Thursday, October 31, 2002
To love is to receive a glimpse of heaven.
- Karen Sunde
To be in the University of Waterloo means that one will eventually be caught up in the world of academia, debate, and if you're a christian... theology. This term, the focus of CCF has been the topic of love (our theme verse is taken from John 13:34-35). Of course, we always engage ourselves in the endless amount of talks about the "right" love, the "perfect" love, cause-effect of love, and Agape love (love of God - man, I'm gonna get stoned for
that oversimplification).
I'm taking RS 100L which is entitled
Love and Friendship. Yes, it might be a "silly" course, however, I can honestly admit that it has helped in my search to better my understanding about the topic of love. It is because of this class that I have a firm understanding of what C.S. Lewis depicts as the four loves:
Affection, Friendship, Eros, and Charity.
I will post my comments about these four loves at a later date… how I think they are related to one another, what is the ultimate demonstration of love, etc. etc.
So for now, I’ll just ask the question that has been in debate in CCF for quite some time.
Do you think a non-christian can experience Agape Love?
Please don’t get hung up on my usage of the word “experience, or even my own definition of Agape Love. I find it fascinated to hear how other people interpret this question.
Just to add to the discussion, I’ll present one viewpoint.
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:13
As christians, we can easily understand the sacrificial nature of “perfect love”. I have always thought that this very factor found in love to be one of its strongest points. Yet, surely there are people who assume that the sacrificial nature is all there is. Thus, even a christian can give up his/her life for anyone and be considered a person of love (this reasoning seems a little hooky to me). Or perhaps, many believers feel they can give away their life so freely for there is truly no consequence for one who believes (ie. no fear of hell). In any case, I feel that both viewpoints (by themselves) are not complete… and they will affect how one lives their life. I’ll leave with this following statement that I found while surfin’ the net:
If it were possible for you, as a Christian, to give up your salvation and go to hell on behalf of someone else, would you do it? That's agape love.
Agree? Disagree? Tune in tomorrow where love lifts us up where we belong.
Yu-Ling posted at 10/31/2002 07:24:00 PM
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
- Heywood Broun
Welcome to God Problems: Part III. Suffice it to say, I haven’t been blogging much due to heavy schoolwork. Certainly I can manage little bits ‘o bloggin’ here and there… but it’s not the same. I’m also seeing my body go all out of whack because I nearly reverse my sleeping schedule every couple of days. Sometimes I end up sleeping all day (after a heavy night of work), and immediately switch back to a “regular” day-life the next day. Perhaps my lack of exposure to daylight is really playing tricks on me.
Now back to the god question. I have been exposed to many variations of the following god problem. Actually, I have several friends who used it as a proof that God does not exist. In any case, it’s quite fascinating… so, enjoy.
3. How There Got to be Only One God
The belief that there is only one God who is genuinely perfect – infinite in power and knowledge – arose a long time ago, and there is little hard historical evidence about how it came about. Here, however, is one hypothesis.
Today’s major monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all have their origins in the Middle East: Judaism developed there first, then Christianity arose within the Jewish tradition and separated from it. Later the Muslims (the followers of Islam) branched off from Christianity. Is their common origin in the Middle East just a coincidence? Some people think not.
Most religions are polytheistic, recognizing the existence of a number of limited Gods. Polytheist often see one of the gods as the god of their group, the one who looks specially after their interests. In a sense, polytheism reflects and encourages a sort of tolerance and inter-tribe stability. A polytheistic tribe typically accepts the existence not only of their own special god, but also of the gods of the neighbouring tribes.
In the hostile climate and terrain of the ancient Middle East, however, there must have been little tolerance and stability. Water and food were hard to come by. Often these necessities were available only for a short time in one place; when they ran out, the tribe had to move on. So tribes were nomadic, constantly on the move. Stability of territory could not develop, and we can imagine a good deal of inter-tribe conflict and hostility as one tribe encroached on another.
The constant hostility of these tribes did not encourage tolerant recognition of the others’ gods. We can imagine that their conflict was reflected by religious competitiveness, with each tribe claiming that its god was bigger, better, stronger than the others’. “My god is stronger than yours!” says the priest of Tribe A. “Oh yeah? Well, my god is stronger than one hundred men!” claims the priest of Tribe B. “My god is stronger than one thousand men!” retorts the Tribe A priest. This continues. At last one tribe comes up with a topper that can’t be beaten: “My god is infinitely strong. He knows everything and can do anything he wants.” A god who is literally infinite in all his attributes must be the only real god there is. Thus monotheism.
The infinite god that results is a highly abstract entity, not much like the polytheistic gods, who are seen merely as people writ large. The logical problems we have examined regarding God’s infinity are faced only by a highly rarefied and abstract monotheistic theology.
On this view, then, monotheism grows out of and encourages hostility to other religious groups, and encroachment on them. History and current events do seem to show an extraordinary amount of intolerance for other religions among the monotheistic religions, and even between the sects within them. Wars are not uncommon in history, of course, but wars based on religious intolerance seem especially prevalent among and between monotheists. Think of the Crusades, which were religious wars between the Christians and the Muslims; the waves of Christian anti=Semitism; and the present-day hostility and warfare between Middle Eastern Muslims and Jews. Rival sects of Muslims wage war in Lebanon and rival sects of Christians in Northern Ireland. The history of Christianity is marked by expansionism, the attempt to convert the rest of the work to its own unique God, often by force when persuasion fails.
Historians and theologians may cringe at this oversimplification of the history and analysis of religious thought, but perhaps there is a grain of truth to it. In any case, you might consider whether the notion of a unique and infinite god really does reflect and encourage belligerence and intolerance, as this historical hypothesis indicates.
Tune in tomorrow for a healthy portion of green eggs and ham.
Yu-Ling posted at 10/29/2002 06:11:00 PM
Friday, October 25, 2002
My heart, which is so full to overflowing, has often been solaced and refreshed by music when sick and weary.
- Martin Luther
Once again, it's time for a musical update. I'm consistently listening to two songs right now:
Worlds Apart by Jars of Clay, and
Thank You by Ray Boltz. I'm watching the LIVE performance of Worlds Apart, and there's only one word to describe it:
powerful.
Thank You is a really, really old song... I fell in love with it a long time ago, and it's only recently (in my quest to find a song for LifeSong - Nov 8) that I heard it again. Truly, the lyrics are beautifully touching, and it would be awesome to sing/play the song for someone's birthday/retirement/etc.... a song that sings praise to the people who touch our lives.
Thank You
by Ray Boltz
Dreamed I went to heaven
And you were there with me
We walked upon the streets of gold
Beside the crystal sea
We heard the angels singing
Then someone called your name
You turned and saw this young man
And he was smiling as he came
And he said friend you may not know me now
And then he said but wait
You used to teach my Sunday School
When I was only eight
And every week you would say a prayer
Before the class would start
And one day when you said that prayer
I asked Jesus in my heart
Thank you for giving to the Lord
I am a life that was changed
Thank you for giving to the Lord
I am so glad you gave
Then another man stood before you
And said remember the time
A missionary came to your church
And his pictures made you cry
You didn't have much money
But you gave it anyway
Jesus took the gift you gave
And that's why I am here today
Thank you for giving to the Lord
I am a life that was changed
Thank you for giving to the Lord
I am so glad you gave
One by one they came
Far as the eye could see
Each life somehow touched
By your generosity
Little things that you had done
Sacrifices made
Unnoticed on the earth
In heaven now proclaimed
And I know up in heaven
You're not supposed to cry
But I am almost sure
There were tears in your eyes
As Jesus took your hand
And you stood before the Lord
He said my child look around you
Great is your reward.
Thank you for giving to the Lord
I am a life that was changed
Thank you for giving to the Lord
I am so glad you gave
Thank you for giving to the Lord
I am a life that was changed
Thank you for giving to the Lord
I am so glad you gave
I am so glad you gave
Tune in tomorrow for a discussion about girls vs. yo-yos.
Yu-Ling posted at 10/25/2002 05:29:00 PM
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
An examination of some of the serious arguments for God’s existence, and their criticisms, is a good place to start in the study of philosophy of religion – if not to undermine or create belief, at least to give your intellectual skills a workout.
- Robert M. Martin, There are Two Errors…
Ah… let’s begin the second section of the “God problems”. The following are four problems that deal mainly with the concepts/attributes that one maintains for God (or any other type of deity for that matter). They are mostly the classical arguments & debates associated with God’s characteristics.
God’s Difficulties
Most religions believe that God is omnipotent. This means that God can do anything He wants to do. Could God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift?
Let’s suppose He can. Then, if He did, He’d have created a stone that He couldn’t lift. Since He couldn’t lift it, He wouldn’t be omnipotent. So let’s suppose He can’t. But then there is something God can’t do, so He isn’t omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence is impossible. Maybe omnipotence makes no sense.
The suggestion here is that major religions must be mistaken in thinking that there is an omnipotent God, because omnipotence is logically impossible.
God the Counterfeiter
Another thing God can’t do is make a genuine ten dollar bill. God could, presumably, make an atom-for-atom duplicate of a genuine ten dollar bill which would fool everyone, but that bill would be counterfeit. Only bills produced by the government mint are genuine. God could, of course, make the mint produce a genuine bill, but He couldn’t make one directly.
Here’s another limit to God’s omnipotence. The familiar poem says that “only God can make a tree,” but perhaps God can’t make a tree. According to some biologists, what it take for something to count as an oak tree, for example, is that it has to have come from another oak tree. Suppose you manufactured something out of chemicals that looked and worked exactly like an oak tree, that even dropped acorns in the fall that grew into things just like it. What you made wouldn’t be an oak tree, since it didn’t come from an oak tree. Your inability to make an oak tree isn’t the result of your lack of ability in biochemistry. No matter how accurate a look-alike you made out of chemicals, it wouldn’t count as an oak tree, since oak trees are, by definition, what comes from other oak trees. So God, with infinite biochemical abilities couldn’t make an oak tree either.
These two peculiar cases have something in common. What it takes to be a genuine ten dollar bill or an oak tree is not merely a matter of what something is made of, or how its parts are put together, or how it works. In both cases, there has to be a historical characteristic present – something true about its past.
If you subscribe to a religion including belief in an omnipotent God, what sort of changes would you have to make if you were convinced that God really can’t be omnipotent? Would that affect the real substance of your religion in important ways? But can you think of ways to get around the problems about omnipotence? Here are some suggestions.
The argument shows that it’s logically impossible for anything to be omnipotent. But logical problems don’t bother God. God isn’t subject to the laws of logic. He can even do the logically impossible.
One problem with this answer is that it’s impossible for us to understand the idea of doing the logically impossible. Some religious people cheerfully admit that religious truths surpass all understanding. But other people aren’t comfortable with the idea of saying, or trying to believe, things that make no sense. Here’s another suggestion for a response:
Let’s agree that if He couldn’t create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, He wouldn’t be omnipotent. If he could create this stone and did, then there would be a stone around He couldn’t lift, so again He wouldn’t be omnipotent. But suppose He could create this stone but didn’t. Where’s the problem with His omnipotence now?
A Proof That Everything Is Hunky-Dory
Let’s assume that God, as conventional religions conceive of Him, really did create the universe. God, of course, wanted to create the best universe He could, and His omnipotence means that He was capable of doing anything He wanted. So it follows that this is the best of all possible universes. You’re wrong if you think that anything could be any better. Does that make you feel good? You should cheer up.
Now that you know that everything is perfect, you’d better be more careful about changing the way things are. When you walk through the woods, you might move a pebble an inch south, messing up God’s perfect creation.
God Made Me Do It
The doctrine of God’s omnipotence raises similar problems when connected with the idea that we have free will. Does the fact that we are free mean that our decisions can’t be controlled by outside influences? IF so, then there’s another limitation on God’s power. As in the unliftable stone example, we can put this problem in the form of a dilemma: If God can create a person whose actions He can’t control, then this person’s actions would be a limit to His power – He wouldn’t be omnipotent. If He can’t create such a person, then that’s a limit to His power – He wouldn’t be omnipotent. Either way, omnipotence is impossible.
We might want to reply to this argument in a way analogous to the reply to the unliftable stone argument: that God could create an uncontrollable human but doesn’t. But this reply won’t work here: religions usually hold that God did in fact create humans with free will.
Certainly the problem of omnipotence is a very hard one for any believer. I have been through the experience where people would use these “logical arguments” to pass judgment on my beliefs. I find it interesting that these same people cannot believe that the notion of love can surpass such logic problems.
Of course, I know of Christians who fall into the same logic trap in defending their faith (I’m guilty of this as well). Whatever your perspective, I hope you remain open minded in exploring these issues a little further. Or if you think these questions are useless talks about empty things, then come join me at DC to study what true love is all about. Haha.
Tune in tomorrow when I will eat over a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts for lunch.
Yu-Ling posted at 10/22/2002 03:20:00 PM
Friday, October 18, 2002
The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind.
- Bob Dylan, Blowing In The Wind
If you're around me long enough, eventually you'll hear me talk about being
meant for a different era. Case in point, my heart longs for the music of days gone by. Certainly I have tremendous respect and admiration for the classics (Bach, Mozart, and the sort). I also enjoy the modern hits that are played on the radio today (although, I must admit, at a very superficial-following-trends-type of level). Yet, after a musical drought, I always go back to my oldies. Ranging from early 50's to late 70's, my tastes encompasses doo-wop, big band, blues, classic rock, folk rock, classic jazz… anything and everything in between.
My parents grew up listening/playing folk music. Perhaps it’s due to their influence that I especially feel a kinship to that particular genre. Whatever my reasons, I love the musical style, the harmonies, and especially the lyrics. Hmm… who’s up for folk worship next week?
If
by Bread
If a picture paints a thousand words,
Then why can't I paint you?
The words will never show the you I've come to know.
If a face could launch a thousand ships,
Then where am I to go?
There's no one home but you,
You're all that's left me too.
And when my love for life is running dry,
You come and pour yourself on me.
If a man could be two places at one time,
I'd be with you.
Tomorrow and today, beside you all the way.
If the world should stop revolving spinning slowly down to die,
I'd spend the end with you.
And when the world was through,
Then one by one the stars would all go out,
Then you and I would simply fly away
Tune in tomorrow where memories of me and you go on and on.
Yu-Ling posted at 10/18/2002 02:29:00 PM
Tuesday, October 15, 2002
Even when it seems silly or irrelevant, there's something philosophically important about it - something deeper that it illustrates, which merits thought.
- Robert M. Martin, There are Two Errors...
God… considered as the
philosophy of religion by many people. My renewed interest in puzzles, mind games, etc. has provoked a desired to explore the ever frustrated debates about God. I have actually had many personal discussions of the sort with my friends back in good ol’ high school days. I think it's about time to bring out these issues all over again.
The following will be the first of five major blog entries taken almost straight from one book (There are Two Errors… by Robert M. Martin). Although some of his arguments and even his wording clearly show bias against a belief in God, I find it quite refreshing (since I myself am bias with my own belief in God). If anything, I hope that in thinking about these things, perhaps trying to understand the motivation behind these “god” questions, you can begin to understand what the modern-scientific-culture believes about God.
Major God Entry # 1:
The following parable of the invisible gardener and the response to the question are both found in John Wisdom’s article “Gods,” in
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society The question involving the Flood is found in
Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences. All other comments, possible solutions, and questions are taken from the book by Robert M. Martin.
1. The Invisible Gardener
Murgatroyd and Millicent come across a patch of land containing flowers and weeds. The following discussion ensues:
Murgatroyd: A gardener must tend this plot.
Millicent: I don’t think so. Look, it’s full of weeds.
Murgatroyd: The gardener must like those weeds. They are nice, aren’t they?
Millicent: Those weeds grow around here all by themselves; anyway, I’ve talked to people who live around here and nobody told me anything about seeing any gardener at work.
Murgatroyd: Well, the gardener must have been here when everyone was asleep.
They take turns watching, day and night but no gardener is seen. Murgatroyd explains this fact by supposing that the gardener must be invisible. They set up an electric alarm system sensitive to heat, and patrol with bloodhounds, but there’s no reaction from either. Murgatroyd is still not convinced.
Murgatroyd: The gardener is not only invisible, but undetectable to the alarm system and without an odour the bloodhounds could smell.
Millicent: I’m getting fed up with your argument. Your gardener is supposed to be invisible and completely undetectable to anyone, and is supposed to have planted things the way they would have grown anyway. What makes him different from no gardener at all?
The analogy here is to arguments about God’s existence. Believers often admit that there’s a natural scientific explanation of the way things are. They also admit that God is undetectable by all the ordinary detection methods. The question we might ask here is this: How is the assertion that such an undetectable God exists any different from the assertion that there isn’t any God? One possible answer:
There’s no real difference in beliefs or expectations about the real world in the religious believer and in the disbeliever. There’s just a difference in how they feel about things. If so, then maybe there’s no question about who is right and who is wrong.
One Hell of a Rainstorm
It says in the Bible that during the Flood, “all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered.” The mathematician John Allen Paulos has done some calculations. He figures that in order to cover every mountain, there must have been ten to twenty thousand feet of water on the earth’s surface, about half a billion cubic miles of water. It rained forty days and nights. To produce a flood of that size in those 960 hours, it must have rained, on average, 15 feet of water/hour. A really heavy and destructive rainstorm in our day can put an inch or two of water on the ground per hour. But 15 feet/hour, Paulos remarks, is enough to sink an aircraft carrier. How did Noah’s little wooden ark, loaded with thousands of animals, stay afloat?
Maybe you want to reply that this is just another one of those religious miracles we’re not supposed to be able to understand. Or maybe you think that what’s said in the Bible is not supposed to be taken literally like this. Perhaps someone who “believes in the Bible” need believe in different facts than someone who doesn’t. Suppose you agree that difference between believers in the Bible and non-believers isn’t a matter of believing different facts. Then what is the difference?
My oh my… what a can of worms I have opened. Haha.
Tune in tomorrow for more delirious philosophical musings.
Yu-Ling posted at 10/15/2002 10:47:00 PM
Monday, October 14, 2002
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
- Albert Einstein
I think I'll post some more mind games on my blog. I was always intrigued by riddles, mind games... general thinking puzzles. The following set of puzzles are perhaps my most favourite: the
lateral thinking puzzle.
Lateral thinking puzzles are scenerio/situation puzzles that require an explanation. They are solved through a dialogue between the quizmaster and the solver(s) who try to figure out the answer. These puzzles usually do not contain sufficient information for the solver(s) to uncover the solution. So here's the fun part - to solve the puzzle, the solver(s) must ask questions that require a
yes,
no or
irrelevant as answer.
When one line of enquiry reaches an end then another approach is needed... often from a completely new direction. This is where lateral thinking comes in. Lateral thinking puzzles teaches you to check your assumptions about any situation. You need to be open-minded, flexible and creative in your questioning and able to put lots of different clues and pieces of info together.
(previous paragraphs were borrowed heavily from another web site... haha)
The folowing list of lateral thinking puzzles are considered some of the most renowned and classic ones to day. Msg me if you want to attempt to solve any one of them. Enjoy.
1. The man in the Elevator
A man lives on the tenth floor of a building. Every day he takes the elevator to go down to the ground floor to go to work or to go shopping. When he returns he takes the elevator to the seventh floor and walks up the stairs to reach his apartment on the tenth floor. He hates walking so why does he do it?
This is probably the best known and most celebrated of all lateral thinking puzzles. It is a true classic. Although there are many possible solutions which fit the initial conditions, only the canonical answer is truly satisfying.
2. The Man in the Bar
A man walks into a bar and asks the barman for a glass of water. The barman pulls out a gun and points it at the man. The man says 'Thank you' and walks out.
This puzzle has claims to be the best of the genre. It is simple in its statement, absolutely baffling and yet with a completely satisfying solution. Most people struggle very hard to solve this one yet they like the answer when they hear it or have the satisfaction of figuring it out.
3. The Man who Hanged Himself
Not far from Madrid, there is a large wooden barn. The barn is completely empty except for a dead man hanging from the middle of the central rafter. The rope around his neck is ten feet long and his feet are three feet off the ground. The nearest wall is 20 feet away from the man. It is not possible to climb up the walls or along the rafters. The man hanged himself. How did he do it?
4. Death in a Field
A man is lying dead in a field. Next to him there is an unopened package. There is no other creature in the field. How did he die?
5. Anthony and Cleopatra
Anthony and Cleopatra are lying dead on the floor of a villa in Egypt. Nearby is a broken bowl. There is no mark on either of their bodies and they were not poisoned. How did they die?
6. The Coal, Carrot and Scarf
Five pieces of coal, a carrot and a scarf are lying on the lawn. Nobody put them on the lawn but there is a perfectly logical reason why they should be there. What is it?
7. Trouble with Sons
A woman had two sons who were born on the same hour of the same day of the same year. But they were not twins. How could this be so?
8. Push that Car
A man pushed his car. He stopped when he reached a hotel at which point he knew he was bankrupt. Why?
9. The Arm of the Postal Service
One day a man received a parcel in the post. Carefully packed inside was a human arm. He examined it, repacked it and then sent it on to another man. The second man also carefully examined the arm before taking it to the woods and burying it. Why did they do this?
10. Heaven
A man died and went to Heaven. There were thousands of other people there. They were all naked and all looked as they did at the age of 21. He looked around to see if there was anyone he recognised. He saw a couple and he knew immediately that they were Adam and Eve. How did he know?
Tune in tomorrow for my day-long bugs bunny marathon.
Yu-Ling posted at 10/14/2002 06:18:00 PM
Monday, October 07, 2002
One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat,"it doesn't matter."
- Lewis Carroll, In Decisions
I love anything that brings back memories of my childhood. I still love the bugs bunny and mickey mouse cartoons that I watched as a child. I still consider scallops among my most favourite seafood (supposedly it was the very first
solid food that my mother fed me). On occasion, I still pick up a children's book and read through it in my spare time.
Right now, I actually have a children's book with me in 'loo:
The Best of LEWIS CARROLL. It's a compilation of selected works by the famous author that includes
Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, A Tangled Tale, etc. To be honest, I never read anything by Carroll. I only picked up the book cause it was on sale for $7.99 at Chapters. Although I did watch Disney's version of Alice in the Wonderland as a kid, I never realized the story was so much more sophisticated. The story is rather dark, filled with metaphors and symbols and has a crazy amount of riddles. I guess I'm wondering how I would have turned out if I had the chance to read that stuff as a kid?
The Two Clocks
by Lewis Carroll
Which is better, a clock that is right only once a year, or a clock that is right twice every day? "The latter," you reply, "unquestionably." Very good, now attend.
I have two clocks: one doesn't go at all, and the other loses a minute every day: which would you prefer? "The losing one, " you answer, "without a doubt." Now observe: the one which loses a minute a day has to lose twelve hours, or seven hundred and twenty minutes, before it is right again, consequently it is only right once in two years, whereas the other is evidently right as often as the time it points to comes round, which happens twice a day.
So you've contradicted yourself once.
"Ah, but," you say, "what's the use of its being right twice a day, if I can't tell when the time comes?"
Why, suppose the clock points to eight o'clock, don't you see that the clock is right at eight o'clock? Consequently, when eight o'clock comes round your clock is right.
"Yes, I see that," you reply.
Very good, then you've contradicted yourself twice: now get out of the difficulty as best you can, and don't contradict yourself again if you can help it.
You might go on to ask, "How am I to know when eight o'clock does come? My clock will not tell me." Be patient: you know that when eight o'clock comes your clock is right; very good; and the very moment it is right it will be eight o'clock. "But ---," you say. There, that'll do; the more you argue, the farther you get from the point, so it will be as well to stop.
Tune in tomorrow for more nonsense from letters.
Yu-Ling posted at 10/07/2002 11:55:00 PM
Thursday, October 03, 2002
Whether or not what we experienced was an According to Hoyle miracle is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I felt the touch of God. God got involved.
- Jules, Pulp Fiction
Today, I presented with the first chapter from
Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. In the 30s, he was a lecturer in systematic theology. What's so amazing about this man was that he was lecturing in the states when WWII broke out. He actually chose to return to Germany and work as a pastor while taking part in the underground resistance movement. Eventually, he was arrested and was hanged.
The average Waterloo CCFer thinks Pastor Tim's sunday school is pretty hardcore (I admit it gets over my head at times as well), yet he is only sharing the introduction of systematic theology. I think he said 4 years of university sunday school works out to be theology 101, 102... something like that. Well, Bonhoeffer would probably be somewhere in the middle to upper level of comprehensive theology. This guy has some pretty hefty statements that will challenge even the most passionate Christian. They include the following:
The response of the disciples is an act of obedience, not a confession of faith in Jesus.
This encounter is a testimony to the absolute, direct, and unaccountable authority of Jesus.
No man can choose such a life for himself. No man can call himself to such a destiny, says Jesus.
Now, if never before, the law must be broken for the sake of Jesus; it forfeits all its rights if it acts as a barrier to discipleship.
By making his offer on his own terms, he alters the whole position, for discipleship can tolerate no conditions which might come between Jesus and our obedience to him.
Certainly taken out of context, these statements seem rather difficult to swallow. I myself am wondering why the publisher chose to highlight these few statements. In any case, here’s another book for me to chew on in my “spare time”. Man, I haven’t even touched my
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation or
Christianity 101 books yet.
Of course, in my discussion surrounding this first chapter, the issue of God’s Will is bound to pop up. Man, that’s gonna be a fun topic. Who needs a drink?
Tune in tomorrow for an introduction into k-pop.
Yu-Ling posted at 10/03/2002 11:25:00 PM
