the question of faith

today's readings helped me think of something... why should we believe in something that happened so long ago with only scant archaeological proof today? how do we know if God really did those amazing things in the Old Testament, that Jesus really lived and died as the New Testament described - if we only have some textual proof?

historians may tell you that the Holy Bible represents some of the best preserved ancient texts in the world, with such an abundance of corroborating scripts that the Historicity of Jesus is probably the most textually supported case from ancient times. if we can believe that Socrates, Zheng He, or Alexander the Great existed, then Jesus' existence shd be equally acceptable.

what comes next is whether he really said all he said and did all he did in his 3-years of ministry. this is less textually provable, since details of a person's actions are often embellished by his supporters or detractors according to their whims. this is where having multiple sources from the same era (i.e. near to that person's lifetime) is important: the assumption being that people who have personally met this person or witnessed those events would either corroborate the textual representations or deny them. if a text about a person's life is well-accepted and well-propagated (in those times, replicating any papyrus meant painstakingly preparing the canvas and laboriously copying the text word by word), it is generally taken as reasonable historic proof. this is how we know of Socrates (through Plato's work; he himself never wrote anything), Zheng He's adventures (he is recorded in many different cultures), and Alexander's exploits (vast armies have obeyed him and nations have fallen beneath him; kinda hard for all that to be faked!) - and this is how we come to know Jesus, who was relatively obscure and did not do any travelling or conquering, only a 3-yr ministry around the area of Galilee. the fact that his small footprint in life has generated so much testimony is in itself already unprecedented in history. the rather widespread acceptance of his teachings and even miracles give the strongest possible reason for us, 2000 yrs later today, to accept his work as real on the basis of the ancients' testimony.

next, one naturally tends to ask: why does God not do all that in modern history (i.e. today) when everything can be so reliably preserved for ages to come? if Jesus came today instead, there would almost certainly be no problem proving to non-believers (even aliens) that he is really the Son of God and has performed amazing miracles. yet, this would completely negate the need for Faith - that utter abandonment of the material world, where the spirit needs to struggle in order to find God. providing everlasting physical proof of Jesus' divinity not only drives man to further reliance on material proof, it mat also drive man further away from relying on God's spiritual sustenance - the Word of God, the sacraments, prayer, etc. besides, perhaps if Jesus had not come, we wouldn't even have all the spanking technology we now have - his teachings on spiritual ethics remain a cornerstone of enlightenment and morality, which may be necessary historical precursors to freedom of thought and science itself (in spite of the dark ages!). illogical alternative-history speculation aside, this question remains one which our finite minds and experiences, even as the whole of humanity, may not be able to answer to the fullest satisfaction. we must have the humility and self-awareness to admit this fact.

another way to look at this is how the early christians believed in Jesus after the first few centuries - i.e. why did christians in the middle ages believe Jesus was real? the christians of the first 3 centuries were still chronologically close enough to the event to know someone associated with the disciples of the apostles, so some personal form of testimony was available. what about later on? they did not have the benefit of carbon-dating, the dead sea scrolls, or even the archaeological knowledge! did they simply believe because someone charismatic preached to them? no... i highly doubt it - at least not for the majority of christians, who displayed keen wit, if not outright skepticism. the saints are good examples: many have written lengthy, learned discourses to illustrate their logical understanding of Jesus' teachings. yes, above and beyond human testimony, we all have God's word in Jesus' teachings - which have stood the test of time and centuries of human scrutiny, within and without the Church. his articulations, although familiar beyond pastiche to most humans today, continue to strike our hearts, minds and souls with its clarity, forcefulness, and simple wisdom.

still feeling doubtful? i think it's time you pick up the Bible and flipped thru the Gospel. no doubt, there are portions which may bring some controversy, but those passages aside, the Gospels show remarkable consistency both as historical texts and presentations of teachings and arguments.

i believe because i am sufficiently persuaded in these ways - and i pray that my heart can now be fully converted. praise the Lord for loving us enough to give us free will, so we may choose to follow Him in response to the salvific graces He has given us!

the paradox of man

No man appears in safety before the public eye unless he first relishes obscurity. No man is safe in speaking unless he loves to be silent. No man rules safely unless he is willing to be ruled. No man commands safely unless he has learned well how to obey. No man rejoices safely unless he has within him the testimony of a good conscience.

there is just so much wisdom bursting forth of this little book...

the mind can doubt

the mind can doubt everything... except itself.

before the mind invokes any form of logic to dispute the validity of any argument, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may invoke logic.

before the mind phrases its proposed method of disputing the imagined argument, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may phrase sentences.

before the mind considers its ability to coin sequences of meaning for any imagined purpose, it needs to believe it is capable of doing so - i.e. it must assume it may consider.

albeit seemingly a mere paraphrase of Descartes, this negative postulation - that "i cannot be if i do not think i can be" - is so much more absolute and compelling. it illuminates an ineluctable precursor to human reasoning: that of Belief in Thought. how can one think if one does not believe it possible? and yet, that very thought is, in itself, remarkably self-contradictory! even if i do not believe it possible that i am thinking, another part of me squirms in protest: are you not caught in the very act of "thinking" there and then? it thus seems that the only way to nullify this strident statement is to deceive oneself.

thusly, the entire statement seems to cave in on itself - declaring its self-contained argument rather moot by any standard of scrutiny. yet, one cannot help but revisit this quaint declaration and note that faint scent of Truth: can the non-believer execute that which he does not believe in? can the mind operate if it were to doubt its very existence? would any of this messy collective of verbs and nouns persuade you should you doubt they could?

... could you say "there is a spoon", when you are empty-handed?

more from thomas a kempis.

did you know it was all typed out manually by volunteers, using printed copies as reference?
http://www.ccel.org/newsletter/3/2

The Sixteenth Chapter

Bearing with the Faults of Others

UNTIL God ordains otherwise, a man ought to bear patiently whatever he cannot correct in himself and in others. Consider it better thus—perhaps to try your patience and to test you, for without such patience and trial your merits are of little account. Nevertheless, under such difficulties you should pray that God will consent to help you bear them calmly.

If, after being admonished once or twice, a person does not amend, do not argue with him but commit the whole matter to God that His will and honor may be furthered in all His servants, for God knows well how to turn evil to good. Try to bear patiently with the defects and infirmities of others, whatever they may be, because you also have many a fault which others must endure.

If you cannot make yourself what you would wish to be, how can you bend others to your will? We want them to be perfect, yet we do not correct our own faults. We wish them to be severely corrected, yet we will not correct ourselves. Their great liberty displeases us, yet we would not be denied what we ask. We would have them bound by laws, yet we will allow ourselves to be restrained in nothing. Hence, it is clear how seldom we think of others as we do of ourselves.

If all were perfect, what should we have to suffer from others for God’s sake? But God has so ordained, that we may learn to bear with one another’s burdens, for there is no man without fault, no man without burden, no man sufficient to himself nor wise enough. Hence we must support one another, console one another, mutually help, counsel, and advise, for the measure of every man’s virtue is best revealed in time of adversity—adversity that does not weaken a man but rather shows what he is.

God of the Hopeless

amid torrential visions of torment; the demonic deluge of despair; the throes of the hopeless thrashing...

g: there is so much evil... so much suffering... and i am helpless!
G: and there I am.
g: there is no good, only utter evil! the believer is squashed, the saintly are finished!
G: but behold, there I am.
g: the innocents continue to bleed unfettered... the tainted continue to feed their bloodlust, continue their abhorent bloodletting...
G: lo! there I am.
g: it's pointless! we're utterly defeated!
G: there am I.
g: it's useless! nobody will be saved!
G: there am I.
g: it's hopeless! the impending doom has consumed us!
G: listen, you who have ears. I am.
g: you're listening to yourself?
G: add the quotes, that much you can do.
g: "I am"...?
G: I am God.
g: god! what ever for? your pacifism... your justice... your love... "vanity!"
G: and still, I am.
g: and so what if you "are"? so what for your omni-whatever? "vanity!"
G: indeed, so what. but yet, I am.
g: spite? is that it? in spite of it all, you "are"? in spite of what you are, and who you are, is it not mere "vanity"?
G: aye... in spite of you. in spite of all who are evil. I am.
g: what... okay, time out. i'm lost.
G: glad you could admit it, dear. who am I?
g: you are god.
G: and so what! being god is no big deal, I assure you!
g: you are... almighty?
G: yeah yeah... omni-blah blah blah. like who cares, really.
g: you are...
G: 1 John 4:16.
g: ... Love?
G: now THAT I am!
g: Love... God is Love... and that is not "vanity"?
G: many are the vain objects of human adulation. indeed, many they are. for one day, these objects will prove to have been in vain.
g: and what about Love... is not Love in vain as well?
G: Love is as I am. and I am beyond decay.
g: is that it? Love is timeless? and You base our salvation upon that one insignificant factor?
G: singular it is, but insignificant it is not!
g: look at Your creation, o mighty One... look at the senseless murder! look at the accelerated decay! look at the merciless evil! how significant is love? what love?
G: I do see, o little one. remember, it is part of My omni-gibberish.
g: and You see love?
G: I am the God of the Hopeless. and in each believer, saint, innocent, the bloodthirsty, the vile, the pointless, the defeated, the useless, the unsaved, the consumed, and the vain, I see Love.
g: ... this is beyond me.
G: you are off by a few centimetres, little one. this is in you.
g: it is? what is?
G: the Hopeless. the Love.
g: a Love for the Hopeless?
G: yes, my child.
g: i can Love the Hopeless?
G: as I am, you are.
g: and... through my paltry Love, i can show the world who You are?
G: and you already are.
g: ... man... i was so... hopeless!
G: and I am your God.
g: thanks G-man.
G: for what?
g: for bothering to listen to lil ol' me whining. You indeed are my God.
G: you're too kind. now get Loving.