the ideal
so here i am, working on an essay that compares and contrasts (that phrase shud be registered as the bane of academic existence) two disparate lifestyles and attempts to pick the "ideal Christian life"
so far i've managed to at least decide on my two perspectives. I've chosen to pit the scholar against the ascetic. The scholar i've chosen (by default) is Origen. an early third century Biblical Scholar (duh) and Mysitc. he was born in Alexandria (now cairo) and spent a fair bit of time travelling around the dwindling Roman empire.
{i wonder what it would've been like to live in that time period. with the world changing. today we talk about global change but what's really changed in the past century? Canada's cold, the US is big and scary (ok well W. has trouble being scary except by accident), South America has political problems that leave the poor even poorer, Europe still has churches that only a small percentage of people attend... this guy was writing at a period that would be equvalent to mexico kickin the shit out of the US and forcing the president to flee to canada) anyway enough with this side note}
my second examplar is Anthony. well, the Anthony of someone else's imagination. whether or not he was a real Hermit is irrelevant. what is relevant is that a bishop felt it was worth his time to write about Anthony's life. Anthony was a desert father (dessert father? i can never remember which is which) he fought demons and new the Bible from cover to cover without ever having learnt to read. anyone here ever done any memory verses? i have - at one point i had Matt 5-7 down pat. now... nothing. being able to recite the whole Bible... now that's some serious study time. Anthony supposedly ate a piece of bread that was delivered by a bird, once a month yet still stayed as healthy as a 20yr old CK (no not Calvin Klein, Clark Kent! i mean really - when's the last time u linked "healthy" to "model"?)
ok so now for the kicker. which is better? and why?
one literally changed the way people study the Bible, his influence can still be seen today despite the majority of his teachings being burnt. thats influence. the other practically started an entire way of life that lasted almost a millenium. how do u say which is better? i've read countless references to Origen while studying Christian texts all the way up a hundred years ago. and he's still influential today. thats 1700 years of influence. Anthony was the model for the entire Monastic way of life. thats less duration but broader audience... hmmm well this rant has done little to clear my mind... part 2 will follow... hopefully with an answer
so far i've managed to at least decide on my two perspectives. I've chosen to pit the scholar against the ascetic. The scholar i've chosen (by default) is Origen. an early third century Biblical Scholar (duh) and Mysitc. he was born in Alexandria (now cairo) and spent a fair bit of time travelling around the dwindling Roman empire.
{i wonder what it would've been like to live in that time period. with the world changing. today we talk about global change but what's really changed in the past century? Canada's cold, the US is big and scary (ok well W. has trouble being scary except by accident), South America has political problems that leave the poor even poorer, Europe still has churches that only a small percentage of people attend... this guy was writing at a period that would be equvalent to mexico kickin the shit out of the US and forcing the president to flee to canada) anyway enough with this side note}
my second examplar is Anthony. well, the Anthony of someone else's imagination. whether or not he was a real Hermit is irrelevant. what is relevant is that a bishop felt it was worth his time to write about Anthony's life. Anthony was a desert father (dessert father? i can never remember which is which) he fought demons and new the Bible from cover to cover without ever having learnt to read. anyone here ever done any memory verses? i have - at one point i had Matt 5-7 down pat. now... nothing. being able to recite the whole Bible... now that's some serious study time. Anthony supposedly ate a piece of bread that was delivered by a bird, once a month yet still stayed as healthy as a 20yr old CK (no not Calvin Klein, Clark Kent! i mean really - when's the last time u linked "healthy" to "model"?)
ok so now for the kicker. which is better? and why?
one literally changed the way people study the Bible, his influence can still be seen today despite the majority of his teachings being burnt. thats influence. the other practically started an entire way of life that lasted almost a millenium. how do u say which is better? i've read countless references to Origen while studying Christian texts all the way up a hundred years ago. and he's still influential today. thats 1700 years of influence. Anthony was the model for the entire Monastic way of life. thats less duration but broader audience... hmmm well this rant has done little to clear my mind... part 2 will follow... hopefully with an answer