Wrong Part V New Ruskin College.com
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Wrong Part V
Editor’s Notes: 11-19-04
Because time is running out many parts of the site will have to remain incomplete. The next part was to cover how we organize knowledge and how this organization is governed by our genes. Here are some notes:
William F. Buckley, Jr. said, agreeing with someone, (Muggeridge(?)), that if Jesus of Nazareth was not “risen” then “what is the point?” I have always felt that this attitude is a repudiation of Jesus, another betrayal. For either Jesus was a beloved rabbi, who taught love, was persecuted and executed, and whose teachings continued on after his death, in his disciples, “the Church,” or, He was the Christ fulfilling the prophesies, whereby the Lord became man, no longer separate and apart from His people, and resides in us even now. This is His body, this is His blood. The two cases are indistinguishable.
If the Christ is not resurrected in your life, then He is not risen. This is the literal teaching. If you think that the Bible is the literal word of God then how else to interpret His words? “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me.” Unto Me? (et respondens rex dicet illis amen dico vobis quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis mihi fecistis) Matthew 25:40
Not “objectively” risen so many years ago, but resurrected in this subjective being, now. Why do you look for the living among the dead? (timerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram dixerunt ad illas quid quaeritis viventem cum mortuis ) Luke 24 : 5 Is He dead? This bread, this wine, His body, His blood. Unto Me? Whose body is this? Whose blood is this? Why do you look for the living, (He who lives), among the dead? Rejoice! Z : He lives.
Oh, or are you still waiting for the Messiah? Is that it? Perhaps you think that you are not yet the body of the Christ? (Corpus Christi) Not yet a branch on the vine of Christ? What are you waiting for? You take the bread, but it does not become your body? Is it His body? You drink the wine, does it enter your blood? Is it His blood? Do you believe in the resurrection or not? Are these things not “objective?”
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (non est Deus mortuorum sed viventium) Matthew 22 :32
Do you not believe in the ever lasting life of the world to come? And again what do you suppose is, where will we find, that ever lasting life? Are you looking up to heaven? Clue: The least of these. Are you looking outside yourself? Unto Me? I bring you good news, the body of Christ is all mankind. The everlasting life: humanity down the generations. And not your children only.
Even he that cannot keep his soul alive.
A seed shall serve him;It shall be counted unto the Lord for His generations.
They shall come and shall declare his righteousnessUnto a people that shall be born, that he hath done it.
--- Psalm 22
Some times the seed falls on fertile earth, sometimes on barren ground. But do you suppose that life is pure chance? Or do you imagine yourself to be the individual seed? The chaff? Roots? Is that what you think? Now who is being solipsistic? More good news: The Corpus Christi is the entire crop, life! Not just one individual puny seed. You continue in the life of the world to come, not in the genes of your children, not some molecule, (why be so limited?), but in the body of the Christ.
You say you believe in the resurrection but I wonder if you really do? You say you believe in the life of the world to come, that the Christ has given us eternal life, redeemed us, but you are still looking outside yourself, to heaven, or somewhere else, as if He had not yet come.
What are you waiting for? Do you not think He is risen? You want an “objective” heaven. And what would you do if you got there? You go before God, kneel, Hallelujah! Ok, Alan Watts asks, then what? Wouldn’t that get a little old? But eternity? Thank God you, and your puny little consciousness wasn’t allowed to plan out the universe.
I mean you are a part of the body of Christ, ok, I accept you as a brother, but I mean, my God, (excuse the expletive), what if we had left things up to you! We would be on our knees for eternity crying out Hallelujah? Do we get coffee breaks? I shouldn’t mock you but really! Thank God! More good news: we do not depend on your limited imagination, He has made other arrangements for us.
Now, do you believe in the life of the world to come? As the bread becomes His body, the wine blood, so too the teaching becomes the Holy Spirit. His teaching, have you received it? Yes? So the Holy Spirit has it entered you? Or are you still waiting for the Messiah? All these things, the resurrection, the life of the world to come, they are arrayed before you, in these objective facts, the bread, the wine, humanity, life, the teaching, and you look about you, up to heaven, and ask, ‘where is He?’ You want an ‘objective proof.’ Barren ground. You see? All alone. I told you that there was no one left.
“The conception of an absolute requirement, whether or not adorned with metaphysical justification, is shared with religion whether it is connected with and absolute ground, that is some idea of a persisting and necessarily existing reality. How far can a demythologized religion go in that direction, and still be called religion? The “ reality" or “ ground" , traditionally thought of picturesquely as “elsewhere", may be seen as available to ordinary cognition, veiled and so on.” (Iris Murdoch, (303)“Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals”)
Just as we saw earlier when discussing morality, you want everything done for you, and are disappointed that you must act, to reconstruct your world, in every minute of your days. You want your moral values to be “objectively True,” made objective by being held in “the mind of God,” so you do not have to act, and be responsible for those acts, and to save you the bother of that moral act of reconstruction. God confers value. You feel your morality is diminished, made less valuable, if it is contingent on you, and your acts, this moral reconstruction of the world. And again I say this fact makes you, your acts, more valuable, important, not less valuable, for if you do not hold the good as good then there is no good.
Iris Murdoch: “God is good.”
Student: What is good?
Iris Murdoch: “Good is good” (Because you “know” it, therefore you know there is a God. The awareness of the good penetrates your consciousness like rays from the All Mighty. Isn’t this a miracle? And to think, this miracle all most past you by unnoticed.)
And now again, you also wanted the resurrection to have been taken care of for you, (thousands of years ago); the Christ risen and sitting at the “right hand” of “God the Father” on His heavenly throne. Everything already taken care of for you, no mess, no bother. As with children, you wanted everything to have already been done, for you.
No. Sorry, you have some chores yet to do. Jesus is not less valuable because you must do unto Jesus, your acts become more valuable, important, because, (just as morality is contingent on you so to the resurrection is contingent on you), Jesus must wait upon you. He has been waiting a good long time hasn’t He? What are you waiting for? Why do you look for the living among the dead? If the Christ is not resurrected in your life, then He is not risen.
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. (non est Deus mortuorum sed vivorum vos ergo multum erratis) Mark 12:27
Jesus was a values relativist. As with the others we have considered, He, also, asked us to consider the meaning of our values and how to apply them, and our judgments about them, to our lives.
For example, the objective Law is that one shall not commit adultery, however, Jesus asked us to consider the issue more deeply, subjectively. Objectively, by the standard of the Law, looking at yourself from the outside, you may not have committed adultery, but what about subjectively, Jesus asks?
If God were not looking down on you, looking at you objectively, but what if God were inside of us, what then? What if God resides in us? Looking at us, subjectively? Have you committed adultery subjectively?
Sure, you can place an offering on the alter. This is a commendable act, objectively. But Jesus asks us to consider that notwithstanding this act, if our hearts are wounded by a dispute with our brother, it would be better to forgo the offering and go directly to our brother and make amends. This subjective turmoil deserves precedence over the objective offering.
When Jesus admonishes us to give more garments to the man who takes our coat, does He really suppose that we should have no system of justice? Elsewhere He has asked us to visit those in prison, not that we should tear down the prisons, so we can take it that He accepts a system of law and punishment.
In fact He says that there are a set of values relative to Cesar, and for God there are a different set of values, standards, some of which, as we have just seen, penetrate to our very soul, and are not hidden from God, who will soon reside in us, upon the Resurrection.
Do not appeal to God at the high alter with your offerings to help you in your dispute with your brother. This is to confuse two realms. It is an abuse of God. Go to your brother first. Nor should you try to bribe God with your coins. Do not apply the values of the market place to God.
Nor apply the system of values you have for dealing with criminal conduct in your invocation of God--------
Counselor: So, for example, when you condemned them for not taking action against Saddam Hussein earlier, remember? You said “God Damn you.” That was probably not something Jesus would have approved?
. . . No, . . . Yvonne, dear, . . . probably that would be an example of bringing the Damnation of the All Mighty down to the level of politics. A confusion of different standards. Probably Jesus would not have approved.
Someone may steal your cloak ----
Counselor: Then when you said, “No one cared what was done to me. No one cared what was done to Mr. Bush! God Damn You. God Damn You,” Jesus would not ---
Yes, this is very similar to the first example. I am quite certain Jesus would not have approved. He said:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides) Matthew 7 : 3
So, no, sweetheart, He probably ----
Then when you told Bill O’Reilly, remember you said, “God is manifest, you prick,” this would be another example of something Jesus would not have approved?
(This preaching thing is not as easy as it looks.) No, again, this would be another example of the same thing. Thank you, Yvonne.
Counselor: You are welcome.
Alright class settle down. Let us continue with the lesson.
Someone may ----
Someone may . . . steal your cloak, or strike you on your cheek, but these complaints are not things about which you can expect God to intervene. Do not ask God to strike your adversary, not because God approves of theft or battery, but because you are confusing the realm of Heaven, with that of daily life. There are different values to be applied. Different standards. Relative standards depending on the circumstances.
The objective standard is an eye for an eye. But Jesus advises us not to be too hasty in the simple minded application of this seemingly simple and obvious law. For if applied to our daily lives, Jesus says, God’s standards should result in very different conduct. We would turn the other cheek, we would hand the thief our other garments also.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. (nolite iudicare ut non iudicemini) Matthew 7:1
Jesus is not arguing that we reward thieves and assailants, He is suggesting that we should not appeal to God in a simple minded way as if all were “objective”, we are cautioned not to invoke the absolute, as if it were a fixed absolute value --- a certainty. For we are so far from God that we can scarcely understand God’s judgments let alone manipulate them with our alms and prayers.
And Jesus illustrates just how far from God we are with a series of preposterous statements:
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (beati qui lugent quoniam ipsi consolabuntur) Matthew 5:5
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. (6:28 et de vestimento quid solliciti estis considerate lilia agri quomodo crescunt non laborant nec nent 6:29 dico autem vobis quoniam nec Salomon in omni gloria sua coopertus est sicut unum ex istis) Matthew 6:28:29
Though these are hardly more outlandish than the admonitions to turn the other cheek or that we should reward the thief. Of course we must make clothes, His point is that it is a measure of how far we are from God that we do not emulate the lilies of the field --- we are that far apart.
Ironically, some churchmen take Jesus literally, and actually do believe we should turn the other cheek and reward thieves, wander the woods dressed in lilies. However, they are clueless. Jesus would have used different examples if he had been talking to them. Only the sick need a physician.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (euntes autem discite quid est misericordiam volo et non sacrificium non enim veni vocare iustos sed peccatores) Matthew 9:13
He was trying to challenge our set assumptions, our confidence that we know God, or God’s Commandments. For today’s egotists he should have advised them to join the Army or Police, in order to shake them out of their egotistical complacency and self satisfaction. If you do not find His statements paradoxical then you need a different medicine. (I am surprised there has not yet been a lilies of the field clothing line.)
For the pacifist is a kind of egotist. They think that they will always be able to persuade the wrongdoers. Most of us recognize our limits of persuasion and therefore are armed. When asked to condemn soldiers He pointed out the extreme of generosity represented by the soldiery.
He knew perfectly well that the peace maker would not be blessed, but crucified. The meek are not to inherit anytime soon. He is not outlining a program of action, he is illustrating how far we are from God, how inadequate we are compared to His judgment. Therefore we can not say with certainty what God’s judgment would be, as if it were an “objective” fact, therefore our judgments must as a result be tentative, contingent on the situation, and we: humble.
Not that we should not make judgments, but that we should do so thoughtfully, carefully, with discerning awareness of the relative, contingent, situation. As is made more clear:
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: (nolite iudicare et non iudicabimini nolite condemnare et non condemnabimini dimittite et dimittemini) Luke 6:37
There are different standards for different situations. An eye for and eye is the objective standard, yet Jesus asks us not to stop in our judgment, not to be satisfied with mere surface appearances, with the merely “objective”, but to look more deeply. We can not say, ‘he hit me’, or ‘he stole my cloak’, so therefore, God’s absolute condemnation shall fall on him. Beware, for if you take your dispute to God’s court and demand God’s judgment, are you prepared for such an examination yourself? Being so far from God, how could we even imagine what God’s judgment would be?
Ought you not fear God’s judgment? How easy for the objective judgment to slide into the subjective condemnation. Do you really want to take this case to trial? In God’s court? Jesus advises to settle your differences amicably out of court.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. (esto consentiens adversario tuo cito dum es in via cum eo ne forte tradat te adversarius iudici et iudex tradat te ministro et in carcerem mittaris ) Matthew 25 : 5
God, upon the Resorection, now resides in us, our subjective being, and we must apply the Law to the circumstance, we must interpret, we must think.
And is this not the sin for which God sacrificed His son?
Was this not the original sin? Knowledge?
Lost in our thoughts, our human knowledge, we were thrown out of Eden. Instead of simply existing in the Garden with the other beasts, docilely living in the “objective” world we developed self awareness, knowledge. But see now how God has taken pity on His people, and sent His son to redeem us. To forgive us our sin He sent His son to show us how to think.
His son does not admonish us to return to God’s favor by following the example of the other beasts, and living in ignorance in an objective world. He counsels us to use our minds, to think.
Formerly God could only be understood objectively. There were the Ten Commandments to be followed, objectively. That was enough. Now Jesus tells us that these Commandments must be followed not only objectively but subjectively as well. Not just the letter of the Law but the meaning of the Law as well.
We can no longer manipulate God with these objective acts, offerings at the alter, sitting in the front row of the temple, coins, objects like that, now Jesus admonishes us to serve God in our thoughts, subjectively. We are redeemed the original sin of knowledge not by retreat into thoughtless objectivity, but by attending to our subjective awareness.
The Resurrection of Christ is completed not up in a heavenly sky kingdom but down here on the ground in the thicket of our thoughts, our subjective awareness of God, the Good.
This awareness of the Good is proof of God. God comes to us in our thoughts. Have you been aware of His presence? How many miracles have been missed: Looking in the wrong places, expecting the wrong things --- objects --- signs? Bang! You see, every time. We are in luck . . . see over there, drifting on the wind currents, a sparkling flame. Iris has marked our way in this darkness.
‘But Sir, please, might we not get lost again? The last time we were thrown out of Eden, but we ended up here, a place of woe, yet still, Earth. Considering what might have happened . . . we tremble . . . to think . . . But next time, where will we be thrown next time? God knows.’
Jesus offers us this advise, if we get lost in our thoughts and can remember nothing else, at least remember the two most important Commandments, Love God, Love your neighbors as yourself.
In either case Buckley’s “what is the point?” misses the point in such a profound way that one is sorry for him. To have lived such a long life in such compete darkness . . . he demands magic, what he needs is wisdom.
Dr. Edward O. Wilson has explained this hierarchical need, this demand for an absolute absolute, highest almighty, top of the top, as a function of our genes. Social predators survived to pass on their genes by organizing themselves into hunter organizations, with a leader, a leadership group. Organizations are in our genes.
Hunters have a calculator encoded into their genes, manifested in their brains, that organizes space and time into a geometry that coordinates the overtaking of the prey. Our visual processing centers allow us to focus on the object moving across the field, calculate the speed, direction, etc. However, social predators have encoded whole worlds of meaning that solitary hunters do not. Organizations. Hierarchy.
Our brains are organized, “designed,” to facilitate certain kinds of thinking. Meta principles are distinguished from “subordinate” ideas, just as we instinctively note the leader of a herd and the stragglers. Some ideas “dominate” and others are “submissive.” We look at the world through a lens, a brain, that is millions of years old at least.
Jesus, or any Godhead, has to be on top, most high, the first one, ---- our tissue craves it, demands it. We feel incomplete if the universe is not ordered the way our group is ordered: Leader, and then ranked order “beneath,” a hierarchy of meaning. Our thoughts are in this manner channeled. And all of this is natural. So natural that we do not even notice it. It is the primordial stuff out of which we are made.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Wrong Part V
Editor’s Notes: 11-19-04
Because time is running out many parts of the site will have to remain incomplete. The next part was to cover how we organize knowledge and how this organization is governed by our genes. Here are some notes:
William F. Buckley, Jr. said, agreeing with someone, (Muggeridge(?)), that if Jesus of Nazareth was not “risen” then “what is the point?” I have always felt that this attitude is a repudiation of Jesus, another betrayal. For either Jesus was a beloved rabbi, who taught love, was persecuted and executed, and whose teachings continued on after his death, in his disciples, “the Church,” or, He was the Christ fulfilling the prophesies, whereby the Lord became man, no longer separate and apart from His people, and resides in us even now. This is His body, this is His blood. The two cases are indistinguishable.
If the Christ is not resurrected in your life, then He is not risen. This is the literal teaching. If you think that the Bible is the literal word of God then how else to interpret His words? “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me.” Unto Me? (et respondens rex dicet illis amen dico vobis quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis mihi fecistis) Matthew 25:40
Not “objectively” risen so many years ago, but resurrected in this subjective being, now. Why do you look for the living among the dead? (timerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram dixerunt ad illas quid quaeritis viventem cum mortuis ) Luke 24 : 5 Is He dead? This bread, this wine, His body, His blood. Unto Me? Whose body is this? Whose blood is this? Why do you look for the living, (He who lives), among the dead? Rejoice! Z : He lives.
Oh, or are you still waiting for the Messiah? Is that it? Perhaps you think that you are not yet the body of the Christ? (Corpus Christi) Not yet a branch on the vine of Christ? What are you waiting for? You take the bread, but it does not become your body? Is it His body? You drink the wine, does it enter your blood? Is it His blood? Do you believe in the resurrection or not? Are these things not “objective?”
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. (non est Deus mortuorum sed viventium) Matthew 22 :32
Do you not believe in the ever lasting life of the world to come? And again what do you suppose is, where will we find, that ever lasting life? Are you looking up to heaven? Clue: The least of these. Are you looking outside yourself? Unto Me? I bring you good news, the body of Christ is all mankind. The everlasting life: humanity down the generations. And not your children only.
Even he that cannot keep his soul alive.
A seed shall serve him;It shall be counted unto the Lord for His generations.
They shall come and shall declare his righteousnessUnto a people that shall be born, that he hath done it.
--- Psalm 22
Some times the seed falls on fertile earth, sometimes on barren ground. But do you suppose that life is pure chance? Or do you imagine yourself to be the individual seed? The chaff? Roots? Is that what you think? Now who is being solipsistic? More good news: The Corpus Christi is the entire crop, life! Not just one individual puny seed. You continue in the life of the world to come, not in the genes of your children, not some molecule, (why be so limited?), but in the body of the Christ.
You say you believe in the resurrection but I wonder if you really do? You say you believe in the life of the world to come, that the Christ has given us eternal life, redeemed us, but you are still looking outside yourself, to heaven, or somewhere else, as if He had not yet come.
What are you waiting for? Do you not think He is risen? You want an “objective” heaven. And what would you do if you got there? You go before God, kneel, Hallelujah! Ok, Alan Watts asks, then what? Wouldn’t that get a little old? But eternity? Thank God you, and your puny little consciousness wasn’t allowed to plan out the universe.
I mean you are a part of the body of Christ, ok, I accept you as a brother, but I mean, my God, (excuse the expletive), what if we had left things up to you! We would be on our knees for eternity crying out Hallelujah? Do we get coffee breaks? I shouldn’t mock you but really! Thank God! More good news: we do not depend on your limited imagination, He has made other arrangements for us.
Now, do you believe in the life of the world to come? As the bread becomes His body, the wine blood, so too the teaching becomes the Holy Spirit. His teaching, have you received it? Yes? So the Holy Spirit has it entered you? Or are you still waiting for the Messiah? All these things, the resurrection, the life of the world to come, they are arrayed before you, in these objective facts, the bread, the wine, humanity, life, the teaching, and you look about you, up to heaven, and ask, ‘where is He?’ You want an ‘objective proof.’ Barren ground. You see? All alone. I told you that there was no one left.
“The conception of an absolute requirement, whether or not adorned with metaphysical justification, is shared with religion whether it is connected with and absolute ground, that is some idea of a persisting and necessarily existing reality. How far can a demythologized religion go in that direction, and still be called religion? The “ reality" or “ ground" , traditionally thought of picturesquely as “elsewhere", may be seen as available to ordinary cognition, veiled and so on.” (Iris Murdoch, (303)“Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals”)
Just as we saw earlier when discussing morality, you want everything done for you, and are disappointed that you must act, to reconstruct your world, in every minute of your days. You want your moral values to be “objectively True,” made objective by being held in “the mind of God,” so you do not have to act, and be responsible for those acts, and to save you the bother of that moral act of reconstruction. God confers value. You feel your morality is diminished, made less valuable, if it is contingent on you, and your acts, this moral reconstruction of the world. And again I say this fact makes you, your acts, more valuable, important, not less valuable, for if you do not hold the good as good then there is no good.
Iris Murdoch: “God is good.”
Student: What is good?
Iris Murdoch: “Good is good” (Because you “know” it, therefore you know there is a God. The awareness of the good penetrates your consciousness like rays from the All Mighty. Isn’t this a miracle? And to think, this miracle all most past you by unnoticed.)
And now again, you also wanted the resurrection to have been taken care of for you, (thousands of years ago); the Christ risen and sitting at the “right hand” of “God the Father” on His heavenly throne. Everything already taken care of for you, no mess, no bother. As with children, you wanted everything to have already been done, for you.
No. Sorry, you have some chores yet to do. Jesus is not less valuable because you must do unto Jesus, your acts become more valuable, important, because, (just as morality is contingent on you so to the resurrection is contingent on you), Jesus must wait upon you. He has been waiting a good long time hasn’t He? What are you waiting for? Why do you look for the living among the dead? If the Christ is not resurrected in your life, then He is not risen.
He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. (non est Deus mortuorum sed vivorum vos ergo multum erratis) Mark 12:27
Jesus was a values relativist. As with the others we have considered, He, also, asked us to consider the meaning of our values and how to apply them, and our judgments about them, to our lives.
For example, the objective Law is that one shall not commit adultery, however, Jesus asked us to consider the issue more deeply, subjectively. Objectively, by the standard of the Law, looking at yourself from the outside, you may not have committed adultery, but what about subjectively, Jesus asks?
If God were not looking down on you, looking at you objectively, but what if God were inside of us, what then? What if God resides in us? Looking at us, subjectively? Have you committed adultery subjectively?
Sure, you can place an offering on the alter. This is a commendable act, objectively. But Jesus asks us to consider that notwithstanding this act, if our hearts are wounded by a dispute with our brother, it would be better to forgo the offering and go directly to our brother and make amends. This subjective turmoil deserves precedence over the objective offering.
When Jesus admonishes us to give more garments to the man who takes our coat, does He really suppose that we should have no system of justice? Elsewhere He has asked us to visit those in prison, not that we should tear down the prisons, so we can take it that He accepts a system of law and punishment.
In fact He says that there are a set of values relative to Cesar, and for God there are a different set of values, standards, some of which, as we have just seen, penetrate to our very soul, and are not hidden from God, who will soon reside in us, upon the Resurrection.
Do not appeal to God at the high alter with your offerings to help you in your dispute with your brother. This is to confuse two realms. It is an abuse of God. Go to your brother first. Nor should you try to bribe God with your coins. Do not apply the values of the market place to God.
Nor apply the system of values you have for dealing with criminal conduct in your invocation of God--------
Counselor: So, for example, when you condemned them for not taking action against Saddam Hussein earlier, remember? You said “God Damn you.” That was probably not something Jesus would have approved?
. . . No, . . . Yvonne, dear, . . . probably that would be an example of bringing the Damnation of the All Mighty down to the level of politics. A confusion of different standards. Probably Jesus would not have approved.
Someone may steal your cloak ----
Counselor: Then when you said, “No one cared what was done to me. No one cared what was done to Mr. Bush! God Damn You. God Damn You,” Jesus would not ---
Yes, this is very similar to the first example. I am quite certain Jesus would not have approved. He said:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides) Matthew 7 : 3
So, no, sweetheart, He probably ----
Then when you told Bill O’Reilly, remember you said, “God is manifest, you prick,” this would be another example of something Jesus would not have approved?
(This preaching thing is not as easy as it looks.) No, again, this would be another example of the same thing. Thank you, Yvonne.
Counselor: You are welcome.
Alright class settle down. Let us continue with the lesson.
Someone may ----
Someone may . . . steal your cloak, or strike you on your cheek, but these complaints are not things about which you can expect God to intervene. Do not ask God to strike your adversary, not because God approves of theft or battery, but because you are confusing the realm of Heaven, with that of daily life. There are different values to be applied. Different standards. Relative standards depending on the circumstances.
The objective standard is an eye for an eye. But Jesus advises us not to be too hasty in the simple minded application of this seemingly simple and obvious law. For if applied to our daily lives, Jesus says, God’s standards should result in very different conduct. We would turn the other cheek, we would hand the thief our other garments also.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. (nolite iudicare ut non iudicemini) Matthew 7:1
Jesus is not arguing that we reward thieves and assailants, He is suggesting that we should not appeal to God in a simple minded way as if all were “objective”, we are cautioned not to invoke the absolute, as if it were a fixed absolute value --- a certainty. For we are so far from God that we can scarcely understand God’s judgments let alone manipulate them with our alms and prayers.
And Jesus illustrates just how far from God we are with a series of preposterous statements:
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (beati qui lugent quoniam ipsi consolabuntur) Matthew 5:5
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. (6:28 et de vestimento quid solliciti estis considerate lilia agri quomodo crescunt non laborant nec nent 6:29 dico autem vobis quoniam nec Salomon in omni gloria sua coopertus est sicut unum ex istis) Matthew 6:28:29
Though these are hardly more outlandish than the admonitions to turn the other cheek or that we should reward the thief. Of course we must make clothes, His point is that it is a measure of how far we are from God that we do not emulate the lilies of the field --- we are that far apart.
Ironically, some churchmen take Jesus literally, and actually do believe we should turn the other cheek and reward thieves, wander the woods dressed in lilies. However, they are clueless. Jesus would have used different examples if he had been talking to them. Only the sick need a physician.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (euntes autem discite quid est misericordiam volo et non sacrificium non enim veni vocare iustos sed peccatores) Matthew 9:13
He was trying to challenge our set assumptions, our confidence that we know God, or God’s Commandments. For today’s egotists he should have advised them to join the Army or Police, in order to shake them out of their egotistical complacency and self satisfaction. If you do not find His statements paradoxical then you need a different medicine. (I am surprised there has not yet been a lilies of the field clothing line.)
For the pacifist is a kind of egotist. They think that they will always be able to persuade the wrongdoers. Most of us recognize our limits of persuasion and therefore are armed. When asked to condemn soldiers He pointed out the extreme of generosity represented by the soldiery.
He knew perfectly well that the peace maker would not be blessed, but crucified. The meek are not to inherit anytime soon. He is not outlining a program of action, he is illustrating how far we are from God, how inadequate we are compared to His judgment. Therefore we can not say with certainty what God’s judgment would be, as if it were an “objective” fact, therefore our judgments must as a result be tentative, contingent on the situation, and we: humble.
Not that we should not make judgments, but that we should do so thoughtfully, carefully, with discerning awareness of the relative, contingent, situation. As is made more clear:
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: (nolite iudicare et non iudicabimini nolite condemnare et non condemnabimini dimittite et dimittemini) Luke 6:37
There are different standards for different situations. An eye for and eye is the objective standard, yet Jesus asks us not to stop in our judgment, not to be satisfied with mere surface appearances, with the merely “objective”, but to look more deeply. We can not say, ‘he hit me’, or ‘he stole my cloak’, so therefore, God’s absolute condemnation shall fall on him. Beware, for if you take your dispute to God’s court and demand God’s judgment, are you prepared for such an examination yourself? Being so far from God, how could we even imagine what God’s judgment would be?
Ought you not fear God’s judgment? How easy for the objective judgment to slide into the subjective condemnation. Do you really want to take this case to trial? In God’s court? Jesus advises to settle your differences amicably out of court.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. (esto consentiens adversario tuo cito dum es in via cum eo ne forte tradat te adversarius iudici et iudex tradat te ministro et in carcerem mittaris ) Matthew 25 : 5
God, upon the Resorection, now resides in us, our subjective being, and we must apply the Law to the circumstance, we must interpret, we must think.
And is this not the sin for which God sacrificed His son?
Was this not the original sin? Knowledge?
Lost in our thoughts, our human knowledge, we were thrown out of Eden. Instead of simply existing in the Garden with the other beasts, docilely living in the “objective” world we developed self awareness, knowledge. But see now how God has taken pity on His people, and sent His son to redeem us. To forgive us our sin He sent His son to show us how to think.
His son does not admonish us to return to God’s favor by following the example of the other beasts, and living in ignorance in an objective world. He counsels us to use our minds, to think.
Formerly God could only be understood objectively. There were the Ten Commandments to be followed, objectively. That was enough. Now Jesus tells us that these Commandments must be followed not only objectively but subjectively as well. Not just the letter of the Law but the meaning of the Law as well.
We can no longer manipulate God with these objective acts, offerings at the alter, sitting in the front row of the temple, coins, objects like that, now Jesus admonishes us to serve God in our thoughts, subjectively. We are redeemed the original sin of knowledge not by retreat into thoughtless objectivity, but by attending to our subjective awareness.
The Resurrection of Christ is completed not up in a heavenly sky kingdom but down here on the ground in the thicket of our thoughts, our subjective awareness of God, the Good.
This awareness of the Good is proof of God. God comes to us in our thoughts. Have you been aware of His presence? How many miracles have been missed: Looking in the wrong places, expecting the wrong things --- objects --- signs? Bang! You see, every time. We are in luck . . . see over there, drifting on the wind currents, a sparkling flame. Iris has marked our way in this darkness.
‘But Sir, please, might we not get lost again? The last time we were thrown out of Eden, but we ended up here, a place of woe, yet still, Earth. Considering what might have happened . . . we tremble . . . to think . . . But next time, where will we be thrown next time? God knows.’
Jesus offers us this advise, if we get lost in our thoughts and can remember nothing else, at least remember the two most important Commandments, Love God, Love your neighbors as yourself.
In either case Buckley’s “what is the point?” misses the point in such a profound way that one is sorry for him. To have lived such a long life in such compete darkness . . . he demands magic, what he needs is wisdom.
Dr. Edward O. Wilson has explained this hierarchical need, this demand for an absolute absolute, highest almighty, top of the top, as a function of our genes. Social predators survived to pass on their genes by organizing themselves into hunter organizations, with a leader, a leadership group. Organizations are in our genes.
Hunters have a calculator encoded into their genes, manifested in their brains, that organizes space and time into a geometry that coordinates the overtaking of the prey. Our visual processing centers allow us to focus on the object moving across the field, calculate the speed, direction, etc. However, social predators have encoded whole worlds of meaning that solitary hunters do not. Organizations. Hierarchy.
Our brains are organized, “designed,” to facilitate certain kinds of thinking. Meta principles are distinguished from “subordinate” ideas, just as we instinctively note the leader of a herd and the stragglers. Some ideas “dominate” and others are “submissive.” We look at the world through a lens, a brain, that is millions of years old at least.
Jesus, or any Godhead, has to be on top, most high, the first one, ---- our tissue craves it, demands it. We feel incomplete if the universe is not ordered the way our group is ordered: Leader, and then ranked order “beneath,” a hierarchy of meaning. Our thoughts are in this manner channeled. And all of this is natural. So natural that we do not even notice it. It is the primordial stuff out of which we are made.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
