Today I want to write about a really cool experiment done on E Coli bacteria that managed to observe a new trait evolve. My primary reference is the wikipedia page, but I also read an article from new scientist and I looked at the web page from the actual research lab. The wikipedia page and the new scientist article seem to be saying the same thing in an understandable way. The research lab's page has a wealth of information but it was difficult for me to get through it. Also, they had links to several papers about the work, but the ones I checked were behind a pay wall so I am unable to go look at the source material. As I have said before, I'm not a scientist, but I am a science fan. If I make any mistakes or say something that isn't quite true, please feel free to correct me.
Why E Coli?
E Coli has a handful of properties that make it perfect for this type of study. It only reproduces asexually, and it isn't able to conjugate. This means that any changes over the generations must be from mutations. (I guess with a species that reproduces sexually, you would have to worry about recessive genes for example). It is also possible to freeze and preserve a sample, and revive it at any time in the future. This allows them to essentially have a "frozen fossil record" which they will always have access to.
The Experiment
They have 12 populations of E Coli, which are initially from the same sample. Every 75 days (about 500 generations) they will freeze a sample of each population. They will analyze the samples and do fitness tests to see how the samples do as time goes on. In roughly the first 20,000 generations, all 12 samples progressed at about the same rate. They became specialized for growing on glucose, growing 70% faster in that medium but performing poorly in other environments.
That part so far didn't seem to be written up very excitedly in the wikipedia page or the article, I guess because the other part of it is so much better, but already I think this is amazing. What I see is that E Coli 'in the wild' have certain trade offs that affect it in various ways and a certain collection of traits will be ideal. In the experiment it had a constant supply of food which means different trade offs will be ideal. All 12 populations were able to get to roughly the same point by evolving through some apparently common mutations in about 20,000 generations. (although the language to use naturally implies some intention on the part of the population, we have to remember it is just random mutation and natural selection driving things)
As far as I'm concerned, what has been described is already best described with evolution. This is exactly the kind of thing that we would expect to see with evolution, and it is what is observed. If you want to try to replace evolution with something else, it would need to have at least this much explanatory power.
But then, at around generation 33,127 something really amazing happened. The experimenters noticed that one of the populations had a huge boost in its growth rate. They discovered that it has evolved the ability to use citrate (which is part of the growth medium) as a source of energy. Normally E. Coli is not able to use this material as food. It makes sense that this particular mutation would thrive once present, it adds a new food source, so the mutant with this ability would thrive compared to the others around it who all have to compete for a common energy source.
An interesting thing with the citrate eating population, is that unlike the other adaptations, there is only one population that developed this skill. The researchers interpret this as the citrate eating skill requires more than one mutation. Furthermore, the early mutation isn't beneficial by itself. It seems that it was more of a sidestep that isn't particularly selected for. They went back to their frozen fossil record and tried to see if they ran a new experiment forward from various points along the way, if the citrate eating skill would evolve again. It seems that the first mutation necessary for that skill happened somewhere around generation 20,000, because if they tried from populations before that the skill didn't develop. One thing this research shows, is that somewhat random changes in genotype, which seem to have no real effect at the time, can have profound effects into the future.
Something I will add that isn't mentioned in any of the articles, this seems to me to be a good example of a path toward speciation. We have a population where some of it's members happen to randomly evolve a way to make use of a new food source. If the old food source is heavily competed for and the new source is not, it is conceivable that the population might dine exclusively on the new source. If this happens, it is entirely possible that they will have very different selection pressures on them and they might be pushed in different directions evolutionarily, this might even happen with them staying in the same physical place.
Well, I certainly think this is an excellent example of evolution happening before our very eyes, I hope I haven't messed up very many of the details here. Hope you enjoyed reading about this as much as I did.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Why are we all so Stubborn?
Once we form an opinion, it is usually harder than it should be to shake us out of that position. Once we've decided "I'm going to do X" or "I believe X is true", it is difficult to get us to decide that X was a bad idea, because admitting that means that we were wrong. And let's be honest, being wrong sucks, it does not feel good, so we try to avoid it. So even if you have seen enough evidence that would convince you that X is wrong had you been impartial, now that you have picked a side, more evidence than that is going to be necessary.
We are all stubborn, once we pick a team, it is easy to highlight the good and downplay the bad. Admitting that your team is wrong means in some way you were wrong, again, this doesn't feel good and we try to avoid it. Once we realize we generally agree with someone, it can be hard to admit when they say something we disagree with. It breaks that little story in our mind that says "this guy knows what he is talking about". Once we have made a decision, it is hard to reevaluate and change our mind. Doing so is admitting to ourselves that our first decision was wrong.
Knowing how stubborn people are can make debating seem like a fruitless endeavor, I have 2 main reasons for thinking this is not the case. First, I know my transition from Christianity to atheism took quite a long time. I have plenty of debates with people and I just brushed them off, probably called most of them idiots too. I wouldn't be surprised if they walked away thinking I was a lost cause. But the good points stuck in my brain, even if I didn't really acknowledge them at the time. They all built up slowly over time and I eventually realized that my previous position didn't hold water. Secondly, there are often other people listening to the conversation. If you refute someone's point, they themselves might stick to it very stubbornly, but someone watching might be able to see how silly your opponent is being.
I thought I would end this post with an example of someone being extremely stubborn. This is a conversation I had on twitter a short while ago. I thought about linking the actual tweets, but I'm not really sure of the etiquette so I figured I would just type them out. It would probably be fine to link to them as posting to twitter is inherently public, but it still seemed like it might be rude to do without permission, so I will leave the other party anonymous.
It started with a tweet that included the following:
So the question becomes, was this conversation a waste of time? I think no. I think that perhaps she will realize later that she had made a mistake, and maybe she will in the future entertain the thought that she might be wrong now and then. That alone would be a little progress. (If we can't accept that we might make a mistake how will we ever learn anything?) Also, anyone following either of us might have seen the conversation. I'm assuming it is crystal clear for any observer to see how ludicrous her statement was, if nothing else they might realize how easy it is to make such a mistake and they will be careful in the future as well.
I can dream right?
We are all stubborn, once we pick a team, it is easy to highlight the good and downplay the bad. Admitting that your team is wrong means in some way you were wrong, again, this doesn't feel good and we try to avoid it. Once we realize we generally agree with someone, it can be hard to admit when they say something we disagree with. It breaks that little story in our mind that says "this guy knows what he is talking about". Once we have made a decision, it is hard to reevaluate and change our mind. Doing so is admitting to ourselves that our first decision was wrong.
Knowing how stubborn people are can make debating seem like a fruitless endeavor, I have 2 main reasons for thinking this is not the case. First, I know my transition from Christianity to atheism took quite a long time. I have plenty of debates with people and I just brushed them off, probably called most of them idiots too. I wouldn't be surprised if they walked away thinking I was a lost cause. But the good points stuck in my brain, even if I didn't really acknowledge them at the time. They all built up slowly over time and I eventually realized that my previous position didn't hold water. Secondly, there are often other people listening to the conversation. If you refute someone's point, they themselves might stick to it very stubbornly, but someone watching might be able to see how silly your opponent is being.
I thought I would end this post with an example of someone being extremely stubborn. This is a conversation I had on twitter a short while ago. I thought about linking the actual tweets, but I'm not really sure of the etiquette so I figured I would just type them out. It would probably be fine to link to them as posting to twitter is inherently public, but it still seemed like it might be rude to do without permission, so I will leave the other party anonymous.
It started with a tweet that included the following:
You have a 50% chance of dying now!I figure that the way I'm reading this must not be what she means, so I ask
What do you mean by 50% chance of dying?She replied
It means there are 5 births to every 2.5 deaths per second.So she has done a simple calculation, and determined that 5 births for every 2.5 deaths means that every person has a 50% chance to die every second. We go back and forth, me trying to explain the mistake she has made, and her just showing me the arithmetic she has done. She even told me I need to learn some math :) I try a different technique to highlight the absurdity of what she is saying with the following
think about the consequences if that were true. The odds of living a minute are the same as flipping 60 heads in a rowThen I say
regardless of the math you did to get there, can't you see that there has been some kind of an error?of which she gives he final reply
No. The math is accurate. And No,it would not be similar to flipping for heads on a coin.You have a bigger chance landing tailsSo what really happened here? I think part of it is she knows that I'm an atheist, and therefore I am wrong. No matter the topic, she has it in her mind that I am wrong. I don't think she even entertains the idea that I might be correct now and then. And once I declared her statement wrong, she decided to double down. I think she could see that the coin thing I said was obviously wrong, but was unable to see that it was equivalent to the statement she made. Perhaps part of her knew that she was wrong, and that is why she tried to deflect the conversation.
So the question becomes, was this conversation a waste of time? I think no. I think that perhaps she will realize later that she had made a mistake, and maybe she will in the future entertain the thought that she might be wrong now and then. That alone would be a little progress. (If we can't accept that we might make a mistake how will we ever learn anything?) Also, anyone following either of us might have seen the conversation. I'm assuming it is crystal clear for any observer to see how ludicrous her statement was, if nothing else they might realize how easy it is to make such a mistake and they will be careful in the future as well.
I can dream right?
Friday, September 28, 2012
1 Thessalonians 1 & 2
Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file)
As usual I like to start these with a link to the wikipedia page. Briefly scanning through it, I noticed that it was probably written in AD 52, which would make it the first book of the NT ever written. It also seems that it is generally agreed upon to be authentically written by Paul, although as always there is someone who disagrees.
Greeting (v. 1)
Paul says hi
The Thessalonians' Faith and Example (v. 2-10)
Paul tells the Thessalonians how awesome they are
Not really much to see here.
(Ch 2) Paul's Ministry to the Thessalonians (v. 1-16)
Paul discusses that he came to the Thessalonians and preached to them. There were a few things here that I thought were worthy of note.
v2 Paul mentions that the Philippians treated them very poorly.
I found this interesting because in Philippians 1, Paul talks about how awesome they are. This of course is not necessarily a contradiction. The wikipedia page did mention that this book was first, so maybe Paul had a terrible experience with the Philippians, wrote this letter, then had a good experience with the Philippians later.
In verse 4 Paul mentions that god is testing him.
This I found interesting too, is Paul questioning is faith? Or is he perhaps just bitching that times have been tough?
In verse 6 Pauls says that they could have made demands but they didn't, in verse 7 he pats himself on the back for being nice instead.
I suppose an atheist would tend to focus on 6 and a Christian would tend to focus on 7.
In verse 9, Paul mentions that they didn't want to be a burden on anyone so the worked very hard as to not be a bother.
This is not exactly a command, but I suppose you can say Paul is leading by example, and not being a burden on people is a good thing.
In verse 13, Paul states that he speaks for God
This is a tactic that I think a lot of us can say we have seen first hand. People will say "God wants you to..." There is always the possibility that they are actually in contact with God, but it is hard to not notice that God always seems to want the same thing as the person making the proclamation.
In verse 16, Paul seems to rejoice in the fact that those who are against him are burning in hell.
Quite vindictive no?
(Note for anyone reading along. The last few verses seem to be attached to chapter 3, I'll include them tomorrow)
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
2:9 Don't be a burden on others
"For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God."
Bad:
2:16 Rejoice in the suffering of your enemies
"...But God's wrath has come upon them at last!"
As usual I like to start these with a link to the wikipedia page. Briefly scanning through it, I noticed that it was probably written in AD 52, which would make it the first book of the NT ever written. It also seems that it is generally agreed upon to be authentically written by Paul, although as always there is someone who disagrees.
Greeting (v. 1)
Paul says hi
The Thessalonians' Faith and Example (v. 2-10)
Paul tells the Thessalonians how awesome they are
Not really much to see here.
(Ch 2) Paul's Ministry to the Thessalonians (v. 1-16)
Paul discusses that he came to the Thessalonians and preached to them. There were a few things here that I thought were worthy of note.
v2 Paul mentions that the Philippians treated them very poorly.
I found this interesting because in Philippians 1, Paul talks about how awesome they are. This of course is not necessarily a contradiction. The wikipedia page did mention that this book was first, so maybe Paul had a terrible experience with the Philippians, wrote this letter, then had a good experience with the Philippians later.
In verse 4 Paul mentions that god is testing him.
This I found interesting too, is Paul questioning is faith? Or is he perhaps just bitching that times have been tough?
In verse 6 Pauls says that they could have made demands but they didn't, in verse 7 he pats himself on the back for being nice instead.
I suppose an atheist would tend to focus on 6 and a Christian would tend to focus on 7.
In verse 9, Paul mentions that they didn't want to be a burden on anyone so the worked very hard as to not be a bother.
This is not exactly a command, but I suppose you can say Paul is leading by example, and not being a burden on people is a good thing.
In verse 13, Paul states that he speaks for God
This is a tactic that I think a lot of us can say we have seen first hand. People will say "God wants you to..." There is always the possibility that they are actually in contact with God, but it is hard to not notice that God always seems to want the same thing as the person making the proclamation.
In verse 16, Paul seems to rejoice in the fact that those who are against him are burning in hell.
Quite vindictive no?
(Note for anyone reading along. The last few verses seem to be attached to chapter 3, I'll include them tomorrow)
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
2:9 Don't be a burden on others
"For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God."
Bad:
2:16 Rejoice in the suffering of your enemies
"...But God's wrath has come upon them at last!"
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Colossians Overview
Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file)
As I have explained in the past, one of the reasons I am doing this blog is I am curious to see what kind of messages one might get from reading the bible. What might one learn as a take-away. Here is my quick summary of the good and bad from Colossians.
(note: the chapter link takes you to my page on that chapter, the verse link takes you to the verse on biblestudytools.com)
Good:
2:3-4 Know as much as possible about Jesus so you won't be tricked by specious arguments
"in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments."
2:18,23 Laws about restricting indulgence and 'severity to the body' have no value
"Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind"
"These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."
3:12-15 Do good things (compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, bearing with one another, forgiveness, love, peace)
4:6 Be polite with people you disagree with
"Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."
Bad:
1:21-22 You are evil without God and blameless with him
"And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him"
1:24 More glorification of suffering
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake..."
2:8 Ignore philosophy and science if it contradicts Jesus
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."
3:5 Sexual repression
"Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry."
3:7 attribute negative attributes on non-christians (probably best viewed in context)
"In these you too once walked, when you were living in them."
3:18 misogynist garbage
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord"
3:20 Obey your parent no matter what
"Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."
3:22 approves of slavery
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord."
4:1 We are slaves of God
"Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
As I have explained in the past, one of the reasons I am doing this blog is I am curious to see what kind of messages one might get from reading the bible. What might one learn as a take-away. Here is my quick summary of the good and bad from Colossians.
(note: the chapter link takes you to my page on that chapter, the verse link takes you to the verse on biblestudytools.com)
Good:
2:3-4 Know as much as possible about Jesus so you won't be tricked by specious arguments
"in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments."
2:18,23 Laws about restricting indulgence and 'severity to the body' have no value
"Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind"
"These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."
3:12-15 Do good things (compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, bearing with one another, forgiveness, love, peace)
4:6 Be polite with people you disagree with
"Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."
Bad:
1:21-22 You are evil without God and blameless with him
"And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him"
1:24 More glorification of suffering
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake..."
2:8 Ignore philosophy and science if it contradicts Jesus
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."
3:5 Sexual repression
"Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry."
3:7 attribute negative attributes on non-christians (probably best viewed in context)
"In these you too once walked, when you were living in them."
3:18 misogynist garbage
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord"
3:20 Obey your parent no matter what
"Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."
3:22 approves of slavery
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord."
4:1 We are slaves of God
"Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Colossians 4
Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file)
Further Instructions (v. 2-6)
Continue praying, both in general, and for me specifically to have a path for spreading the word even though I am in prison.
While I was reading this, it reminded me that in Philippians, Paul also mentioned that he was in prison. A lot of the books of the new testament were letters from Paul to various people. Was he in prison while he was writing all of those letters? Was this him in jail trying to maintain his sanity by writing to all of the people he visited prior to his imprisonment? I'm not sure how much this would matter in all honesty, not really good or bad, but I do find it interesting. (note from later: a quick google search shows that Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians were written by Paul from prison. I wonder if those are the only ones we can verify or if we have evidence that the others were written outside of prison)
Be gracious with outsiders and speak politely to make the best use of your time.
I'm not exactly sure what 'seasoned with salt' means, but I took it as being polite and tactful. I think this is a great thing. What is debate and discussion for? It's to exchange ideas and change minds. The more you are polite and courteous, the better chance that your debate opponent will listen to what you have to say and potentially see if you make a valid point. If on the other hand you are yelling at each other and calling each other morons, then there is pretty much no chance they will see things from your perspective.
Final Greetings (v. 7-18)
Paul says he is sending a bunch of his people to help them out. This is a lot of verses, but it almost just seems like a roll call. Nothing interesting here.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
4:6 Be polite with people you disagree with
"Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."
Further Instructions (v. 2-6)
Continue praying, both in general, and for me specifically to have a path for spreading the word even though I am in prison.
While I was reading this, it reminded me that in Philippians, Paul also mentioned that he was in prison. A lot of the books of the new testament were letters from Paul to various people. Was he in prison while he was writing all of those letters? Was this him in jail trying to maintain his sanity by writing to all of the people he visited prior to his imprisonment? I'm not sure how much this would matter in all honesty, not really good or bad, but I do find it interesting. (note from later: a quick google search shows that Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians were written by Paul from prison. I wonder if those are the only ones we can verify or if we have evidence that the others were written outside of prison)
Be gracious with outsiders and speak politely to make the best use of your time.
I'm not exactly sure what 'seasoned with salt' means, but I took it as being polite and tactful. I think this is a great thing. What is debate and discussion for? It's to exchange ideas and change minds. The more you are polite and courteous, the better chance that your debate opponent will listen to what you have to say and potentially see if you make a valid point. If on the other hand you are yelling at each other and calling each other morons, then there is pretty much no chance they will see things from your perspective.
Final Greetings (v. 7-18)
Paul says he is sending a bunch of his people to help them out. This is a lot of verses, but it almost just seems like a roll call. Nothing interesting here.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
4:6 Be polite with people you disagree with
"Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person."
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Colossians 3
Listen to the podcast below (or right click this link for the mp3 file)
Put on the New Self (v. 1-17)
This entire section is fairly interesting as I pretty much put the entire thing in both the good and bad category, depending on the perspective. On one hand, the verses give lists of things that we should and shouldn't do, I like the "do list" and I am about 50/50 on the "don't list". If everyone followed these lists, it would be a good thing. Quickly, the lists (as far as I approve of them) are as follows:
the don't list (the part I like): anger, wrath, malice, slander, lying
the do list: compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, bearing with one another, forgiveness, love, peace.
So these lists seem pretty good, and generally seem like good advice. The problem is that it gives credit for all of the good things to God and rejects all of the bad things as "earthly". This sends the message that We are good and They are bad. It sets people up to hate those who are not like themselves. It sends the message that those who are not in our group are wiked. This is a terrible message.
I have another comment about the "do list". There are a few things on the list that are good rules of thumb, but will set you up to be taken advantage of if overdone. Humility and meekness are great sometimes, but assertiveness is also important when appropriate. Forgiveness is good, but if someone keeps harming you in some way, forgiveness is perhaps a bad idea until they give you reason to think they will change their future actions. As often happens with lists like this, they are good rules of thumb but don't apply to every situation.
And finally, what about the part of the "don't list" that I don't like, it is as follows: sexual immorality, impurity, desire, covetousness. Like it or not we are sexual beings, denying that leads to bad things. Sexual repression is huge in the religious sphere and I would argue it has dire consequences. And covetousness can motivate us to act, haven't you ever wanted something someone else had and used it as motivation to work hard and get one of your own?
Now I have to condense all of that for the overview post...I'll do my best.
Rules for Christian Households (v. 18-4:1)
I think this section demonstrates pretty easily that the morality of this book is just a reflection of the time and not a timeless expression of perfect morality from a perfect God.
Wives submit to your husband, husbands love your wives.
misogynist garbage
Children, obey your parents no matter what
What if the parents are abusive?
Slaves, obey your masters earnestly, not just enough to get by
Shouldn't perfect morality from a perfect being not allow slavery?
Don't worry about men, focus on God. You will get your reward in heaven, wrongdoers will get what is coming to them.
Shouldn't we want there to be justice here as well?
Masters, treat your slaves well because we have a master in heaven.
So we are slaves to God?
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
3:12-15 Do good things (compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, bearing with one another, forgiveness, love, peace)
Bad:
3:5 Sexual repression
"Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry."
3:7 attribute negative attributes on non-christians (probably best viewed in context)
"In these you too once walked, when you were living in them."
3:18 misogynist garbage
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord"
3:20 Obey your parent no matter what
"Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."
3:22 approves of slavery
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord."
4:1 We are slaves of God
"Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Put on the New Self (v. 1-17)
This entire section is fairly interesting as I pretty much put the entire thing in both the good and bad category, depending on the perspective. On one hand, the verses give lists of things that we should and shouldn't do, I like the "do list" and I am about 50/50 on the "don't list". If everyone followed these lists, it would be a good thing. Quickly, the lists (as far as I approve of them) are as follows:
the don't list (the part I like): anger, wrath, malice, slander, lying
the do list: compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, bearing with one another, forgiveness, love, peace.
So these lists seem pretty good, and generally seem like good advice. The problem is that it gives credit for all of the good things to God and rejects all of the bad things as "earthly". This sends the message that We are good and They are bad. It sets people up to hate those who are not like themselves. It sends the message that those who are not in our group are wiked. This is a terrible message.
I have another comment about the "do list". There are a few things on the list that are good rules of thumb, but will set you up to be taken advantage of if overdone. Humility and meekness are great sometimes, but assertiveness is also important when appropriate. Forgiveness is good, but if someone keeps harming you in some way, forgiveness is perhaps a bad idea until they give you reason to think they will change their future actions. As often happens with lists like this, they are good rules of thumb but don't apply to every situation.
And finally, what about the part of the "don't list" that I don't like, it is as follows: sexual immorality, impurity, desire, covetousness. Like it or not we are sexual beings, denying that leads to bad things. Sexual repression is huge in the religious sphere and I would argue it has dire consequences. And covetousness can motivate us to act, haven't you ever wanted something someone else had and used it as motivation to work hard and get one of your own?
Now I have to condense all of that for the overview post...I'll do my best.
Rules for Christian Households (v. 18-4:1)
I think this section demonstrates pretty easily that the morality of this book is just a reflection of the time and not a timeless expression of perfect morality from a perfect God.
Wives submit to your husband, husbands love your wives.
misogynist garbage
Children, obey your parents no matter what
What if the parents are abusive?
Slaves, obey your masters earnestly, not just enough to get by
Shouldn't perfect morality from a perfect being not allow slavery?
Don't worry about men, focus on God. You will get your reward in heaven, wrongdoers will get what is coming to them.
Shouldn't we want there to be justice here as well?
Masters, treat your slaves well because we have a master in heaven.
So we are slaves to God?
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
3:12-15 Do good things (compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, bearing with one another, forgiveness, love, peace)
Bad:
3:5 Sexual repression
"Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry."
3:7 attribute negative attributes on non-christians (probably best viewed in context)
"In these you too once walked, when you were living in them."
3:18 misogynist garbage
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord"
3:20 Obey your parent no matter what
"Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord."
3:22 approves of slavery
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord."
4:1 We are slaves of God
"Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
Monday, September 24, 2012
Colossians 2
Listen to the podcast here
Paul's Ministry to the Church [cont.] (v. 1-5)
Paul is hopeful that the Colossians and the people from Laodicea will gain knowledge of Christ.
This makes sense, he is both trying to help people and promote his church.
v. 4 Paul doesn't want them to be turned away from the faith with "plausible arguments"
I thought "plausible arguments" sounded weird so I looked at some other translations for this verse. My favorite was that Paul didn't want people turned away by 'deceit of words'.
There are 2 possible interpretations that I can think of. The first is that Paul is instructing people to not get in arguments with people because he doesn't want them to be tricked away from their faith. I think some people might quickly read this and get that takeaway message, but I think it is wrong.
I think the real intention of this verse is that people should really know their stuff. They should understand their faith, their church, and Jesus as best they can so that when they do get into arguments with people they can't be tricked by some specious argument from the other side. I think this is the correct interpretation because the previous verse was talking about knowledge, and the more I think about it the more I like it. I'm a big fan of education and knowledge and anything that promotes that way of thinking is good in my book.
Alive in Christ (v. 6-15)
Don't be taken in by worldly things that are not according to Christ.
This verse seemed pretty anti-intellectual. It is against philosophy and against anything that goes against Christ. I thought that verse 4 mentioned above could possibly be extended to education in general, but in light of this verse, it seems to be only applicable to Jesus stuff. What a shame.
One other note here, in the verse is the phrase 'elemental spirits', which sounds odd, but there is a footnote that says it could also be elementary principles, and looking at other translations, it almost looks like it is supposed to be science. If that is right this basically says follow Jesus, ignore philosophy and science. I gotta hand it to modern day fundies, they really follow this verse well.
Let No One Disqualify You (v. 16-23)
Many law from the old testament (the ones about food and drink and stopping indulgence) are no longer relevant.
I can't argue with that, in fact it goes as far as saying it has no value in stopping indulgence in the flesh. I have to agree with that as it seems that if you repress things they just fester and then present themselves in distorted ways.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
2:3-4 Know as much as possible about Jesus so you won't be tricked by specious arguments
"in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments."
2:18,23 Laws about restricting indulgence and 'severity to the body' have no value
"Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind"
"These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."
Bad:
2:8 Ignore philosophy and science if it contradicts Jesus
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."
Paul's Ministry to the Church [cont.] (v. 1-5)
Paul is hopeful that the Colossians and the people from Laodicea will gain knowledge of Christ.
This makes sense, he is both trying to help people and promote his church.
v. 4 Paul doesn't want them to be turned away from the faith with "plausible arguments"
I thought "plausible arguments" sounded weird so I looked at some other translations for this verse. My favorite was that Paul didn't want people turned away by 'deceit of words'.
There are 2 possible interpretations that I can think of. The first is that Paul is instructing people to not get in arguments with people because he doesn't want them to be tricked away from their faith. I think some people might quickly read this and get that takeaway message, but I think it is wrong.
I think the real intention of this verse is that people should really know their stuff. They should understand their faith, their church, and Jesus as best they can so that when they do get into arguments with people they can't be tricked by some specious argument from the other side. I think this is the correct interpretation because the previous verse was talking about knowledge, and the more I think about it the more I like it. I'm a big fan of education and knowledge and anything that promotes that way of thinking is good in my book.
Alive in Christ (v. 6-15)
Don't be taken in by worldly things that are not according to Christ.
This verse seemed pretty anti-intellectual. It is against philosophy and against anything that goes against Christ. I thought that verse 4 mentioned above could possibly be extended to education in general, but in light of this verse, it seems to be only applicable to Jesus stuff. What a shame.
One other note here, in the verse is the phrase 'elemental spirits', which sounds odd, but there is a footnote that says it could also be elementary principles, and looking at other translations, it almost looks like it is supposed to be science. If that is right this basically says follow Jesus, ignore philosophy and science. I gotta hand it to modern day fundies, they really follow this verse well.
Let No One Disqualify You (v. 16-23)
Many law from the old testament (the ones about food and drink and stopping indulgence) are no longer relevant.
I can't argue with that, in fact it goes as far as saying it has no value in stopping indulgence in the flesh. I have to agree with that as it seems that if you repress things they just fester and then present themselves in distorted ways.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
2:3-4 Know as much as possible about Jesus so you won't be tricked by specious arguments
"in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments."
2:18,23 Laws about restricting indulgence and 'severity to the body' have no value
"Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind"
"These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."
Bad:
2:8 Ignore philosophy and science if it contradicts Jesus
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Form your opinion, THEN see who you agree with
This would seem like an obvious thing that you would expect everyone to do. Think about things, have discussions, decide what you think is right and form your opinions. Then you can look around and see who you agree with and perhaps adopt a particular label that goes along with that opinion.
Perhaps for example after much thought and discussion about health care, you decide that everyone deserves health care and you think that the government should have a hand in making sure everyone gets the care they deserve. You notice that this opinion lands you in the democratic camp on this issue. Or perhaps on the other hand you decide that government sucks at making sure that such care will be delivered in an efficient manner and you think that everyone will be better off if the government doesn't get in the way. You notice that you seem to agree with republicans on this issue. If you notice that you tend to agree with one party or the other on most issues you might adopt that label. This makes sense to me.
Unfortunately, this is often not the way it goes. People will adopt a label first for a variety of reasons (when I was growing up I was a republican because my parents were republicans, then when I got a little older I was a democrat because my parents were republicans). Then once they have the label they adopt the opinions that are expected of them for having that label. What do you think of the wars that we are involved in? Does your opinion of whether spreading democracy is a good idea depend on who is in power at the time? If so there is clearly something wrong with you. That's not to say you can't change your opinion, but it is obviously wrong to praise one guy and demonize another for doing identical things.
This isn't just about politics, but group think in general. How many people out there get a list of things they are supposed to believe from church (articles of faith)? How many people agree with some things a person says and then mindlessly adopts the rest of their opinions? A lot of people do this, thinking about every opinion takes time and energy which most people don't have. It is easier to say "I'm a democrat so I believe this" or "I'm go to this church and we believe that". But you should be saying "I believe this so I'm a democrat" and "I believe that so I go to this church". And we should definitely spend a hell of a lot more time saying things like "I consider myself a democrat but they sure are wrong on this issue" (Although in my estimation the republicans are the ones that need a little practice on this front)
The difficulty comes from time and energy as I mentioned above. We come across so much information that we can't possibly process all of it. Sometimes adopting a label really does help things and it might even help us react to something before we have a chance to really analyze it properly. But when you do that, you should be aware of it and come back to it in more detail when you get the chance. And if you ever find yourself asking someone "what do we think about that" you need to take a step back and do some serious reflecting.
Perhaps for example after much thought and discussion about health care, you decide that everyone deserves health care and you think that the government should have a hand in making sure everyone gets the care they deserve. You notice that this opinion lands you in the democratic camp on this issue. Or perhaps on the other hand you decide that government sucks at making sure that such care will be delivered in an efficient manner and you think that everyone will be better off if the government doesn't get in the way. You notice that you seem to agree with republicans on this issue. If you notice that you tend to agree with one party or the other on most issues you might adopt that label. This makes sense to me.
Unfortunately, this is often not the way it goes. People will adopt a label first for a variety of reasons (when I was growing up I was a republican because my parents were republicans, then when I got a little older I was a democrat because my parents were republicans). Then once they have the label they adopt the opinions that are expected of them for having that label. What do you think of the wars that we are involved in? Does your opinion of whether spreading democracy is a good idea depend on who is in power at the time? If so there is clearly something wrong with you. That's not to say you can't change your opinion, but it is obviously wrong to praise one guy and demonize another for doing identical things.
This isn't just about politics, but group think in general. How many people out there get a list of things they are supposed to believe from church (articles of faith)? How many people agree with some things a person says and then mindlessly adopts the rest of their opinions? A lot of people do this, thinking about every opinion takes time and energy which most people don't have. It is easier to say "I'm a democrat so I believe this" or "I'm go to this church and we believe that". But you should be saying "I believe this so I'm a democrat" and "I believe that so I go to this church". And we should definitely spend a hell of a lot more time saying things like "I consider myself a democrat but they sure are wrong on this issue" (Although in my estimation the republicans are the ones that need a little practice on this front)
The difficulty comes from time and energy as I mentioned above. We come across so much information that we can't possibly process all of it. Sometimes adopting a label really does help things and it might even help us react to something before we have a chance to really analyze it properly. But when you do that, you should be aware of it and come back to it in more detail when you get the chance. And if you ever find yourself asking someone "what do we think about that" you need to take a step back and do some serious reflecting.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
You Just Want to Sin
I was browsing twitter the other day and I came across the accusation that atheists are atheists because they want to sin. This kind of thing drives me crazy due to the complete absurdity of it. As far as I can tell, accusations such as this are rooted in the idea that everyone believes in God, they know he is real deep down, but they are rebelling. People making this claim are so drowned in how they see the world they cannot imagine an alternate view. They believe in God, they can't imagine not believing in God, so they assume I also believe in God. So how do they explain atheists? I guess they are just people who want to sin.
This is simply incorrect. I'm not rebelling against God, I don't think there is a God to rebel against. I don't think God exists and therefore I don't think sin exists. Sin is a slight against God, and again, I don't think there is a God so therefore there is no sin.
I honestly don't think God is real, that is why I am an atheist. There is no secret motivation behind it, I have never seen any evidence for the existence of God, even where you would expect there to be some, and therefore I am an atheist.
This is simply incorrect. I'm not rebelling against God, I don't think there is a God to rebel against. I don't think God exists and therefore I don't think sin exists. Sin is a slight against God, and again, I don't think there is a God so therefore there is no sin.
I honestly don't think God is real, that is why I am an atheist. There is no secret motivation behind it, I have never seen any evidence for the existence of God, even where you would expect there to be some, and therefore I am an atheist.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Colossians 1
Listen to the podcast here
This is yet another letter from Paul to a group of people. According to the wikipedia article, there is some debate about authorship, many think it is an early follower rather than Paul himself, although apparently it is also argued very strongly to be genuine.
Greeting (v. 1-2)
Just a quick greeting, not much to see here.
Thanksgiving and Prayer (v. 3-14)
Paul says he is happy that the Collossians are adopting the faith and he has prayed that they will continue to improve and bear the fruit of the spirit.
Not much to see here either
The Preeminence of Christ (v. 15-23)
Everything was created for Jesus, who is the image of God.
How strange, I thought everything was created for us.
You were once alienated, hostile and evil, but now he has sacrificed himself so you could be presented as holy and blameless, if of course you hold steady to the faith.
Here we have the often repeated theme that non-christians are evil. In all fairness, the wording here isn't as bad as it could be, it has been worse elsewhere, but it still is not great. It doesn't quite say that you are evil because you are non-christian, a very generous reading could say that you are both things and following Christ had the benefit of also curing you of your evil ways, but honestly I don't think that is the intention. I think the intention is to couple those 2 ideas, that being non-Christian and evil are the same, that being Christian and good are the same.
The second part of this is that Jesus made you better by sacrificing himself, which if you think about it very hard really doesn't make sense. How does Jesus dying make me any less evil.
Paul's Ministry to the Church (v. 24-29)
I wasn't sure where to stop here, the section seems to extend up to verse 5 of chapter 2, but it looks to me more like the beginning of chapter 2 should have gotten another section name and it didn't. I think it makes the most sense this time to stop at the chapter break rather than the section break.
I rejoice in suffering for your sake.
Why is suffering something to rejoice in?
I am a minister in the church for God. We have been given knowledge of God which has been hidden for ages and now is revealed to the saints.
For the God that typically is described by Christians, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why would he keep this knowledge secret and then suddenly decide to reveal it now? It seems more likely that these guys are just making it up or they are deluded.
To Paul and the saints God chose to reveal the mystery to everyone can see how great Christ is. They proclaim the glory of God and give warnings so that everyone might mature in Christ. For this end, God works is power through me.
This seems very self-aggrandizing. In all honestly, this reads to me like a very self-centered person who has managed to convince himself of these things.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Bad:
1:21-22 You are evil without God and blameless with him
"And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him"
1:24 More glorification of suffering
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake..."
This is yet another letter from Paul to a group of people. According to the wikipedia article, there is some debate about authorship, many think it is an early follower rather than Paul himself, although apparently it is also argued very strongly to be genuine.
Greeting (v. 1-2)
Just a quick greeting, not much to see here.
Thanksgiving and Prayer (v. 3-14)
Paul says he is happy that the Collossians are adopting the faith and he has prayed that they will continue to improve and bear the fruit of the spirit.
Not much to see here either
The Preeminence of Christ (v. 15-23)
Everything was created for Jesus, who is the image of God.
How strange, I thought everything was created for us.
You were once alienated, hostile and evil, but now he has sacrificed himself so you could be presented as holy and blameless, if of course you hold steady to the faith.
Here we have the often repeated theme that non-christians are evil. In all fairness, the wording here isn't as bad as it could be, it has been worse elsewhere, but it still is not great. It doesn't quite say that you are evil because you are non-christian, a very generous reading could say that you are both things and following Christ had the benefit of also curing you of your evil ways, but honestly I don't think that is the intention. I think the intention is to couple those 2 ideas, that being non-Christian and evil are the same, that being Christian and good are the same.
The second part of this is that Jesus made you better by sacrificing himself, which if you think about it very hard really doesn't make sense. How does Jesus dying make me any less evil.
Paul's Ministry to the Church (v. 24-29)
I wasn't sure where to stop here, the section seems to extend up to verse 5 of chapter 2, but it looks to me more like the beginning of chapter 2 should have gotten another section name and it didn't. I think it makes the most sense this time to stop at the chapter break rather than the section break.
I rejoice in suffering for your sake.
Why is suffering something to rejoice in?
I am a minister in the church for God. We have been given knowledge of God which has been hidden for ages and now is revealed to the saints.
For the God that typically is described by Christians, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why would he keep this knowledge secret and then suddenly decide to reveal it now? It seems more likely that these guys are just making it up or they are deluded.
To Paul and the saints God chose to reveal the mystery to everyone can see how great Christ is. They proclaim the glory of God and give warnings so that everyone might mature in Christ. For this end, God works is power through me.
This seems very self-aggrandizing. In all honestly, this reads to me like a very self-centered person who has managed to convince himself of these things.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Bad:
1:21-22 You are evil without God and blameless with him
"And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him"
1:24 More glorification of suffering
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake..."
Thursday, September 20, 2012
I'm starting a podcast!
Every day, I read a chapter of the bible and write a blog post about it. I usually read it out loud to myself because I find it easier to process that way. About a month ago it occurred to me that while I read it I say a lot of things that don't wind up going into the blog and thought that some people might be interested in that material and figured I'd make it into a podcast. So every day along with my blog post, I will publish a companion podcast entry which will cover the same chapter in the bible. I will read the bible and give my summary and commentary in a more detailed way than I like to on the blog.
I initially had my doubts about whether or not this was worth doing, but then Thomas and the Bible was recommended to me. I have been enjoying the hell out of that podcast, so I figured that someone might enjoy me doing a similar thing. (BTW, if my podcast sounds interesting to you, definitely go check out Thomas and the bible).
I'm uploading an introductory podcast today, and I will start regular posts tomorrow with Colossians.
Introductory podcast
Also, you might notice a new RSS feed button at the top of my sidebar. I tested it and it works in google listen on my phone so I'm assuming it is in general working order.
Oh BTW, I don't really know what I am doing with podcasting, so if anyone reading has some experience with it and has some beginner tips I'm all ears.
I initially had my doubts about whether or not this was worth doing, but then Thomas and the Bible was recommended to me. I have been enjoying the hell out of that podcast, so I figured that someone might enjoy me doing a similar thing. (BTW, if my podcast sounds interesting to you, definitely go check out Thomas and the bible).
I'm uploading an introductory podcast today, and I will start regular posts tomorrow with Colossians.
Introductory podcast
Also, you might notice a new RSS feed button at the top of my sidebar. I tested it and it works in google listen on my phone so I'm assuming it is in general working order.
Oh BTW, I don't really know what I am doing with podcasting, so if anyone reading has some experience with it and has some beginner tips I'm all ears.
Philippians Overview
As I have explained in the past, one of the reasons I am doing this blog is I am curious to see what kind of messages one might get from reading the bible. What might one learn as a take-away. Here is my quick summary of the good and bad from Philippians.
(note: the chapter link takes you to my page on that chapter, the verse link takes you to the verse on biblestudytools.com)
Good:
1:9 Encourage good things for other people
"And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment,"
1:24-25 Put other's needs above your own
"But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith"
2:4 Be concerned with other people, not just yourself
"Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others."
3:12 I'm not perfect, but I'm always striving for perfection
"Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own."
4:8 Focus on good things
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things"
4:11 Be content in the good times and the bad
"Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content."
Bad:
1:18 The bottom line is all that matters
"What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,"
1:23 Death is better than life, I wish I was dead
"I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better."
1:24-25 Wishful thinking
"But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith"
2:8 Obedience is the most important thing
"And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
2:12-13 Our fear and trembling is God's pleasure
"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure"
2:14-15 Ignorance is glorified
"Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world"
3:8 Everything other than Christ is worthless
"Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ"
3:9 Faith is a virtue [thanks ReasonBeing]
"and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith"
3:18-19 People who are not like us are evil
"For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things."
4:13 Give credit to overcoming struggles to God
"I can do all things through him who strengthens me"
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Philippians 4
Exhortation, Encouragement and Prayer (v. 2-9)
Euodia and Syntyche are pleaded with to agree in the lord.
I wasn't sure what this section meant, so I went looking for information about these 2 people, apparently they are two women involved in some sort of disagreement. I don't completely see how to glean that from the text, but with it in mind it does seem to be hinted at.
Make your request be known to God and focus on good things.
Again, in the context of them being in a disagreement of some kind, this is Paul's advice on conflict resolution, and it seems good I suppose. In other setting, focusing on good things seems like a good idea.
I was definitely interested in this phrase "let your requests be made known to God". If God is all knowing doesn't he already know your requests? I would argue that this is evidence that when people in the bible speak of God, they aren't meaning the same thing that modern Christians do.
God's Provision (v. 10-20)
When I am in need I can get by through God who strengthens me. I know what it is like to both have absence and abundance, I can be content either way.
I guess the underlying message here is that we should be content in the good times and the bad. That is a good lesson, when bad times come by not to be so downtrodden but instead be happy for what you do have.
I'm not a fan of the idea that he gets through the bad times because he is strengthened by God. When you get through a struggling time, you do it through your own strength and the help of your community. To give the credit to an imaginary friend seems a shame to me.
Paul thanks the Philippians for helping him when no one else would.
In verse 18, Paul mentions a sacrifice for God. I'm mentioning this here because I find it quite curious, but I don't really know what it means. It is possible it is just the fact that they sacrificed some resources for Paul, but I'm not sure I'm convinced of that. What fragrant offering is sacrificed to the lord?
God will supply all of your needs.
This kind of thing seems dangerous to me. They give him stuff and he promises God will take care of their needs. There isn't exactly a cause and effect spelled out here, but it is implied. It makes me think of the prosperity gospel, where they prey on poor people to give them money and God is supposed to return the favor ten fold
Final Greetings (v. 21-23)
Greet all saints in Christ Jesus.
What a strange way to sign off.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
4:8 Focus on good things
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things"
4:11 By content in the good times and the bad
"Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content."
Bad:
4:13 Give credit to overcoming struggles to God
"I can do all things through him who strengthens me"
Euodia and Syntyche are pleaded with to agree in the lord.
I wasn't sure what this section meant, so I went looking for information about these 2 people, apparently they are two women involved in some sort of disagreement. I don't completely see how to glean that from the text, but with it in mind it does seem to be hinted at.
Make your request be known to God and focus on good things.
Again, in the context of them being in a disagreement of some kind, this is Paul's advice on conflict resolution, and it seems good I suppose. In other setting, focusing on good things seems like a good idea.
I was definitely interested in this phrase "let your requests be made known to God". If God is all knowing doesn't he already know your requests? I would argue that this is evidence that when people in the bible speak of God, they aren't meaning the same thing that modern Christians do.
God's Provision (v. 10-20)
When I am in need I can get by through God who strengthens me. I know what it is like to both have absence and abundance, I can be content either way.
I guess the underlying message here is that we should be content in the good times and the bad. That is a good lesson, when bad times come by not to be so downtrodden but instead be happy for what you do have.
I'm not a fan of the idea that he gets through the bad times because he is strengthened by God. When you get through a struggling time, you do it through your own strength and the help of your community. To give the credit to an imaginary friend seems a shame to me.
Paul thanks the Philippians for helping him when no one else would.
In verse 18, Paul mentions a sacrifice for God. I'm mentioning this here because I find it quite curious, but I don't really know what it means. It is possible it is just the fact that they sacrificed some resources for Paul, but I'm not sure I'm convinced of that. What fragrant offering is sacrificed to the lord?
God will supply all of your needs.
This kind of thing seems dangerous to me. They give him stuff and he promises God will take care of their needs. There isn't exactly a cause and effect spelled out here, but it is implied. It makes me think of the prosperity gospel, where they prey on poor people to give them money and God is supposed to return the favor ten fold
Final Greetings (v. 21-23)
Greet all saints in Christ Jesus.
What a strange way to sign off.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
4:8 Focus on good things
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things"
4:11 By content in the good times and the bad
"Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content."
Bad:
4:13 Give credit to overcoming struggles to God
"I can do all things through him who strengthens me"
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Philippians 3
Righteousness Through Faith in Christ (v. 1-11)
Paul says once again that we gain righteousness through faith in Christ and not through our own works. He discusses how he used to be very powerful and was perfect from the perspective of the law, but he gave it all up to follow christ. In the last couple verses, he says he will do whatever he can to share the sufferings of Christ and become like him in death so that he can attain the resurrection from the dead.
This is more glorifying faith. What you do doesn't matter, what you think does. Following the law doesn't help you, just having faith. That is all that really matters. I guess the implication is that once you have faith you will do good things anyway, so that's why following the law doesn't matter. I'm not sure this bears out in reality though, people being good and people having faith in Christ seem to be independent variables.
This last bit is interesting, he wants to share the sufferings of Christ so he can be resurrected. So ultimately his motivation is selfish. I guess most of what we do is ultimately selfish on some level, but something about the way it is spelled out here makes me a bit uneasy. Also, he talks of being resurrected from the dead. This feels fundamentally different to me than our common conception of going to heaven. "resurrection from the dead" sounds to me like coming back to life here on earth, not living on in heaven.
Straining Toward the Goal (v. 12-21)
I am not perfect, but I am eternally striving toward perfection. Join me in this way of thinking.
This message I like quite a lot. It fits into the message of being humble that we have seen a few times. Don't assume you are perfect, work to better yourself.
v.18-19 Many are enemies of the cross, their end is destruction, their god is their belly, they glory in their shame with their minds set on earthly things.
This doesn't seem quite as bad as some verses in the past, I think because it starts with people who are "enemies of the cross" and then follows that they are bad, rather than starting with them simply being not Christian and then saying they are bad. I still think this is a bad message, it basically says that people who are not like us are evil. It sets people up to hate those not like themselves. This is obviously a bad thing.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
3:12 I'm not perfect, but I'm always striving for perfection
"Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own."
Bad:
3:8 Everything other than Christ is worthless
"Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ"
3:9 Faith is a virtue [thanks ReasonBeing]
"and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith"
3:18-19 People who are not like us are evil
"For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things."
Paul says once again that we gain righteousness through faith in Christ and not through our own works. He discusses how he used to be very powerful and was perfect from the perspective of the law, but he gave it all up to follow christ. In the last couple verses, he says he will do whatever he can to share the sufferings of Christ and become like him in death so that he can attain the resurrection from the dead.
This is more glorifying faith. What you do doesn't matter, what you think does. Following the law doesn't help you, just having faith. That is all that really matters. I guess the implication is that once you have faith you will do good things anyway, so that's why following the law doesn't matter. I'm not sure this bears out in reality though, people being good and people having faith in Christ seem to be independent variables.
This last bit is interesting, he wants to share the sufferings of Christ so he can be resurrected. So ultimately his motivation is selfish. I guess most of what we do is ultimately selfish on some level, but something about the way it is spelled out here makes me a bit uneasy. Also, he talks of being resurrected from the dead. This feels fundamentally different to me than our common conception of going to heaven. "resurrection from the dead" sounds to me like coming back to life here on earth, not living on in heaven.
Straining Toward the Goal (v. 12-21)
I am not perfect, but I am eternally striving toward perfection. Join me in this way of thinking.
This message I like quite a lot. It fits into the message of being humble that we have seen a few times. Don't assume you are perfect, work to better yourself.
v.18-19 Many are enemies of the cross, their end is destruction, their god is their belly, they glory in their shame with their minds set on earthly things.
This doesn't seem quite as bad as some verses in the past, I think because it starts with people who are "enemies of the cross" and then follows that they are bad, rather than starting with them simply being not Christian and then saying they are bad. I still think this is a bad message, it basically says that people who are not like us are evil. It sets people up to hate those not like themselves. This is obviously a bad thing.
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
3:12 I'm not perfect, but I'm always striving for perfection
"Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own."
Bad:
3:8 Everything other than Christ is worthless
"Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ"
3:9 Faith is a virtue [thanks ReasonBeing]
"and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith"
3:18-19 People who are not like us are evil
"For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things."
Monday, September 17, 2012
Philippians 2
Christ's Example of Humility (v. 1-11)
You should not be selfish or self-centered. Be concerned with other people's issues as well as your own.
That is good stuff. If only everyone would follow that instruction.
Another thought was that I'm not so sure that Jesus was that humble all told. There were certainly times when he was humble, like when he washed his disciples feet (although he was proving a point at the time). But there were also times when he let Mary use expensive ointment to anoint him. I haven't really thought about this much, but when I think back to the stories about Jesus, humble is not the word that comes to mind. Thoughts?
Jesus humbled himself by being born in the likeness of men.
Wasn't man created in God's image? How is Jesus humbling himself by taking the form of man which is made in the image of God? I think the only way this makes sense is if his quality has gone down like when you make a copy of a copy.
Jesus humbled himself by being obedient to the point of death. You should follow this example.
I think it is interesting that he is focusing on obedience here. There are certainly things worth dying for, but obedience? Is obedience something that is so important that people should obey even if it causes their death? sounds like something a tyrant would want. This of course reminds me of the binding of Isaac, but perhaps that is just because I watched non stamp collector's new video today.
Lights in the World (v. 12-18)
You have always been obedient, so if I am gone you should work out your own salvation with trembling and fear, God works in you for his good pleasure.
Well that is terrible. Keep being obedient even if I am gone, just focus on that trembling and fear and you will be fine. Also, what is the deal with our fear being God's pleasure?
Don't question things, you should be innocent and blameless so that I [Paul] won't feel I wasted my time.
I swear I'm not making this up.
Timothy and Epaphroditus (v. 19-30)
Paul is going to send Timothy to see the philippians because he is the only one who will be genuinely concerned for their welfare for everyone else seeks their own interest. He will also send Epaphroditus, a fellow minister and soldier.
Putting those 2 things together, is Epaphroditus going to be self-interested. If I was a Philippian, I might say "why don't you just go ahead and only send Timothy then."
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
2:4 Be concerned with other people, not just yourself
Bad:
2:8 Obedience is the most important thing
2:12-13 Our fear and trembling is God's pleasure
2:14-15 Ignorance is glorified
You should not be selfish or self-centered. Be concerned with other people's issues as well as your own.
That is good stuff. If only everyone would follow that instruction.
Another thought was that I'm not so sure that Jesus was that humble all told. There were certainly times when he was humble, like when he washed his disciples feet (although he was proving a point at the time). But there were also times when he let Mary use expensive ointment to anoint him. I haven't really thought about this much, but when I think back to the stories about Jesus, humble is not the word that comes to mind. Thoughts?
Jesus humbled himself by being born in the likeness of men.
Wasn't man created in God's image? How is Jesus humbling himself by taking the form of man which is made in the image of God? I think the only way this makes sense is if his quality has gone down like when you make a copy of a copy.
Jesus humbled himself by being obedient to the point of death. You should follow this example.
I think it is interesting that he is focusing on obedience here. There are certainly things worth dying for, but obedience? Is obedience something that is so important that people should obey even if it causes their death? sounds like something a tyrant would want. This of course reminds me of the binding of Isaac, but perhaps that is just because I watched non stamp collector's new video today.
Lights in the World (v. 12-18)
You have always been obedient, so if I am gone you should work out your own salvation with trembling and fear, God works in you for his good pleasure.
Well that is terrible. Keep being obedient even if I am gone, just focus on that trembling and fear and you will be fine. Also, what is the deal with our fear being God's pleasure?
Don't question things, you should be innocent and blameless so that I [Paul] won't feel I wasted my time.
I swear I'm not making this up.
Timothy and Epaphroditus (v. 19-30)
Paul is going to send Timothy to see the philippians because he is the only one who will be genuinely concerned for their welfare for everyone else seeks their own interest. He will also send Epaphroditus, a fellow minister and soldier.
Putting those 2 things together, is Epaphroditus going to be self-interested. If I was a Philippian, I might say "why don't you just go ahead and only send Timothy then."
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
2:4 Be concerned with other people, not just yourself
Bad:
2:8 Obedience is the most important thing
2:12-13 Our fear and trembling is God's pleasure
2:14-15 Ignorance is glorified
Sunday, September 16, 2012
What does it mean to lose an argument?
I was thinking today about logic and argumentation and the fact that when I was a kid everyone around me seemed to be afraid of it. There always seemed to be a bit of unease when going through a logical argument, especially when it related to God. I think there was always the fear of some kind of trickery. They get you to agree to a bunch of things that seem reasonable to you on their own but when put together they conclude something that you disagree with. Here is an example.
I understand trying to avoid such situations, it can be embarrassing. But apart from the fear of being wrong and looking silly, growing up I sensed a different fear, a fear of being tricked out of our faith. Like, if someone has some really slick proof that God doesn't exist and we couldn't refute it then we'd have to stop being Christians. This seems very silly to write down, but I definitely got that sense from my family. It is possible that this was just me reading something that wasn't there, but I don't think so. Also, I have no idea how widespread this mentality is, are my parents an anomaly in this?
So let's talk about what it really means to lose a logical argument. Suppose you agree that A,B and C are all facts that you believe are true, but X is false. I then logically combine A,B and C together to conclude that X is actually true. Something has clearly gone wrong for you here, but what? There are a couple of things, either my logic can be poor, the way I have combined A,B and C together to get X might be faulty. If that is not the case, you are wrong about either A,B,C or X. It doesn't necessarily have to be a complete turnaround. For example, if we decide that premise A was wrong, you don't have to change your opinion to the opposite of A, maybe A just needs a little bit of tweaking. Having these arguments is good, it helps you refine your positions. You shouldn't be afraid of new ideas.
In the example from the video, the woman agrees that
A: God created hell
B: God created the criteria by which souls are judged
C: Everything happens according to God's will
So Matt concludes that
X: God is ultimately responsible for people going to hell.
So what are the woman's options here? As far as I can see, there is not a lot of logic putting these 3 premises together, it follows immediately. So she has 4 options, either God didn't create hell, God didn't decide on the criteria for hell, some things happen outside of God's will, or God is actually responsible for the people in hell. This is difficult, which of the 4 options makes the most sense to her? I'm guessing the easiest way out of it is to slightly let go of C and say that God gave us free will and therefore everything doesn't happen 100% according to God's will. I think as a Christian that is the route I would have gone. Free will and C don't make sense together anyway.
From the other side, I've had a few arguments not go my way as well since I started this blog earlier this year. Obviously it didn't make me a christian, but it did make me rethink what we had been talking about ever so slightly. It made me realize I had made a false assumption somewhere or I had used some poor logic. These things can be very embarrassing and it makes sense to try to keep them from happening as much as possible, but they are ultimately good for us as long as we view them as an opportunity to make ourselves better.
I understand trying to avoid such situations, it can be embarrassing. But apart from the fear of being wrong and looking silly, growing up I sensed a different fear, a fear of being tricked out of our faith. Like, if someone has some really slick proof that God doesn't exist and we couldn't refute it then we'd have to stop being Christians. This seems very silly to write down, but I definitely got that sense from my family. It is possible that this was just me reading something that wasn't there, but I don't think so. Also, I have no idea how widespread this mentality is, are my parents an anomaly in this?
So let's talk about what it really means to lose a logical argument. Suppose you agree that A,B and C are all facts that you believe are true, but X is false. I then logically combine A,B and C together to conclude that X is actually true. Something has clearly gone wrong for you here, but what? There are a couple of things, either my logic can be poor, the way I have combined A,B and C together to get X might be faulty. If that is not the case, you are wrong about either A,B,C or X. It doesn't necessarily have to be a complete turnaround. For example, if we decide that premise A was wrong, you don't have to change your opinion to the opposite of A, maybe A just needs a little bit of tweaking. Having these arguments is good, it helps you refine your positions. You shouldn't be afraid of new ideas.
In the example from the video, the woman agrees that
A: God created hell
B: God created the criteria by which souls are judged
C: Everything happens according to God's will
So Matt concludes that
X: God is ultimately responsible for people going to hell.
So what are the woman's options here? As far as I can see, there is not a lot of logic putting these 3 premises together, it follows immediately. So she has 4 options, either God didn't create hell, God didn't decide on the criteria for hell, some things happen outside of God's will, or God is actually responsible for the people in hell. This is difficult, which of the 4 options makes the most sense to her? I'm guessing the easiest way out of it is to slightly let go of C and say that God gave us free will and therefore everything doesn't happen 100% according to God's will. I think as a Christian that is the route I would have gone. Free will and C don't make sense together anyway.
From the other side, I've had a few arguments not go my way as well since I started this blog earlier this year. Obviously it didn't make me a christian, but it did make me rethink what we had been talking about ever so slightly. It made me realize I had made a false assumption somewhere or I had used some poor logic. These things can be very embarrassing and it makes sense to try to keep them from happening as much as possible, but they are ultimately good for us as long as we view them as an opportunity to make ourselves better.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Straw Man
Most of you reading this have probably heard of a straw man argument before. In case you haven't, it is basically setting up a caricature of your opponents argument and arguing against that instead. As was pointed out in the iron chariots article, the name straw man brings up an image of a scarecrow, it looks a bit like your opponents argument, but there is no substance and it won't fight back. It can be very frustrating to watch a video, listen to a podcast, or read a blog where someone sets up a straw man of your opinion.
One man's straw man is another man's actual opinion
One thing to keep in mind, it is possible that an argument appears to you like a straw man of your opinion, while it is instead a faithful representation of someone else's opinion. I was recently browsing some Christian blogs and came across a complaint of an atheist on youtube who claimed that many Christians will say that atheists are incapable of being moral since they don't believe in God. The blogger said neither he nor any Christian he knows would ever make such a claim, and therefore it wasn't worth watching the rest of the video. He was claiming that the youtuber was employing a straw man argument. I said that it is great that him and his friends think that such a claim is ridiculous, but there are plenty of people out there that will actually make that claim. I imagine most atheists have come across this type of argument before.
It made me wonder how many times this situation has been reversed. How many times have I started watching a christian's youtube video which started with "Atheists will often say X" where I just shouted at my screen "I would never say that!" Just because I would never say X doesn't mean that no atheists would say it. Maybe that video just isn't for me. Maybe if I claim that it is a straw man I am wrong. Maybe that video is just not directed at me. By the way, this kind of thing is part of why I think it is important to have discussions with people who generally agree with you but make an argument that you disagree with. If I hear an atheist say something I disagree with I definitely want to talk about it.
Intentional or Accidental?
There are certainly people who are simply dishonest and will intentionally straw man their opponent's arguments, but I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the time it is an accidental thing. I think most straw man arguments originate from misunderstanding rather than malice. If an argument is confusing or intricate, it should be expected that not everyone will understand it on the first pass. And if you misinterpret part of it and what you think you heard is easy to refute, it is human nature to stop there and write a rebuttal. I think we all do this from time to time, ideally we would make sure we completely understand every argument before we respond, but who has that kind of time?
One man's straw man is another man's actual opinion
One thing to keep in mind, it is possible that an argument appears to you like a straw man of your opinion, while it is instead a faithful representation of someone else's opinion. I was recently browsing some Christian blogs and came across a complaint of an atheist on youtube who claimed that many Christians will say that atheists are incapable of being moral since they don't believe in God. The blogger said neither he nor any Christian he knows would ever make such a claim, and therefore it wasn't worth watching the rest of the video. He was claiming that the youtuber was employing a straw man argument. I said that it is great that him and his friends think that such a claim is ridiculous, but there are plenty of people out there that will actually make that claim. I imagine most atheists have come across this type of argument before.
It made me wonder how many times this situation has been reversed. How many times have I started watching a christian's youtube video which started with "Atheists will often say X" where I just shouted at my screen "I would never say that!" Just because I would never say X doesn't mean that no atheists would say it. Maybe that video just isn't for me. Maybe if I claim that it is a straw man I am wrong. Maybe that video is just not directed at me. By the way, this kind of thing is part of why I think it is important to have discussions with people who generally agree with you but make an argument that you disagree with. If I hear an atheist say something I disagree with I definitely want to talk about it.
Intentional or Accidental?
There are certainly people who are simply dishonest and will intentionally straw man their opponent's arguments, but I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the time it is an accidental thing. I think most straw man arguments originate from misunderstanding rather than malice. If an argument is confusing or intricate, it should be expected that not everyone will understand it on the first pass. And if you misinterpret part of it and what you think you heard is easy to refute, it is human nature to stop there and write a rebuttal. I think we all do this from time to time, ideally we would make sure we completely understand every argument before we respond, but who has that kind of time?
Friday, September 14, 2012
Philippians 1
I'll start by linking to the wikipedia page. Apparently there is pretty wide agreement that this was actually written by Paul, unlike Ephesians which apparently many suspect was a forgery. There is apparently general agreement that it was written around 62A.D., although some argue it could be as early at 50. Not the type of details I typically focus on, but interesting nonetheless.
Greeting (v. 1-2)
Not much here, just a greeting. It does mention Timothy as well as Paul. I'm guessing that means that when Paul visited the Philippians, Timothy was with him as well. Not sure if this matters much but it seems like something to keep an eye on.
Thanksgiving and Prayer (v. 3-11)
Basically Paul has a bunch of good stuff to say about the Philippians. He thanks God for his time with them, he mentions them in his prayers. He basically wishes good things for them, he says their love should abound, he says he hopes they are blameless for the day of Christ, which I think means he wants them to get into heaven. There are a few good verses there that would work well in one of those inspirational posters. I suppose there are a couple options that would be good for my summary, I'll focus on 9 I guess.
Something I found interesting was he mentioned his imprisonment. It doesn't sound like he was imprisoned by the Philippians, it sounds more like he was either thinking of them for strength while he was imprisoned, or maybe he was imprisoned with him.
The Advance of the Gospel (v. 12-18)
Paul has been put in prison and it has resulted in the gospel being spread. Some preach from good will out of love for me. But other preach from envy and rivalry intending to inflict me in my imprisonment. Whether in pretense or in truth, I am happy that Christ is being proclaimed.
So basically the ends justify the means. All he cares about is that Jesus is being talked about, he doesn't care by who or how. You have to expect that if someone is preaching about Jesus our of rivalry, he is probably doing it an manner that Paul wouldn't like. But all that matters is the bottom line. Jesus is being talked about so he's happy. When someone is arguing for a position I agree with but their logic is terrible it drives me crazy.
I suppose a counter-argument here could be that he is just looking at the bright side. "At least Jesus is being talked about". But I would think Jesus being talked about in a false manner would be worse than him not being talked about at all. Isn't silence preferable to the spreading of lies?
To Live Is Christ (v. 19-30)
Paul is hoping for deliverance (he must be writing this letter from prison). If he lives he will be of great help to the Philippians, but part of him would rather die and be with Jesus. Since living will be of great service to many people, he is sure Jesus will help him through. He instructs those reading to live a worthy life whether or not he returns.
There are a few things in this section that jumped out at me, both good and bad. One thing is that he is putting the good of someone else above his own wishes, that is certainly a good thing. On the other hand, his desire that he is overcoming is a wish to die and be with Jesus. This is a danger of preaching a paradise after death, if you are going through hard times, why not just hope to die and be in a better place? If that possibility isn't in your mind I think you'd be more apt to focus your attention on making your situation better. To be fair, in this instance he is in prison so there are probably not a whole lot of opportunities for him to make things better for himself, but this impulse is a danger outside of this particular situation.
The wishful thinking also bothers me a little bit. He thinks Jesus would want him to get out of prison and help these people, so he's just convinced it will happen. Again, he's in prison so there's probably not a whole lot he can do, but this mentality in everyday life could keep people from being proactive about improving their lives. "If Jesus wants this for me he'll make it happen." How many times have you heard statements along those lines?
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
1:9 Encourage good things for other people
1:24-25 Put other's needs above your own
Bad:
1:18 The bottom line is all that matters
1:23 Death is better than life, I wish I was dead
1:24-25 Wishful thinking
Greeting (v. 1-2)
Not much here, just a greeting. It does mention Timothy as well as Paul. I'm guessing that means that when Paul visited the Philippians, Timothy was with him as well. Not sure if this matters much but it seems like something to keep an eye on.
Thanksgiving and Prayer (v. 3-11)
Basically Paul has a bunch of good stuff to say about the Philippians. He thanks God for his time with them, he mentions them in his prayers. He basically wishes good things for them, he says their love should abound, he says he hopes they are blameless for the day of Christ, which I think means he wants them to get into heaven. There are a few good verses there that would work well in one of those inspirational posters. I suppose there are a couple options that would be good for my summary, I'll focus on 9 I guess.
Something I found interesting was he mentioned his imprisonment. It doesn't sound like he was imprisoned by the Philippians, it sounds more like he was either thinking of them for strength while he was imprisoned, or maybe he was imprisoned with him.
The Advance of the Gospel (v. 12-18)
Paul has been put in prison and it has resulted in the gospel being spread. Some preach from good will out of love for me. But other preach from envy and rivalry intending to inflict me in my imprisonment. Whether in pretense or in truth, I am happy that Christ is being proclaimed.
So basically the ends justify the means. All he cares about is that Jesus is being talked about, he doesn't care by who or how. You have to expect that if someone is preaching about Jesus our of rivalry, he is probably doing it an manner that Paul wouldn't like. But all that matters is the bottom line. Jesus is being talked about so he's happy. When someone is arguing for a position I agree with but their logic is terrible it drives me crazy.
I suppose a counter-argument here could be that he is just looking at the bright side. "At least Jesus is being talked about". But I would think Jesus being talked about in a false manner would be worse than him not being talked about at all. Isn't silence preferable to the spreading of lies?
To Live Is Christ (v. 19-30)
Paul is hoping for deliverance (he must be writing this letter from prison). If he lives he will be of great help to the Philippians, but part of him would rather die and be with Jesus. Since living will be of great service to many people, he is sure Jesus will help him through. He instructs those reading to live a worthy life whether or not he returns.
There are a few things in this section that jumped out at me, both good and bad. One thing is that he is putting the good of someone else above his own wishes, that is certainly a good thing. On the other hand, his desire that he is overcoming is a wish to die and be with Jesus. This is a danger of preaching a paradise after death, if you are going through hard times, why not just hope to die and be in a better place? If that possibility isn't in your mind I think you'd be more apt to focus your attention on making your situation better. To be fair, in this instance he is in prison so there are probably not a whole lot of opportunities for him to make things better for himself, but this impulse is a danger outside of this particular situation.
The wishful thinking also bothers me a little bit. He thinks Jesus would want him to get out of prison and help these people, so he's just convinced it will happen. Again, he's in prison so there's probably not a whole lot he can do, but this mentality in everyday life could keep people from being proactive about improving their lives. "If Jesus wants this for me he'll make it happen." How many times have you heard statements along those lines?
For the overview post (If you think I should add or remove stuff from this list please let me know, I think it would make good conversation)
Good:
1:9 Encourage good things for other people
1:24-25 Put other's needs above your own
Bad:
1:18 The bottom line is all that matters
1:23 Death is better than life, I wish I was dead
1:24-25 Wishful thinking
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Ephesians Overview
As I have explained in the past, one of the reasons I am doing this blog is I am curious to see what kind of messages one might get from reading the bible. What might one learn as a take-away. Here is my quick summary of the good and bad from Ephesians.
(note: the chapter link takes you to my page on that chapter, the verse link takes you to the verse on biblestudytools.com)
Good:
2:8-9 Don't boast about being among the saved
4:2 encourages humility, gentleness, and patience
4:25 Don't lie
4:31-32 avoid bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and slander. Be kind, tenderhearted and forgiving.
5:1-2 Imitate the best things about Jesus
6:1-4 Encourage families to get along
Bad:
1:5,11 Who is and isn't a Christian is predestined by God (note: this is bad because of hell)
4:19,22 If you are not a Christian you are evil
5:3,5 encourages fear and repression of sex
5:4 no dirty jokes
5:18 no wine
5:22-23 misogynist garbage
6:5-9 slavery is fine as long as masters stop threatening their slaves
Noteworthy: (I'm not sure if this fits in good or bad, but I might want to reference it later)
4:26-27 don't go to bed angry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
