 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
page 1
page2
page3
page4
page5
page6
page7
page8
page9
page10
page11
page12
page13
page14
page15
page16
page17
page18
page19
page20
page21
page22
page23
page24
page25
page26
page27
page28
page29
page30
page31
page32
page33
page34
page35
page36
page37
page38
page39
page40
page41
page42
page43
page44
page45
page46
page 47
page48
page49
page50
page51
page52
page53
page54
page55
page56
page57
page58
page 59
page59
page 60
page61
page62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page66
page67
page 68
page 69
page 70
Page 71
page 72
pare 73
page 74
page 75
page76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page92
page93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page98
|
|
| QUOTATIONS 2193-2207 |
| ||||||
| 2193.BARE MINIMUM "Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (I Cor.15.12-19) Which begs the question: are the today's, 2000 years since St. Paul, Christians who doubt resurrection still to be pitied? Or to put it another way, if some among the original followers of Jesus were saying that there is no resurrection of the dead because it contradicts both God's decree, "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" and common experience, and still considered themselves to be Christians, how the Christians living now, in 21th century and in possession of astronomical amount (in comparison with the 1th century) of scientific knowledge are to view the basic tenets of their faith? And if to accommodate this vast scientific knowledge we strip Christianity of all that defies logic and contradicts the laws of nature, how many will still be willing to call themselves the Christians? Let's start with miracles of healing the sick, of feeding the thousands with a few fishes and loafs of bread, of walking on water, of turning water into wine, of resurrecting the dead. If we declare that this had never happened, because such things are illogical and unnatural, how many, giving up all this, would still remain Christians? Next: how important is for the Christians the manner of Jesus's death and who were responsible for it, the Jews or the Romans, and to what extent? It is abundantly clear from the Gospels that Jesus had actively conspired in his death, that he was openly seeking martyrdom, and that he had come to Jerusalem to achieve it one way or another. To this end, he had chosen the most important event in Jewish religious life, Passover, to defy by his actions and preaching both religious and civic authorities in Jerusalem. And when they still left him alone, he send his disciple Judas to make them an offer they couldn't refuse without completely losing their face. Then, during the trial he did his best to provoke Sanhedrin, the guardians of the Jewish faith, by making various blasphemous statements. Finally, he proclaimed himself to be "the Christ, the Son of God," the supreme outrage to monotheistic religion in which even naming of God is forbidden. He continued in his resolve when questioned by Roman authorities, literally goading them to kill him, which in Roman Empire didn't take that much, to begin with. At the end, he achieved his goal, was condemned to be crucified and died on the cross. And that was it. The rest, a resurrection, an appearance to his disciples, a promise to come back, etc., are but the myths created by people refusing to face reality, by people who couldn't handle the truth. So now, impelled by experience, logic and scientific knowledge, let's deny Jesus's resurrection, let's declare him to be a man who had died 2000 years ago and turned into dust, like all men before and after him. My spirit must not forever be disgraced in man, for he is but flesh.(G6.3) Let's deny Jesus divinity, and what we are left with is the man who preached a certain way of life, and his followers who accepted this as the revelation and guidance. And no second coming, no salvation, no life everlasting. Is it enough for a religion to survive? How many are still with us in the Church? How many will follow Jesus, the man, when it is clear that he is not God? Perhaps it would be easier to answer all these questions if we start from the beginning: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... And God said, " Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good... Next, after separating land from water, God called the dry land Earth, and the water that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And on the third day, God put on Earth vegetation of all kinds. And God saw that it was good. And on the fourth day God made the Sun, the Moon and the stars. And God saw that it was good. And on the fifth day God created the sea creatures and the birds. And God saw that it was good. And then God filled the earth with all kind of living creatures. And God saw that it was good. And finally God created man in his image and gave him dominion over the Earth and its creatures and provided for all of them to live and to be fruitful and multiply. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done...in creation. And that's it. What comes loud and clear through this Biblical record is that God is completely satisfied with his creation. For when the omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, eternal and thus the most perfect God saw that his creation was very good this was his last and final verdict. It meant that nothing better is possible, that this is the masterpiece of unsurpassable perfection. He couldn't and wouldn't do any better, and giving us dominion over his creation shall be resting through eternity. Now it is up to us to get to work and to make the best of it. We are here the sole owners and custodians of this cosmic jewel. There is not going to be another one. To ask, to hope for it is tantamount to saying that God had not done his job well first time around, that he has to improve on it. But the absolute perfection cannot be improved on. There is not going to be a New Heaven or a New Earth. No Paradise for the righteous, no Hell for the unrepentant sinners. Both, Paradise and Hell are here and now. There is not going to be a second chance. If it's not now then when? If it's not us, then who? All we have is our finite lives. And for those who called themselves Christians the teaching of Jesus how to live it the best. And for those who called themselves Muslims the teaching of Mohamed. And for those who called themselves Buddhists the teachings of Buddha. And for those who called themselves Jew the teachings of Moses. And so on, and so forth, for each according to the moral teachings of their respective faith. The teachings which differ little, for I know of no faith that commends its followers to dishonor their parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness and to covet someone else's possessions. Now, stripped to these bare essentials would it be enough to sustain faith? Would the clergy accept it? Would the laity follow it? 2194. The Wall After losing 10/12 (ten tribes out of twelve) of its population in 721BC, after spending 70 years (586-516 BC) in Babylonian Exile and having witnessed mass assimilation of its members (the great number of the exiles didn't return to Palestine after Cyrus allowed them to do so) the Jews were faced with the real problem of extinction. Having seen their old foes, like Jebusites, Amorites, Perizzites, etc. disappeared, they were afraid, and justifiably so, that the same fate awaits them. But no nation, no matter how small it is wants to parish. There are plenty of examples of struggle for national survival in modern times, and there is no reason to believe that things were different in the ancient ones, when people clung to their tribal identity even more fiercely and desperately – the wholesale genocide is not exactly a modern invention, and language, culture, way of life often died literally together with their carriers. It was their religion that from the beginning kept the Jewish people, known first as Hebrews, united. Now the time has come to use it to protect them from being swallowed up and dissolved in the great sea of people surrounding them on all sides. But their original faith as it was, simple and straightforward, has proven to be not up to the new task. Ten Commandments, the ancient Semitic code of civilized conduct was too universal. Everyone could subscribe to it, and actually many did. For no nation would openly enjoin its people to dishonor their parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness and to covet someone else's possessions. Thus, this kind of religion could not protect Jews from assimilation – they can practice it and still join the other people around them and gradually disappear in their midst as the majority of them already did. What was needed then is a new type of religion that will forever make them assimilation-proof. And this special need gave birth to the unheard of, before or since, religion of 613 commandments, laws and regulations governing every aspect of human existence –food, clothing, shelter, time, work, sex, speech, etc., etc., etc. One can truly admire the ingenuity of the Jewish religious leaders to come up with such a formidable system. For usually, this or that particular law is introduced as a response to a particular problem, be it religious, political or economical, to deal with it after it is risen, not before. But the threat of total disappearance as a people was a different kind of problem and required the totally new and radical solution. And the solution was to saddle the Jewish people with the laws of daily conduct so minutely detailed, so often incomprehensible and seemingly devoid (let be honest about it) of reason or common sense, that they would guarantee in perpetuity, for as long as the Jews followed them, their uniqueness and separation from the rest of humanity. For no other people in their sound mind would ever accept such laws as their own, and the Jews if they followed them to the letter could never assimilate into any other nation. Sadly, as the Jewish experience of the modernity, the experience that produced Zionism, has shown having discarded their religion didn't make the Jews more acceptable as compatriots either–the old habit of exclusion refuses to die. From the early Christians to the modern days Jewish sceptics all those who criticized the mind boggling complexities and apparent lack of common sense displayed by the multitude of the Jewish laws always have been missing the point – they were never meant to make sense, common or uncommon. Their sole purpose was to erect the impregnable wall behind which a nation can be preserved, and one can only marvel at the thousands upon thousands of Jewish sages who have written through the ages millions upon millions of pages to explain what was not meant to be explained, and to justify what was not meant to be justified. And for 2500 years, both before and after the desperation, on their own land or in exile, the Jewish Wall served well. For no matter how many went over it to never return – and there were probably millions of them– there were always enough of those who stayed to man the ramparts. Alas, but not completely unexpectedly, not too many knocked at the gate to get in and join the besieged. For though in theory the Jewish faith is not a faith closed to all but the ethnic Jews – in Judaism right conduct is the only path to God and this path lies open to Jews and non-Jews alike– in practice the complexity and difficulty to follow the "right path" were made ( and I firmly believe intentionally so) so enormous that very few non-Jews would ever be willing to go through it. The difficulty of being Jewish are well enough known to preclude but a few in any age to seriously seek out this destiny, though any man or woman can. Especially when the "reward" for all these troubles will be to become the object of universal persecution and hate. And so, the Wall stands on. It has actually achieved a sort of indestructibility, no matter what "bricks" it is made of – multiple Jewish religious commandments or equally numerous anti-Jewish prejudices. It is both real and virtual, it doesn't have anymore to have a physical embodiment, for ir firmly established itself in the minds of Jews and non-Jews alike. From the personal experience, every time I reveal my Jewish origins to the people who were not aware of it hitherto, I feel as the Wall miraculously sprung up between us, and I know that our relations from this moment on will never be the same. Such is the legacy and such is the price. Every once in a while I wonder was it really worth it. And not being religious, I haven't come up with an adequate answer yet. I reject the argument that a show must go on, regardless of its merits, because too much has been invested in it, as circular. And does one have an obligation to remain in theater, no matter how bad a play is, because the price of a ticket was so enormous, and to whom? Or isn't putting more and more resource into an enterprise which never made any profit so far and doesn't show any sign of reversal of fortune in the future a shear madness? Isn't it like pouring money down the drain? I can sympathize with a man in a boat who is either oblivious to the fact that it is being carried by the current toward the waterfall, or even if he is aware of it, is powerless to reverse its movement. But I could never understand what motivates a man to voluntary jump into such boat, when he knows quite well where it is going. 2195. One who is 10 can't wait to turn 20. One who is 20 wants to be 30 as soon as possible. But I know no one who is 30 to be in a hurry to reach 60. 2196. No one could ever rise above himself – it is against the law of nature. 2197. The noble sentiments, like "a mind is a terrible thing to waste," notwithstanding, it is comparing the salaries of a teacher and a doctor that gives us a true indication of what we, as a society, value more, mind or body. 2198. Relationships of any two individuals, and especially between a man and a woman, are never static, never fixed once and for all. They are always dynamic, in a state of a flux, in a continuous process of re-adjustment, of give and take. And invariably, as in any zero-sum game, the more one side gives, the more another one takes. 2199. No doubt, America is a free country. Occasionally it is even a free thinking country. It's just a pity, though, that in most of its inhabitants those free thoughts originate in the area of the body not above the neck but below the waist. 2200. The less one enjoys life, the less one is afraid of death. Those who say, "I have only one life to live, so I must take as much as I can out of it" could never have enough, and the thought of death which would end all of it horrifies them. On the other hand, the life of perpetual self-denial, of constant restrain of one's natural impulses, i.e. highly moral and extremely austere life gradually, almost imperceptibly, prepares one to face death with resignation, even relief. At the end it is not so difficult to say good -bye to something one never really liked and often hated. Thus, make your devoid of pleasure, as much as possible, and then death wouldn't look like a such terrible thing. 2201.In the birthplace of The First Amendment, in the stronghold of the free speech, one of the most popular expressions its citizens use when addressing each other is "Shut up!" 2202. No matter how civilized and advanced, in comparison with our prehistoric ancestors, we are, certain crucial events of human existence, like birth and death, could be as bloody and savage in the brightly lit hospital room now, as they were in the dark and cold cave of ours distant past. 2203. In a state of nature there are no justice or fair play, no compassion for the sick or charity for the young and weak. Does a leopard chase the biggest, the strongest, the swiftest antelope? On the contrary, it attacks the smallest, the weakest, the slowest. And so it was with the affairs of men, for a long, long time. It took thousands of years to develop the present civilization, to teach men justice and fair play, compassion and charity. Alas, there are still too many who haven't learned. Would they ever? 2204. If a solid foundation of a true friendship is likemindness on the wide range of issues – aesthetical, philosophical, political and moral – then it is hard to imagine a true intellectual having even a single true friend, never mind several. For a true intellectual is above everything else is truly independent in his thinking and feelings, and therefore couldn't compromise them for a sake of personal relationships. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. And one who conducts his intellectual life according to this famous Aristotelian precept cannot have true friends, for friendship invariably entails all kind of compromises, including the intellectual ones. Or, as Norman Douglas said, "To find a friend, one must close one eye. To keep him – two." 2205. Should we, in order to uphold the sacred principle of equality, grant to an apple the right to call himself an orange, or to a cat to call himself a dog, or to a sheep to call himself a wolf? Is it in our powers? Would it really turn an apple into an orange, a cat into a dog, a sheep into a wolf? 2206. The big, well pronounced distinctions between various religions, ideologies, and to a certain extent between individuals are taken for granted as an implied confirmation of the natural order of things, which is essential to man's understanding of the world around him and to his ability to function and survive in it. To know is to classify and separate the whole into the clearly distinct entities, like apple and oranges, for example. Paradoxically, it is the small, often minute differences within a given category that makes us confused, uneasy, suspicious and even hostile. It seems, one can accept, even respect another religion, no matter how different it is. But the smallest divergence in one's own, when an absolute uniformity is assumed and demanded, is not tolerated, for it apparently threatens our identity, our understanding of who we are and what is our place in the world composed of the others, different from us. The ferocity the different Christian sects displayed for centuries against each other is well documented. Perhaps the less know but no less vicious were the internecine wars of the various branches of Marxism. Both produced murder and mayhem on the grand scale. Thus, sometimes, the small differences can make the big enemies, while the big ones, because it is believed that nothing could be done about them, may be conducive to co-existence. 2207. A tree is known by the fruits it bears, and a man by the adjectives he uses. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00035 |