traumatic experience, or they are distracted because of circumstances outside of their control, etc. Through one's own knowledge you gain empathy and you act outwardly, again, rather than being acted upon, which leads you to (as Spinoza says) a lesser perfection. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>"God's existence and his essence are one and the same"</i> (Spinoza 16). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Spinoza further incorporates his ideas of empathy through how he treats the character of God. He first argues that to be God is to be eternal and to exist (Premise 28) and that God must be all things, or rather, all things are God (P17). This idea, and in relation to his incorporation to empathy focuses on the idea of equality through empathy and a recognition of those things in our relationship with others. This idea is very similar to the greeting <i>Namaste, </i>meaning "that which is of God within me greets that which is of God within you." This form of empathy comes about when we understand life and comprehend God through our relationships with others and ourselves. Seeking inwardness that will connect with others inwardness. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Michael Austin, in his book <i>Rereading Job</i> wrote, "Jesus argued that we cannot separate our relationship with other people from our relationship with God. Human beings matter, even if they are women taken in adultery, or prodigal sons, or members of foreign tribes." Our relationship with others indicates our relationship with God, or amplifies it. More than anything, this pushes the notion that to know and understand God we must have, and must utilize empathy. This would also indicate that our relationship with others must rely on something more meaningful than acquaintance. There must be a dual acceptance of the other and a relation of similarity (or perhaps a recognition of similarity). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Finally, I would like to touch on Matt. 22:36-39 (NIV), <i>"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus replied 'love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, love thy neighbor as yourself.' </i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
Who is my neighbor</div>
<div>
No legal definitions</div>
<div>
Only everyone</div>
<div>
-Steve Waters</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Through his first commandment, it would seem that he is showing us <i>how</i> to view the second commandment. It is through loving God, or incorporating God within us, that inwardness -- Nameste -- that we are able to fulfill the second commandment, to love our neighbor. We are told to love God, but how? Does God require our love? Is he a jealous God who envies our love? Why is the greatest commandment to love him? It does not seem that it is rather the law that brings all others into place. By loving God we <i>must</i> love others. We love God through an understanding and utilization of empathy. We love God through acceptance, love, tolerance, and the outward expression of these things. Jesus preferences the second law with the first to help emphasize what we are actually doingn. We are loving God by loving others. </div>
Caphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03409275957155945665noreply@blogger.com2