It’s right behind you. You’re running as fast as you can. But not fast enough. It sinks its foul teeth into your neck. You scream, but you cannot. You wake up. It was only a nightmare.
“What do you mean only a nightmare,” you should ask. Wasn’t the horror real? Surely the cold sweat proves that at least some part of you was in terrible torment moments before waking. But as soon as you see that it isn’t real, it’s better. The memory may linger, but the suffering is gone.
I’m not quite sure why it’s better when you wake up. For other things where the ‘suffering is gone,’ like a past trauma, it’s certainly possible for it not to be better. But nightmares, where you have experienced horrific losses, embarrassments, and died many times over, don’t often have the same sort of power.
I don’t know the mechanism, but I know the effect. In the presence of reality, that which is ethereal passes away as unimportant. Perhaps this is what happens in Eternity. Suffering really happened, as nightmares did, but it doesn’t matter anymore.
In the Lord of the Rings, Sam has this feeling at the end of the book; when he sees Gandalf he asks, “Is everything sad going to come untrue?” I think the answer is, “Yes.”
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Self and Its Brain
We had a lecture today on “Neuroethics,” and the topic of dualism was briefly touched on, but in a manner which was rather disturbing.
Dualism, as described by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is, “…the theory that the mental and the physical — or mind and body or mind and brain — are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing.” This is the view that has been traditionally held by the majority of people, and the view that most easily allows one to believe in an immortal soul (so obviously favored by religious folks through the ages). At least it’s a valid theory, right?
Well, not according to what we learned today in lecture.
The strength of the rejection was jarring. I thought it was a legitimate theory. Nope. It’s “some magical method.” But because of the strength of rejection, I was forced to second-guess myself. So I did a bit of research. Who supported it?
I did not expect what I found. Beyond the usual suspects who are way too smart to count for anything (people like Aristotle, Augustine, Plato, Aquinas, Descartes), dualism found support among a very impressive list of scientists and philosophers in the twentieth century. There are strong supporters even in Neuroscience itself.
And I’m not talking about fringe characters. I’m talking about people who laid the foundations of neuroscience. A dualist (Sherrington) won the Nobel Prize for "discoveries regarding the functions of neurons” in 1932. I’d say neurons are pretty important to neuroscience. A decade later, Sherrington wrote a book called “Man on his Nature” expressing dualism. Another dualist named Eccles got the Nobel Prize in 1963 for figuring out how synapses worked and then went on to defend dualism the rest of his life. Later in his life, he worked with a famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper. Popper was hugely influential in our modern understanding of science (he introduced the idea of science having to be ‘falsifiable’). Popper and Eccles published, “The Self and its Brain” in 1977 defending dualism.
It’s hard for me to imagine a better list of advocates for my position: the most important philosopher of science last century, the guy who discovered neurons, and the guy who figured out synapses. Of course there are others. Jeffry Schwartz, a Psychiatrist at UCLA is treating people with OCD according to the philosophy that the mind is not just the brain. Roger Penrose, a giant in mathematical physics, argues for the inadequacy of physics to explain consciousness. Daniel Robinson, a brilliant scholar trained both in philosophy and neuroscience (and who co-authored a book with Eccles), speaks and writes extensively on this topic.
If such brilliant people support it, why is there such opposition? Robinson offers one possible reason, “It would be naive to ignore one fundamental difference between that world [of Sherrington] and the present: the gargantuan monetary stakes and associated perquisites on offer to those who can make and keep the brain sciences big science. There is so much of all this to go round that even philosophers of the right sort stand to gain.” In other words, you can get huge grants to investigate ‘the neurological cause of crime,’ only so long as crime is a brain state. If human responsibility exists beyond the brain, you can’t study it with expensive fMRI machines.
Are all modern philosophers against dualism? According to SEP, the answer is ‘No’: “Amongst mainstream philosophers, discontent with physicalism led to a modest revival of property dualism in the last decade of the twentieth century.” So I am satisfied. If I looked around on my side and saw nobody (as was suggested was the case by our lecturer today), I would be concerned. But indeed the case is reversed. On this philosophical question, I have all on my side but most modern scientists and some philosophers, whose views are severely biased by preexisting commitments to Materialism and money. Even the agnostic founders of neuroscience agree with me. Indeed, as the SEP entry on dualism describes, “although dualism has been out of fashion … the argument is by no means over.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ - Most of my references come from here.
Dualism, as described by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is, “…the theory that the mental and the physical — or mind and body or mind and brain — are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing.” This is the view that has been traditionally held by the majority of people, and the view that most easily allows one to believe in an immortal soul (so obviously favored by religious folks through the ages). At least it’s a valid theory, right?
Well, not according to what we learned today in lecture.
"The whole universe of your perceptions, your thoughts, your actions, your intentions, your motives your purposes, it's neurons giving off and taking up packets of neurotransmitters, and that's pretty much all there is...The “I” that they experience is really just dopamine and serotonin and other stuff being given off and picked up, and ions going in and ions coming out.... There's certainly no scientific evidence for dualism, for the idea that there's a little homunculus someplace, incorporeal, not physical, that somehow through some magical method connects to your brain, but that it is you and your brain isn't. Your mind, as far as we can tell, is what your brain does."
The strength of the rejection was jarring. I thought it was a legitimate theory. Nope. It’s “some magical method.” But because of the strength of rejection, I was forced to second-guess myself. So I did a bit of research. Who supported it?
I did not expect what I found. Beyond the usual suspects who are way too smart to count for anything (people like Aristotle, Augustine, Plato, Aquinas, Descartes), dualism found support among a very impressive list of scientists and philosophers in the twentieth century. There are strong supporters even in Neuroscience itself.
And I’m not talking about fringe characters. I’m talking about people who laid the foundations of neuroscience. A dualist (Sherrington) won the Nobel Prize for "discoveries regarding the functions of neurons” in 1932. I’d say neurons are pretty important to neuroscience. A decade later, Sherrington wrote a book called “Man on his Nature” expressing dualism. Another dualist named Eccles got the Nobel Prize in 1963 for figuring out how synapses worked and then went on to defend dualism the rest of his life. Later in his life, he worked with a famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper. Popper was hugely influential in our modern understanding of science (he introduced the idea of science having to be ‘falsifiable’). Popper and Eccles published, “The Self and its Brain” in 1977 defending dualism.
It’s hard for me to imagine a better list of advocates for my position: the most important philosopher of science last century, the guy who discovered neurons, and the guy who figured out synapses. Of course there are others. Jeffry Schwartz, a Psychiatrist at UCLA is treating people with OCD according to the philosophy that the mind is not just the brain. Roger Penrose, a giant in mathematical physics, argues for the inadequacy of physics to explain consciousness. Daniel Robinson, a brilliant scholar trained both in philosophy and neuroscience (and who co-authored a book with Eccles), speaks and writes extensively on this topic.
If such brilliant people support it, why is there such opposition? Robinson offers one possible reason, “It would be naive to ignore one fundamental difference between that world [of Sherrington] and the present: the gargantuan monetary stakes and associated perquisites on offer to those who can make and keep the brain sciences big science. There is so much of all this to go round that even philosophers of the right sort stand to gain.” In other words, you can get huge grants to investigate ‘the neurological cause of crime,’ only so long as crime is a brain state. If human responsibility exists beyond the brain, you can’t study it with expensive fMRI machines.
Are all modern philosophers against dualism? According to SEP, the answer is ‘No’: “Amongst mainstream philosophers, discontent with physicalism led to a modest revival of property dualism in the last decade of the twentieth century.” So I am satisfied. If I looked around on my side and saw nobody (as was suggested was the case by our lecturer today), I would be concerned. But indeed the case is reversed. On this philosophical question, I have all on my side but most modern scientists and some philosophers, whose views are severely biased by preexisting commitments to Materialism and money. Even the agnostic founders of neuroscience agree with me. Indeed, as the SEP entry on dualism describes, “although dualism has been out of fashion … the argument is by no means over.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ - Most of my references come from here.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Proposition X
What if Proposition X was on the ballot? It would take volunteers from the overcrowded prisons to work on the San Andreas fault. The evidence shows that it would greatly benefit California. It would turnaround the economy, lower crime, reduce prison overcrowding and best of all, reduce the frequency of minor earthquakes which were costly to our infrastructure. On first glance, the naïve voter would surely vote Yes on X. But the opponents of X come out and show that with all the good, it will cost the lives of 1000 Californian inmates, many of whom were imprisoned for non-violent crimes and some of whom that may be wrongly imprisoned.
How would we make this decision? Even if we agree on the facts of the situation, what is the moral thing to do? What is the good thing to do? Is there a difference?
My position is that this, like almost all political matters, is an amoral issue. The “Yes on X” and “No on X” are both supporting their side for good moral reason: for California and for inmates. Their intents are good. There’s nothing immoral with allowing people to voluntarily work a dangerous job. There’s nothing immoral with not doing a public works project. Moreover, the foundations for our moral beliefs are difficult to discuss, particularly in public. What is accessible and much easier to discuss is the amoral (that is, not regarding morality) facts of the situation.
Benefits: Good commerce, better infrastructure, less prison overcrowding
Costs: 1000 deaths
We’d need to discuss which of two possible societies is better. We’d need to weight the lives of 1000 volunteer inmates against the good that will come from the work project. We can be Society A, which allows a few people to choose dangerous jobs for the benefit of all of us or Society B, which values the lives of its citizens so highly that it does not permit them to take such jobs, even though it is costly to all. I hold that we are almost always choosing between two amoral ends and trying to determine which makes for the best society. Certainly there are exceptions. There are no two ways about the Holocaust. Slavery is not an amoral issue (though even Lincoln saw it that way at times). But most everything else in politics falls into a moral gray area in my own worldview. When we make laws, we ought to talk about what we agree on (Society A vs. Society B) and not taking our own position to be the moral one and condemning those who disagree. At least this is how I think we’ll get things done. We can judge each other in the privacy of our own homes.
It is from that framework I’d like to reconsider Prop 8. I guess this is a little late to be directly relevant, but I had a very stimulating conversation gay marriage about an hour ago and felt inspired to write. The central question in my mind was “What is good for society?” In considering Prop 8, the conservative thinking (not Libertarian, which I tend to be…I’ll pretend to be a conservative for the purposes of this paper) supporting Prop 8 goes something like this:
Benefits: Stronger families.
Costs: Perception (though not reality) of disenfranchisement against gays.
My friend saw the world this way:
Benefits: None.
Costs: Weaker families; true and terrible disenfranchisement/discrimination; assault on the gay identity and worldview; massive increase in suicide and depression.
So who’s right? I think both sides exaggerate, but I think both sides are partly right. It made me reconsider the cost. I didn’t think the costs were high, myself not being deep within a social network that the proposition would affect. My accounting of the cost was much closer to the conservative position.
But what if I miscalculated the cost? Even assuming I’m right about the benefits, what if the costs were closer to my friend’s estimation? What if the cost of “stronger families” was 1000 additional suicides by people who felt disenfranchised? It would change the equation even if we assumed these deaths were collateral (that is, non-malicious; an unintended consequence). Clearly if we were considering “executing 1000 gays” for the sake of “stronger families,” then this would be one of the few clear-cut moral issues in politics. But as it is an unintended consequence (if this remained an amoral issue), the deaths (assuming they were real; I haven’t seen the data) would still need to be considered in the “Cost” section of the analysis.
Another miscalculation I made was in failing to properly put myself in the position of another. I naïvely thought, “How would I feel if I were in their shoes?” I thought about it like this: for many gays, their core identity is their sexual orientation; my core identity is a Christian. What if people told me, a Christian, I could not have legal marriage status and could not practice my religion in public. Would I care deeply? Would it affect my identity? No, not at all. I don’t know if I’d be like the disciples in Acts 5:41 who were “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name,” but I wouldn’t be all that sad. My identity is based on God, not on the opinions of men. The important part of my religious practice is in private alone and in small groups anyways. I’d still illegally “get married” in private and know my wife (in the Biblical sense :)) in my bedroom. It’d be tough, but as a Christian, that’s what I signed up for (and what we get blessings for enduring). (And as an aside: I did sign up for Christianity when I was about 12; a personal decision independent of parents or tradition is a key element of Protestantism, especially today).
And that is where I made my mistake. I imputed my disregard for legal status upon others for whom legal status (or more likely, “social acceptance,” legal status being symbolic of acceptance) is supremely important. I projected my indifference (or mild desire for) persecution upon others who do not see it the same way.
So with these two adjustments, my analysis becomes this:
Benefits: Stronger families
Costs: Terrible feelings of disenfranchisement, increased gay suicide rate
My friend said, “You would not hold the beliefs that you do if you had more gay friends.” I said he may be right. I now know why: talking to those who would be most affected would help me better estimate the cost of such a bill. My perception suffers from not having many friends out of the closet.
I don’t know the final answer or the ultimate benefit of Prop 8, but I do know that I make a mistake in calculating the cost. If only this argument were made to me rationally instead of calling me an immoral bigot from an arbitrary moral framework, I might have changed my vote.
How would we make this decision? Even if we agree on the facts of the situation, what is the moral thing to do? What is the good thing to do? Is there a difference?
My position is that this, like almost all political matters, is an amoral issue. The “Yes on X” and “No on X” are both supporting their side for good moral reason: for California and for inmates. Their intents are good. There’s nothing immoral with allowing people to voluntarily work a dangerous job. There’s nothing immoral with not doing a public works project. Moreover, the foundations for our moral beliefs are difficult to discuss, particularly in public. What is accessible and much easier to discuss is the amoral (that is, not regarding morality) facts of the situation.
Benefits: Good commerce, better infrastructure, less prison overcrowding
Costs: 1000 deaths
We’d need to discuss which of two possible societies is better. We’d need to weight the lives of 1000 volunteer inmates against the good that will come from the work project. We can be Society A, which allows a few people to choose dangerous jobs for the benefit of all of us or Society B, which values the lives of its citizens so highly that it does not permit them to take such jobs, even though it is costly to all. I hold that we are almost always choosing between two amoral ends and trying to determine which makes for the best society. Certainly there are exceptions. There are no two ways about the Holocaust. Slavery is not an amoral issue (though even Lincoln saw it that way at times). But most everything else in politics falls into a moral gray area in my own worldview. When we make laws, we ought to talk about what we agree on (Society A vs. Society B) and not taking our own position to be the moral one and condemning those who disagree. At least this is how I think we’ll get things done. We can judge each other in the privacy of our own homes.
It is from that framework I’d like to reconsider Prop 8. I guess this is a little late to be directly relevant, but I had a very stimulating conversation gay marriage about an hour ago and felt inspired to write. The central question in my mind was “What is good for society?” In considering Prop 8, the conservative thinking (not Libertarian, which I tend to be…I’ll pretend to be a conservative for the purposes of this paper) supporting Prop 8 goes something like this:
Benefits: Stronger families.
Costs: Perception (though not reality) of disenfranchisement against gays.
My friend saw the world this way:
Benefits: None.
Costs: Weaker families; true and terrible disenfranchisement/discrimination; assault on the gay identity and worldview; massive increase in suicide and depression.
So who’s right? I think both sides exaggerate, but I think both sides are partly right. It made me reconsider the cost. I didn’t think the costs were high, myself not being deep within a social network that the proposition would affect. My accounting of the cost was much closer to the conservative position.
But what if I miscalculated the cost? Even assuming I’m right about the benefits, what if the costs were closer to my friend’s estimation? What if the cost of “stronger families” was 1000 additional suicides by people who felt disenfranchised? It would change the equation even if we assumed these deaths were collateral (that is, non-malicious; an unintended consequence). Clearly if we were considering “executing 1000 gays” for the sake of “stronger families,” then this would be one of the few clear-cut moral issues in politics. But as it is an unintended consequence (if this remained an amoral issue), the deaths (assuming they were real; I haven’t seen the data) would still need to be considered in the “Cost” section of the analysis.
Another miscalculation I made was in failing to properly put myself in the position of another. I naïvely thought, “How would I feel if I were in their shoes?” I thought about it like this: for many gays, their core identity is their sexual orientation; my core identity is a Christian. What if people told me, a Christian, I could not have legal marriage status and could not practice my religion in public. Would I care deeply? Would it affect my identity? No, not at all. I don’t know if I’d be like the disciples in Acts 5:41 who were “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name,” but I wouldn’t be all that sad. My identity is based on God, not on the opinions of men. The important part of my religious practice is in private alone and in small groups anyways. I’d still illegally “get married” in private and know my wife (in the Biblical sense :)) in my bedroom. It’d be tough, but as a Christian, that’s what I signed up for (and what we get blessings for enduring). (And as an aside: I did sign up for Christianity when I was about 12; a personal decision independent of parents or tradition is a key element of Protestantism, especially today).
And that is where I made my mistake. I imputed my disregard for legal status upon others for whom legal status (or more likely, “social acceptance,” legal status being symbolic of acceptance) is supremely important. I projected my indifference (or mild desire for) persecution upon others who do not see it the same way.
So with these two adjustments, my analysis becomes this:
Benefits: Stronger families
Costs: Terrible feelings of disenfranchisement, increased gay suicide rate
My friend said, “You would not hold the beliefs that you do if you had more gay friends.” I said he may be right. I now know why: talking to those who would be most affected would help me better estimate the cost of such a bill. My perception suffers from not having many friends out of the closet.
I don’t know the final answer or the ultimate benefit of Prop 8, but I do know that I make a mistake in calculating the cost. If only this argument were made to me rationally instead of calling me an immoral bigot from an arbitrary moral framework, I might have changed my vote.
The Core of Christianity
[For Christians...and interested Jews]
I was considering “the Gospel”. I considered the question in isolation. I wanted to find out how the Bible defined the Gospel without ulterior motives or plans to write this. After reading through the a dozen key verses that talk about ‘good news,’ I settled on 3 core truths (with 2 additional sub-points) about the Gospel. After an exhaustive reading of verses that use “Gospel,” I decided that I needed to add two more. And that the 2 sub-points were worthy of promotion to ‘core truth’ status. So I ended up with 7 core truths that seem common to definitions (and passages about) the Gospel (even though I’m prone to trying to make things fit patterns like that, this one was certainly not consciously designed). I found four verses which I believe are the only ‘definitional’ verses on the Gospel (that is, those which say something like, “The Gospel is…”) and based my list of 7 core doctrines on these: 1Ch 16:23-5, Isa 52:7-9, Rom 1:16-17, 1Cr 15:1-9. (See previous entry)
Independently, I’ve been considering what is the core of the message of God? What cannot be taken out of Christianity and it still be Christianity? I was having a very interesting conversation with a friend on Paul’s strategy for planting churches: very sloppy. They didn’t have perfect doctrine by the time he left. He had to work it out from a distance years later. What, then, were the churches he founded based on?
As God usually does, it seems these independent thoughts didn’t stay that way. I had never really thought of the “good news” as being central, which is silly when you think about the core texts being called ‘Gospels’. Perhaps by trying to define “Gospel,” I stumbled across the non-negotiables. Everyone seems to have their own list of things you need to believe/do to be saved. So here’s mine:
1. God is great.
2. Yahweh is Salvation (translates to “Jesus”).
3. We will live by faith.
4. God loves Israel and will be faithful.
5. God loves the Gentiles, too.
6. The scriptures confirm the above.
7. We should declare #1-6
Conspicuously present is ‘Israel;’ conspicuously absent is ‘obedience’ (both of which are good cult litmus tests. “Israel’s not Israel, we’re Israel!” and “Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t enough for salvation!” are two dead giveaways... though this is a high sensitivity and low specificity test). The Christology is not as developed as in most Christian statements of faith, but the cross-scriptural message is the same: Yahweh is Salvation. Whether you lived late enough to know that God meant that literally (that some dude would take on that name and be the very provision by which God would bring about salvation), or like Abraham, you just believed in the fact without knowing the mechanism. I’ve come to the conclusion that “The Gospel,” could have been preached by Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah, John (or his remnant disciples in Acts), Jesus (pre-crucifixion) or Paul (post-resurrection). The message has never changed; we just have details added.
Like I said, I didn’t set out to come up with a list need-to-believes. But this looks about right. The core doctrines of Christianity are all here, albeit with some shifts in emphasis (compared to what a seminary student would produce).
Perhaps these represent the core of the faith. Are these elements truly the central ones? In my next entry, I plan to look at sermons by Paul, Peter and Jesus to see if these seven elements are indeed common to their preaching.
I was considering “the Gospel”. I considered the question in isolation. I wanted to find out how the Bible defined the Gospel without ulterior motives or plans to write this. After reading through the a dozen key verses that talk about ‘good news,’ I settled on 3 core truths (with 2 additional sub-points) about the Gospel. After an exhaustive reading of verses that use “Gospel,” I decided that I needed to add two more. And that the 2 sub-points were worthy of promotion to ‘core truth’ status. So I ended up with 7 core truths that seem common to definitions (and passages about) the Gospel (even though I’m prone to trying to make things fit patterns like that, this one was certainly not consciously designed). I found four verses which I believe are the only ‘definitional’ verses on the Gospel (that is, those which say something like, “The Gospel is…”) and based my list of 7 core doctrines on these: 1Ch 16:23-5, Isa 52:7-9, Rom 1:16-17, 1Cr 15:1-9. (See previous entry)
Independently, I’ve been considering what is the core of the message of God? What cannot be taken out of Christianity and it still be Christianity? I was having a very interesting conversation with a friend on Paul’s strategy for planting churches: very sloppy. They didn’t have perfect doctrine by the time he left. He had to work it out from a distance years later. What, then, were the churches he founded based on?
As God usually does, it seems these independent thoughts didn’t stay that way. I had never really thought of the “good news” as being central, which is silly when you think about the core texts being called ‘Gospels’. Perhaps by trying to define “Gospel,” I stumbled across the non-negotiables. Everyone seems to have their own list of things you need to believe/do to be saved. So here’s mine:
1. God is great.
2. Yahweh is Salvation (translates to “Jesus”).
3. We will live by faith.
4. God loves Israel and will be faithful.
5. God loves the Gentiles, too.
6. The scriptures confirm the above.
7. We should declare #1-6
Conspicuously present is ‘Israel;’ conspicuously absent is ‘obedience’ (both of which are good cult litmus tests. “Israel’s not Israel, we’re Israel!” and “Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t enough for salvation!” are two dead giveaways... though this is a high sensitivity and low specificity test). The Christology is not as developed as in most Christian statements of faith, but the cross-scriptural message is the same: Yahweh is Salvation. Whether you lived late enough to know that God meant that literally (that some dude would take on that name and be the very provision by which God would bring about salvation), or like Abraham, you just believed in the fact without knowing the mechanism. I’ve come to the conclusion that “The Gospel,” could have been preached by Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah, John (or his remnant disciples in Acts), Jesus (pre-crucifixion) or Paul (post-resurrection). The message has never changed; we just have details added.
Like I said, I didn’t set out to come up with a list need-to-believes. But this looks about right. The core doctrines of Christianity are all here, albeit with some shifts in emphasis (compared to what a seminary student would produce).
Perhaps these represent the core of the faith. Are these elements truly the central ones? In my next entry, I plan to look at sermons by Paul, Peter and Jesus to see if these seven elements are indeed common to their preaching.
What is the Gospel?
[For Christians]
A survey of selected verses
The following searches were done using the search engine BlueLetterBible.org and searching the word “Gospel” in the KJV NT and the Hebrew word “Basar” in the OT (Strong’s # 1319) because the KJV doesn’t use the word “gospel”. The list is not exhaustive. I tried to be as objective as I could be in excluding verses that didn’t apply (e.g. the good news of Saul’s death), were not clarifying (i.e. verses I did not understand). Verses were also excluded if they were along in describing a detail of the Gospel or if there were not enough to support promotion of an element to a ‘common element’ or essential part of the Gospel. For example, there were a few verses that spoke of disobedience of the Gospel that I excluded; I did not think that ‘obedience’ was one of the most important essential parts of the Gospel (absent in the definitions, only a few verses support it). Obedience is indeed a part, but not an essential part. As with any selected survey of verses, the author’s bias and preconceived ideas remain. The reader is encouraged to do the search herself to corroborate or contradict these results.
Vocabulary
Usage
There are explicit definitions for the “good news” or “the Gospel” in I Chronicles, Isaiah, Romans and I Corinthians. In my reading of the scriptures, these four definitions contain seven common elements.
A mystery revealed: once hidden but now revealed. Given plainly; not in wise words or flattery. Obedience is an important element. A fulfillment of promise. These did not come up as consistently as the seven. Definitional Verses
Other Verses
A survey of selected verses
The following searches were done using the search engine BlueLetterBible.org and searching the word “Gospel” in the KJV NT and the Hebrew word “Basar” in the OT (Strong’s # 1319) because the KJV doesn’t use the word “gospel”. The list is not exhaustive. I tried to be as objective as I could be in excluding verses that didn’t apply (e.g. the good news of Saul’s death), were not clarifying (i.e. verses I did not understand). Verses were also excluded if they were along in describing a detail of the Gospel or if there were not enough to support promotion of an element to a ‘common element’ or essential part of the Gospel. For example, there were a few verses that spoke of disobedience of the Gospel that I excluded; I did not think that ‘obedience’ was one of the most important essential parts of the Gospel (absent in the definitions, only a few verses support it). Obedience is indeed a part, but not an essential part. As with any selected survey of verses, the author’s bias and preconceived ideas remain. The reader is encouraged to do the search herself to corroborate or contradict these results.
1) to bear news, bear tidings, publish, preach, show forth
εὐαγγέλιον euaggelion
1) a reward for good tidings 2) good tidings
εὐαγγέλιον euaggelion
1) a reward for good tidings 2) good tidings
Jesus uses a word translated "Gospel" only 11 times (3 in Matthew, 6 in Mark, 2 in Luke, 0 in John). It is used in the Gospels 17 times (as in “Jesus preached the gospel”). This may be good reason to look elsewhere for a concise definition. Paul, for example, discusses the Gospel extensively (Paul uses the word 75 times, 13 times in Romans alone). Mathew, Mark, Luke, John certainly contain the Gospel, but offer no concise or explicit definition.
1. God’s glory (esp. attributes of holiness, righteousness, strength; relative to other gods)
2. Receiving and declaring (seeing, proclaiming, singing, declaring, praising, witnessing; usually joyful)
3. Salvation and reward (via resurrection)
4. Redemption of Israel
5. Redemption of all people/All nations/Heathen
6. Faith, fear, belief in/of God
7. The word (the Truth; the promise; consistent with the scriptures).
A mystery revealed: once hidden but now revealed. Given plainly; not in wise words or flattery. Obedience is an important element. A fulfillment of promise. These did not come up as consistently as the seven.
Definitional Verses
(Italics indicates the use of the word “basar” in the OT or “euaggelion” in the NT)
1Ch 16:23-5 Sing unto the LORD, all the earth; shew forth from day to day his salvation. Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among all nations. For great [is] the LORD, and greatly to be praised: he also [is] to be feared above all gods. [5/7 of the common elements]
Isa 52:7-9 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. [6/7 of the common elements]
Rom 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. [7/7 of the common elements]
1Cr 15:1-9 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. [5/7 of the common elements]
Other Verses
(Italics indicates the use of the word “basar” in the OT or “euaggelion” in the NT)
Psa 40:9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.
Psa 96:2-4 Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day. Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people. For the LORD [is] great, and greatly to be praised: he [is] to be feared above all gods.
Isa 40:9-11 O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift [it] up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong [hand], and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward [is] with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry [them] in his bosom, [and] shall gently lead those that are with young.
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Rom 10:13-17 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 16:25-27 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, [be] glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Gal 3:8-9 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Col 1:23,26,27 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; …[Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Hbr 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Eulogy of Wolf
Wolf is dead. My good friend is dead. His violent and turbulent life ended peacefully this week.
The first part of Wolf’s story is one of darkness and violence. He was a Hell’s Angel and wielded terrible power over those around him. His life was a kaleidoscope of guns, sex, drugs and the occult. He was a violent and selfish man. It was here that Steven Johnson became “Wolf.” His nickname was appropriate, for all his life he would be aggressive and never well-mannered.
His life of violence made him many enemies. One night, he knew that men were coming to kill him. He turned his home into a fortress, and armed himself for a last stand. He feared death. But he would not die that night. That night he would find True Life. He accidentally turned on the TV. The channel was TBN, and the preacher pointed to him and said he needed Jesus to forgive his sins.
Then he saw a light from heaven and he audibly heard the voice of God. He felt a warmth that started in his belly and radiated thorough his body even to the tips of his fingers. His eyes became as fountains, and he wept so that his long beard was soaked with tears. That moment, he walked out of the house, literally leaving his old life and its problems behind him.
He quickly became a powerful man of God. Upon acquiring a King James Bible, he went to a coffee shop and read through it cover to cover in a few days, barely sleeping. And from that moment on, he would live such a life of adventure as to make any hero seem a coward.
He once had a gun bag that he’d fill with many pounds of tracts and Bibles. He would fast for days on end until he had distributed them all. The police once warned him that the particular neighborhood he was in was extremely dangerous for white people; he said he didn’t care and entered anyways. His entrance attracted the local gangs to come and threaten him. But he preached the Gospel to them, and not a few were convicted of their sins and prayed for forgiveness
There were many other stories of exorcisms, poltergeists, and mighty acts of the Spirit. He took jobs in logging, construction, body-guarding and other equally manly vocations.
Later, he led a home for adolescent boys with problems. To hear of his love for those kids was heart-warming. He really cared for those who were so much like him: aggressive, angry and energetic with no positive outlet. He gave them an outlet. He taught them exercise and martial arts. He directed their anger at their own sin and Satan, and their energy to good works.
But one day, he brought a black boy into the church, and this went against the deepest, darkest racist sentiments of the church leaders. It became such an issue (tact was never one of Wolf’s talents), he was fired from his live-in position and so also evicted. He vowed then that, though his belief in Christ was firm, he would never set foot in a church again. After this, he was hit by a Cadillac Escalade, permanently injuring his back and afflicting him with great pain from which he would not have a reprieve for the rest of his life.
He became homeless. His lost job, his injury, and the depression that ensued kept him on the street. The harsh conditions of the street aggravated his difficulty breathing (COPD), the result of a lifetime of smoking. Soon, the street became his home. Abandoned by his church family, and still estranged from his natural family because of his early life, his family became the homeless of his home town: Westwood. Alienated from the rest of the world, his social circle was limited to others who had (or would have) mental problems. He struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts.
Then something incredible happened. He began praying for a church. And then one opened literally across the street from where he slept every night. Shoreline Community Church, after a series of moves, had settled on the Broxton theater. And Shoreline had a heart to reach West LA. All of it. The poor along with the rich. And so people from the church began to befriend Wolf.
He became a part of our family. He went on our family outings (including our men’s retreat and our church picnics). He slept on our couches on particularly cold and rainy nights. We bought him food, and (embarrassingly) he bought us food. He once insisted (and believe me, it’s hard to dissuade him from a thing once he sets his mind on it) on buying food for a barbeque. I’ll never forget what he said that day, with more than a dozen of us gathered to eat steak the homeless man purchased for us with his EBT (food stamps). Someone asked him what he liked with his steak. He replied heartily, “More steak!” He encouraged us and we encouraged him.
Who was Wolf to me? He was one of my good friends the last two years of college. My first conversations with him were simply out of duty. I ought to lower myself to talk with him; I ought to condescend to the poor sinner (He was a sinner, after all; he had a bad mouth; and he drank alcohol). I did not then consider that he may be closer to God than I was.
I am clean person outwardly; a friend (slightly drunk) once addressed me as, “David Carreon! The F***ing Messiah!” And this foul-mouthed, irreverent, racist homeless man taught me, a test-acing, bright-futured, spotless goodie-two-shoes. Truly, I learned many important lessons through God’s servant Wolf.
He inspired me to courage. I may not risk my life as he had, but I certainly could risk my reputation. I may not have the spiritual strength to cast out demons, but I could contend for my faith. Before I knew Wolf, I considered myself among the bravest of spiritual men. He showed me just how far I have to go.
He challenged me to spiritual discipline. This man prayed for me every night from under a pile of cardboard. He read his Bible every day though he was driven from every table he ever limped to. And what did I do? I didn’t even read my Bible 15 minutes on an oaken table in a warm room. And I didn’t pray for him. And he was the one that was needy. Or was he?
He taught me humility. How could I complain about anything when I had a bed? I helped him construct his home of cardboard behind the CitiBank in Westwood a few times. I felt the looks of scorn and the people crossing to avoid coming within ten feet of he and I. I shared in a drop of his tribulation.
He taught me faith. Through the cold of the street, the pain of his back, and an illness which left him often gasping for breath, he struggled with depression. But never would he forget his savior; he never lost the hope of glory. His strength to continue living wavered at times, but his faith never did. He was assured of his salvation, and now stands before the One in whom he trusted.
“Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” I always thought Jesus was talking about me, a spiritually humble person. I thought, “Mine is the Kingdom of Heaven.” But I think this better applies to Wolf than to me. He was poor. He was blessed. And now, his is the Kingdom of Heaven.
The first part of Wolf’s story is one of darkness and violence. He was a Hell’s Angel and wielded terrible power over those around him. His life was a kaleidoscope of guns, sex, drugs and the occult. He was a violent and selfish man. It was here that Steven Johnson became “Wolf.” His nickname was appropriate, for all his life he would be aggressive and never well-mannered.
His life of violence made him many enemies. One night, he knew that men were coming to kill him. He turned his home into a fortress, and armed himself for a last stand. He feared death. But he would not die that night. That night he would find True Life. He accidentally turned on the TV. The channel was TBN, and the preacher pointed to him and said he needed Jesus to forgive his sins.
Then he saw a light from heaven and he audibly heard the voice of God. He felt a warmth that started in his belly and radiated thorough his body even to the tips of his fingers. His eyes became as fountains, and he wept so that his long beard was soaked with tears. That moment, he walked out of the house, literally leaving his old life and its problems behind him.
He quickly became a powerful man of God. Upon acquiring a King James Bible, he went to a coffee shop and read through it cover to cover in a few days, barely sleeping. And from that moment on, he would live such a life of adventure as to make any hero seem a coward.
He once had a gun bag that he’d fill with many pounds of tracts and Bibles. He would fast for days on end until he had distributed them all. The police once warned him that the particular neighborhood he was in was extremely dangerous for white people; he said he didn’t care and entered anyways. His entrance attracted the local gangs to come and threaten him. But he preached the Gospel to them, and not a few were convicted of their sins and prayed for forgiveness
There were many other stories of exorcisms, poltergeists, and mighty acts of the Spirit. He took jobs in logging, construction, body-guarding and other equally manly vocations.
Later, he led a home for adolescent boys with problems. To hear of his love for those kids was heart-warming. He really cared for those who were so much like him: aggressive, angry and energetic with no positive outlet. He gave them an outlet. He taught them exercise and martial arts. He directed their anger at their own sin and Satan, and their energy to good works.
But one day, he brought a black boy into the church, and this went against the deepest, darkest racist sentiments of the church leaders. It became such an issue (tact was never one of Wolf’s talents), he was fired from his live-in position and so also evicted. He vowed then that, though his belief in Christ was firm, he would never set foot in a church again. After this, he was hit by a Cadillac Escalade, permanently injuring his back and afflicting him with great pain from which he would not have a reprieve for the rest of his life.
He became homeless. His lost job, his injury, and the depression that ensued kept him on the street. The harsh conditions of the street aggravated his difficulty breathing (COPD), the result of a lifetime of smoking. Soon, the street became his home. Abandoned by his church family, and still estranged from his natural family because of his early life, his family became the homeless of his home town: Westwood. Alienated from the rest of the world, his social circle was limited to others who had (or would have) mental problems. He struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts.
Then something incredible happened. He began praying for a church. And then one opened literally across the street from where he slept every night. Shoreline Community Church, after a series of moves, had settled on the Broxton theater. And Shoreline had a heart to reach West LA. All of it. The poor along with the rich. And so people from the church began to befriend Wolf.
He became a part of our family. He went on our family outings (including our men’s retreat and our church picnics). He slept on our couches on particularly cold and rainy nights. We bought him food, and (embarrassingly) he bought us food. He once insisted (and believe me, it’s hard to dissuade him from a thing once he sets his mind on it) on buying food for a barbeque. I’ll never forget what he said that day, with more than a dozen of us gathered to eat steak the homeless man purchased for us with his EBT (food stamps). Someone asked him what he liked with his steak. He replied heartily, “More steak!” He encouraged us and we encouraged him.
Who was Wolf to me? He was one of my good friends the last two years of college. My first conversations with him were simply out of duty. I ought to lower myself to talk with him; I ought to condescend to the poor sinner (He was a sinner, after all; he had a bad mouth; and he drank alcohol). I did not then consider that he may be closer to God than I was.
I am clean person outwardly; a friend (slightly drunk) once addressed me as, “David Carreon! The F***ing Messiah!” And this foul-mouthed, irreverent, racist homeless man taught me, a test-acing, bright-futured, spotless goodie-two-shoes. Truly, I learned many important lessons through God’s servant Wolf.
He inspired me to courage. I may not risk my life as he had, but I certainly could risk my reputation. I may not have the spiritual strength to cast out demons, but I could contend for my faith. Before I knew Wolf, I considered myself among the bravest of spiritual men. He showed me just how far I have to go.
He challenged me to spiritual discipline. This man prayed for me every night from under a pile of cardboard. He read his Bible every day though he was driven from every table he ever limped to. And what did I do? I didn’t even read my Bible 15 minutes on an oaken table in a warm room. And I didn’t pray for him. And he was the one that was needy. Or was he?
He taught me humility. How could I complain about anything when I had a bed? I helped him construct his home of cardboard behind the CitiBank in Westwood a few times. I felt the looks of scorn and the people crossing to avoid coming within ten feet of he and I. I shared in a drop of his tribulation.
He taught me faith. Through the cold of the street, the pain of his back, and an illness which left him often gasping for breath, he struggled with depression. But never would he forget his savior; he never lost the hope of glory. His strength to continue living wavered at times, but his faith never did. He was assured of his salvation, and now stands before the One in whom he trusted.
“Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” I always thought Jesus was talking about me, a spiritually humble person. I thought, “Mine is the Kingdom of Heaven.” But I think this better applies to Wolf than to me. He was poor. He was blessed. And now, his is the Kingdom of Heaven.
Death
Like a wave, sorrow approaches me. I could clench my jaw and hold back the flow, damming up the emotion. But I keep the floodgates open, and the tears fall and fall.
My brain does not know why I cry. My sorrow is not from thoughts, for they were scattered and confused, like fireworks shooting off brightly in all directions, like a boat tossed on the violent sea of sorrow.
Death reached out and touched my brother in the Spirit this week. The cold like a fell wind penetrates the flesh and the brain to the soul. It puts a weight upon my chest that is not physical.
The spiritual is the deepest darkness of death. Death affects the emotions and the brain: sadness for separation, sorrow for pain suffered. But the blackness, the despair goes deeper than that. It goes to the very essence of my being. This is the fount of these tears.
Why do we find death so difficult? Is not this the way things have always been? Why do we yearn for an exception? Why do we want to escape from this reality of death?
It has not always been this way. And it will not always be this way. There is a memory of eternity. And there is a hope for everlasting life. And this is why we yearn: because we know this truth deeper than we know our own name.
My brain does not know why I cry. My sorrow is not from thoughts, for they were scattered and confused, like fireworks shooting off brightly in all directions, like a boat tossed on the violent sea of sorrow.
Death reached out and touched my brother in the Spirit this week. The cold like a fell wind penetrates the flesh and the brain to the soul. It puts a weight upon my chest that is not physical.
The spiritual is the deepest darkness of death. Death affects the emotions and the brain: sadness for separation, sorrow for pain suffered. But the blackness, the despair goes deeper than that. It goes to the very essence of my being. This is the fount of these tears.
Why do we find death so difficult? Is not this the way things have always been? Why do we yearn for an exception? Why do we want to escape from this reality of death?
It has not always been this way. And it will not always be this way. There is a memory of eternity. And there is a hope for everlasting life. And this is why we yearn: because we know this truth deeper than we know our own name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)