It has been my experience in the English language that capitalizing a noun is an attempt to make a proper noun, not a deity. In this case, I think the author capitalized "self" in order to make sure we all knew he/she was referring to the specific concept often used in literary and philosophical studies to refer to one's person, personality, insecurities, and set of principles as a complete entity seperate from and (in some ways) in opposition to the outside world and influences. I know this because I have a pretty good idea of who made the comment to which you are referring.
I think the Bible speaks rather highly of the "value of forgiveness" and passing that value on. Also, I don't think the Bible would have any problem with us finding inner peace and happiness or loving and being loved. So it seems your only problem with the comment is the part about learning to love and respect ourselves. I would like to mention that the passage you mentioned, Ezekiel 28:11-19, lists at length the great worth and beauty that each of us were created/born with with. The passage also seems to suggest that our beauty is marred because we don't respect, value, and appreciate it for what it is. The passage says, "Thou art the annointed cherub that covereth." Why would we cover our beauty unless we were ashamed and failed to value that beauty at its proper worth?
So I guess I fail to see what issue you could have with the comment to which you refer. I'm always very happy to be pointed to the wisdom that is available in the Bible, and I enjoyed reading the verses you mentioned. However, I'm not as happy to have the people who comment on my journal intimidated with a barrage of biblical passages that carry the message, "You're wrong because the Bible says so."
Now I have a pretty good idea of who you are, too, and I always value your input. I also know that the last thing you want to do is intimidate anyone. I just ask you to remember the intimidating nature of a wad of Bible verses thrown into people's faces, especially people who may have a history of being harrassed and belittled by Christians with less understanding than you have.
I've got a ton of things to say in reply to your post. It'll take a while to put it all together though. Perhaps my mistake last time was not having enough time to make a fully explanatory post. To make the long story short, I'll just say that I'm not trying to cause any hard feelings or belittle anyone. I am, however, concerned about the wisdom of the varying points-of-view. Like I said, I'll post a lot more on this later. For now, I want to say that I'm happy to have the chance to talk about all of this. I welcome the other authors to join in. I'd like it to be a discussion, not an argument. When all is said and done, I hope we come away from this closer than we've been before.
To the other author: I hate conflict. If I was too harsh before, I understand how you might feel. This is something that has been eating at me for a long time. I find no words to describe how important this is to me. I ask your patience and your input... but if, at the end of the day, we disagree... my loyalty is to my friend. I will give him the advice I think he needs and that advice may be contrary to yours.
Let's look at the posts made earlier and do some comparisons first. Note that I will be making my statements from a point-of-view that holds the Bible as ultimate truth. Any argument with that position can be made as desired, but I won't drill in my evidence for that now. Also, I may come off as patronizing or something. I don't mean to... reading over the way I wrote this, you might get that idea. My goal is to help. I want you to understand where I'm coming from and why I responded the way I did earlier.
------- The other author said: --------------------------------- I do know this much, based on my observations and introspection: We do it out of fear of rejection, for in our fragile state of lonliness and confusion, rejection is more than we could bear. Rejection tears apart our self-worth, and if it is damaged too much, we cannot recover. Somehow, we instinctively know this, and seek to protect ourselves. It is a sad irony that we are protecting ourselves from our own happiness. ------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it, the author's point here is that the behavior with which you are displeased (i.e., the "I don't cares," the glorification of meaningless interactions, etc.) is due to an inherent sense of frailty common to generally all people. That is, because we are all afraid of damaging our pride, we cut others off and hurt them before they can hurt us. (The "do unto others before they do unto you" philosophy, perhaps?) Thus, the author says:
--------------------------------------- Thank goodness that experience can bring change in perception and wisdom, so that we can eventually find a way to shake off this self-imposed spiritual exile.
Our purpose is to do more than merely survive. It is to learn the truths that have nothing to do with what is outside of us, but what is inside our minds and our hearts, and then teach those truths to our children. We are to teach them how to be able to love themselves, respect themselves, to understand the prize that is inner peace. We learn the value of forgiveness, and then we pass that on. -------------------------------------------
So, the answer proposed by this author is that we should discover the truths "inside our minds and our hearts." As I understand this statement, the author believes that inside of each of us there is some special wisdom that we have been born with or have otherwise attained. Our goal, then, should be to search out these truths that come from within ourselves. Further, doing this will give us a sense of self-love and self-respect which will give us the ability to forgive others.
Okay, think about the implications here. Our "hearts and minds" contain the truths we need. So, we have the potential to be self-sufficient spiritually (as I understand the author's point-of-view). This speaks of a self-godhood to me -- and indeed, many a new-ager would agree with this view-point and use it as a springboard into the self-godhood perspective. My statement about the deification of the "Self" was more than simply based on the choice of capital letters. It comes from the underlying concepts in this argument as I understand them.
(Having to break up the super long post I wrote...)
The philosophy described in these statements is spreading all around. It isn't just part of the nominally "new-age movement" anymore. You may be familiar with something called the "purpose-driven life" movement, for example. It has become very popular with many supposedly Christian churches. The thesis of this movement is that our pain and suffering comes from the failure to recognize the value of our "self." Thus, it promotes a philosophy of self-worth and self-love that is contrary to the Biblical Christian life. "Does the Bible REALLY teach against this?" you might be asking. Yes, it certainly does. When Job finally understood his situation and how his behavior appeared in the eyes of God, the said "I abhor myself and repent." Further, Paul said near the end of his life "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." Paul is regarded by many to be one of the greatest Christians to ever live, but he considers himself chief among sinners. He says, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." I could go on, but I won't for now.
Now, the author's idea is that we should: ------------------------------ ... learn for ourselves, and then teach our kids how to nurture the Self, and those around us. ------------------------------
I'll say this now: all falsehoods that are successful are mixed with truths. No lie that ever works for any length of time is devoid of truth. Mixing truth and lies has been Satan's game all along. Think about how he tried to tempt Christ. He quoted scripture. He quoted partial scripture, to be exact. He took things out of context and tried to turn "the truth of God into a lie," but was unsuccessful in the case of tempting Christ. He has had much more success on others... just ask Eve. Okay... getting back to the task at hand... nurturing the "Self" is equivalent to increasing one's pride as I understand it. The author thinks that by nurturing the "Self," we can overcome this inherent weakness mentioned earlier that is supposedly the cause of our problems. The author adds that nurturing "those around us" is also important. I cannot argue with that. It is a truth I would support. However, putting it together with the need to nurture "Self" is where I see the problem. Why is this self-love so bad? Well, self-love leads us to put our righteousness against God's righteousness. The simple truth is this: we are all actually wicked beyond measure. We are all sinners. We all defy God. We all hurt each other. That's breaking both of the two main commandments. If I am, by nature, a sinful, wicked person, why should I love myself? You may ask, "If everyone is wicked, why love others?" Good question. We love others because we are told to do so, and we recognize that God loves us. As it is written, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." "Well, then," you might say, "if God loves me, why can't I love myself?" Let's talk about what it is we love. Should I love my sinful nature? No, but neither does God. Should I love my own wisdom? No, and neither does God. In fact, "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." What should I love, then? What God loves; my connection with him. "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."
What, then, gives us the ability to forgive? According to the author's statements, it must be the inner peace and strength we attain by probing our "hearts and minds." I suggest this is incorrect. The ability to forgive comes from the recognition that I am just as wicked as anyone who tries to harm me. Being no better than they are, I have no right to hold anything against them. Only God can forgive sins, because only God is outside of sin. A thief has little right to point fingers at someone who steals his property. A liar has little right to point fingers at someone who lies to him. A sinner, then, has little right to point fingers at those who sin against him. David said, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight" after committing adultery and murder. He was talking to God. He hadn't sinned against the victims of his crimes. He sinned against God.
Now, to the final point of addressing the author's post. The author concludes:
------------------------------------------ Our purpose in life is to survive yes, but really it is to be happy, to love and be loved. We are here to experience the kind of joy that you yourself know.
It sure is a lot harder to do than it sounds. -----------------------------------------------
Yes... I agree... sort of. Our purpose is to love God and those he loves. Our purpose is to serve God and reach out to those who "oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." Right now, I don't know what the author's spiritual condition is. Maybe the author is a born-again Christian who has gotten a bit too influenced by the wisdom of the world. Hey, it happens. Maybe, though, the author is one of those who oppose themselves. What's that mean, by the way? To oppose one's self? Well, read the rest of the verse: "if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." So, they are those who do not acknowledge the truth. What's the truth? Good question. Pontius Pilate asked something similar once. Christ tells us: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." THAT is the truth. Christ is the only way. Christ is the only truth. Christ is the only life. Nothing and nobody can get you to Heaven but Christ. No matter how much self-worth and self-love you attain, it is all in vain if you don't have Christ. And Christ tells us again: "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
Now, to address your reply, my friend. Ezekiel 28:
11: Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 12: Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13: Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14: Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15: Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16: By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17: Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18: Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19: All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
You concluded that "[t]he passage also seems to suggest that our beauty is marred because we don't respect, value, and appreciate it for what it is."
Who is this passage about, first of all? "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;" it says. The figure it describes was in Eden. There is a big clue. Who do we know was ever in Eden? Well, God was. Adam and Eve were. Oh, and the serpent was too. So, four choices. "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth," it goes on to say. What's a cherub? It's a kind of angel, if you look a little more into scripture. Which of the four choices was an angel? "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan" scripture tells us. So, the serpent was the Devil. (You knew that, of course. I just have to reference the point.) The Devil was an angel, you'll find out with a bit of reading in the scripture. So, the passage is about Satan.
"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth," it says. You said, "Why would we cover our beauty unless we were ashamed and failed to value that beauty at its proper worth?" What's the word covereth all about in this verse? "And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be" says scripture. Satan was once of high regard in Heaven. He was second in power. He was given the highest position in Heaven under God. He was allowed to cover the throne of God, represented as the mercy seat on the ark of the testimony.
What happened to Satan? "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness" scripture tells us. Satan got proud. Satan wanted the highest position. Isaiah 14:
"12": How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
"13": For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
"14": I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Satan wanted to be God. The job was taken. He was upset and rebelled. Thus, my central point: the seed of all evil... the cause of all our problems on this Earth... the thing we should strive to avoid by learning from the mistakes of others... is pride.
My friend, I want to say one last thing before this night ends. If it is your desire for me to walk away from this journal, I'll do so. You know my intentions, I believe. I only replied to this particular thread because it struck me that I finally had a direct answer to provide. I've often struggled to find the right words; the right answers for you... rarely, it seems, have I come through. In this case, however, I know the answer I gave you will hold true.
Some places are meant to be shared by mixed groups. We have another place to speak. I don't want to make you or any of your friends feel the need to shy away. So, say the word and I'm gone.
No, I do not want you to leave this journal alone. I always value your advice, even if I don't agree with it. I think that you alone among all those I now consider close friends have seen me cry, and that's a big deal to me. You and I may indeed take different roads come Judgment Day, but at least we'll be able to say we knew friendship while we were here on earth. So, you are the last person I'm going to ask to leave my journal. Though, if Justin finds out he didn't get a post this evening because I lured you into a religious discussion, I may be standing before the pearly gates very soon. ;)
I don't have time to make a full response tonight, but I will make a short start here in order to work my way toward a point I want to make.
The concept of self-godhood is no mere "new-age" concept. It is born out of 19th century transcendentalism. Emerson, a philosopher and minister that I admire greatly, deals with the concept rather well. To him God was everywhere: in the mountains, in the trees, in the grass, in the cows, and most importantly, in each of us. (You might recognize this from that "infinite potential theorem" we played around with back in high school.) After pointing out that "St. Augustine described the nature of God as a circle whose center was everywhere and its circumference nowhere," Emerson says, "There is no outside, no inclosing wall, no circumference to us." He says, "I am God in nature; I am a weed by the wall." He says, "We learn that God IS, that he is in me; and that all things are shadows of him." Speaking of our own potential and worth and how we abuse and squander that potential he says, "We sell the thrones of angels for a short and turbulent pleasure." And speaking of sin, he says, "The only sin is limitation." (All of this comes from his essay "Circles.")
Now, most of this stands in opposition to what you just said, and that brings me to the point I want to make tonight. It is simpler for a devout Christian to debate philosophy, because the authoritative texts for him/her have been reduced to the Bible. For those of us who do not yet accept the Bible as the divine word of an omniscient, omnipotent God, things are trickier. The Bible carries no more weight for us than Emerson, and we must decide from our own personal experience what is the truth and what isn't. It can be frustrating and discouraging for us to present arguments coming from sources other than the Bible to Christians and have those arguments dismissed out of hand simply because they say something not supported by what Christians consider to be the divine word of god. I am happy to have a religious discussion with you, and you have earned the right to talk to me however you wish. However, if other readers decide to take part in our discussion (and I encourage them to do so), I would like you to weigh their words not only with your knowledge of the Bible, but also with your own personal life experience and observations. I am basically asking you to not merely use the "God says so" defense and instead show how what God says applies to human existence as seen through your eyes. I think this will allow others to recognize that you are actually thinking about their comments (which I know you are) rather than just dismissing their comments with a reference to a Bible verse.
When you are just responding to me, please feel free to stick to the "God says so" defense because I have done extensive research outside the Bible, and this is an opportunity for me to learn more about the Bible and Christianity from you.
I think the Bible speaks rather highly of the "value of forgiveness" and passing that value on. Also, I don't think the Bible would have any problem with us finding inner peace and happiness or loving and being loved. So it seems your only problem with the comment is the part about learning to love and respect ourselves. I would like to mention that the passage you mentioned, Ezekiel 28:11-19, lists at length the great worth and beauty that each of us were created/born with with. The passage also seems to suggest that our beauty is marred because we don't respect, value, and appreciate it for what it is. The passage says, "Thou art the annointed cherub that covereth." Why would we cover our beauty unless we were ashamed and failed to value that beauty at its proper worth?
So I guess I fail to see what issue you could have with the comment to which you refer. I'm always very happy to be pointed to the wisdom that is available in the Bible, and I enjoyed reading the verses you mentioned. However, I'm not as happy to have the people who comment on my journal intimidated with a barrage of biblical passages that carry the message, "You're wrong because the Bible says so."
Now I have a pretty good idea of who you are, too, and I always value your input. I also know that the last thing you want to do is intimidate anyone. I just ask you to remember the intimidating nature of a wad of Bible verses thrown into people's faces, especially people who may have a history of being harrassed and belittled by Christians with less understanding than you have.
Reply
To the other author: I hate conflict. If I was too harsh before, I understand how you might feel. This is something that has been eating at me for a long time. I find no words to describe how important this is to me. I ask your patience and your input... but if, at the end of the day, we disagree... my loyalty is to my friend. I will give him the advice I think he needs and that advice may be contrary to yours.
Reply
------- The other author said: ---------------------------------
I do know this much, based on my observations and introspection: We do it out of fear of rejection, for in our fragile state of lonliness and confusion, rejection is more than we could bear. Rejection tears apart our self-worth, and if it is damaged too much, we cannot recover. Somehow, we instinctively know this, and seek to protect ourselves. It is a sad irony that we are protecting ourselves from our own happiness.
------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it, the author's point here is that the behavior with which you are displeased (i.e., the "I don't cares," the glorification of meaningless interactions, etc.) is due to an inherent sense of frailty common to generally all people. That is, because we are all afraid of damaging our pride, we cut others off and hurt them before they can hurt us. (The "do unto others before they do unto you" philosophy, perhaps?) Thus, the author says:
---------------------------------------
Thank goodness that experience can bring change in perception and wisdom, so that we can eventually find a way to shake off this self-imposed spiritual exile.
Our purpose is to do more than merely survive. It is to learn the truths that have nothing to do with what is outside of us, but what is inside our minds and our hearts, and then teach those truths to our children. We are to teach them how to be able to love themselves, respect themselves, to understand the prize that is inner peace. We learn the value of forgiveness, and then we pass that on.
-------------------------------------------
So, the answer proposed by this author is that we should discover the truths "inside our minds and our hearts." As I understand this statement, the author believes that inside of each of us there is some special wisdom that we have been born with or have otherwise attained. Our goal, then, should be to search out these truths that come from within ourselves. Further, doing this will give us a sense of self-love and self-respect which will give us the ability to forgive others.
Okay, think about the implications here. Our "hearts and minds" contain the truths we need. So, we have the potential to be self-sufficient spiritually (as I understand the author's point-of-view). This speaks of a self-godhood to me -- and indeed, many a new-ager would agree with this view-point and use it as a springboard into the self-godhood perspective. My statement about the deification of the "Self" was more than simply based on the choice of capital letters. It comes from the underlying concepts in this argument as I understand them.
Reply
The philosophy described in these statements is spreading all around. It isn't just part of the nominally "new-age movement" anymore. You may be familiar with something called the "purpose-driven life" movement, for example. It has become very popular with many supposedly Christian churches. The thesis of this movement is that our pain and suffering comes from the failure to recognize the value of our "self." Thus, it promotes a philosophy of self-worth and self-love that is contrary to the Biblical Christian life. "Does the Bible REALLY teach against this?" you might be asking. Yes, it certainly does. When Job finally understood his situation and how his behavior appeared in the eyes of God, the said "I abhor myself and repent." Further, Paul said near the end of his life "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." Paul is regarded by many to be one of the greatest Christians to ever live, but he considers himself chief among sinners. He says, "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." I could go on, but I won't for now.
Now, the author's idea is that we should:
------------------------------
... learn for ourselves, and then teach our kids how to nurture the Self, and those around us.
------------------------------
I'll say this now: all falsehoods that are successful are mixed with truths. No lie that ever works for any length of time is devoid of truth. Mixing truth and lies has been Satan's game all along. Think about how he tried to tempt Christ. He quoted scripture. He quoted partial scripture, to be exact. He took things out of context and tried to turn "the truth of God into a lie," but was unsuccessful in the case of tempting Christ. He has had much more success on others... just ask Eve. Okay... getting back to the task at hand... nurturing the "Self" is equivalent to increasing one's pride as I understand it. The author thinks that by nurturing the "Self," we can overcome this inherent weakness mentioned earlier that is supposedly the cause of our problems. The author adds that nurturing "those around us" is also important. I cannot argue with that. It is a truth I would support. However, putting it together with the need to nurture "Self" is where I see the problem. Why is this self-love so bad? Well, self-love leads us to put our righteousness against God's righteousness. The simple truth is this: we are all actually wicked beyond measure. We are all sinners. We all defy God. We all hurt each other. That's breaking both of the two main commandments. If I am, by nature, a sinful, wicked person, why should I love myself? You may ask, "If everyone is wicked, why love others?" Good question. We love others because we are told to do so, and we recognize that God loves us. As it is written, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." "Well, then," you might say, "if God loves me, why can't I love myself?" Let's talk about what it is we love. Should I love my sinful nature? No, but neither does God. Should I love my own wisdom? No, and neither does God. In fact, "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." What should I love, then? What God loves; my connection with him. "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."
Reply
Now, to the final point of addressing the author's post. The author concludes:
------------------------------------------
Our purpose in life is to survive yes, but really it is to be happy, to love and be loved. We are here to experience the kind of joy that you yourself know.
It sure is a lot harder to do than it sounds.
-----------------------------------------------
Yes... I agree... sort of. Our purpose is to love God and those he loves. Our purpose is to serve God and reach out to those who "oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." Right now, I don't know what the author's spiritual condition is. Maybe the author is a born-again Christian who has gotten a bit too influenced by the wisdom of the world. Hey, it happens. Maybe, though, the author is one of those who oppose themselves. What's that mean, by the way? To oppose one's self? Well, read the rest of the verse: "if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." So, they are those who do not acknowledge the truth. What's the truth? Good question. Pontius Pilate asked something similar once. Christ tells us: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." THAT is the truth. Christ is the only way. Christ is the only truth. Christ is the only life. Nothing and nobody can get you to Heaven but Christ. No matter how much self-worth and self-love you attain, it is all in vain if you don't have Christ. And Christ tells us again: "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
Reply
11: Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
12: Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
13: Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14: Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15: Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16: By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17: Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18: Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19: All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
You concluded that "[t]he passage also seems to suggest that our beauty is marred because we don't respect, value, and appreciate it for what it is."
Who is this passage about, first of all? "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;" it says. The figure it describes was in Eden. There is a big clue. Who do we know was ever in Eden? Well, God was. Adam and Eve were. Oh, and the serpent was too. So, four choices. "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth," it goes on to say. What's a cherub? It's a kind of angel, if you look a little more into scripture. Which of the four choices was an angel? "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan" scripture tells us. So, the serpent was the Devil. (You knew that, of course. I just have to reference the point.) The Devil was an angel, you'll find out with a bit of reading in the scripture. So, the passage is about Satan.
"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth," it says. You said, "Why would we cover our beauty unless we were ashamed and failed to value that beauty at its proper worth?" What's the word covereth all about in this verse? "And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be" says scripture. Satan was once of high regard in Heaven. He was second in power. He was given the highest position in Heaven under God. He was allowed to cover the throne of God, represented as the mercy seat on the ark of the testimony.
What happened to Satan? "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness" scripture tells us. Satan got proud. Satan wanted the highest position. Isaiah 14:
"12": How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
"13": For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
"14": I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Satan wanted to be God. The job was taken. He was upset and rebelled. Thus, my central point: the seed of all evil... the cause of all our problems on this Earth... the thing we should strive to avoid by learning from the mistakes of others... is pride.
Reply
Some places are meant to be shared by mixed groups. We have another place to speak. I don't want to make you or any of your friends feel the need to shy away. So, say the word and I'm gone.
Reply
I don't have time to make a full response tonight, but I will make a short start here in order to work my way toward a point I want to make.
The concept of self-godhood is no mere "new-age" concept. It is born out of 19th century transcendentalism. Emerson, a philosopher and minister that I admire greatly, deals with the concept rather well. To him God was everywhere: in the mountains, in the trees, in the grass, in the cows, and most importantly, in each of us. (You might recognize this from that "infinite potential theorem" we played around with back in high school.) After pointing out that "St. Augustine described the nature of God as a circle whose center was everywhere and its circumference nowhere," Emerson says, "There is no outside, no inclosing wall, no circumference to us." He says, "I am God in nature; I am a weed by the wall." He says, "We learn that God IS, that he is in me; and that all things are shadows of him." Speaking of our own potential and worth and how we abuse and squander that potential he says, "We sell the thrones of angels for a short and turbulent pleasure." And speaking of sin, he says, "The only sin is limitation." (All of this comes from his essay "Circles.")
Now, most of this stands in opposition to what you just said, and that brings me to the point I want to make tonight. It is simpler for a devout Christian to debate philosophy, because the authoritative texts for him/her have been reduced to the Bible. For those of us who do not yet accept the Bible as the divine word of an omniscient, omnipotent God, things are trickier. The Bible carries no more weight for us than Emerson, and we must decide from our own personal experience what is the truth and what isn't. It can be frustrating and discouraging for us to present arguments coming from sources other than the Bible to Christians and have those arguments dismissed out of hand simply because they say something not supported by what Christians consider to be the divine word of god. I am happy to have a religious discussion with you, and you have earned the right to talk to me however you wish. However, if other readers decide to take part in our discussion (and I encourage them to do so), I would like you to weigh their words not only with your knowledge of the Bible, but also with your own personal life experience and observations. I am basically asking you to not merely use the "God says so" defense and instead show how what God says applies to human existence as seen through your eyes. I think this will allow others to recognize that you are actually thinking about their comments (which I know you are) rather than just dismissing their comments with a reference to a Bible verse.
When you are just responding to me, please feel free to stick to the "God says so" defense because I have done extensive research outside the Bible, and this is an opportunity for me to learn more about the Bible and Christianity from you.
Reply
Leave a comment