Sunday, August 2, 2009
Friday, January 4, 2008
Zeus or Jehovah: Who is God? (an essay I wrote)
What kind of God do you follow? Is He infinite? Personal? Righteous? That’s the God I serve, the only true God. But there’s an interloper in our midst – Zeus, chief god of the Ancient Greeks. Zeus claimed to be all-powerful, wise, everything a god should be. How does he compare to the God of the Bible?
Jehovah, the God of the Bible, is infinite. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and omnipresent. He is not bound by time or space, or the laws of nature. He is above all the boundaries we are familiar with, because He created them. Can Zeus compare to this? Well, in a word, no. In contrast to God, Zeus is bound by time and space. He can’t be everywhere at once. He does, in fact, have to sleep. And he is not omniscient. The lesser gods have been known to go behind his back, do things against his wishes. Zeus gets mad when he finds out, but the fact is he didn’t know it was happening at the time and was powerless to stop it.
Jehovah, 1. Zeus, 0.
The God of the Bible is also a personal God. He listens to our prayers, which are like incense to Him. And our prayers do matter. God pays attentions to us and blesses us according to His wisdom. Besides this, God also has a personal, loving relationship with each and every one of His children. We can know God personally, and He willingly draws close to us when we draw close to Him. Zeus, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to care much for the thoughts or feelings of his followers. He isn’t bothered by lying to them, as in the case of Agamemnon’s dream at the beginning of The Iliad. Zeus sent the messenger Iris to Agamemnon, telling him he would have success in battle when in reality he was going to suffer defeat. Zeus simply used Agamemnon for his own purposes, disregarding the prayers and sacrifices Agamemnon offered up to him. And what about a personal relationship? No luck. When he isn’t causing trouble for the people, Zeus usually just ignores them and has a dandy time up on Olympus, eating and drinking and partying.
Jehovah, 2. Zeus, 0.
Jehovah is also completely righteous and holy. He always tells the truth, will never lead us astray, and will never sin. On top of this, He is unchanging. We never need to worry or be apprehensive because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He never changes His mind because He never makes mistakes. Zeus? He’s as bad as a human, maybe worse. He is subject to all the same old sins, vices, and faults. He’s got anger issues. He’s unfaithful. He’s got an ego the size of Texas – with no legitimate claims to justify it. Not only does he have these problems, but he’s also driven by his emotions and whims. He’s known to change his mind frequently and unapologetically. In fact, you could say he’s about as stable as a gravel pile. In all these areas, the God of the Bible comes out ahead. He does what He says He does, and is what He says He is. He is worthy of all our praise and honor. Zeus doesn’t stand a chance.
Final score: Jehovah, 3. Zeus, 0.
Jehovah, the God of the Bible, is infinite. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and omnipresent. He is not bound by time or space, or the laws of nature. He is above all the boundaries we are familiar with, because He created them. Can Zeus compare to this? Well, in a word, no. In contrast to God, Zeus is bound by time and space. He can’t be everywhere at once. He does, in fact, have to sleep. And he is not omniscient. The lesser gods have been known to go behind his back, do things against his wishes. Zeus gets mad when he finds out, but the fact is he didn’t know it was happening at the time and was powerless to stop it.
Jehovah, 1. Zeus, 0.
The God of the Bible is also a personal God. He listens to our prayers, which are like incense to Him. And our prayers do matter. God pays attentions to us and blesses us according to His wisdom. Besides this, God also has a personal, loving relationship with each and every one of His children. We can know God personally, and He willingly draws close to us when we draw close to Him. Zeus, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to care much for the thoughts or feelings of his followers. He isn’t bothered by lying to them, as in the case of Agamemnon’s dream at the beginning of The Iliad. Zeus sent the messenger Iris to Agamemnon, telling him he would have success in battle when in reality he was going to suffer defeat. Zeus simply used Agamemnon for his own purposes, disregarding the prayers and sacrifices Agamemnon offered up to him. And what about a personal relationship? No luck. When he isn’t causing trouble for the people, Zeus usually just ignores them and has a dandy time up on Olympus, eating and drinking and partying.
Jehovah, 2. Zeus, 0.
Jehovah is also completely righteous and holy. He always tells the truth, will never lead us astray, and will never sin. On top of this, He is unchanging. We never need to worry or be apprehensive because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He never changes His mind because He never makes mistakes. Zeus? He’s as bad as a human, maybe worse. He is subject to all the same old sins, vices, and faults. He’s got anger issues. He’s unfaithful. He’s got an ego the size of Texas – with no legitimate claims to justify it. Not only does he have these problems, but he’s also driven by his emotions and whims. He’s known to change his mind frequently and unapologetically. In fact, you could say he’s about as stable as a gravel pile. In all these areas, the God of the Bible comes out ahead. He does what He says He does, and is what He says He is. He is worthy of all our praise and honor. Zeus doesn’t stand a chance.
Final score: Jehovah, 3. Zeus, 0.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Growing up?!
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.1 Corinthians 13:11
I've often felt like I was younger than I am. I've wondered whether I can ever accept responsiblity for myself or for others, and I've wondered if I'm ever going to actually grow up. Even though I'm 18, I sometimes still feel like I'm 10. All this time I've been waiting to grow up. Well, today I finally realized something:
Nothing will happen if I simply wait to grow up.
I have to do it on my own. I have to be proactive instead of sitting back and expecting things to happen 'naturally'. I have to look after my own future instead of hoping someone else will take care of things for me. I have to plan for my own life instead of assuming I'll get married and then my husband can take care of all that stuff. I have to learn, and grow, and mature, and that won't happen unless I start making it happen.
You've probably heard the saying "Good things come to those who wait." Well if you ask me, that's a load of bull. Good things don't come to those who sit on their thumbs waiting. Good things come to those who get up, get out there, and make it happen.
So I guess you could say that's my New Year's resolution. To get up and grow up by working hard and making some changes and taking responsibility for my own actions.
I've often felt like I was younger than I am. I've wondered whether I can ever accept responsiblity for myself or for others, and I've wondered if I'm ever going to actually grow up. Even though I'm 18, I sometimes still feel like I'm 10. All this time I've been waiting to grow up. Well, today I finally realized something:
Nothing will happen if I simply wait to grow up.
I have to do it on my own. I have to be proactive instead of sitting back and expecting things to happen 'naturally'. I have to look after my own future instead of hoping someone else will take care of things for me. I have to plan for my own life instead of assuming I'll get married and then my husband can take care of all that stuff. I have to learn, and grow, and mature, and that won't happen unless I start making it happen.
You've probably heard the saying "Good things come to those who wait." Well if you ask me, that's a load of bull. Good things don't come to those who sit on their thumbs waiting. Good things come to those who get up, get out there, and make it happen.
So I guess you could say that's my New Year's resolution. To get up and grow up by working hard and making some changes and taking responsibility for my own actions.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Ain't no hiding it!
Today Mom and I were doing an art history study thing. We have a bunch of prints of famous pieces of art, and we were laying them out in chronological order, all spread out on the living room floor. It was fascinating because you can literally see the world view of each artist in his paintings, which gives you a little glimpse on what the world was like in his time.
First in line we had a picture of a mosaic that was called "The Good Shepherd". The artist is unknown but it's from the time of the early Christians. The depiction is Jesus sitting on a mountain, taking care of a flock of sheep that surrounds Him. All the sheep are looking at His face, and He's got His hand on one of them. This picture shows Jesus as a real human in real history, and He's very friendly, natural, and accessible. This is the way the early Christians saw Him.
Now jump to the Byzantine era, a few hundred years later. The artists in this time period were all about showing the grandeur and greatness of God, which is a good thing, but they went a little too far. They portrayed God as inaccessible, painting symbolic pictures that looked flat and nonrealistic. Jesus usually looks like a miniature adult, instead of a baby, in pictures such as "Madonna and Child on a Curved Throne" (artist also unknown). Instead of showing real life, these artists focused on symbolism, inadverdently saying that we are unable to get close to God. It's true that we're unworthy, but it's also true that Jesus paid the way for us to get to the Father with His blood.
As we continue down the line of paintings, you can see the though processes move from God as natural and accessible, to stiff and symbolic, and then He is shoved out of the picture (pun intended) when we get to the Renaissance. This was the time where man looked to himself for the ultimate in everything. After the Renaissance came the Reformation, when man turned back to God. In most pictures from this time period, we finally see God, nature, and man, all in their proper places. Nature and man are shown realistically, underlining their importance as creations of God. God is treated reverently but is not shown to be out of reach. After the Reformation, nature began to be elevated. We see a lot of landscapes and pictures of this sort now. God is not directily referred to. As this progresses, we move into Impressionism (think Monet). The pictures are blurry and unfocused, showing the (possibly subconscious) belief that life is confusing, blurred, unclear.
Next comes the period of Post-Impression. The colors are sharper and more vibrant although subdued, the lines cleaner, but as we move through it there's a persistant feeling of depression. "Absinth" by Degas or "The Church at Auvers" by Van Gogh and you'll see exactly what I mean. Especially in this last painting, the church is shown as frighening, Gothic, askew, even perhaps a place of death. This is exactly the way Van Gogh felt in the last years of his life, before he famously chopped off his own ear and later committed suicide. Paul Gaugain is another good example of this time. His life, as well, ended in despair. When you look at his paintings, such as "Tahitian Landscape" or "Haystacks at Brittany", they look more like a Flannelgraph than a lanscape. He tried to use nature symbolically, rather than painting what he actually saw. And he did a good job of it - his paintings show us exactly how he felt about life. His works were fragmented, feeling slightly jarred and disconnected. There was little or no blending involved.
The next logical step is Modern art - think Kandinsky, Pollock, and of course Picasso. They abandoned reason entirely, and showed life as completely absurd and illogical. Jackson Pollock, speaking of his painting "Lavender Mist", said that he was showing life the way Evolution describes it. He said his picture showed complete chance, and was therefore the highest form of art because it depicted life most realistically. If he was right, his art is indeed the highest art possible. Christians believe he was wrong. We believe that there is order, logic, and meaning to life. We did not appear here by chance and millions of years. God placed us here with a purpose in mind.
There was, in fact, a flaw in Pollock's logic. He said his piece was the result of complete chance, but there he was wrong. He himself planned out how he would produce the piece - how he would swing paint cans over the canvas and let the paint drip in a random pattern. That painting was not the product of accident. It was planned. Random chance does not produce anything, no matter what people say. If left to itself, the world would decay completely. We all know the law of entropy. Why does it not apply here? Why does it work in reverse where Evolution is concerned?
I used to think that my drawings were just drawings. I didn't plan what I wanted them to 'say', so I thought they didn't mean anything. Now I'm beginning to realize that they do, in fact, represent my world view. They show order (at least, I try!) and as far as I am able, represent the subject matter true to life.
It's funny that no matter how hard a person may try, he can't hide his world view. A person's set of beliefs, whether he's aware of them or not, cannot remain locked away inside his head. They influence every single thing he thinks, says, and does.
First in line we had a picture of a mosaic that was called "The Good Shepherd". The artist is unknown but it's from the time of the early Christians. The depiction is Jesus sitting on a mountain, taking care of a flock of sheep that surrounds Him. All the sheep are looking at His face, and He's got His hand on one of them. This picture shows Jesus as a real human in real history, and He's very friendly, natural, and accessible. This is the way the early Christians saw Him.
Now jump to the Byzantine era, a few hundred years later. The artists in this time period were all about showing the grandeur and greatness of God, which is a good thing, but they went a little too far. They portrayed God as inaccessible, painting symbolic pictures that looked flat and nonrealistic. Jesus usually looks like a miniature adult, instead of a baby, in pictures such as "Madonna and Child on a Curved Throne" (artist also unknown). Instead of showing real life, these artists focused on symbolism, inadverdently saying that we are unable to get close to God. It's true that we're unworthy, but it's also true that Jesus paid the way for us to get to the Father with His blood.
As we continue down the line of paintings, you can see the though processes move from God as natural and accessible, to stiff and symbolic, and then He is shoved out of the picture (pun intended) when we get to the Renaissance. This was the time where man looked to himself for the ultimate in everything. After the Renaissance came the Reformation, when man turned back to God. In most pictures from this time period, we finally see God, nature, and man, all in their proper places. Nature and man are shown realistically, underlining their importance as creations of God. God is treated reverently but is not shown to be out of reach. After the Reformation, nature began to be elevated. We see a lot of landscapes and pictures of this sort now. God is not directily referred to. As this progresses, we move into Impressionism (think Monet). The pictures are blurry and unfocused, showing the (possibly subconscious) belief that life is confusing, blurred, unclear.
Next comes the period of Post-Impression. The colors are sharper and more vibrant although subdued, the lines cleaner, but as we move through it there's a persistant feeling of depression. "Absinth" by Degas or "The Church at Auvers" by Van Gogh and you'll see exactly what I mean. Especially in this last painting, the church is shown as frighening, Gothic, askew, even perhaps a place of death. This is exactly the way Van Gogh felt in the last years of his life, before he famously chopped off his own ear and later committed suicide. Paul Gaugain is another good example of this time. His life, as well, ended in despair. When you look at his paintings, such as "Tahitian Landscape" or "Haystacks at Brittany", they look more like a Flannelgraph than a lanscape. He tried to use nature symbolically, rather than painting what he actually saw. And he did a good job of it - his paintings show us exactly how he felt about life. His works were fragmented, feeling slightly jarred and disconnected. There was little or no blending involved.
The next logical step is Modern art - think Kandinsky, Pollock, and of course Picasso. They abandoned reason entirely, and showed life as completely absurd and illogical. Jackson Pollock, speaking of his painting "Lavender Mist", said that he was showing life the way Evolution describes it. He said his picture showed complete chance, and was therefore the highest form of art because it depicted life most realistically. If he was right, his art is indeed the highest art possible. Christians believe he was wrong. We believe that there is order, logic, and meaning to life. We did not appear here by chance and millions of years. God placed us here with a purpose in mind.
There was, in fact, a flaw in Pollock's logic. He said his piece was the result of complete chance, but there he was wrong. He himself planned out how he would produce the piece - how he would swing paint cans over the canvas and let the paint drip in a random pattern. That painting was not the product of accident. It was planned. Random chance does not produce anything, no matter what people say. If left to itself, the world would decay completely. We all know the law of entropy. Why does it not apply here? Why does it work in reverse where Evolution is concerned?
I used to think that my drawings were just drawings. I didn't plan what I wanted them to 'say', so I thought they didn't mean anything. Now I'm beginning to realize that they do, in fact, represent my world view. They show order (at least, I try!) and as far as I am able, represent the subject matter true to life.
It's funny that no matter how hard a person may try, he can't hide his world view. A person's set of beliefs, whether he's aware of them or not, cannot remain locked away inside his head. They influence every single thing he thinks, says, and does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
