There are so many verses that claim that as a Christian you live IN Christ, Christ also lives IN you, we live IN Him.
Jesus said to the audience, "I told you these things so you can have peace IN me" (John 16:33).
Jesus prays to the Lord, "Father, I pray that they can be one. As you are IN me and I am IN you, I pray that they can also be ONE IN US. (John 17:21)
Jesus continues praying, "I showed them what you are like, and I will show them again. Then they will have the same love that you have for me, and I will live IN them." (John 17:26)
Its hard to say what these verse mean. It seems that as Christians, we are desired to become part of God, to be ONE with God just as Jesus is ONE with God!! Many people, including Jews and Muslims would never be able to fathom this. However... something tells me that not only is this true but it is a remarkable and humble gift.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
In Him We Live
'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' Acts 17:28
This is an interesting bible verse, from which flows a lot more foundational concepts about humanity. Read this commentary and we will later discuss its possible implication on humanity.
This info is found: http://bible.cc/acts/17-28.htm
Wesley's notes:
17:28 In him - Not in ourselves, we live, and move, and have our being - This denotes his necessary, intimate, and most efficacious presence. No words can better express the continual and necessary dependence of all created beings, in their existence and all their operations, on the first and almighty cause, which the truest philosophy as well as divinity teaches. As certain also of your own poets have said - Aratus, whose words these are, was an Athenian, who lived almost three hundred years before this time. They are likewise to be found, with the alteration of one letter only, in the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter or the supreme being, one of the purest and finest pieces of natural religion in the whole world of Pagan antiquity.
Jamieson-fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
28. For in him we live, and move, and have our being-(or, more briefly, "exist").-This means, not merely, "Without Him we have no life, nor that motion which every inanimate nature displays, nor even existence itself" [Meyer], but that God is the living, immanent Principle of all these in men.
as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring-the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor by about three centuries. But, as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless in a pantheistic sense; but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose-to teach a pure, personal, spiritual Theism. (Probably during his quiet retreat at Tarsus. Ac 9:30, revolving his special vocation to the Gentiles he gave himself to the study of so much Greek literature as might be turned to Christian account in his future work. Hence this and his other quotations from the Greek poets, 1Co 15:33; Tit 1:12).
This is an interesting bible verse, from which flows a lot more foundational concepts about humanity. Read this commentary and we will later discuss its possible implication on humanity.
This info is found: http://bible.cc/acts/17-28.htm
Wesley's notes:
17:28 In him - Not in ourselves, we live, and move, and have our being - This denotes his necessary, intimate, and most efficacious presence. No words can better express the continual and necessary dependence of all created beings, in their existence and all their operations, on the first and almighty cause, which the truest philosophy as well as divinity teaches. As certain also of your own poets have said - Aratus, whose words these are, was an Athenian, who lived almost three hundred years before this time. They are likewise to be found, with the alteration of one letter only, in the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter or the supreme being, one of the purest and finest pieces of natural religion in the whole world of Pagan antiquity.
Jamieson-fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
28. For in him we live, and move, and have our being-(or, more briefly, "exist").-This means, not merely, "Without Him we have no life, nor that motion which every inanimate nature displays, nor even existence itself" [Meyer], but that God is the living, immanent Principle of all these in men.
as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring-the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor by about three centuries. But, as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless in a pantheistic sense; but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose-to teach a pure, personal, spiritual Theism. (Probably during his quiet retreat at Tarsus. Ac 9:30, revolving his special vocation to the Gentiles he gave himself to the study of so much Greek literature as might be turned to Christian account in his future work. Hence this and his other quotations from the Greek poets, 1Co 15:33; Tit 1:12).
Thursday, September 10, 2009
White Privilege and the Grass
In Peggy McIntosh's essay "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack", she tries to persuade the fact that white people are privileged because of their color. She lists over forty ways she is more privileged than any other race. Then she argues that all other races are oppressed because they don’t share her privileges.
There are several things wrong with her assumptions, however there is one main problem with it that I'd like to dwell on today. It’s the idea that someone is oppressed when someone else has it better.The first thing that is wrong with this notion is that someone else always seems to have it better! The hill is just greener on the other side. This makes the problem impossible for us to solve; especially for massive groups of people. Differences are inherent in our nature; this is what makes an individual an individual!
Second, what makes oppression wrong is not the fact that there are others that are not oppressed! Oppression is wrong all on its own. If only women are oppressed it’s wrong. If all women and all men are oppressed it is still wrong. Saying that oppression is wrong because others aren’t being oppressed, is to sell the argument short of any real weight. Oppression is a real issue; it’s not the result of a comparison!
I think this idea is the main problem with most feminists today. They believe that men are privileged, and thus women are oppressed. But the first half of the sentence undermines the message! If we want any real feminist progress, if we want to help the woman that are actually oppressed let’s talk about those women and let’s talk about how to help them!
Only when we stop looking into our neighbor's yard will we be able to focus on our own; and only then, will we be able to grow the bright green grass that we envy.
There are several things wrong with her assumptions, however there is one main problem with it that I'd like to dwell on today. It’s the idea that someone is oppressed when someone else has it better.The first thing that is wrong with this notion is that someone else always seems to have it better! The hill is just greener on the other side. This makes the problem impossible for us to solve; especially for massive groups of people. Differences are inherent in our nature; this is what makes an individual an individual!
Second, what makes oppression wrong is not the fact that there are others that are not oppressed! Oppression is wrong all on its own. If only women are oppressed it’s wrong. If all women and all men are oppressed it is still wrong. Saying that oppression is wrong because others aren’t being oppressed, is to sell the argument short of any real weight. Oppression is a real issue; it’s not the result of a comparison!
I think this idea is the main problem with most feminists today. They believe that men are privileged, and thus women are oppressed. But the first half of the sentence undermines the message! If we want any real feminist progress, if we want to help the woman that are actually oppressed let’s talk about those women and let’s talk about how to help them!
Only when we stop looking into our neighbor's yard will we be able to focus on our own; and only then, will we be able to grow the bright green grass that we envy.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Diversity is Suicide
In class, diversity is taught to be the greatest characteristic a country can have. In fact, this seems to be one of the only characteristics of the U.S. that is not criticized within our class rooms.
However, this admiration is counter to the way other countries see diversity. They often don't want the western culture or any other cultures to infiltrate their lands. As I have studied why they oppose diversity, it makes a great deal of sense.
Diversity is like a nonrenewable resource. If we like it, we will eventually run dry. Diversity brings a variety of people together. Which seems great, however, threw globalization we see that the more we are around each other the more we influence each other, and the less diverse we ultimately become.
If every country was as diverse as ours, the offspring of those countries would forget about the cultures that their parents once lived in. Eventually, everyone would be the same, and diversity would never be recovered. This result is already displayed within the U.S., many people here feel as if they have no culture to identify with. We owe this to our pursuit for a more diverse world.
It seems as if the diverse world that we seek, if attained, would be a short lived one. Diversity is its own killer.
However, this admiration is counter to the way other countries see diversity. They often don't want the western culture or any other cultures to infiltrate their lands. As I have studied why they oppose diversity, it makes a great deal of sense.
Diversity is like a nonrenewable resource. If we like it, we will eventually run dry. Diversity brings a variety of people together. Which seems great, however, threw globalization we see that the more we are around each other the more we influence each other, and the less diverse we ultimately become.
If every country was as diverse as ours, the offspring of those countries would forget about the cultures that their parents once lived in. Eventually, everyone would be the same, and diversity would never be recovered. This result is already displayed within the U.S., many people here feel as if they have no culture to identify with. We owe this to our pursuit for a more diverse world.
It seems as if the diverse world that we seek, if attained, would be a short lived one. Diversity is its own killer.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Irony in Atheism
As I continue to read Bakunin's writings, I find a man who prides himself in logic and in his extensive knowledge on the existence of all things. In this way, I feel like I somewhat relate.
However he seems to be an Atheist, like many of my friends are, and every time I come across someone who believes that way, the same question nags me to the point of insomnia (like right now).
But before I expose the question, let me expose my foundational premises of why science and evolution has such difficulty answering it.
1. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (From Dictionary.com -my fastest online resource)
Thus science cannot use metaphysical components to answer its questions.
If a scientific question is asked it must be answered with scientific components. If the answer turns out to be a metaphysical one, than the question was always metaphysical.
2.In science everything has to have a beginning, because it is systematic.
3. Anything eternal is metaphysical.
Here is what I mean: If the scientific question is "How did the universe (every physical matter that we incorporate in science) begin?", then science has to prove it using non-metaphysical components. If science says that it was created by God, it would break the main premise because God is metaphysical. So I concede that through science, nothing metaphysical can be proved or disproved, according to today's definition of science.
However the question "How did the universe begin?" seems to be answered, even in science, with a metaphysical answer. Because anything eternal is metaphysical, if time and/or space were deemed eternal than it is out of science's realm.
So the only way for science to be given the opportunity to answer the above question, is to show how time/space could of come about by itself.
But, even before that, can one even imagine a point in time where time didn't exist? Even imagining that, seems to be an impossible task.
Try imagining a point in time space didn't exist? When I imagine the Big Bang theory, I always imagined that before the universe was birthed, space was present... it was just empty black space, like inside an empty jar in the dark.
It seems as if we all concede that time/space is eternal. Even if the earth were to disappear like it appeared, space and time to do the same doesn't seem reasonable or imaginable.
If in fact time and space are believed to be eternal, than the red flag goes up stating that, the answer to our existence has to be of metaphysical kind. Because what seemed to be a core truth of our physical world, is actually found to be of metaphysical origin.
If a man were to just appear, not ever having a mother or a father, not ever being a baby.... but just one day appear, science would not come close to explaining it. But, some religious people might have a field day saying things like "It is a miracle" or "Our new prophet has come". And rightfully so, because the question "how did the man come into existence?" would have to be answered with a metaphysical answer, because it denies our scientific laws.
If scientist would never attempt to explain how a man out of no where, from nothing, just appeared as a human, why then does science try to explain how time/space/inorganic/and organic matter come into existence?
It seems as if Atheism allows for the metaphysical world that it so adamantly rejects.
However he seems to be an Atheist, like many of my friends are, and every time I come across someone who believes that way, the same question nags me to the point of insomnia (like right now).
But before I expose the question, let me expose my foundational premises of why science and evolution has such difficulty answering it.
1. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (From Dictionary.com -my fastest online resource)
Thus science cannot use metaphysical components to answer its questions.
If a scientific question is asked it must be answered with scientific components. If the answer turns out to be a metaphysical one, than the question was always metaphysical.
2.In science everything has to have a beginning, because it is systematic.
3. Anything eternal is metaphysical.
Here is what I mean: If the scientific question is "How did the universe (every physical matter that we incorporate in science) begin?", then science has to prove it using non-metaphysical components. If science says that it was created by God, it would break the main premise because God is metaphysical. So I concede that through science, nothing metaphysical can be proved or disproved, according to today's definition of science.
However the question "How did the universe begin?" seems to be answered, even in science, with a metaphysical answer. Because anything eternal is metaphysical, if time and/or space were deemed eternal than it is out of science's realm.
So the only way for science to be given the opportunity to answer the above question, is to show how time/space could of come about by itself.
But, even before that, can one even imagine a point in time where time didn't exist? Even imagining that, seems to be an impossible task.
Try imagining a point in time space didn't exist? When I imagine the Big Bang theory, I always imagined that before the universe was birthed, space was present... it was just empty black space, like inside an empty jar in the dark.
It seems as if we all concede that time/space is eternal. Even if the earth were to disappear like it appeared, space and time to do the same doesn't seem reasonable or imaginable.
If in fact time and space are believed to be eternal, than the red flag goes up stating that, the answer to our existence has to be of metaphysical kind. Because what seemed to be a core truth of our physical world, is actually found to be of metaphysical origin.
If a man were to just appear, not ever having a mother or a father, not ever being a baby.... but just one day appear, science would not come close to explaining it. But, some religious people might have a field day saying things like "It is a miracle" or "Our new prophet has come". And rightfully so, because the question "how did the man come into existence?" would have to be answered with a metaphysical answer, because it denies our scientific laws.
If scientist would never attempt to explain how a man out of no where, from nothing, just appeared as a human, why then does science try to explain how time/space/inorganic/and organic matter come into existence?
It seems as if Atheism allows for the metaphysical world that it so adamantly rejects.
Friday, August 28, 2009
God and the State, by Michael Bakunin
I bought the books for my classes. A set of twelve non-intriguing books. All of which will become my best friends, worst enemies, and most dreadful companions for the next four months.
God and the State by Michael Bakunin is a required read for Foundation fo Political Thought class. I opened it up and quickly realized why he died before it got published, and why the ending of his writing was never read by another eye. The religious leaders would of had him killed. Is that how he died?
His writing is a rant on religion and God. He is so bitter that it makes me more interested in his biography than his writing. Bakunin's famous quote "If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him." really makes me wonder why he thinks the way he does. Maybe he makes a good point. Maybe he's just a sad little man.
Let me know what you think.
God and the State by Michael Bakunin is a required read for Foundation fo Political Thought class. I opened it up and quickly realized why he died before it got published, and why the ending of his writing was never read by another eye. The religious leaders would of had him killed. Is that how he died?
His writing is a rant on religion and God. He is so bitter that it makes me more interested in his biography than his writing. Bakunin's famous quote "If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him." really makes me wonder why he thinks the way he does. Maybe he makes a good point. Maybe he's just a sad little man.
Let me know what you think.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Introduction
I am taking four classes this semester. Foundation of Political Thought, Global Governance, Tech + Social Change, and Class/Gender/Race in Contemporary Society. Everyday I will try to post my experience in these classes. Exposing the true relationship between student, professor, and class.
The controversial topics discussed in my classes will also be discussed on this blog. I hope to engage all of my readers. As such, I welcome all thoughts and ideas that are relevant to the topics posted. Infact, the main reason for this blog is not for your entertainment alone, but for the sharing of diverse ideas and thoughts, which ultimately leads to greater knowledge for all who take part.
The controversial topics discussed in my classes will also be discussed on this blog. I hope to engage all of my readers. As such, I welcome all thoughts and ideas that are relevant to the topics posted. Infact, the main reason for this blog is not for your entertainment alone, but for the sharing of diverse ideas and thoughts, which ultimately leads to greater knowledge for all who take part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)