What does Voltaire have to say about the soul? A lot, and in fact very little. The question of the soul is a question of identity, spirituality and central really to the philosophical pondering of virtually every philosopher and thinker in most ages. What is the soul? Is it something physical? Is it something else? Does it really matter?
Voltaire, in his normal visceral way attacks and mocks just about everything out there in a wordy way to say something pretty bland, we don't know much about the soul because we can't know very much about the soul. He points out that Moses didn't mention much about the subject because all of his laws had to deal with the here and now and temporal aspects of life. Since, he seems to be a pretty important figure in the history of things it would be odd that he doesn't say anything about the subject if it's important. Voltaire points out that the Jewish notions of the soul aren't formulated until much later than Moses and that by the time three ideas of the soul in Jewish theology come about another mildly important figure goes out of his way to denounce the three sects: the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes.
The Sadducees believed that the soul would perish with the body. The Pharisees believed in a transmigration of the soul to some extent and the Essenes believed that the soul was immortal. Of course, the New Testament does show that Jesus was harsh on the Sadducees and Pharisees (the Essenes weren't specifically mentioned by name) but this harshness was derived from their hypocritical acts and not so much their theological positions but Voltaire happens to enjoy the straw man game so I'll indulge him.
Voltaire does make some hard points about the nature of the soul though. We have so many (as did Voltaire) contemporaries of our age who have vast amounts of knowledge of the entity that we call the soul. Nevermind that countless thinkers have wrapped their life's work around this subject only to come up with vague and partial understandings, young men and women of our age are experts on this material (or immaterial depending on their intellectual bent). Can we that are physical really have a knowledge of something that is not physical with absolute certainty? He points to a no. I think I agree with him. Though, in his mocking way he points to "revelation" as a possible means of knowledge of the soul. In this I think that he is being a bit sarcastic but I don't find the notion of divine revelation into the matter so worthy of scorn. I think that it is possible that revelation plays a crucial role in the understanding of things beyond the mere physical in human beings and why should the notion of the soul be any different?
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Genesis 9:18-28 - The Sons of Noah
Genesis 9:18-28 is a strange bit of the text. For one, it involves the origins of the peoples of the earth. Because the earth was destroyed by the Flood there needs to be a new origin story. From the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth come the people who "were scattered over the whole earth". But, this isn't the strange bit of text at all. That seems a pretty logical step from the flood story.
What is strange is the story of how Noah got drunk and passed out naked in his tent. When Ham discovers his father's naked body he tells his brothers. Now his brothers go out of their way to cover their father's body without viewing his nakedness. The Biblical text has already associated nakedness and shame in some ways. In Genesis 2 it states that Adam and his wife were naked but not ashamed. Then, when they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they became aware they were naked and covered up. So, at least in this context the nakedness is associated with some level of shame. So what Ham did was shameful to his father whereas Shem and Japheth were doing what they could to cover their father's shame.
When Noah woke up he cursed Ham for his wicked deed and blessed Shem and Japheth for their righteous act. The wording of the curse and blessing are notable. The cursing of Ham is to make Ham's offspring the slaves of his brothers. Harsh curse, but pretty straightforward. The blessing of Shem and Japheth though hints again at Noah's faithfulness to God. In blessing Shem he states, "Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!" In blessing his other sons, Noah is praising God.
What is interesting here though is contrary to God's cursing of Adam where God cursed the ground and the Serpent more harshly than Adam himself, Noah directly curses the offspring of Ham. I don't know if there is any major difference, it struck me though.
Noah dies in this passage at the age of 950 years old. Again we are struck with an incredible old age of a biblical character and I'm still not sure what to make of it.
What is strange is the story of how Noah got drunk and passed out naked in his tent. When Ham discovers his father's naked body he tells his brothers. Now his brothers go out of their way to cover their father's body without viewing his nakedness. The Biblical text has already associated nakedness and shame in some ways. In Genesis 2 it states that Adam and his wife were naked but not ashamed. Then, when they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they became aware they were naked and covered up. So, at least in this context the nakedness is associated with some level of shame. So what Ham did was shameful to his father whereas Shem and Japheth were doing what they could to cover their father's shame.
When Noah woke up he cursed Ham for his wicked deed and blessed Shem and Japheth for their righteous act. The wording of the curse and blessing are notable. The cursing of Ham is to make Ham's offspring the slaves of his brothers. Harsh curse, but pretty straightforward. The blessing of Shem and Japheth though hints again at Noah's faithfulness to God. In blessing Shem he states, "Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!" In blessing his other sons, Noah is praising God.
What is interesting here though is contrary to God's cursing of Adam where God cursed the ground and the Serpent more harshly than Adam himself, Noah directly curses the offspring of Ham. I don't know if there is any major difference, it struck me though.
Noah dies in this passage at the age of 950 years old. Again we are struck with an incredible old age of a biblical character and I'm still not sure what to make of it.
Genesis 6 - 9 - Noah & The Flood
Genesis 6 - 9 relates the story of Noah and the flood, a pretty familiar story to most. Genesis 6, as recounted earlier tells of how God chose Noah because he was righteous and relates some of the instructions. Genesis 7 gives an account again of how Noah is to bring the animals into the ark and tells of how God brought the flood upon earth, destroying every living creature who was not on board. Genesis 8 relates how God remembered Noah and his family aboard the ark and tells of how Noah, his family and the animals rescued by Noah emerge from the ark in the post-flood world. Genesis 9, up until verse 17 tells of God's covenant with Noah. In this little bit of the Bible we see a number of interesting things and stuff that raises some questions.
First, Noah is found righteous. What had Noah done to be found righteous in the first place. What set Noah apart from the other men of his age? Is it that Noah did all that God commanded of him or was there some preexisting righteousness in Noah not mentioned in the Genesis account?
Second, what are we to do with Noah's age? The Biblical account has him at 600 years old at the time of the flood? Are we to take that as a literal? Some of these questions about the ages have been raised before in our journey and we still need to research into them to find answers, if that is at all possible.
Third, in the text we have God commanding Noah to take two of every unclean animal but seven of every clean one. When did God give this demarcation? When did God call some animals clean and others unclean?
In Genesis 8 Noah builds an altar and sacrifices some of the clean animals to God as an offering. What prompts this offering and sacrifice?
In Genesis 9 God blesses Noah and his sons. Why is the "fear of dread" that the God places in the animals of Noah and his offspring a blessing? Also in this little passage God gives Noah and his offspring the animals as He had given the green plants of the earth to Adam. Is this an explicit allowing of men to eat the flesh of animals?
In Genesis 9:6 we see reference again to the Imago Dei. "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." This is a pretty strong ethical statement and ties into the image of God research we hope to continue on this blog. I don't know what yet to make of it, but since it seems to be a topic we've chosen to focus on here early in this journey it's worth mentioning to come back to at a later time.
There's a lot in the text here, but these questions will suffice for now. Hopefully, I'll be a bit more faithful in my studying in the near future and develop a bit more of a routine to continue my research.
First, Noah is found righteous. What had Noah done to be found righteous in the first place. What set Noah apart from the other men of his age? Is it that Noah did all that God commanded of him or was there some preexisting righteousness in Noah not mentioned in the Genesis account?
Second, what are we to do with Noah's age? The Biblical account has him at 600 years old at the time of the flood? Are we to take that as a literal? Some of these questions about the ages have been raised before in our journey and we still need to research into them to find answers, if that is at all possible.
Third, in the text we have God commanding Noah to take two of every unclean animal but seven of every clean one. When did God give this demarcation? When did God call some animals clean and others unclean?
In Genesis 8 Noah builds an altar and sacrifices some of the clean animals to God as an offering. What prompts this offering and sacrifice?
In Genesis 9 God blesses Noah and his sons. Why is the "fear of dread" that the God places in the animals of Noah and his offspring a blessing? Also in this little passage God gives Noah and his offspring the animals as He had given the green plants of the earth to Adam. Is this an explicit allowing of men to eat the flesh of animals?
In Genesis 9:6 we see reference again to the Imago Dei. "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." This is a pretty strong ethical statement and ties into the image of God research we hope to continue on this blog. I don't know what yet to make of it, but since it seems to be a topic we've chosen to focus on here early in this journey it's worth mentioning to come back to at a later time.
There's a lot in the text here, but these questions will suffice for now. Hopefully, I'll be a bit more faithful in my studying in the near future and develop a bit more of a routine to continue my research.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Abraham - Voltaire
In his Philosophical Dictionary, Voltaire continues to use his piercing logic in a sarcastic manner to provoke thought. In the article entitled Abraham about the patriarch of the Hebrews he questions why we as modern human beings believe the Jews and their "history and ancient fables" are historical records.First, he questions the age of Abraham. This ties into one of 21 burning questions for August-September. What are we to make of the ages of human beings being recorded in the Biblical text. Abraham was 135 when he left Mesopotamia for Shechem (Israel). Then he was 140 when he traveled from Israel to Egypt. He was 160 when he was promised that Isaac would be born within a year. He lived until he was 205. Surely this alone would be enough to invite skepticism.
Second, he questions why Abraham would make some of these journeys. Why would a man leave Mesopotamia, a culturally rich area for the relative backwater Shechem? Why would he think to travel from Shechem to Egypt when there was a famine in his new promised land? Besides the incredible distances that he would have to travel there is what Voltaire astutely points out, the obvious language barrier.
Third, he touches on one of the odder parts of the Abrahamic story - when he travels to Egypt to escape the famine and then again to a desert kingdom he beseeches his wife Sarah to claim that she is Abraham's sister, not his wife. In doing so Abraham becomes vastly wealthy.
Where Voltaire then goes is a bit of a stretch, but an intriguing look at the commonality of religions or at least the perceived similarities of religions and how they relate to identifying features of existence. He finds it silly that the Jews, descendants of Abraham who came from an ancient and sophisticated society (Mesopotamia - Chaldea) visited an ancient and sophisticated society (Egypt) and would have passed through an ancient and sophisticated society (Assyria) could have taught the world anything new. Instead he reasons that the Jews took more from the surrounding societies and appropriated the myths for their own bent. He reasons that the name Israel is Chaldaean, the Hebrew names for God: Eloi, Adonai, Jehovah and Hiao are of Phoenician origin, the name of Abraham himself being derived from an ancient religion along the Euphrates called Kish-Ibrahim, Milat-Ibrahim. He notes, "It is hard to penetrate the shadows of antiquity; but it is evident that all the kingodms of Asia had been flourishing mightily, long before the vagabond horde of Arabs, called Jews, had a small spot of earth that was their own, before they had a town, laws, or a settled religion" (pp 61-62).
Now, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. Voltaire seems awfully intent in every passage to bash Hebraic sensibilities, but he does raise excellent skeptical points. While we are not yet to the Abraham section of Genesis in our glacial pace through the Old Testament it foreshadows difficulties for the faithful that we will be encountering in our journey. If one is going to be a believer then how does one reconcile such things? I feel as though we are seeing an existential moment in the distance where we must look into the abyss. Shall we turn back? No. Will we calmly stare down the void and embrace the emptiness in some sort of homage to Camus? Or will we leap in Kierkegaardian fashion into the safety trembling in fear all the way? Or will we discover that there is no real existential pitfall and simple faith can put to rest such skepticism. After all Voltaire, great and powerful as he may be in his own (and my mind) he is but one voice of skepticism. There may be many more but there are an equal number of those who embrace these "fables" as gospel.
My continuing fascination with things like this though is the religious comparisons. We do not know very much of the Kish-Ibrahim, Milat-Ibrahim religion of the Euphrates or of other Ancient Near Eastern compared to latter ones like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But, Islam's borrowing of Christianity and Judaism and Christianity's borrowing of Judaism and possibly Zoroastrianism and Judaism's borrowing of other, more ancient Near Ancient religions that were not quite settled yet does not demand that the religion doing the borrowing is incorrect. It could just as well easily say that the religion doing the borrowing has collected the right portions of the true religion (if there is such a thing). It could have removed the wheat from the chaff and begun to bake a delicious bread. Voltaire's observations are piercing in the sense that he recognizes the inter-connectivity of the religions of the Ancient Near East at the time of Abraham and immediately following. However, his jump that the Jews have merely borrowed from more ancient religions to form some sort of crafty hodgepodge that is void of truth and merely fable reflects a personal rejection of faith more than a statement of fact.
21 Burning Questions for August-September
Well, things have been a bit hectic around here lately, so much so that I haven't been keeping up with this little nascent endeavor of the mind of mine. But here we are to offer a synopsis of our first few posts and ask the 21 Burning Questions that arose in our research in August & September.
1. Why are there differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
2. Is Genesis 1/Genesis 2 supposed to be viewed as literal, allegorical or something along the continuum in betwixt the two?
3. When God creates man he does so in "our image" and "our likeness" in Genesis 1 & 2. Does this "our" signify multiple gods or is there something in the Old Testament that is foreshadowing the Trinitarian language of later Christianity? Genesis 3 then has God referring to himself as 'us'. Once again is this some sort of multiplicity of gods, a royal we, a literary device or a reference to the Trinitarianism of Christianity?
4. In Genesis 1/Genesis 2 God creates man in the image of God and in the likeness of God. Is there a difference between the two?
5. What is the difference in defining God in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Genesis? In Genesis 1 God is simply referred to as God. In Genesis 2 God is referred to as the LORD God. Is there a difference? What significance is there here?
6. Why are religions so similar on certain topics like origin stories?
7. Why did Cain & Abel bring sacrifices in Genesis 4 without prompting?
8. Did Cain's sin come from his order of concerns when he is approached by God about what he has done to Abel?
9. Where are the people coming from that Cain is afraid of when he learns of his banishment?
10. Is there something religious in nature about the mark Cain received in banishment? Is there some notion of God/gods being tied to specific geographical regions and this mark an assurance from God that He is with Cain regardless of where Cain is on this earth?
11. What does the story of Lamech have to do with anything in Genesis 4?
12. Where did Cain's wife come from?
13. Worship began in the time of Enosh according to the geneology in Genesis 4. If this is true then what were the sacrifices offered by Cain & Abel?
14. What is the significance of "human capital contracts"? What are my thoughts on the ethical nature of these endeavors?
15. Adam's son is made in his own image and his own likeness in Genesis 5. Is there something significant about this language being echoed?
16. What are we to make of the ages of the people mentioned in Genesis 5's genealogical record?
17. What is the significance of Enoch and his walking with God?
18. "Sons of God, daughters of man" were marrying in Genesis 5. What does that mean?
19. What/who are the Nephilim?
20. Why had mankind's inclinations become so evil that God wished to destroy them?
21. What did Noah do in order to find favor with God?
These are the burning questions of August-September. Let us hope that October brings about some burning answers.
1. Why are there differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
2. Is Genesis 1/Genesis 2 supposed to be viewed as literal, allegorical or something along the continuum in betwixt the two?
3. When God creates man he does so in "our image" and "our likeness" in Genesis 1 & 2. Does this "our" signify multiple gods or is there something in the Old Testament that is foreshadowing the Trinitarian language of later Christianity? Genesis 3 then has God referring to himself as 'us'. Once again is this some sort of multiplicity of gods, a royal we, a literary device or a reference to the Trinitarianism of Christianity?
4. In Genesis 1/Genesis 2 God creates man in the image of God and in the likeness of God. Is there a difference between the two?
5. What is the difference in defining God in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Genesis? In Genesis 1 God is simply referred to as God. In Genesis 2 God is referred to as the LORD God. Is there a difference? What significance is there here?
6. Why are religions so similar on certain topics like origin stories?
7. Why did Cain & Abel bring sacrifices in Genesis 4 without prompting?
8. Did Cain's sin come from his order of concerns when he is approached by God about what he has done to Abel?
9. Where are the people coming from that Cain is afraid of when he learns of his banishment?
10. Is there something religious in nature about the mark Cain received in banishment? Is there some notion of God/gods being tied to specific geographical regions and this mark an assurance from God that He is with Cain regardless of where Cain is on this earth?
11. What does the story of Lamech have to do with anything in Genesis 4?
12. Where did Cain's wife come from?
13. Worship began in the time of Enosh according to the geneology in Genesis 4. If this is true then what were the sacrifices offered by Cain & Abel?
14. What is the significance of "human capital contracts"? What are my thoughts on the ethical nature of these endeavors?
15. Adam's son is made in his own image and his own likeness in Genesis 5. Is there something significant about this language being echoed?
16. What are we to make of the ages of the people mentioned in Genesis 5's genealogical record?
17. What is the significance of Enoch and his walking with God?
18. "Sons of God, daughters of man" were marrying in Genesis 5. What does that mean?
19. What/who are the Nephilim?
20. Why had mankind's inclinations become so evil that God wished to destroy them?
21. What did Noah do in order to find favor with God?
These are the burning questions of August-September. Let us hope that October brings about some burning answers.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Genesis 6 - The Story of Noah
Noah was a righteous man with three sons, Shem, Ham & Japheth. The Lord commanded Noah to build an ark and gave him the directions to do so. He decided to destroy the world because it was full of violence and the people of the earth had become corrupted. The Lord instructed Noah to bring on board with him his family and two of every living creature as well as every type of food. The Lord decided to make a covenant with Noah to spare him of this destruction.
Thoughts/Questions:
How was Noah to bring all of the creatures of the earth into such a small ship?
The covenant that God made with Noah seems to be important, more research should be made into this.
The last verse also seems significant for the story. "Noah did everything just as God commanded him" (Genesis 6:22). This shows the faith that Noah had in God and gives credence to Genesis 6:9 that described Noah as a righteous man, walking faithfully with God.
While, I want to continue my research from as blank of a slate as I possibly can, the story of Noah is one that I have been familiar with for much of my life. It was taught to me early on in Sunday Schools in various forms with various lessons. But, what are we to make of Noah? Is he to be taken as a literal-historical figure? Is the Biblical Flood something to be taken as a real event? Or is he to be taken as an allegory to be understood of the virtues of faith and the consequences of evil and sin? The topic of Noah is a broad one in which much research has been done. In the coming weeks and months I will post more research on Noah before coming to any conclusion, if any conclusion is ever to be reached. In some ways the intellectual pursuit that I am undertaking is an end unto itself.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Imago Dei
Basically, the Image of God can be understood in three ways: substantive, relational or functional. In the substantive understanding of the Image of God human beings have some characteristics that are found in God. The relational understanding of Image of God maintains that while human beings may have some of the traits of God the image only becomes clear when one is in relationship with God. The functional understanding of the Image of God states that we as human beings were charged with a task by God, ruling over the earth and by doing this we mirror God's rule over the universe.
Of course this is on the tip of the iceberg when it comes to discussing the Imago Dei and each of these three ways of understanding has various nuances that will be explored further. But, for now, the Imago Dei seems to be a vital point of interest in understanding who man is in his existence and since that is a pertinent topic in any intellectual path we shall continue to visit it in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)