Justin Kim

Archive for the ‘Morality’ Category

The Secret of Silence

In Bible Study, Morality, Virtues on December 2, 2011 at 10:24 pm

Two patriarchs were beloved by God.

Two patriarchs were rich with crops and livestock galore.

Two patriarchs lived in the same region and in the same period of earth’s history.

Two patriarchs had deep, profound relationships with the Divine and heard His very voice.

Yet one was the father of many, who eventually became alone.  Another was a father of one, who would eventually become many.  One had a whole book ascribed to him.  The other was mentioned relatively shortly, but his descendants become the main characters of the Bible.  One was called perfect and made an example in front of the universe.  The other was called a friend of God and made a blessing before all the nations.

But in the end, both were asked to sacrifice and suffer.

Job

Job was a man that feared God, perfect, upright, and eschewed evil.  Yet when his children, household, goods, and health were taken away, he grieves and mourns for two chapters, seeking death.  His three friends come to argue incorrectly that Job had done something wrong, making false metaphysical and ethical statements about good and evil.  After rebuking each friend in a cycle of three debates, God finally spoke to him.

Between chapters 38 and 39, God conclusively proved that man could not understand everything and sought obedience from humanity.  There is no personal advantage in obedience.  There is no understandable rationale in obedience.  Reason and rationale have limitations.  Obedience does not.

Abraham

Abraham was a man that also feared God and called the friend of God.  He was to be the father of God’s people, protecting and guarding of the sacred law.  To him were promised more descendants that the night stars and the sands of the sea.  But in chapter 22 of Genesis, God also asked to take his child away.

Though one child, the wages were more circumstantial than the situation of Job.  Though Job had seven sons, three daughters, 7000 sheep, 300 camels, 500 oxen, 500 donkeys, and a large staff, more promises were encapsulated in the person of Isaac.  Isaac was the child of promise, the child of impossibilities, the progenitor of a people numbering more than the night stars and sands of the sea.  This child was birthed from his parents’ laughter, prematurely caused the birth of a rival nation, and the object of anxiety and hope for more than 20 tired and elderly years.

Taking the life of this child should have caused more mourning than Job’s loss.  This was an action that was highly un-understandable.  Abraham should have been asking questions, grieving, mourning, seeking death, escape, alternatives, and answers.

Silence

Yet what is so disturbing about chapter 22 is that there is no indication of these signs.  Whereas Job has more than thirty chapters devoted to complaining and discussion, there is not even one verse attributed for this avenue.  Rather, we see a methodical step-by-step journey to the top of Moriah, only to worship.  We hear a silent hike up the mountain.  We only smell the fire burning on top of the altar.  We do not see any rationalization, cursing God, hint of bitterness, seeking of alternatives, discussions, questionings of misunderstanding.  We see obedience.  This unrational (not irrational) obedience is so disturbing that the violence of a son’s murder by his father does not phase us.  Maybe Abraham knew something about faith that Job did not.

You see, Christians do not sacrifice and suffer.  We serve a Lord that owns all and does not know material loss.  Christians do not sacrifice and suffer; Christians merely obey.  We may either mourn for 30+ chapters or walk silently up a mountain, but the outcome is the same.  Obedience never needs to be understood, just done.  The world calls this foolishness, but there is no personal advantage in obedience.  Even though we may not understand ourselves, we must keep walking and say, “I will follow thee, my Savior.”  This is what Jesus did every hour of His life.

You see, there is a secret that every Christ-follower knows:  Christ Himself.  And when you know Him, you’ll love Him.  And when you love Him, you don’t think about obeying Him…you just do.

Original Post:  http://www.englishcompass.org/articles/the_secret_of_silence/

Which Came First?

In Epistemology, Morality, Reflections on October 29, 2010 at 11:32 am

Which came first?  No, not the chicken or the egg scenario, although according to the latest cutting-edge research, it is the chicken (tic).  Rather, the question should be asked, “Which came first:  sin or death?”  While the creation / evolution issue can be debated on the realm of evidence, scientific method, and technical jargon, there are repercussions in the realm of theology, which flip back to philosophy, which often are not highlighted.  Here are some brief thoughts:

One has to create a new system, or program a new OS if you will, if you start with the premise that death can exist before sin.  Death becomes a means of life, creativity, progress, advancement, hope, and optimism.  It then has to have no bearing on morality, theology, ethics, or anything related to salvation.  This OS creates a background where mutations are hoped for (whether theistically evolved or by chance is another issue) and the hope for bettering life.  It is the harshness of failure that cancels out anything otherwise.  It is the breakdown of the genetic transcription or replication process that gives life its next step to perfection, albeit weeding out the other astronomical number of errors that are imperfect.  If death existed before sin, then one cannot make judgments on the process of death, the means of death, the experience of death, or anything remotely related to death.  One has to ask the question, if one cannot address death, then how can one even address life?  Take this to the larger perspective and one is forced to be mute in the fields of ethics, morality, liberty, politics, ontology, theological anthropology, any social science, and any biological life science.  Furthermore, the denial of user access to religion and theology are obvious.  If anything, academia shifts on focusing on how one should reach death faster and quicker; if not, discover methods to induce mutations and using intelligent processes of eliminating inferior humans for the larger survival of the human race.  Alas, doesn’t this electrifying version inspire the human drive for hope and salvation?  The sad reality is the twentieth century already gave multiple examples of this perversion.

An OS that determines that sin came before death would have to conclude that there are ethical and theological realities that have affected our human condition of life.  This would have biological, psychological, as well as existential and ontological repercussions that would not only give an appropriate and accurate explanation of the world and its follies, but our personal shortcomings as well as that one guy we can’t stand too.  Life would be the stable factor and sin the contingent repercussion.  Hence, isn’t it the doctrine of sin that needs no theological evidence for?  More thoughts on this later.

The geology, astronomy, cosmology, and physics of it all will need to work themselves out, as they once did when the first batch of intelligentsia were bona fide Christian theists.  But before we even enter that arena, shouldn’t we decide now, before-thinking these things through, that we need an appropriate OS to platform these thoughts to begin with?

Which came first:  sin or death?  You choose and divvy out the ramifications:  proper functionality and resonance with reality or self-destruction and delusional aberrance.

Romans 5:12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 6:23  For the wages of sin is death…

1 Corinthians 15:56  The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

James 1:15  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

1 John 5:17  All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Godly is Good, Except When It Isn’t

In Morality on November 21, 2008 at 2:14 pm

The American Humanist Association started an ad campaign to do away with all forms and terms associated with God, specifically targeted during the December holiday season.

“Why believe in a god?  Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

Many humanists hold the belief in God is a the same as a belief in Santa Claus.  Rationality and intelligent critical thinking are extolled, while belief in the supernatural and unknown is ridiculed.

The question to ask is how is good defined otherwise?  The answer must come from some foundation that unites all of humanity.  Either it comes from our genes (Evolutionary Ethics), or from our selves (individual), or a transcendent source (God or supernatural entity).

The first becomes “Majority Rules,” the survival of the fittest.  All we need is 51%.  So raping your mother is justified if 51% of us want to do it.

The second becomes “My Way.”  The problem is what if someone disagrees?  What about his/her way?  There is no appeal for justice, through one is seemingly free.

The third is the clearest answer.  Though this system has been abused in the past, a system cannot be judged by its abuses, but by its principles.  Many concessions are made with this system, but the same is said for the others.  A transcendent God who is embodies the principles of love and justice make life and moral living possible.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/12/godless.holiday.ap/index.html

Array