Pope Francis Apostolic Exhortation
A link to the text: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.pdf
I've also (tried) to include the PDF below.
I've also (tried) to include the PDF below.
| pope_francis_apostolic_exhortation.pdf |
Living Faith: A Fundamental Principle of Religion
The concept of living faith, as opposed to simple belief, is a fundamental principle of religion. This does not refer simply to Christianity. In reading "The Case for God" by Karen Armstrong, I was struck by how universal the concept of letting go of self and doing for others was. To demonstrate this, I collected a group of quotes that I found significant. All the quotes below are from her book, referenced at the bottom. I highly, highly recommend purchasing and reading the entire book; it is amazing.
The Upanishadic sages (Vedic spirituality, India) put forth that "the truths of religion are accessible only when you are prepared to get rid of the selfishness, greed, and self-preoccupation that, perhaps inevitably, are ingrained in our thoughts and before...Once you gave up the nervous craving to promote yourself, denigrate others, draw attention to your unique and special qualities, and ensure that you were first in the pecking order, you experienced an immense peace" (p.20).
"Nirvana was the natural result of a life lived according to the Buddha's doctrine of anatta ("no self"), which was not simply a metaphysical principle, but, like all his teachings, a program of action. Anatta required Buddhists to behave day by day, hour by hour, as though the self did not exist....by far the best way of achieving anatta was compassion, the ability to feel with the other...One of the first people to make it crystal clear that holiness was inseparable from altruism was the Chinese sage Confucius" (p.24-25).
"Plato's disciples had to live out this separation [of soul from body] on a daily, hourly basis, paying careful attention to their behavior, as if each moment were their last. They must constantly be on their guard against pettiness and triviality, thus transcending the individualized personality that they would one day leave behind" (p.66). It goes on to counsel separation from earthly affair, not loving money, accepting misfortune, and being moderation in food and drink.
"Anselm is saying something quite different: religious truth made no sense without practically expressed commitment" (p.132).
Al-Ghazzali (Muslim) put forth the concept that "those who did not have the time, talent, or inclination for this type of spirituality could make themselves conscious of God in the smallest detail of daily life" (p.137).
Confucius advocates constant altruism. When practiced "'all day and every day,' it elevated human life to the realm of holiness and gave practitioners intimations of transcendence" (p.308).
Armstrong, K. (2009). The Case for God. New York: Random House, Inc.
The Upanishadic sages (Vedic spirituality, India) put forth that "the truths of religion are accessible only when you are prepared to get rid of the selfishness, greed, and self-preoccupation that, perhaps inevitably, are ingrained in our thoughts and before...Once you gave up the nervous craving to promote yourself, denigrate others, draw attention to your unique and special qualities, and ensure that you were first in the pecking order, you experienced an immense peace" (p.20).
"Nirvana was the natural result of a life lived according to the Buddha's doctrine of anatta ("no self"), which was not simply a metaphysical principle, but, like all his teachings, a program of action. Anatta required Buddhists to behave day by day, hour by hour, as though the self did not exist....by far the best way of achieving anatta was compassion, the ability to feel with the other...One of the first people to make it crystal clear that holiness was inseparable from altruism was the Chinese sage Confucius" (p.24-25).
"Plato's disciples had to live out this separation [of soul from body] on a daily, hourly basis, paying careful attention to their behavior, as if each moment were their last. They must constantly be on their guard against pettiness and triviality, thus transcending the individualized personality that they would one day leave behind" (p.66). It goes on to counsel separation from earthly affair, not loving money, accepting misfortune, and being moderation in food and drink.
"Anselm is saying something quite different: religious truth made no sense without practically expressed commitment" (p.132).
Al-Ghazzali (Muslim) put forth the concept that "those who did not have the time, talent, or inclination for this type of spirituality could make themselves conscious of God in the smallest detail of daily life" (p.137).
Confucius advocates constant altruism. When practiced "'all day and every day,' it elevated human life to the realm of holiness and gave practitioners intimations of transcendence" (p.308).
Armstrong, K. (2009). The Case for God. New York: Random House, Inc.
Saint Basil the Great- A Lesson
Lesson given by St. Basil the Great:
“The halcyon is a seabird that nests by the shore, laying its eggs in the sand, and bringing forth its’ young in the middle of winter when the sea beats against the land in violent and frequent storms. But during the seven days to hatch its young- all winds sink to rest, and the sea grows calm. And as it then is in need of food for its young ones, the most beautiful God grants this little creature another seven days of calm: that it may feed its young. Since all sailors know of this, they this time the name of the 'halcyon days.'
These things are ordered by the Providence of God for the creatures that are without reason, that you may be led to seek of God the things you need for your salvation. And when for this small bird he holds back the great and fearful sea, and bids it be calm in winter, what will he not do for you made in his own image? And if he should so tenderly cherish the halcyon, how much more will he not give you, when you call upon him will all your heart?”
Question: How do you practice complete trust in God?
“The halcyon is a seabird that nests by the shore, laying its eggs in the sand, and bringing forth its’ young in the middle of winter when the sea beats against the land in violent and frequent storms. But during the seven days to hatch its young- all winds sink to rest, and the sea grows calm. And as it then is in need of food for its young ones, the most beautiful God grants this little creature another seven days of calm: that it may feed its young. Since all sailors know of this, they this time the name of the 'halcyon days.'
These things are ordered by the Providence of God for the creatures that are without reason, that you may be led to seek of God the things you need for your salvation. And when for this small bird he holds back the great and fearful sea, and bids it be calm in winter, what will he not do for you made in his own image? And if he should so tenderly cherish the halcyon, how much more will he not give you, when you call upon him will all your heart?”
Question: How do you practice complete trust in God?
Original Sin & Baptism
This is a concept that has caused debate, feuds, murder, and war. Augustine was one of the first theologians to explore the topic of original sin at great length (though, of course, it had been brought up and discussed before his time). Due to the many translations of the Bible, the exact words used as a base for the concept of original sin are much debated.
There are two “basic” ways that the concept of original sin is viewed (there are hundreds of small divisions within these two, but to keep it simple, we’re only going to look at two):
1) We are conceived and born with the stain of original sin upon us. It is an intrinsic part of our human nature to sin. Another view that is “close enough” for our current study is that humans don’t carry the actual “stain” of Adam’s original sin, but we do have the “tendency” to sin.
--In this view, baptism is a way of washing away the stain of original sin and consecrating a life to God. (In the RC, Mary is believed not to have been “sinless,” which, of course, is a designation only Jesus has….she is believed to have been born without the stain of “original sin.”)
2) Original sin, as such, does not exist. One of the main arguments for this is that: We are required to act according to our birth nature. If we are born sinful, then either we must sin, according to nature, -or- not sin, which would be a sin against nature. (The “son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” from Ezekiel is sometimes referenced, though many believe that applying something that affects one individual to the entire human race is nonsensical).
--In this view, baptism is a symbol for making a personal covenant with God and nothing more. Debate still exist among different believers as to whether babies, under this belief, should be baptized or not.
~Discussion Topics:
Which view (if either) do you subscribe to? Why?
Do you believe babies should be baptized? Why or why not?
There are two “basic” ways that the concept of original sin is viewed (there are hundreds of small divisions within these two, but to keep it simple, we’re only going to look at two):
1) We are conceived and born with the stain of original sin upon us. It is an intrinsic part of our human nature to sin. Another view that is “close enough” for our current study is that humans don’t carry the actual “stain” of Adam’s original sin, but we do have the “tendency” to sin.
--In this view, baptism is a way of washing away the stain of original sin and consecrating a life to God. (In the RC, Mary is believed not to have been “sinless,” which, of course, is a designation only Jesus has….she is believed to have been born without the stain of “original sin.”)
2) Original sin, as such, does not exist. One of the main arguments for this is that: We are required to act according to our birth nature. If we are born sinful, then either we must sin, according to nature, -or- not sin, which would be a sin against nature. (The “son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” from Ezekiel is sometimes referenced, though many believe that applying something that affects one individual to the entire human race is nonsensical).
--In this view, baptism is a symbol for making a personal covenant with God and nothing more. Debate still exist among different believers as to whether babies, under this belief, should be baptized or not.
~Discussion Topics:
Which view (if either) do you subscribe to? Why?
Do you believe babies should be baptized? Why or why not?
Creation and the "Flood"
Let us start with the fairly blunt fact- not accepted by some- that the literal interpretation of the Bible in all aspects in a fairly new trend. In the last two centuries, this trend has come to the point that people are believing myths that weren't believed by the most primitive people (judging society by its level of technological advancement). Two stories of particular contention are (of course) Genesis itself and the Flood.
Much better scholars than I have studied creation stories, their links to each other, and how earlier generations interpreted them. I strongly suggest starting with Karen Armstrong: "The Case for God," "The History of God," and "The Battle for God." The "Archaeological Study Bible," while not my favorite Bible for actual reading, has great supplemental material, among it small articles on ancient creation narratives and ancient flood narratives.
Briefly, all early civilizations- not surprisingly- have creation myths. It seems to be a universal human need to attempt to explain the world around us, including its beginnings. These stories were adjusted as needed and seem to have been used by people much like parables- a tool to teach a particular point. They were not studied as if they were history books.
Many early creation myths involve one superior God who appears after either a succession of earlier, less important, less majestic gods -or- one who shows his greatness by defeating some great enemy (such as Leviathan). Earth itself and humanity often arises from either a vast void of nothing or a great muck of mud/dirt/clay. The story in the Christian Bible resembles very closely the early Mesopotamian myths (Sumer being the first 'civilization' as defined by many historians, me among them). Early Mesopotamian accounts also include a flood narrative. (As do some accounts from the New World...who were NOT in contact with the Middle East). [Link to Hebrew creation story: http://www.walkintothebible.com/1/post/2012/02/creation-stories-hebrew.html]
Summary: it is everyone's prerogative to believe what they wish. God gives us free will. My thinking is that before one attempts to limit what someone else can study (such as banning the teaching of the theory of evolution from schools), one should make sure they are an expert on said topic. And then they should pray and ask if it is really God's will for them to control someone else's will and thoughts. Let His will be done.
Much better scholars than I have studied creation stories, their links to each other, and how earlier generations interpreted them. I strongly suggest starting with Karen Armstrong: "The Case for God," "The History of God," and "The Battle for God." The "Archaeological Study Bible," while not my favorite Bible for actual reading, has great supplemental material, among it small articles on ancient creation narratives and ancient flood narratives.
Briefly, all early civilizations- not surprisingly- have creation myths. It seems to be a universal human need to attempt to explain the world around us, including its beginnings. These stories were adjusted as needed and seem to have been used by people much like parables- a tool to teach a particular point. They were not studied as if they were history books.
Many early creation myths involve one superior God who appears after either a succession of earlier, less important, less majestic gods -or- one who shows his greatness by defeating some great enemy (such as Leviathan). Earth itself and humanity often arises from either a vast void of nothing or a great muck of mud/dirt/clay. The story in the Christian Bible resembles very closely the early Mesopotamian myths (Sumer being the first 'civilization' as defined by many historians, me among them). Early Mesopotamian accounts also include a flood narrative. (As do some accounts from the New World...who were NOT in contact with the Middle East). [Link to Hebrew creation story: http://www.walkintothebible.com/1/post/2012/02/creation-stories-hebrew.html]
Summary: it is everyone's prerogative to believe what they wish. God gives us free will. My thinking is that before one attempts to limit what someone else can study (such as banning the teaching of the theory of evolution from schools), one should make sure they are an expert on said topic. And then they should pray and ask if it is really God's will for them to control someone else's will and thoughts. Let His will be done.
"Scientific" Explanation of Biblical Plagues
“Scientific” Explanation of the 10 Plagues: Exodus Decoded and other sources
The basic cause for most of the plagues is hypothesized to be the eruption of the Santorini Volcano at approximately 1500 b.c. (A serious problem with the theory is that experts say the volcano actually erupted around 1625 b.c., a 100+ year difference!) Santorini ash HAS been found in the Nile Delta, which proves that at least the ash cloud from an eruption did reach all of the way to Egypt. It is also hypothesized that seismic activity around the African plate caused a series of small eruptions and then a large eruption of the Santorini Volacano. (This is the “Exodus Decoded” hypothesis).
Plague 1: Nile turned to blood. The earthquake caused high concentrations of iron to be released and bubble up to the surface, where it combined with oxygen. This caused rust to form, giving the water a reddish-brown appearance. Of course, with this explanation, we only account for the Nile, not all of the water in Egypt as stated in the Bible. Also, in the Bible, it was an immediate act that the Pharaoh’s magicians replicated. (Other sources claim it was red clay that caused the discoloration).
Plague 2: Frogs. All of the fish died from the lack of oxygen. Only the frogs, who were able to leave the water, survived. As the frogs fled the water, it was assumed to be a plague of frogs. Again, ignores some of the details of what occurred in the Bible.
Plague 3: Insects (lice, gnats, or mosquitoes…depending on translation). The “Exodus Decoded” rushes through plagues 3-5 by saying: “The lack of clean water then leads to lice, flies, and bacterial epidemics among humans and domestic animals.” Other sources hypothesize that after Moses killed/got rid of all the frogs, the insects and flies were allowed to breed rampantly with their natural predator (the frog) gone.
Plague 4: Flies
Plague 5: Epidemic
Plague 6: Boils & Blisters. By either an earthquake or other disturbance of the water, carbon dioxide was released (from where it was built up at the bottom of the water) and caused a type of semi-coma, in which the victims didn’t move very much. This lowered the circulation rate, resulting in boils and blisters.
Plague 7: Hail with fire. The “Exodus Decoded” refers to the Ipuwer Papyrus claiming an outside source that describes the condition, again ignoring the fact it is dated from the wrong range. “Exodus Decoded” claims that lava from the eruption fell along with volcanic ash that had combined with water moisture to make a type of “hail.”
Plague 8: Locusts. Sudden change in cold weather from the hail caused the locusts to land. As the weather warmed again, they left.
Plague 9: Darkness. Final large eruption caused the land to be covered in ash, making it seem to be dark. Ignores the fact that the distance between the volcano and Egypt is much too far for this amount of ash to travel.
Plague 10: Death of the firstborn. Firstborns slept on the place of honor on a low bed. Others slept on wagons and roofs? Carbon built up under the water released and turned to visible fog. Those close to the ground were suffocated. This entire idea is ridiculous beyond measure. I could write a page only on why the explanation for this plague is ridiculous.
For a very detailed analysis of why “The Exodus Decoded” is very probably not accurate, visit: http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?page_id=119
Now, as always, I have a question for my readers:
Do you think there IS a scientific explanation (not necessarily the one above) for the plagues? Do you think we’ll ever figure out what it is?
Does a lack of scientific explanation affect your belief of the reality of the plagues? Why or why not?
The basic cause for most of the plagues is hypothesized to be the eruption of the Santorini Volcano at approximately 1500 b.c. (A serious problem with the theory is that experts say the volcano actually erupted around 1625 b.c., a 100+ year difference!) Santorini ash HAS been found in the Nile Delta, which proves that at least the ash cloud from an eruption did reach all of the way to Egypt. It is also hypothesized that seismic activity around the African plate caused a series of small eruptions and then a large eruption of the Santorini Volacano. (This is the “Exodus Decoded” hypothesis).
Plague 1: Nile turned to blood. The earthquake caused high concentrations of iron to be released and bubble up to the surface, where it combined with oxygen. This caused rust to form, giving the water a reddish-brown appearance. Of course, with this explanation, we only account for the Nile, not all of the water in Egypt as stated in the Bible. Also, in the Bible, it was an immediate act that the Pharaoh’s magicians replicated. (Other sources claim it was red clay that caused the discoloration).
Plague 2: Frogs. All of the fish died from the lack of oxygen. Only the frogs, who were able to leave the water, survived. As the frogs fled the water, it was assumed to be a plague of frogs. Again, ignores some of the details of what occurred in the Bible.
Plague 3: Insects (lice, gnats, or mosquitoes…depending on translation). The “Exodus Decoded” rushes through plagues 3-5 by saying: “The lack of clean water then leads to lice, flies, and bacterial epidemics among humans and domestic animals.” Other sources hypothesize that after Moses killed/got rid of all the frogs, the insects and flies were allowed to breed rampantly with their natural predator (the frog) gone.
Plague 4: Flies
Plague 5: Epidemic
Plague 6: Boils & Blisters. By either an earthquake or other disturbance of the water, carbon dioxide was released (from where it was built up at the bottom of the water) and caused a type of semi-coma, in which the victims didn’t move very much. This lowered the circulation rate, resulting in boils and blisters.
Plague 7: Hail with fire. The “Exodus Decoded” refers to the Ipuwer Papyrus claiming an outside source that describes the condition, again ignoring the fact it is dated from the wrong range. “Exodus Decoded” claims that lava from the eruption fell along with volcanic ash that had combined with water moisture to make a type of “hail.”
Plague 8: Locusts. Sudden change in cold weather from the hail caused the locusts to land. As the weather warmed again, they left.
Plague 9: Darkness. Final large eruption caused the land to be covered in ash, making it seem to be dark. Ignores the fact that the distance between the volcano and Egypt is much too far for this amount of ash to travel.
Plague 10: Death of the firstborn. Firstborns slept on the place of honor on a low bed. Others slept on wagons and roofs? Carbon built up under the water released and turned to visible fog. Those close to the ground were suffocated. This entire idea is ridiculous beyond measure. I could write a page only on why the explanation for this plague is ridiculous.
For a very detailed analysis of why “The Exodus Decoded” is very probably not accurate, visit: http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?page_id=119
Now, as always, I have a question for my readers:
Do you think there IS a scientific explanation (not necessarily the one above) for the plagues? Do you think we’ll ever figure out what it is?
Does a lack of scientific explanation affect your belief of the reality of the plagues? Why or why not?
Exodus Route
One of my favorite parts of Bible study is breaking out the maps and looking at the paths that the people in the Bible actually walked. My favorite bible for maps is the Archeological Study Bible. I've been browsing around and finally found their site online. Here is a link to their maps: http://www.archaeologicalstudybible.com/maps.htm (Note: I am NOT being paid to recommend this....I just like it.)
In case the map is too small, here is another one that shows the exodus route:
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/Map-Route-Exodus-Israelites-Egypt.jpg
In case the map is too small, here is another one that shows the exodus route:
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/Map-Route-Exodus-Israelites-Egypt.jpg
The Census From the View of Scholars
(The following is direct quotation from the Commentary of St. Jerome)
Critical scholars are unanimous in viewing the numbers given in this list as impossibly high and have proposed a number of theories to account for them.
(1) Albright suggested that we have a record of a census taken at a later period, specifically, a variant of the census taken by David according to 2 Samuel 24:1-9. However, the numbers seem too high even for the time of David.
(2) Others take the total figure of 603,550 as an example of gematria, i.e., play on the numberical value of the letters in certain words: the consonants in ‘bny ysr’l’, “sons of Israel”, add up to 603, and those in ‘kl r’ṧ’, “every head” add up to 550 if the quiescent aleph in r’ṧ is ignored. However, there is no evidence that the letters of the alphabet had these numberical values during the period in which the Priestly authors worked.
(3) G Mendenhall built upon the fact that the Hebrew word for “thousand,” `elep sometimes refers to a subdivision within a tribe (e.g., Judges 6:15 and Micah 5:1). If the same word in our passage were taken to mean something like “contingent,” then the total given for Reuben, e.g., could be read as “46 contingents with a total of 500 men,” instead of “46,500 men.” This approach leads to results that are difficult to explain, for on its reckoning, the contingents from the tribe of Gad averaged 14 men while those from Simeon had only 5! In any case, the total given in v 46 requires that the word `elep be taken in its numerical sense.
(4) Budd points to the fact that the Priestly writers were aware of older Yahwistic traditions which gave a round number of 600,000, presumably for the total population of the exodus generation. On the other hand, the Priestly calculation of the amount of silver required for the bases and hooks of the tabernacle came to 301,775 shekels. Uisng the postexilic rate of one-half shekel tax for each adult male leads to the figure 603,550. Having reached this total, the priests would have distributed the number among the twelve tribes in proportions that seemed plausible to them.
Critical scholars are unanimous in viewing the numbers given in this list as impossibly high and have proposed a number of theories to account for them.
(1) Albright suggested that we have a record of a census taken at a later period, specifically, a variant of the census taken by David according to 2 Samuel 24:1-9. However, the numbers seem too high even for the time of David.
(2) Others take the total figure of 603,550 as an example of gematria, i.e., play on the numberical value of the letters in certain words: the consonants in ‘bny ysr’l’, “sons of Israel”, add up to 603, and those in ‘kl r’ṧ’, “every head” add up to 550 if the quiescent aleph in r’ṧ is ignored. However, there is no evidence that the letters of the alphabet had these numberical values during the period in which the Priestly authors worked.
(3) G Mendenhall built upon the fact that the Hebrew word for “thousand,” `elep sometimes refers to a subdivision within a tribe (e.g., Judges 6:15 and Micah 5:1). If the same word in our passage were taken to mean something like “contingent,” then the total given for Reuben, e.g., could be read as “46 contingents with a total of 500 men,” instead of “46,500 men.” This approach leads to results that are difficult to explain, for on its reckoning, the contingents from the tribe of Gad averaged 14 men while those from Simeon had only 5! In any case, the total given in v 46 requires that the word `elep be taken in its numerical sense.
(4) Budd points to the fact that the Priestly writers were aware of older Yahwistic traditions which gave a round number of 600,000, presumably for the total population of the exodus generation. On the other hand, the Priestly calculation of the amount of silver required for the bases and hooks of the tabernacle came to 301,775 shekels. Uisng the postexilic rate of one-half shekel tax for each adult male leads to the figure 603,550. Having reached this total, the priests would have distributed the number among the twelve tribes in proportions that seemed plausible to them.