My novice in literary communication has once again has been made apparent to me. In the post To be or Not to Be in The Halls of Valhalla I was to bring four concepts that were related into one.
Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be” was a distinct dilemma of wither or not an innocent bystander should live in submission to evil which was a kind of death or to confront it which would lead to death. This may be an over simplification but to the point we have many questions about the evil in the world and why it exists.
One explanation of it is that sin begets sin. Hamlet was innocent of the crimes committed but by his honor and integrity he could not dismiss them without conscience. If he were shallow and had no sense of justice or virtue he could have easily thrown the issue out of mind and distracted him self with the going on’s of life.
I have thought many times of paradoxical situations of right and wrong. Have you ever been In a situation where there was no clear path of what was right? Or the situation where you had to choose the lesser of to evils? I have. I purpose that these situations are directly attributed to vice/corrupt passion/injustice/sin/selfishness and the like.
Sometimes I might say that it’s not wrong if it doesn’t hurt anyone else, its my own problem/choice. In the case of addiction for example I have to surrender my reasoning once I see how it affects my loved ones. Further more putting the addiction down may not be enough but if I’m truly repentant then I may want to make amends in which I my then be faced with having to choose the lesser of two evils that the situation made.
Which is the importance of principle over feelings and conception of right and wrong. It’s far to easy to justify action on the circumstances and emotion rather than a set of principles. It’s the matter of finding the correct set of principles. The difference between relative morality and absolute morality.
The dilemma with relative morality is that of floating in the wind. I feel this is right at this moment, but later it feel its is wrong. Also the dilemma of people having different feelings about morality in a society can lead to many kinds of issues. There is little to substantiate character. It could be said with a leap that there is no good or evil in emotional morality. We are guided by circumstance and nothing more than puppets playing to nature. Animals. Robots.
The dilemma of incorrect absolute morality is that often principles conflict. If I say that stealing is evil than also say that abiding the theft of others is evil then I might be able to say that the theft of the thieves possessions to return to the victims is right. Obvious conclusions can be made here but there is much more to consider then the surface.
In Norse Mythology the Viking gets to heaven after the Valkyries have judged the bravery and valiantly of his death. The observation here is that the Viking actively chases their heaven. They literally cant get there unless they want it bad enough to take it for them selves.
Fulfillment of Law by Grace
This and the other post was in part inspired by some misconceptions (in my opinion) about Christianity made by both some of my Muslim and Pagan friends as well as those of some Christians I know. The other parts of inspiration I think I made clear previously.
I hear often from Christian protagonist’s that Christianity is weak and paradoxical and the Christian is weak and hypocritical.
I also hear from both sides that all a Christian has to do is confess and believe. That there is nothing more to this. Hopefully I can bring this to terms on both sides.
Protagonist attain that the bible was written by men because of its paradoxes and inconsistencies while some adherents say it’s the inspired word of God. A small clarification here that I will cover later. Christ himself is the Word (Logos=legō). Scripture is the canonical collection of texts written by men inspired by God.
So the Law of the Old Testament may seem paradoxical because it is interpreted by men and his reason not (as it should be) Christ himself. With out getting too far off subject ill write about this later but I propose that its is not paradoxical because of Christs fulfillment of the law. simply Murder-Hate, Theft-Envy, Judgement-Not humble, etc. And lastly on this topic for now “Against such things there is no law” (fruit of the Spirit Gal 5:22) which is a way of life not necessarily a theology. Action which is preceded by grace. Action inspired by and fulfilled by grace.
Which leads to the act of Giving and receiving. Mans interpretation and desire to explain everything has led to many discrepancies and variations in theological doctrine. Like “once saved always saved” “Free will” “predetermination” or the conflict between fate/human nature v.s choice. These are relativity new contradictions to Christianity which I have witnessed as fuel for good Atheistic/anti-Christian arguments. In the more ancient version of doctrine some of us use whats called theological synergism is not paradoxical or contradictory. It (very basically and I hope I do it justice) sais that salvation is a gift. We don’t have to go anywhere or do any thing to get it. It is free for the taking. It however is still ones choice to receive it or reject it.
As a kind of Christian I may say that I accept it but then put in on the shelf for display but never use it. Synergisim doesn’t ask the legalistic questions of how do I get to heaven or how do I avoid hell. It says if I love Christ I will be a lover of Christ.
“The kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” Mathew (explanation in translation—suffers violence=Biazetai=energetic or lively—from Bios=being life— so a better Greek translation ”The Kingdom of Heaven is taken by force unto the zealous in their zeal.” Source
So simply I’m saying not to be as concerned with the law or interpretation of it by mans reason as much as falling in love.
🙂 Thanks for reading 🙂