In a recent conversation with an acquaintance, the term 'love' came up. I immediately responded with, "Love is not an emotion", with which he wholeheartedly disagreed. But alas, as is often the case, people don't think through and carefully articulate their terminology.
The way one may feel about love is an emotion. But love itself is an action and a state of mind. If we are faithfully following Christ's command to love our neighbor, we do so regardless of how we feel about him. Our feelings, in this case, are irrelevant. We love because it's the right thing to do. And no one dislikes love, giving or receiving.
But there are two other terms here to consider. One, "like", is completely an emotional response. We may hear a beautiful piece of music and because it emotionally moves us, we like it. We may really like to be with a particular person, because of the feelings we have when we are with them. That's all fine and good, but it not love. It is a focus on ourselves.
Two, "romance", is closer related to love, but still distinct from it. You may feel madly "in love" with someone, but it is really just an amplified "liking" of them. And if our marriage is built on romance, it is doomed to fail, for romance is fickle.
Our marriage shouldn't be built on liking someone either. For sure, we should like the person to whom we are married. But that will fluctuate as well, depending on our mood, on their mood, depending on the weather, or even depending on how our day went. But none of those things have any bearing on our love for someone else.
We love others because it is right and because it is a manifestation of who we are, as Christians. Jesus said it, let them know you by your love (John 13:35).
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Don't confuse
The Dynamic Life
Ok, I admit it, the title is a redundancy, in case you picked up on that. Life, by definition, is dynamic. In other words, our life is always full of life, active and moving. Even for the couch potato, the assembly line worker and the elderly in the nursing home. Of course, these are stereotypes, but a stereotype is a stereotype because it is built on the reality of the picture.
So the title "The Dynamic Life" does not necessarily mean the "productive life" or "the positive life", but simply that life is ever changing, never static. As we go through our days, we are doing something, both physically and mentally. We are either growing and improving or growing and diminishing. There is no such thing as a static human being.
So the question is, "Which one are you?" In our day and age, there are so many possibilities for growth and improvement. But at the same time, there are so many opportunities for distraction and loss. We can put in our eight hours a day of work and then waste the rest of our time in distractions and entertainments. In this case, we are diminishing, as we are not using the mind and/or body that God has given us. Or we could be using the rest of our time for the improvement of our minds, our bodies or the improvement of others. Granted, there is the fourth option of our efforts going toward the diminishing of others, and unfortunately, this is common.
So where are we at? A slow decline into mediocrity and waste or are we growing and improving. We only have so much time, considering that most of us have to work and sleep, which is 2/3's of our day. What do we do with the other eight hours?
So the title "The Dynamic Life" does not necessarily mean the "productive life" or "the positive life", but simply that life is ever changing, never static. As we go through our days, we are doing something, both physically and mentally. We are either growing and improving or growing and diminishing. There is no such thing as a static human being.
So the question is, "Which one are you?" In our day and age, there are so many possibilities for growth and improvement. But at the same time, there are so many opportunities for distraction and loss. We can put in our eight hours a day of work and then waste the rest of our time in distractions and entertainments. In this case, we are diminishing, as we are not using the mind and/or body that God has given us. Or we could be using the rest of our time for the improvement of our minds, our bodies or the improvement of others. Granted, there is the fourth option of our efforts going toward the diminishing of others, and unfortunately, this is common.
So where are we at? A slow decline into mediocrity and waste or are we growing and improving. We only have so much time, considering that most of us have to work and sleep, which is 2/3's of our day. What do we do with the other eight hours?
Sunday, October 21, 2018
The view of ancestral superiority
In a paper that I recently read, "The Perils of Omnisignificance: Language and Reason in Mesopotamian Hermeneutics " by Eckhart Frahm, the concept of appealing to the distant past as the repository of truth is found in first millenium BC Mesopotamia. The question that came to my mind, upon discovering this, is that of "why". Why did the Mesopotamian philosophers, of that day, come to embrace the concept of ancient superior? Why did they believe that the past held the truth? For the Orthodox Christian, we look to the first century truth as the fountain of truth, simply because it was the first century believers, who had been taught by Christ, living and learning directly under his leadership.
Of course, the Orthodox church does not limit itself to only what is found in the first century. As the church has continued to grow and mature, our beliefs have not changed, but have been clarified over the centuries. As we have come to cultural situations where explanation is necessary, the church has promoted learning and understanding, and giving energy to the clarification of doctrine.
But the original question, "Why did the ancient Mesopotamian philosophers look to the further past for truth?" remains to be understood, at least by me. What was their thinking and their presuppositions built upon? What did they know about their ancestors and philosophical/intellectual predecessors, that we do not? To whom where they appealing? To whom did they intellectually submit?
The time frame for this paper is first millenium Mesopotamia. This would make these peoples contemporary with King David in Israel. This would make these people the descendants, 500 years past, of Abraham, who came from Mesopotamia. I do not, at this time, have an answer, but the idea of coming to an understanding of what drove ancient philosophers to embrace the hermeneutic they did, is fascinating.
Of course, the Orthodox church does not limit itself to only what is found in the first century. As the church has continued to grow and mature, our beliefs have not changed, but have been clarified over the centuries. As we have come to cultural situations where explanation is necessary, the church has promoted learning and understanding, and giving energy to the clarification of doctrine.
But the original question, "Why did the ancient Mesopotamian philosophers look to the further past for truth?" remains to be understood, at least by me. What was their thinking and their presuppositions built upon? What did they know about their ancestors and philosophical/intellectual predecessors, that we do not? To whom where they appealing? To whom did they intellectually submit?
The time frame for this paper is first millenium Mesopotamia. This would make these peoples contemporary with King David in Israel. This would make these people the descendants, 500 years past, of Abraham, who came from Mesopotamia. I do not, at this time, have an answer, but the idea of coming to an understanding of what drove ancient philosophers to embrace the hermeneutic they did, is fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)