A controversial comparison

A probably controversial comparison came to mind yesterday.  Something was said, I believe it was in a homily by my priest, regarding the apostle Paul.  For some reason i thought of Paul, when he was on trial before the ruler Festus and Festus made a comment about "Paul's much learning driving him mad." (Acts 26:24)  Clearly, Festus was not referring to Paul as a madman/lunatic, for Paul was speaking clearly, articulately and somewhat convincingly.  It may actually be difficult to know exactly to what Festus was referring, but it was his impression that Paul was losing contact with what most would consider normalcy and normal understanding of things.
This next led me to think of Jesus' words to his disciples, warning them that the world would hate them because of Jesus.  I believe there may be a small connection between how the world will perceive the way that a believer thinks, in comparison to a "regular" person.
The second person that then came to mind, in regards to being considered insane, was Alistair Crowley, the famous British occultist from the mid 1900's.  This man, clearly, was on the opposite end of the spectrum, from the Apostle Paul.  Crowley certainly had his share of learning, but his was not an education in godliness and love, but rather literally, the opposite.  Crowley spent his inherited fortune and literal lifetime inventing and discovering every form of magic and perversion known to man.  In the end, Crowley became a babbling madman, literally.  The later audio recordings of him reveal a literal blithering idiot, completely incoherent.
So what is the difference? Paul was called a madman, due to his cogent, coherent, moving intelligence, even though it was contrary to "normal" thought.  Crowley was considered a madman because he literally appeared to be insane.  Literally incoherent and irrational.
This is a good example of love of God and love of neighbor moving one man to life and beauty, while the pursuit of lust, power and debauchery led another man to insanity.
I'm not exactly sure what the value of this thought experiment is, but it came together in a somewhat intriguing fashion.  I'd love to hear your comments/thoughts.

The actual depth of reality

My son presented a truly interesting concept to me the other day, in the form of an article.  The article  was written by a professor at some university in Southern California.  The idea was basic, what we see as reality is actually an illusion.  As would be expected, I was somewhat suspect, even after reading the article.  But in a brief conversation with my son sometime thereafter, my son explained the idea, in better terminology.
The idea is this.  Just like when we look at our computer monitor and see a collection of icons, which are links to files, the icon itself it not the thing itself, but instead a representation of the file. Our physical eye cannot see the file, which in reality is a string of 0's and 1's, which, when properly interpreted and understood, can communicate a wide variety of things, things far beyond the little icon on the computer monitor.
So too is it with physical reality.  When we look at, hear, smell and feel the world around us, we are actually only seeing a very shallow, one-sided representation of reality.  The perceptions we take in with our senses are limited and we are incapable of "seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/feeling" complete reality.  The senses are not designed to and simply cannot grasp reality as a whole.
The end result of the conversation between my son and I took the basic concept of the original article, refined it and, in my opinion, vastly improved it.  The author's original concept called the physical a mere illusion.  My son and I, in contrast, defined the physical as not illusion, but only one aspect of reality, a very small part, to be more precise.  The spiritual/emotional aspect makes up much more of reality that the mere physical.
In a conversation I had with one of my younger sons, I took a very tangible example of just how real this concept is.  It is said, in physiology, that the body we have at one point, is completely replaced with new cells, within a seven year time period.  What it is then that defines who we are? Certainly not the mere physical, for within seven years, it is something different.
Ruminate on that for awhile.  It truly is mind-blowing.

Thoughts on philanthropy

In response to Bill Gates’ recent comments on forcing higher taxes on the wealthy, I believe a different approach is in order.  I know of very few who have been more philanthropic than the Gates Foundation. No one can accuse Gates of being stingy. But his latest comments on making higher taxes for the wealthy is wrong headed.  Philanthropy is a good thing, but one cannot be forced to be philanthropic. Forced philanthropy is nothing less than higher taxes, i.e., taxes. Being forced to do anything is nothing to be proud of.

I would like to be able to say that the problems in the world, related to poverty and suffering could easily be addressed, in light of the extreme wealth of a fairly large number of people.  But yet, here we are, a fairly large number of extremely wealthy people and the extreme poverty, suffering and starvation of so many people still exists. What is the answer?

Somehow some people seem to have the idea that if someone is extremely wealthy, they ought to pay more taxes so as to help offset the imbalance of need versus excess.  But this is really just another way of promoting communism. The redistribution of wealth is a communist idea, that has failed, over and over again. The question ought to be, “Why should someone, who through a variety of means, has extreme wealth, be forced to give that money away?”  Now it very well could be that someone with extreme wealth should be philanthropic (I believe there is substantial biblical support for such an idea), but the government under which that person lives should NOT take their money by force. Stealing is stealing, even when it has a politically correct label.

But ultimately the problem is corruption.  It can practically be said that those with extreme wealth and extreme power take advantage of these tools and do not do what they ought.  At the same time, those of us with a moderate income, or even borderly poverty ought to be doing what we can as well. Generosity is not required only of the wealthy.  Everyone struggles with selfishness, to some degree. Apparently it is easier to see in the wealthy. Corruption in politics, too, brings about suffering for the poor and weak.  So the answer is not further corruption/abuse at the hands of government (i.e., higher taxes for some).

It ought to be the case that all of us have compassion on those in need and address those needs with their money and power.  Jesus told us that we would always have the poor with us, but that does not mean that we do nothing about it. As St John Chrysostom said, “if you have two coats, one you have stolen from your brother who has none.” In other words, we should never relish our excess at the expense of someone else’s suffering or want.

The issue is obviously an extremely complex one, that will not be answered in a simplistic manner.  Forcing higher taxes is simply further corruption and abuse. Simply throwing more money out will not fix the problem either, as the corruption that currently exists will un-do or redirect that money to wrong places.  

Why Nature?

Is there any sort of psychological connection between the apparent obsession with outdoorsy/wilderness/hiking/exercise with the apparent cultural slide into paganism? I have to admit that I have never thought along these lines today, but today, after hearing co-workers speak about hiking for the 1000th time, I really began to wonder.

Obviously, this connection, if it does exist, is not a conscious one.  I can guarantee that those persons who love this return to nature mentality, are not doing so because they are raging pagans, of any stripe. But when we look at the history of cultures, when we look at the progress of the people of Israel, directed by the hand of God and when we look at the growth and development of the church, none of these go in the direction of “natural-back-to-earth-back-to-nature”.

The argument of “I find God in nature, therefore I don’t need to go to church,” simply does not work.  It is not a historical position, it does not flow from the historical church. The kingdom of God is within us and the people of God are found in the Orthodox church.  This is not to argue that God does not move amongst other gatherings of people. As the Orthodox church says, “We can say where God is, but we will not say where God is not.”

So what is the ground for my original question?  I have to wonder why the common mentality of a culture that is moving away from God, from Christianity and from holiness is heading toward “the wild outdoors”.  Is it a draw toward un-civilization? Is it a move towards that which is unstructured, spontaneous and whimsical? It certainly seems to place an emphasis upon the physical, rather than the spiritual.

I must close with one more comment.  Paul does tell us that while exercising the physical body has some value, the pursuit of holiness has value for all areas of life, both physical and spiritual.

Speaking in silence

While silence certainly has its place in a person’s life, according to the Orthodox church, as human beings, we are created for communication and interaction.  While it is true that we are to emulate Christ, in every aspect of our lives, communication is one key area that is often overlooked, in this regard. Jesus told many stories to communicate the truths of a right relationship with God.  So on one hand, we can say, with certainty, we must learn to communicate, in the most effective ways possible, so as to remove all possible means of misunderstanding and mis-speaking. Another way of saying this is that we do not communicate by silence, we communicate with words.  God spoke to a sinful world by means of word. We, now, as his body, should do the same. It is when a heart has been changed, has learned to drive away the distractions of the world and listen for silence that one is ready to begin to hear God in the silence.

At the same time, we can say that we are to seek after silence as we strive after theosis.  We pray out loud in order to learn to pray inward in order to learn to pray in silence. In other words, we learn to be quiet so as to hear the voice of God, speaking in silence and guiding us by his Holy Spirit.

So what is speaking in silence?  It is speaking out loud, in love, to those around us, not expecting them to simply know what we mean.  But it is speaking, with a passion for, a love for and a goal of silence, so that we are led by the Spirit of God.

Authority and Labels

When we start with the Old Testament, we are introduced to the concept of "only God".  There is nothing else, literally nothing.  There is no created thing. But then God speaks and there is light, there is earth, there land and water, creatures, plant life and man.  When God forms man and breathes life into him, he names him.  This is the concept I would like to focus on.
God speaks as one with authority.  In naming Adam, he is declaring that he is an authority over him and gives him an appropriate name.  When God sees that it is not good for man to be alone, he brings all the animals to man and has man name them.  From this we can see (and it is said outright later on) that man has authority over all the animals and all creation. In naming the animals, man is declaring his authority over them.
Later on, when God speaks to Jacob, he re-names him.  In doing so, he is giving Jacob a new identity. Later still, when the angel speaks to Mary, he does not give her the option of naming her yet-to-be-born Son, instead God names him.
Now, moving into our personal lives, we can apply this concept to our actions as well.  As parents, we name our children.  By extension, we begin using nick names and pet names for those we love.  But, in a negative sense, we do the same when we become angry and use unkind monikers for others.  In this sense, we are taking a role for ourselves that is not ours.  We do not have the right to re-name others, especially when those names are unkind or degrading.
Considering this from a psychological perspective, there is a large number of labels that are often applied to a variety of mental "disorders".  These labels have the same effect upon people as actual re-naming.  The power of suggestion is a great one, actually and literally moving someone into a mental perspective.  If someone is diagnosed with dementia, sociopathy, autism spectrum or anything else of the like, they are being re-named, and we as Christians do not seem to even question such an act.
What is taking place when this happens and how does it affect us?  Are we simply embracing what is being said and believing it?  Of course, an actual medical diagnosis is different from a psychological labeling. One is a description of what is physically true, while the other is often merely a description of thought processes and behaviors, from typically a secular perspective.
We dare not allow the world to have authority over us and define us, especially when that definition is contrary to who we are in Christ.  If you need medicine, take it.  But don't simply swallow what secular thinking says about your habits, thoughts and behaviors.

Communication

This subject is a fairly common theme in my own thinking and around my home in general. Personally, I deliberately try to limit my communication to the use of literals and not slang or figures of speech. I believe that if one pays attention to the way words are used, and in what context, they will notice that the more professional and academic the communication is, the less slang and figures of speech will be present.
For me, and apparently this is unusual, I find figures of speech or slang to be far more open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding than literal speak. Mainly, I believe, due to the subjectivity and inherent ambiguity of it. It almost seems by definition that slang or figures of speech are artistic and subjective. In the same way that a piece of music or a painting can be excellent or poor, based solely on preference, so too can speech be broadly interpreted i.e., understood in a variety of ways and vaguely articulated.
But really, is that the goal of speech? Or does communication, by definition, aim for the transference of meaning with a specific goal in mind?