‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ Acts 17:28 NIV

In Acts 17, Paul was in Athens, a philosophical epicenter.  He shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ and some hearers thought his message was rather peculiar. Nonetheless, lovers of knowledge as they were, they took him to the Areopagus and requested that he expound on his new philosophy. Today’s equivalent of speaking before the Areopagus is being a featured speaker at a top tier university’s philosophical forum. I imagine Paul was excited and grateful due to the magnitude of this opportunity. How awesome would it be if God used him to renew the minds of influential philosophers and community members? How many more lives would such a change affect?

During his exposition to the Areopagus, Paul referenced the poetry of Greek philosophers. He used the culture of his audience to point to the One True God. I often referenced Acts 17: 28 not knowing Paul quoted Epimenides, a Stoic. Once again, Paul demonstrates why he was a great evangelist, debater, and defender of the Way. His approach serves as an example for all believers.

1. Believers must be mindful of non-Christian philosophies and practices. The result is a heightened level of sensitivity and a keen ability to identify ministry opportunities.  Paul did not walk through Athens dismissing their ungodly practices and philosophies. Instead, he observed Athenian idolatry and saw their desire to know an “Unknown God”. Paul was able to be specific and relevant when meeting with the Areopagus because he was attentive to their culture. He quoted their philosophers and exposed shortcomings. When Christians are culturally indifferent we miss opportunities to shed light on society’s ignorance.

2. Sometimes, it’s okay to reference non-Christian text or philosophies to communicate God’s Truth. Acts 17:2 states that Paul reasoned with Jews from the Scriptures. The manner in which Paul reasoned with Athenians could not be the same way that he reasoned with Jews.  Each group’s prior knowledge consisted of a different canon. I am not implying that Paul did not use any Scripture when ministering to the Areopagus.  I am simply highlighting the fact that Paul used a familiar prose, which was most likely written for Zeus, to point hearers to the I AM.  His actions indicate that there was value in Athenian identity; unfortunately, there was also a void.

Everyone lives, moves and exists in some ideology.  Christians should be sensitive to culture in hopes of showing people that God wants their identity to be in Him. Worldly or idolatrous practices cannot be solely denigrated and dismissed. Culturally insensitive rhetoric becomes a Christian’s stumbling block when speaking to non-believers.

Here is one of the most simple and beautiful songs about life I have ever heard, written by the late Mark Heard and sung here by Bruce Cockburn on a tribute project to Mark following his passing. The overall theme of the song seems to be about the ironies of life. 

Down peppers the rain from a clear blue sky
Down trickles a tear on a youthful face
Feeling in haste and wondering why
Up struggles the sun from a wounded night
Out venture our hearts from their silent shrouds
Trying to ignite but wondering how

We can laugh and we can cry
And never see the strong hand of love hidden in the shadows
We can dance and we can sigh
And never see the strong hand of love hidden in the shadows

Young dreamers explode like popped balloons
Some kind of emotional rodeo
Learning too slow and acting too soon
Time marches away like a lost platoon
We gracefully age as we feel the weight
Of loving too late and leaving too soon

We can laugh and we can cry
And never see the strong hand of love hidden in the shadows
We can dance and we can sigh
And never see the strong hand of love hidden in the shadows

This song mentions many ironies of life: pleasure and pain, the desire and difficulty of love, laughter and sorrow, beauty and perplexity, youthfulness and aging, wisdom and folly, mortality and grace. The supreme irony is in the chorus, that we can journey through life without knowing that a “strong hand of love” has continually been present. Paul preached a sermon to the Greek philosophers in Athens sometime in the middle of the first century, that is based on this reality of human life.

²⁴ The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, ²⁵ nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. ²⁶ And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, ²⁷ that they should seek God,and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, ²⁸ for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

²⁹ Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. ³⁰ The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,³¹ because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:24-31, ESV)

To the reader:

I try to keep these posts as short as possible, while knowing that their content has probably provoked some thoughts, questions, implications, or critiques. Therefore, any of these from the reader are greatly appreciated in order to “fill out” these posts. Many thanks in advance!

“Likes” are also much appreciated because it helps me know if I’m posting things of interest.

So, what say ye…? 

Original Content © Bryan M. Christman and Manifest Propensity, 2013. Excerpts, links, and reblogging may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Bryan M. Christman and Manifest Propensity with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

BMC @ Manifest Propensity, 2013

Jesus Christ:  “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

Pontius Pilate:  “What is truth?”

The Bible teaches that truth is knowable, that Jesus is the Source and Witness of truth, and that truth is found in the Scriptures.  Yet, it also clearly reveals that other sources can include statements or illustrations of those Biblical truths, and that those other sources can be useful in communicating Biblical truth.

Perhaps one of the clearest statements of this principle came from Augustine of Hippo, who perhaps erred in some other areas but got this one correct:

A person who is a good and true Christian should realize that truth belongs to his Lord, wherever it is found, gathering and acknowledging it even in pagan literature, but rejecting superstitious vanities and deploring and avoiding those who ‘though they knew God did not glorify him as God…’

Some have boiled it down to this:  “All truth is God’s truth” — wherever truth may be found.  But many doubt we should “gather it” (Augustine’s wording) from atheistic / pagan literature.  Such writings would seem to be best avoided — but the Scriptures do not agree.

Paul in Athens

Acts 17:28

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Perhaps few believers know that this contains not one, but two, quotes, nor do they know just how idolatrous these poets were.  The first quote is from Epimenides of Crete, who in Cretica rebuked the people of Crete for building a tomb for Zeus:

They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being.

Paul did not identify this quote, but his Athenian hearers certainly knew it (and Paul was very familiar with this passage from Epimenides).  They knew it referred to Zeus.  Paul used the quote as part of the theme of his message — your knowledge of God is deeply flawed and incomplete.  Some of what you know is true, but you don’t really know Him.

In the second part of the verse, Paul specified that he was quoting a poet, this time Aratus:

From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed;
Full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men;
Full is the sea and the havens thereof;
Always we all have need of Zeus.
For we are also his offspring;

Romans 1:19-20

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

In a centre of idolatry, Paul was saying God had showed them some knowledge of truth, but they did not know that true God.  He used their own literature to illustrate truths from Scripture, truths written in their hearts, and to show that even their own pagan poets knew there must be a God to whom all must answer, to whom all owe their life and existence.

Though pagans were wrong to apply God’s truth to a false god (Zeus), Paul used their writings to illustrate and teach the nature of the true God.  He was not appealing to their poets for truth (he’s obviously NOT teaching the same thing they were teaching) so much as he was using poets to show that God had given knowledge of Himself to every person — and thus, every person is accountable to that true God.

Paul to the Corinthians

I Corinthians 15:33

Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

Paul quotes from Menander (and/or Euripides):  “Bad company corrupts good character.”  It is as if Paul said, “Even the pagans know — too much time with evil companions will corrupt you.  Why do you tolerate those who deny the resurrection?”  This warning against evil influences is taught repeatedly in Proverbs, but the Holy Spirit chose the wording of pagan poets to communicate it to a Greek audience.

Paul to Titus

Titus 1:12-13

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

I said above that Paul was very familiar with a passage from Epimenides.  Here he cites it again.  This time I’ve put a different line in blue:

They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being.

This time, Paul uses a pagan author to describe the nature of his society.  Again, he is citing a passage which praises Zeus, a false god — but the true statement, about the dishonest and lazy tendencies of the Cretans, serves the purpose of the Holy Spirit, anyway.

Epimenides Paradox

One more (rather fun) point on Titus/Epimenides: this passage is called the Epimenides Paradox.  If the statement was true and Cretans are “always liars,” then Epimenides (a Cretan) was a liar, so his statement wasn’t true — it is self-refuting.  (See here for more, especially the enjoyable quote from Thomas Fowler under the Logical Paradox heading.)

Paul quoted it as a proverbial statement, not an absolute one.  He was too much of a logician to miss its self-refuting nature — instead, he emphasised it, calling him “one of their own” and then emphatically saying, “This witness is true.”   Paul is having a laugh while making a clear point — the strong tendency in the Cretan culture towards dishonesty and laziness.  It’s not that every Cretan was invariably dishonest or stupid, but that they must be corrected from the pattern of their culture.

By using Epimenides’ statement, and humourously emphasising its self-refuting aspect, Paul (guided by the Spirit) communicated the need to Titus in a very memorable and powerful way, one Titus would never forget.

Some Concluding Thoughts

1. If we are to think on things that are pure, lovely, etc. (Philippians 4:8), then we should be careful about too much exposure to the corrupt productions of an evil world.
2. Yet, Paul’s example shows he was knowledgeable in the cultural output of the society in which he lived and ministered, and that he (AND the Holy Spirit) found this helpful in his ministry.
3. Acts 17:  non-Christian literature / culture can “put legs” to Romans 1:19-20, showing the lost that they believe some Biblical truth already, but need to seek the true God, the One to whom that truth in their hearts is pointing.
4. I Corinthians 15:  literature / cultural references can provide a thought-provoking way to express Scriptural truth.
5. Titus 1:  literature can give insight into the way sin most often manifests itself in a particular time and place.
6. Titus 1:  even idolatrous literature can give opportunities for effective communication.
7. Scripture has other passages which may be quotes from paganism, and multiple cultural references (for instance, to some rather pagan athletic competitions).

I use quotes and cultural references in my preaching, teaching, and writing.  It doesn’t mean I approve the sources, but rather that these can be effective tools in communicating God’s Scripture-revealed truth.  They are not needed, but since God Himself used quotes and cultural references, they are profitable.  The following from Acts 10 was not talking about literature, but perhaps the underlying principle applies:

Acts 10:15

What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (unclean).

A Brief History

From early on, the Christian church was familiar with poetry and used it in dialogue. Even the Apostle Paul was not unfamiliar with poetry. Twice Paul quotes from poetic sources in his sermon to the people of Athens in Acts 17:28. In fact, many times in his writings does he use poetry from secular sources (1 Corinthians 15:33; Titus 1:12), quite boldly calling to mind the poet Epimenides (c. 600 B.C.) who first penned the words “In him we live and move and have our being” in his poem Cretica, and using Aratus (c. 315 B.C.) who wrote “We are his offspring” in his Phaenomena. Even further, it has been suggested by some scholars that Philippians 2:6-11 is actually a quotation from a popular hymn of the early church.[1]

Into the earliest centuries of the Christian church do we find her preachers recognizing the necessity for being well versed in poetry with the end result being, quite naturally, that pursuing higher fields of academia meant actually studying poetry and being cultivated in the grammatical arts in order to think creatively toward better communication. This cultivation was to begin very young. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150—216) reveals this somewhat as he discusses Moses by relating what Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.—A.D. 50) apparently superimposed upon the Old Testament prophet’s upbringing what was common in Philo’s own day.

Having reached the proper age, (Moses) was taught arithmetic, geometry, poetry, harmony, and besides, medicine and music, by those that excelled in these arts among the Egyptians; and besides, the philosophy which is conveyed by symbols, which they point out in the hieroglyphical inscriptions. The rest of the usual course of instruction, Greeks taught him in Egypt as a royal child, as Philo says in his life of Moses.[2]

As we look back and survey the historical data, we will find that our earliest Christian church fathers studied the poets and their works for a reason. They used the writings of the secular poets as stepping stones for teaching eternal truths. And they did this, not necessarily because the words of the poets were in some way iterating objective truths, but because of the poets’ unique ability to observe and to fashion rhetoric that drew people to actually listen, be convinced, and most importantly—remember that which the poet had observed. In the end, by this, the Church Fathers were able to successfully show the pagan philosophers and their philosophies for what they were, that is, falsehoods devoid of actual truth but well-wrapped in convincing rhetoric.[3]

Poetry was not just for entertainment. It was a significant means of communication and served the people as a reliable delivery system for critical information that needed to be remembered. The early church knew this and considered the writings of the poets when working with theological truth. For example, Justin Martyr moves in such a direction in order to defend the teaching that there is but one God:

“[The proving] I shall do, not by mere display of words, but by altogether using demonstration drawn from the old poetry in Greek literature, and from writings very common amongst all. For from these the famous men who have handed down idol-worship as law to the multitudes, shall be taught and convicted by their own poets and literature of great ignorance.”[4]

Clement of Alexandria recognized that the poets should be allowed to contend in theological discourse because they so often contained truth, even though ultimately they were debilitated by of unbelief and the limitation of natural revelation.

“Let poetry also approach to us (for philosophy alone will not suffice): poetry which is wholly occupied with falsehood—which scarcely will make confession of the truth, but will rather own to God its deviations into fable. Let whoever of those poets chooses advance first. Aratus considers that the power of God pervades all things…”[5]

He continues elsewhere:

“Now wisdom, hard to hunt, is the treasures of God and unfailing riches. But those, taught in theology by those prophets, the poets, philosophize much by way of a hidden sense. I mean Orpheus, Linus, Musaeus, Homer, and Hesiod, and those in this fashion wise. The persuasive style of poetry is for them a veil for the many. Dreams and signs are all more or less obscure to men, not from jealousy (for it were wrong to conceive of God as subject to passions), but in order that research, introducing to the understanding of enigmas, may haste to the discovery of truth. Thus Sophocles the tragic poet somewhere says:— ‘And God I know to be such a one, Ever the revealer of enigmas to the wise, But to the perverse bad, although a teacher in few words.’”[6]

We continue to see this preoccupation with poetry as a spectrum-wide precedent informing the more obscure Christian writings within history. For example, in his writing to Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antonius and his son Lucius Aurelius Commodus entitled A Plea Regarding Christians, Athenagorus takes up a defense of the Christian faith by quoting from the known philosophers and poets. He uses their words to lay the groundwork for both defending and teaching the Faith.

“The Poets and philosophers have not been viewed as atheists because they speculated about God… [Euripides] recognized from [God’s] works, understanding that what is seen points to what is invisible… Him, then, who is the source of creation and who governs it by his spirit, he grasped was God. And Sophocles agrees with him, saying: ‘In truth there is one God, one alone, who made the heaven and the wide earth.’ Hence, with regard to God’s nature, which fills the universe with his beauty, Euripides teaches both the necessity of his existence and his unity.”[7]

Jumping ahead to the Medieval period, we find poetic devices such as the following being used catechetically in the Roman Catholic Church to relay Augustine’s teaching on the “four senses” of Holy Scripture.

“The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destinty.”[8]

We see also the reformation era Lutherans citing what they considered to be worthwhile efforts of the Papal Law and ancient church practice by giving advice on the organization of a Christian school in the writing Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors. Here we see the students filtered through three specific divisions of ability. Consider the following from the Third Division:

“When now the children have been well drilled in grammar the more excellent ones may be chosen for a third group. Along with the others these shall rehearse music the hour after noon. Then one should expound Virgil to them, and when this is finished one may read Ovid’s Metamorphoses with them. In the evening: Cicero’s Officia or Familiar Letters. In the morning: Virgil is to be repeated, and in grammar the pupils are to be required to explain, decline, and indicate the various forms of discourse. One should keep to grammar the hours before noon, so that the pupils may be well drilled in this. When they have mastered etymology and syntax the pupils shall go on to prosody, wherein they become accustomed to composing verses. For this practice is very useful in learning to understand other writings. Also it gives the pupils a rich vocabulary and makes them apt in many ways. When they have sufficiently studied grammar they may use these hours for dialectic and rhetoric. Of the second and third divisions should be required each week a written exercise such as a letter or a poem.”[9]

Notice that their study is not limited to the regular mappings of language science, but the arts of music and creative thought are expressed as necessary keystones for understanding the rudimentary basics of the science. Every day is to specifically involve the study of music, the carriage for poetic thought. Grammar is taught by studying Virgil (70—19 B.C.), one of the most popular poets of the Middle Ages, as well as Cicero (106—43 B.C.) and his rhetorical style. After mastering the basics by virtue of these creative forms, it is the duty of the schoolmaster to send them on to higher levels of creativity where they will be expected to produce the fruits of their labors and study, that is, to express their knowledge by writing “prosody, wherein they become accustomed to composing verses.” By the end of a typical week, each student will have fulfilled the requirement of a creative writing assignment – a letter or poem.

Considering the Renaissance period, we uncover that even the early hymn writers found inspiration from poetic sources. Thomas Kelly (1769—1855), for example, was a prolific hymnographer who utilized the poetry of John Bunyan (1628—1688), an early English poet and preacher. In Kelly’s well-known and beloved hymn “The Head That Once Was Crowned With Thorns”, within the first stanza we hear nearly word for word what is actually the 39^th quatrain of Bunyan’s third division within the poem One Thing is Needful, or Serious Meditations Upon the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell.[10]

But as we have seen, and as has been previously noted, theology in subjugation to philosophy in any form is very different from orthodox Christianity in that it searches for its illumination from within and ultimately, when applied as an analyst of God’s Holy Word, it can do nothing but find resolve for man’s dilemmas through subjective rationalizing. It abruptly meets its natural end, a disconnection from the objective truth of the Word. Thusly, the poets are not to overpower the theological truths. The poets must be used in service to the Word.

In this light, like the Church Fathers we’ve heard, so also are the Lutheran Confessions aware of the place of the poets and philosophers. When dealing with the likes of the Scholastics, the Lutheran Church fathers carefully expressed the dangers of relying upon the philosophers and poets. In other words, Aristotle and Socrates were not to be used as interpretive tools to form theological positions. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession sheds light on the discussion within the following portion regarding the philosophers and the doctrine on Original Sin.

“The scholastics mingled Christian doctrine with philosophical views about the perfection of nature and attributed more than was proper to free will and to ‘elicited acts.’ They taught that men are justified before God by philosophical or civic righteousness, which we agree is subject to reason and somewhat in our power. But thereby they failed to see the inner uncleanness of human nature. This cannot be adjudged except from the Word of God, which the scholastics do not often employ in their discussions. This was why in our definition of original sin we also mentioned concupiscence and denied to man’s natural powers the fear and trust of God. We wanted to show that original sin also involves such faults as ignorance of God, contempt of God, lack of the fear of God and of trust in him, inability to love him. These are the chief flaws in human nature, transgressing as they do the first table of the Decalogue.”[11]

With the harnessing of such historical awareness, how then does a pedagogical familiarity with poetic literature properly converge with the homiletical exercise that is the preaching of God’s Word?

Ahí va el segundo, y último, fragmento de la primera hoja de la Rosa Blanca. En los próximos días comenzaré con el siguiente escrito de este grupo de jóvenes contrarios al régimen nacionalsocialista en la Alemania de 1943. Recuerden que mis comentarios al texto van subrayados y en cursiva.

Si cada uno espera hasta que sea otro quien comience, los mensajeros de la vengadora Némesis no podrán detenerse y se acercarán cada vez más; entonces se echará hasta la última víctima sin sentido en las fauces de un demonio insaciable. Por eso, cada uno ha de ser consciente de su responsabilidad como miembro de la cultura cristiana occidental y como tal ha de luchar, cada uno, tanto como pueda contra ese azote de la Humanidad que es el fascismo y todo sistema de Estado absoluto similar.

En numerosos momentos de este y otros escritos se pueden apreciar las convicciones cristianas -protestantes y católicas- de los miembros de la Rosa Blaca. Es curioso que, al igual que Robert Schuman, defendían una Europa unida basada en los valores cristianos en tanto que estos son el germen de la democracia actual. Oponed resistencia pasiva –resistencia- allí donde estéis; evitad que continúe la maquinaria atea de la guerra, antes de que sea demasiado tarde, antes de que hasta la última ciudad haya quedado reducida a ruinas como Colonia y antes de que la última juventud del pueblo se haya desangrado en algún lugar por la soberbia de un infrahombre ¡No olvidéis que cada pueblo se merece el gobierno que soporta! Cuestiones como la resistencia pasiva o el genocidio de la juventud alemana en los campos de batalla serán desarroladas en las hojas posteriores por los miembros de este grupo opositor.

De Friedrich Schiller, “Las leyes de Licurgo y Solón”:

“…contra su propio objetivo, las leyes de Licurgo son una obra maestra de la política y de la antropología. Pretendía un Estado poderoso, fundado sobre sí mismo e indestructible; la fuerza política y la estabilidad eran el objetivo que busca; alcanzó ese objetivo tanto como lo permitieron las circunstancias. Sin embargo, si se compara el objetivo que se propuso Licurgo con el objetivo de la Humanidad, la admiración que despierta una primera mirada ha de dejar paso a la reprobación. Al Estado todo se ha de sacrificar, con excepción de una cosa, aquello a lo que el Estado sirve como medio. Este modelo es imagen perfecta del Estado nacionalsocialista o de cualquier otro régimen totalitario. Nos describe un Estado cuyo fin último es su propio desarrollo, no el de los ciudadanos para los cuales fue constituido. Los constructos políticos -tal como indica Schiller, y como manifestarán los miembros de la Rosa Blanca en otros de sus escritos- tienen como único fin el desarrollo de los individuos; si esto no se cumple, entonces es injusto y debe ser destruido. El Estado nunca es fin, sólo es importante como condición en la que se puede cumplir el objetivo de la Humanidad, y ese objetivo de la Humanidad no es otro que desarrollar todas las fuerzas del hombre, que es el progreso. Si la constitución de un Estado impide que se desarrollen las fuerzas que hay en el hombre, si impide el progreso del espíritu, entonces es reprobable y dañina, por muy ponderada que esté por los demás, por muy perfecta que sea en su especie. Su estabilidad se convierte más en un reproche que en honor, pues tan sólo es la continuación del mal: cuanto más dure tanto más dañina será.

(…)

A costa de todos los sentimientos morales se obtuvo el mérito político y se formó la capacidad para ello. En Esparta no había amor conyugal ni amor materno, ni amor filial ni amistad; no había otra cosa que ciudadanos, que virtud ciudadana.

(…)

Una ley del Estado convertía en obligación, para los espartanos, la inhumanidad frente a los esclavos; en esos sacrificios desgraciados se insultó y maltrató a la Humanidad. En la ley espartana se predicó el peligroso principio de considerar a los seres humanos como medio y no como fin, con lo que se agrietaron los fundamentos del Derecho Natural y de la moralidad.

(…)

¡Qué bello espectáculo ofrece el rudo guerrero Cayo Marcio en su campamento situado ante Roma, que sacrifica la venganza y la victoria, porque no puede ver correr las lágrimas de la madre!

(…)

El Estado (de Licurgo) sólo podía mantenerse bajo una única condición: que se paralizara el espíritu del pueblo; es decir, sólo se podía conservar errando el más alto y único fin del Estado”.

De Goethe, “El despertar de Epimenides”, segundo acto, cuarta escena:

“Genios…

Pero lo que ha salido osadamente del abismo

puede dominar a medio universo

gracias a su destino de hierro.

Ha de volver al abismo.

Ya amenaza un temblor tremendo,

¡en vano logrará imponerse!

Y todos los que están unidos a él

han de quedar aniquilados con él.

Esperanza

ahora me encuentro con mis bravos,

que se han reunido en la noche,

para callar, no para dormir,

y la bella palabra de la libertad

se susurra y se balbucea,

hasta que en una novedad desusada

en los peldaños de nuestros templos

de nuevo gritemos, extasiados:

(con convencimiento, fuerte)

¡Libertad!

(más moderado):

¡Libertad!

(un eco, de todos lugares):

¡Libertad!”

Le rogamos que hagan cuantas copias puedan de este escrito y las difundan.

Bibliografía:

[1] La Rosa Blanca. Los estudiantes que se alzaron contra Hitler; José M. García Pelegrín – Madrid – LibrosLibres – 2006.

Nota: A crônica a seguir foi publicada originalmente na Gazeta de Notícias, Rio de Janeiro, em 29 de setembro de 1895, há exatos 113 anos.

Quando a vida cá fora estiver tão agitada e aborrecida que se não possa viver tranqüilo e satisfeito, há um asilo para a minha alma — e para o meu corpo, naturalmente.

Não é o céu, como podeis supor. O céu é bom, mas eu imagino que a paz lá em cima não estará totalmente consolidada. Já lá houve uma rebelião; pode haver outras. As pessoas que vão deste mundo, anistiadas ou perdoadas por Deus, podem ter saudades da terra e pegar em armas. Por pior que a achem, a terra há de dar saudades, quando ficar tão longe que mal pareça um miserável pontinho preto no fundo do abismo. Ó pontinho preto, que foste o meu infinito! (exclamarão os bem-aventurados), quem me dera poder trocar esta chuva de maná pela fome do deserto! O deserto não era inteiramente mau; morria-se nele, é verdade, mas vivia-se também; e uma ou outra vez, como nos povoados, os homens quebravam a cabeça uns aos outros—sem saber por que, como nos povoados.

Não, devota amiga da minha alma, o asilo que buscarei, quando a vida for tão agitada como a desta semana, não é o céu, é o Hospício dos Alienados. Não nego que o dever comum é padecer comumente, e atacarem-se uns aos outros, para dar razão ao bom Renan, que pôs esta sentença na boca de um latino: “O mundo não anda senão pelo ódio de dois irmãos inimigos”. Mas, se o mesmo Renan afirma, pela boca do mesmo latino que “este mundo é feito para desconcertar o cérebro humano”, irei para onde se recolhem os desconcertados, antes que me desconcertem a mim.

Que verei no hospício? O que vistes quarta-feira numa exposição de trabalhos feitos pelos pobres doidos, com tal perfeição que é quase uma fortuna terem perdido o juízo. Rendas, flores, obras de lã, carimbos de borracha, facas de pau, uma infinidade de coisas mínimas, geralmente simples, para as quais não se lhes pede mais que atenção e paciência. Não fazendo obras mentais e complicadas, tratados de jurisprudência ou constituições políticas, nem filosofias nem matemáticas, podem achar no trabalho um paliativo à loucura, e um pouco de descanso à agitação interior. Bendito seja o que primeiro cuidou de encher-lhes o tempo com serviço, e recompor-lhe em parte os fios arrebentados da razão.

Mas não verei só isso. Verei um começo de Epimênides, uma mulher que entrou dormindo, em 14 de setembro do ano passado, e ainda não acordou. Já lá vai um ano. Não se sabe quando acordará; creio que pode morrer de velha. como outros que dormem apenas sete ou oito horas por dia, e ir-se-á para a cova, sem ter visto mais nada. Para isso, não valerá a pena ter dormido tanto. Mas suponhamos que acorde no fim deste século ou no começo do outro, não terá visto uma parte da história, mas ouvirá contá-la, e melhor é ouvi-la que vivê-la. Com poucas horas de leitura ou de oitiva, receberá notícia do que se passou em oito ou dez anos, sem ter sido nem atriz nem comparsa, nem público. É o que nos acontece com os séculos passados. Também ela nos contará alguma coisa. Dizem que, desde que entrou para o hospício, deu apenas um gemido, e põe algumas vezes a língua de fora. O que não li é se, além de tal letargia, goza do benefício da loucura. Pode ser, a natureza tem desses obséquios complicados.

Aí fica dito o que farei e verei para fugir ao tumulto da vida. Mas há ainda outro recurso, se não puder alcançar aquele a tempo: um livro que nos interesse, dez, quinze, vinte livros. Disse-vos no fim da outra semana que ia acabar de ler o Livro de Uma Sogra. Acabei-o muito antes dos acontecimentos que abalaram o espírito público.

As letras também precisam de anistia. A diferença é que, para obtê-la, dispensam votação. É ato próprio; um homem pega em si, mete-se no cantinho do gabinete, entre os seus livros, e elimina o resto. Não é egoísmo, nem indiferença; muitos sabem em segredo o que lhes dói do mal político, mas, enfim, não é seu ofício curá-lo. De todas as coisas humanas, dizia alguém com outro sentido por diverso objeto,—a única que tem o seu fim em si mesma é a arte.

Sirva isto para dizer que a fortuna do livro do Sr. Aluísio Azevedo é que, escrito para curar um mal, ou suposto mal, perde desde logo a intenção primeira, para se converter em obra de arte simples. Dona Olímpia é um tipo novo de sogra, uma sogra avant la lettre. Antes de saber com quem há de casar a filha, já pergunta a si mesma (p. 112) de que maneira “poderá dispor do genro e governá-lo em sua íntima vida conjugal”. Quando lhe aparece o futuro genro, consente em dar-lhe a filha, mas pede-lhe obediência, pede-lhe a palavra, e, para que esta se cumpra, exige um papel em que Leandro avise à polícia que não acuse ninguém da sua morte, pois que ele mesmo pôs termo a seus dias; papel que será renovado de três em três meses. D. Olímpia declara-lhe, com franqueza, que é para salvar a sua impunidade, caso haja de o mandar matar. Leandro aceita a condição; talvez tenha a mesma impressão do leitor, isto é, que a alma de D. Olímpia não é tal que chegue ao crime.

Cumpre-se, entretanto, o plano estranho e minucioso, que consiste em regular as funções conjugais de Leandro e Palmira, como a famosa sineta dos jesuítas do Paraguai. O marido vai para Botafogo, a mulher para as Laranjeiras. Balzac estudou a questão do leito único, dos leis unidos, e dos quartos separados; D. Olímpia inventa um novo sistema, o de duas casas, longe uma da outra. Palmira concebe, D. Olímpia faz com que o genro embarque imediatamente para a Europa, apesar das lágrimas dele e da filha. Quando a moça concebe a segunda vez, é o próprio genro que se retira para os Estados Unidos. Enfim, D. Olímpia morre e deixa o manuscrito que forma este livro, para que o genro e a filha obedeçam aos seus preceitos.

Todo esse plano conjugal de D. Olímpia responde ao desejo de evitar que a vida comum traga a extinção do amor no coração dos cônjuges. O casamento, a seu ver, é imoral. A mancebia também é imoral. A rigor, parece-lhe que, nascido o primeiro filho, devia dissolver-se o matrimônio, porque a mulher e o marido podem acender em outra pessoa o desejo de conceber novo filho, para o qual já o primeiro cônjuge está gasto; extinta a ilusão, é mister outra. D. Olímpia quer conservar essa ilusão entre a filha e o genro. Posto que raciocine o seu plano, e procure dar-lhe um tom especulativo, de mistura com particularidades fisiológicas, é certo que não possui noção exata das coisas, nem dos homens.

Napoleão disse um dia, ante os redatores do código civil, que o casamento (entenda-se monogamia) não derivava da natureza, e citou o contraste do ocidente com o oriente. Balzac confessa que foram essas palavras que lhe deram a idéia da Fisiologia. Mas o primeiro faria um código, e o segundo enchia um volume de observações soltas e estudos analíticos. Diversa coisa é buscar constituir uma família sobre uma combinação de atos irreconciliáveis, como remédio universal, e algo perigoso D. Olímpia, querendo evitar que a filha perdesse o marido pelo costume do matrimônio, arrisca-se a fazer-lho perder pela intervenção de um amor novo e transatlântico.

Tal me parece o livro do Sr. Aluísio Azevedo. Como ficou dito, é antes um tipo novo de sogra que solução de problema. Tem as qualidades habituais do autor, sem os processos anteriores, que, aliás, a obra não comportaria. A narração, posto que intercalada de longas reflexões e críticas, é cheia de interesse e movimento. O estilo é animado e colorido. Há páginas de muito mérito, como o passeio à Tijuca, os namorados adiante, O Dr. César e D. Olímpia atrás. A linguagem em que esta fala da beleza da floresta e das saudades do seu tempo é das mais sentidas e apuradas do livro.

Nie wiadomo czy wszyscy Kreteńczycy kłamali. Nie wydaje się to obecnie ani istotne ani wielce prawdopodobne. Nie wiadomo nawet czy Epimenides żył naprawdę, czy tylko został wymyślony przez potomnych. Aelian, Pauzaniasz i Plutarch należą tutaj do grona podejrzanych. Mało prawdopodobną wydaje się również historia jego 57-letniego snu. Szczerze mówiąc – nie wahajmy się użyć tego słowa – jest to najoczywistsza bzdura. Russell i Whitehead mogli spokojnie zająć się czymś pożyteczniejszym, np. hodowlą owiec. Albo uprawą pieczarek. Lub też produkcją wykałaczek. Bądź też naprawą automatycznych skrzyni biegów. Wymyślaniem strategii marketingowych wspierających sprzedaż napędzanych emergią słoneczną pojazdów.
Nie mogli?
Nonsens. Dla chcącego nic trudnego,jak głosi ludowe przysłowie i nie ma powodu aby mu nie wierzyć.

Dins el petit món de la lògica com a entreteniment, és força coneguda la Paradoxa d’Epimènides. Aquest filósof cretenc la va formular amb la següent frase: “Tots el cretencs són mentiders”. La suposada paradoxa rau en el fet que ell mateix era cretenc, i, si tots els cretencs són mentiders – també Epimènides -, llavors la maleïda frase és també una mentida, i els cretencs no són mentiders.

Vista des del punt que ens interessa, aquesta frase, treta del context dels fanàtics de les paradoxes, podria arribar a ser una difamació. Com a tal, intentarem esbrinar el seu grau de veracitat.

Si utilitzéssim les eines que ens dona la lògica matemàtica, arribaríem ràpidament a la conclusió que, com a mínim en aquest cas, Epimènides és un mentider, sense cap dubte. Anant un mica més enllà, diríem que fins i tot sabem que algun cretenc no és pas mentider. Aquest cas, el d’un mentider difamant una persona innocent, és força comú, i ja hauríem assolit el nostre objectiu inicial.

Lamentablement, en plantejar-me el cas m’he compromès a no utilitzar les matemàtiques; caldria mantenir la paraula. A més, és de domini públic que una demostració matemàtica certa no té mai la força d’una mentida convincent.

Així, doncs, desestimada la raó, ens queda el camí de la fe. Ja que la fe és una virtut molt personal, potser alguns de vosaltres ja heu resolt l’enigma. Potser fins i tot teniu solucions diferents. Quan ens cal una veritat absoluta, que serveixi per a tothom, tenim els dogmes de fe.

Diu Sant Pau en la seva epístola a Titus:

“Un autor de Creta, profeta del seu propi país, digué: ¿Els cretencs? Menteixen sempre. Bèsties feréstegues, ventres que s’omplen, però no treballen. I ho encertà.”

Aquí queda clarament resolta la paradoxa, per una força major que la lògica, ja que un dogma de fe diu que aquesta epístola és Paraula de Déu, en ésser inspirada per l’Esperit Sant.

No té objecte intentar esbrinar si Pau treu aquesta frase de context per ignorància o per malícia, ja que no afecta, en aquest cas, a la seva veracitat. A més, també jo he tret de context el fragment de l’epístola, i això no es pot fer ni en defensa pròpia!

De passada, queda matemàticament demostrada l’afirmació anterior sobre la invalidesa de les demostracions matemàtiques.

]]> http://livingstoncoc.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/a-brief-look-at-revelation-and-inspiration/ Mon, 17 Sep 2012 06:21:10 +0000 Jovan Payes http://livingstoncoc.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/a-brief-look-at-revelation-and-inspiration/ http://laohutiger.com/2012/09/12/gnomicon-126/ Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:17:55 +0000 laohutiger http://laohutiger.com/2012/09/12/gnomicon-126/ If you have not already done so, you may wish to read the
Introduction to Gnomica.

Gnomicon  126
Wednesday 12 September 2012

Read gnomica 1-100 here!

101     102     103     104     105     106     107     108     109     110     111     112     113     114     115     116     117     118     119     120     121     122     123     124     125

I’m the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life.
J. D. Salinger (1 Jan 1919 -27 Jan 2010)

Who doesn’t remember reading about Salinger’s Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye (1951)?  To me it is a quintessential American novel of mid-twentieth century, right up there with [invidiosum absit omen!] Jack Kerouac’s Sal Paradise and Dean Moriarty in On the Road (1957) and Joseph Heller’s John Yossarian in Catch-22 (1961). You could do worse to gain some sense of what that era – its Zeitgeist — was all about from these three novels alone.

But here I want to focus on Salinger’s self-contradictory paraprosdokian in the statement above.  The underlying idea is familiar enough to us from the so-called ‘Epimenides Paradox’ – this murky Epimenides (~600 BCE) is said to have been a philosopher from Crete who made that (in)famous statement, “All Cretans are liars”. St. Paul, in his Epistle to St.Titus, long after the fact so reports (Titus 1:12), adducing an utterance made by a certain Cretan: Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται Krētes aei pseustai ‘Cretans always lie’, or, if you will, “All Cretans are liars”.

If you think about that one for a sec, you might well wonder what to make of it.  If a Cretan says all Cretans are liars, then he, himself a Cretan, is lying when he says that all Cretans are liars.  Therefore his statement that all Cretans are liars must itself be a lie.  But if it is a lie to claim that all Cretans are liars, then all Cretans are not liars, he being a Cretan himself.

Now, Salinger did have a wicked sense of humor and irony, and although I never asked the man, I have no doubt that he knew exactly what he was saying, and the innately infuriating (to me!) paradox of the statement surely did not escape him. So … is Salinger a liar (we take his assertion at face value, that “I’m the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life”) and therefore his statement that he is a liar is itself a lie — and therefore he is, like that Cretan of yore, in fact not a liar?  You could go crazy massaging the logic of that one in your head: a positive assertion ends up stating its own negative!

This “Epimenides Paradox” is essentially a problem in linguistic logic – and that is a field I know very little about in any formal sense.  But if (unlike me!) you are of that philosophical bent, and since I personally have no resolution to the paradox that seems even remotely reasonable, I invite you to consider this philosophically formal discussion at your leisure and length.

But don’t blame me for your dogged (and, I would imagine, dead-end) quest for a solution.

Blame Salinger!

I know I’m supposed to think the Ouroboros paradoxical. The snake who constantly consumes itself, but is never consumed. But that is not how I see it. I see the circle grow ever tighter until it becomes a point, and then disappears.

However, if the snake is speaking itself into existence, the paradox seems unavoidable. I see it happening, so I must believe it, but it seems impossible because how did it start?

Don writes a bit of PHP code that “eats” a string of characters and regurgitates it in reverse order as a symbolic representation of the transformation from Ouroboros “one who eats his tail” to Soroboruo “that which creates itself by speaking itself”. Comments poetically explain the code’s function, as if holding the code up to a mirror, reflecting the analogy.

I think a better programing analogy might be to the concept of recursion. “Ordinary” functions F(x) take a value x and transform it into a new number, for example F(x)=x²+1. In code, this might look like function fnF(x){return x^2+1;}. This is easy to understand. Hand the function an “x” and the function will return a “y” equal to x²+1.

A recursive function, for example F_n=F_n-1 + F_n-2, creates itself from itself. This might look like function fnF(n){return fnF(n-1)+fnF(n-2);}. This is not so easy to understand. Hand the function an “n”, and it asks itself ‘what is the value for n-1 and n-2?’. It then asks itself, ‘what is the value for n-2 and n-3? And so forth.

This happens to be the definition of a Fibonacci series. From n=-5 to n=5 one such series is … 5, -3, 2, -1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5 … . The definition of the function explains from where the next number comes, but from where did the series come? No matter how far back one goes, there are always two earlier elements that needed to be calculated from yet earlier elements. I see it so I must believe it, but it seems impossible because how did it start?

Of course, historically the Fibonacci series was created by assigning F₁=1 and F₂=1 and calculating forward. Later it was extended to negative “n”. This is rather like freezing the Ouroboros in time, which is exactly what the drawing at the top of this essay does. It is only in our minds that we imagine what the Ouroboros must have looked like before, and before that, and before that, creating the symbolism and the paradox. But didn’t the Fibonacci recursion relationship and the series itself always exist, independent of time, from -∞ to +∞, without us having started it?

If the Ouroboros is “speaking itself into existence”, it is more than recursive, it is  self-referential, i.e. talking about itself. Self-referential statements are even more difficult to deal with. The most famous such statement was made by the Cretan Epimenides, as quoted by the Apostle Paul: “Cretans are always liars” (Titus 1:12).

Is that statement true or is it false?

Self-referential statements are so problematic that one is tempted to ban them from logic. But isn’t the ability to examine one’s self, talk about one’s self and modify one’s self the very definition of possessing consciousness?

This is the basis for Douglas Hofstadter’s assertion that self-referential algorithms, or “strange loops” as he calls them, are critical to artificial and natural intelligence.

In his blog, Don call attention to an analogy between his reinterpretation of the Ouroboros and  the Gospel of John

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God … All things came into being by Him…

When we read this in conjunction with Genesis

then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light

we see God simultaneously speaking the words that bring the universe into existence and  being “the Word”.

In the original Greek, what was written was λόγος (logos), which means not only “word” but “an expectation” and “reason”. I particularly like the thought of the universe existing as “an expectation”, full of potentialities, where we create it as we go by the choices we make.

Emanuel Swedenborg saw the human as a microcosm of the universe and the creation story of Genesis as a symbolic description for individual human development. While he proposed detailed correspondences for each of the seven days, they can be generalized into three steps (1) recognizing the need to improve [Repentance], (2) acting “as if” you were improved, i.e., practicing [Reformation], and finally, incorporating the “new you” into your inner nature [Regeneration]. In a real sense, we are “speaking our new self into existence”. While Swedenborg has a particular way of expressing these concepts, you see similar principles espoused in practically every religion and every secular “self-help” group.

I’ve read all these old posts and it just makes me sad that I couldn’t commit to it last year, when I was so excited and so confident that this time would be different. It wasn’t different than any other time in my life when I’ve said…”this is it”.  I feel so hypocritical!  So, lost and like such a liar:  to God, to myself, to my family…for breaking that commitment!  I know I’m human, but that shouldn’t be my excuse.  I shouldn’t have an excuse, I should just do it.

I know what I need to do, but apparently my choice hasn’t been the right one, the healthy one, or the smart one.

So, the journey continues…..Again!

Even though Cretans are always liars, they will still make good Christians, won't they?

Today I came across a question on wiki.answers about Jesus’ apostles borrowing sayings from non-NT writers. I have addressed specifically Paul’s role in this issue and I thought other people with similar questions might also benefit from my reply. Therefore I am publishing it here and I will also post it as a reply to the original question on wiki.answers.

Q. Peter and Paul the apostles in their preachings borrow heavily from?

A. By ‘borrowing’ I presume this inquiry to be referring to introducing ideas, sayings and quotes from outside the Judaic tradition into New Testament scripture and theology. I think in your question, by using the word “heavily,” you also imply to question whether such borrowing is appropriate for people who claim their inspiration comes from God?

I have not noticed heavy borrowing done by Peter, but other people might have. I have however noticed Paul frequently quoting, referring to and sometimes abusing sayings by ‘pagan’ philosophers and writers. Sometimes this borrowing is acknowledged by Christian writers, as in the last paragraph from this Christian apologetics website:

“Along with his rabbinic education, the Hillel school was noted for giving their students a balanced education, giving Paul broad exposure to classical literature, philosophy, and ethics. Paul, in his letters, borrowed heavily from his knowledge of Stoic philosophy, using Stoic terms and metaphors to assist his new Gentile converts in their understanding of the revealed word of God.”
— http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/WallaceQ01.html (Italics mine)

Whether Paul’s use of heavy borrowing was always done in an ethical and honest manner is a different matter. One example of Paul abusing a saying by a ‘pagan’ writer to make it fit his own agenda can be found in his letter to Titus. Apparently Paul was having trouble with some converts in Crete who wanted to adhere to the Judaic tradition of circumcision and these had to be silenced. In Titus 1 he says the following:

10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 Even one of their own prophets has said, “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.
— Titus 1:10-14 (New International Version 1984)

To convince Titus of the need to “rebuke them sharply” Paul resorts to abusing the testimony of one of their fellow Cretans, namely the Cretan poet Epimenides as quoted in verse 12. Paul doesn’t seem to realise the logical inconsistency of quoting a Cretan to confirm that “Cretans are always liars.” For if, as Paul says, “this testimony is true,” than Epimenides, being a Cretan, was necessarily lying when he said, “Cretans are always liars,” thereby invalidating his own testimony. This is know as the Epimenides paradox. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox). It is sometimes pointed out that Epimenides’ statement itself is not a real “Liar paradox,” but simply a false statement. However, Paul’s statement, “This testimony is true,” turns it into a real “Liar paradox.” (For an explanation, see note 5 on this web page of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/insolubles/notes.html).

Some apologetic writers excuse Paul’s inconsistent logic by claiming that Epimenides was using the literary device of exaggeration known as a hyperbole and that Paul’s quote was merely a commentary on the corruption of Cretan society as a whole, as is claimed on this website: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=809 (It may be of interest to you that this website page also mentions other writers that Paul quotes from, without Paul attributing the quotes, by the way.) Whatever you think of this excuse, I doubt that anyone nowadays could speak in terms that denounce a whole ethnic group as being all liars, thieves, lazy bums, adulterers, crooks, drunks or any other insulting label and get away with it by claiming that this is merely a hyperbole that is not meant to be taken literally as including every last member of that group. No doubt members of such ethnic group would still feel insulted and consider such a statement a blatantly racist generalisation.

Furthermore, that Paul was not justified in upholding this quote, becomes evident when we look at the context of the saying by Epimenides. Wikipedia provides the following historical context:

“Epimenides was a 6th Century BC philosopher and religious prophet who, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

— Epimenides, Cretica

Denying the immortality of Zeus, then, was the lie of the Cretans.”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

Here we see that, worse than Paul using an hyperbole that generalises that “Cretans are always liars,” he was giving false testimony by saying, “This testimony is true!” Paul holds up Epimenides as “their own prophet,” but fails to mention that he was in fact a false prophet. For, the only reason Epimenides denounced his fellow Cretans as always being liars that is evident from the context is their denial of the immortality of Zeus. The Cretans, then, were more than five centuries ahead of Paul in denying this! Since Paul’s mission was to expose the gods of the ‘pagans’ as false, he should have been fully in agreement with the Cretans in denying the immortality of Zeus and should have praised their foresight. He should have viewed the statement by Epimenides as false in the context in which it was given and Epimenides as a false prophet who was biased and wholly unsuitable for relying on to give a truthful commentary on the state of Cretan society as a whole. Moreover, Epimenides’ statement was over five centuries out of date. So the whole basis for Paul using Epimenides as an authority to justify such a sweeping generalisation on contemporary Cretan society was missing.

Paul, as acknowledged in the New Testament and by Christian apologists, was educated in the classical literature. It is therefore doubtful that he would not have known the context of the statement he was quoting. Moreover, he claimed to be writing under the direction of the Holy Spirit. So, he was possibly deliberately deceitful in pursuing his religious agenda or at the least ignorant while presuming to be authoritative and under inspiration.

In Conclusion

Every reasoning person should ask themselves whether a person who is claimed to have written under God’s inspiration would at the same time need to be heavily borrowing without attribution from ‘pagan’ philosophers and writers, and whether God would approve of him supporting false testimony to make it fit with his own religious agenda?

Paul himself said, “test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.” Did Paul pass his own test on this occasion? — 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (New Living Translation ©2007)

“In him we live, move and have our being” (v28)

It’s a beautifully profound statement, and in fact very true. The only problem is they’re not Paul’s words, at least not originally – they belonged to Epimenides, a Greek poet and philosopher (6C BC).  Paul quoted Epimenides, known to his assembled audience, to proclaim a truth about God. It doesn’t make what Paul said any less true – he just directed an idea Epimenides had about a god (in this case Zeus ¹) to the appropriate source – God.  The Athenians, like Epimenides had ideas about things much bigger than themselves, a god (in fact many gods) just not the right one.

Earlier in his dialogue with the Athenians, Paul tells them that he can see in every way they are very religious in their thinking; and notes that as he walked around Athens, he even found an altar with the inscription: “to the Unknown God”!  Not wanting to anger the gods, or one they perhaps didn’t know about, they set up an altar to the ‘unknown god’ just in case.

Paul goes on to tell the Athenians just how ridiculous this is, saying  “ you are ignorant of the very thing you worship”…and continues on to reveal to them the true God, in contrast to their current thinking:

“(v23)… and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. (v24)The God who made the world and  everything in it is the Lord of     heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. (v25) And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.”

Throughout the ages, like Epimenides and like the Athenians, thinkers, philosophers, poets, playwrights, office workers (and so on) have tried to make sense of ‘being’, attributing existence and purpose to a wide variety of explanations.

This wrestling and yearning for explanation continues on today. The question is still not settled, at least as far as there is not yet a general consensus.  Today we consider ourselves more sophisticated than the ancients and tend in our thinking to look past the supernatural or divine, to the natural – to the developed sciences; as the sciences perhaps give us the best understanding of the universe and the way it functions. However science is limited in its scope, it can only seek to explain natural processes and nothing more. It may show us how complex and how mind-blowing a cell is – but it still can’t explain how it arrived. It may tell us how intricately our existence (and survival) hangs on the ‘fine-tuning’ ² of the universe – but it can’t explain why.

The opening sentence of the Bible, however, does:

”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1v1)

Right away we have a cause, a reason for the universe and our being.

Now Genesis 1 wasn’t written to teach us science, so there’s a danger of taking this verse out of its context – but nevertheless it’s interesting to note that if we were to characterise the universe physically as we presently know it- we’d say it consists of (or its framework is and in) space, time, energy and matter. (STEM) ³

If we break down the opening statement as follows:

“In (the) beginning” = time

“created” = energy

“the heavens” = space (and matter)

“and the earth” = matter

We have the four ‘building blocks’ or parameters physics recognises as the fundamental characteristics of our universe- but physics, it seems, misses the most essential component, the one central to all of these- God. Its five, not four. God, space, time, energy and matter.

So while physics is able to somewhat sufficiently describe this ‘material’- it has no cause for them, no reason for them to be here, no idea what’s at the centre. But Genesis 1v1 clearly tells us “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” – He created space, time energy and matter. And whether it was meant as an intended scientific statement or not, it still serves as a truism today- just as Paul quoting Epimenides (also out of context) to the Athenians did.

It’s God who created, and whether we recognise this or not, it is “In him we live, move and have our being” and as Paul goes on to say (quoting another poet to make his point) “we are his offspring”.  So let us make sure we focus our awe, thanksgiving and attention in the right direction.

^{1:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides#Cretica
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe}

James Brown