Vladimir Pustan – Cand un frate iti fura bucuria

VEZI Pagina Vladimir Pustan aici

Photo credit www.flmfoundation.org

Fratele fiului risipitor e ca emigrantul pe vapor catre America:

Suntem ca omul acela care a mers in America. A strans toti banii care i-a avut si a cumparat un bilet. Era saracie in lume. S-a hotarat Romanul sa plece. Era 1904, a cumparat bilet, a vandut tot ce a avut ca sa cumpere bilet pana in America. A urcat pe vapor, isi adusese de acasa ce i-a mai ramas, doua bucati de paine din aia tare. Romanul, cu biletul in cusma, doua bucati de pita, hai sa trecem oceanul. Ii vedea pe toti cum vin de la restaurantul vaporului giftuiti, cu burtile pline. A doua zi  nu a mai avut ce manca. A trecut a treia zi, a stat intins. In a cincea zi nu a mai rezistat, a lesinat de doua ori de foame. La o saptamana s-a dus la bucatarie. Nu a mai putut Romanul. „Domn bucatar, ce aruncati, numai mare, ca am vazut ca aruncati mancare cu galeata, dati-mi si mie din bucatile care le arunca astia de la masa.” „Da-mi biletul.” Se uita, „Dar, aici aveti si restaurant de 3 ori pe zi trecut. Tot m-am gandit ca nu-mi ies la socoteala oamenii. Unul nu venea de fel la masa.”

Asa suntem cu Dumnezeu si noi. (Mancam) doi biscuiti, pe cand totul e „all inclusive”. Cerul, binecuvantarile lui Dumnezeu, pacea, victoria asupra diavolului… si suntem toata ziua cu biscuiti, cu frica de orice. Uitam ce scrie in cartea aceasta, uitam cat e de importanta, uitam cate binecuvantari sunt trecute aici. Ce-i spune tata fratelui mai mare a fiului risipitor, „Tu pentru cine creezi ca am facut cheful asta?” Si asa am crezut: „Pentru fratele meu.” „Gresit,” zice tata, „nu e petrecerea lui, e a Mea. Tu vii in casa pentru ca te-am chemat eu. Eu am taiat vitelul si a mea e lumea. Deci tu nu refuzi pe fratele tau, tu ma refuzi pe mine.”Nu-i petrecerea fratelui, ci a Mea,” zice Dumnezeu, pentru ca in Luca 15 de 3 ori se pierde ceva. Si la toate apare: „Bucurati-va si veseliti-va…” E petrecerea lui Dumnezeu. Cand un om se intoarce la Dumnezeu nu este in primul rand bucuria bisericii, ci e bucuria cerului. E bucuria lui Isus Hristos.

Durerea cea mai mare este atunci cand te loveste un frate, cand un frate-ti fura bucuria, cand un frate te jigneste, cand un frate te calca in picioare, cand un frate iti distruge pacea sufletului. 

Nu ucide bucuria fratelui tau

Predica incepe la minutul 08:30 Textul: Luca 15:25

25 Fiul cel mai mare era la ogor. Cînd a venit şi s’a apropiat de casă, a auzit muzică şi jocuri. 26 A chemat pe unul din robi, şi a început să -l întrebe ce este. 27 Robul acela i -a răspuns: ,Fratele tău a venit înapoi, şi tatăl tău a tăiat viţelul cel îngrăşat, pentrucă l -a găsit iarăş sănătos şi bine.` 28 El s’a întărîtat de mînie, şi nu voia să intre în casă. Tatăl său a ieşit afară, şi l -a rugat să intre. 29 Dar el, drept răspuns, a zis tatălui său: ,Iată, eu îţi slujesc ca un rob de atîţia ani, şi niciodată nu ţi-am călcat porunca; şi mie niciodată nu mi-ai dat măcar un ied să mă veselesc cu prietenii mei; 30 iar cînd a venit acest fiu al tău, care ţi -a mîncat averea cu femeile desfrînate, i-ai tăiat viţelul cel îngrăşat.` 31 ,Fiule`, i -a zis tatăl, ,tu întotdeauna eşti cu mine, şi tot ce am eu este al tău. 32 Dar trebuia să ne veselim şi să ne bucurăm, pentrucă acest frate al tău era mort, şi a înviat, era pierdut şi a fost găsit.`

si Psalmul 55:12-14

12 Nu un vrăjmaş mă batjocoreşte, căci aş suferi: nu protivnicul meu se ridică împotriva mea, căci m’aş ascunde dinaintea lui. 13 Ci tu, pe care te socoteam una cu mine, tu, frate de cruce şi prieten cu mine! 14 Noi, cari trăiam împreună într’o plăcută prietenie, şi ne duceam împreună cu mulţimea în Casa lui Dumnezeu!

Vladimir Pustan Ciresarii 12:2011Viata crestina nu se desfasoara in cea mai buna lume posibila. Traim intre oameni ce au fost atinsi in niste grade diferite de Hristos. Pe uni Hristos i-a atins mai mult, , pe altii i-a atins mai putin. Toti acesti oameni pe langa care noi traim ii numim frati. Traim intr-o lume in care oamenii ne fac rau, ne fac probleme, necazuri si intelegem ca lumea in care traim nu e perfecta. De obicei tinem garda sus. Si ne aparam de oameni pe care generic ii numim dusmani. Si de cele mai multe ori stam cu garda jos cand e vorba de frati. Durerea cea mai mare nu vine atunci cand te loveste un dusman. Ca odata, indiferent cate platose ai avea puse, o sageata tot patrunde. De acolo te astepti sa vina lovitura. Durerea cea mai mare este atunci cand te loveste un frate, cand un frate-ti fura bucuria, cand un frate te jigneste, cand un frate te calca in picioare, cand un frate iti distruge pacea sufletului.

Iubitilor, sfanta Scriptura este plina de luptele dintre frati. Spunea, la un moment dat un pastor, la o conferinta la care erau mai multe culte adunate si i-a venit si lui randul pentru a spune ceva, n-a reusit sa faca diferenta intre fratesc si fratricid, si a zis, „Sa ne rugam ca Dumnezeu sa imbunatateasca relatiile fratricide intre noi.” Dumnezeu nu face asta, dar Satana, da. El reuseste performanta ca relatiile astea  sa fie fratricide de multe ori, adica  omorare de frati. Lupta din aceasta dureroasa, in care:

  • Cain il omoara pe Abel.
  • In care Absalom il omoara pe Amnon si erau frati.
  • In care Solomon il omoara pe Adonia.
  • In care Iacov il insala pe Esau.
  • In care Iosif e vandut de fratii lui.

Cunoasteti povestirea asta din Luca 15. Un tata cu doi fii materialisti. Unul a zis, „Da-mi!” Unul a zis, „Nu mi-ai dat!” Era un imperiu de a avea, nu un imperiu de a fi. Amandoi erau asa. Unul dintre ei a hotarat intr-o zi, „Gata, m-am saturat de tine. Nu ma intereseaza ca tu ai slugi, ca eu ma scol dimineata la ora 10, ma simt oprimat in casa asta. Si plec, trebuie sa fie frumos in lume.” Indiferent cat veti inchide ferestrele, indiferent cat veti trage obloanele, indiferent cat va veti proteja copiii dumneavoastra sa nu  vada, vreau sa va spun ca cei mai multi dintre ei, toti au gandurile intinse spre ceva de la care dumneaovoastra ii opriti. Doresc sa vada ce-i dincolo. Nu conteaza ca-i spui ca e Siberia, ei vor sa ajunga in Siberia, desculti! Nu conteaza ca-i spunem ca acolo-i foc, ei vor ca sa puna mana. Indiferent cat de bine te comporti cu ei, vor considera acasa robie.

Si intr-o zi nu a mai putut, s-a dus si a spus tatalui sau, „M-am saturat de tine. Da-mi partea de avere care mi se cuvine.” A taiat tata averea in doua. Spune Biblia ca a luat banii si a plecat intr-o tara indepartata. Tara aceea in care nu ai vrea ca sa-ti ajunga pruncul niciodata. Ce fericit a fost cand a plecat de acasa. Si-a lasat tata in poarta. A ajuns intr-o tara indepartata, spune Biblia. Droguri, bani pierduti, nopti pierdute, sanatate pierduta. Lume- a gustat tot. Intr-o zi nu a mai avut bani, banii se termina. Si-a pierdut anturajul, ii era foame, a ajuns porcar. Pilda asta a spus-o Hristos in Israel, daca pentru un evreu exista ceva mai scarbos decat Satana, ala era porcul. Fac o mica paranteza aici: Egiptenii, care aveau dumnezeii numai animale, se inchinau la toate animalele, Egiptenii considerau ca cel care are grija de porci nu are voie sa intre in niciun templu sa se roage. I s-au terminat banii, a ajuns la porci, A ajuns sa hraneasca pe porci, sa se hraneasca cu porcii. A ajuns sa fie batjocorit la nivelul maxim al vietii. Cand a scos capul din troaca cu laturi, intr-o zi a spus, „Eu nu mai pot sa mai stau in locul acesta. Eu trebuie sa ma duc la tata si tatal meu ma iarta, ma primeste inapoi. Ma duc ca si un argat, ca un rob. Nu mai am nici o pretentie. Vreau sa o iau de la capat.”

S-a hotarat. Cel mai mare necaz il avem cu pocaitii care vor sa se pocaiasca si nu-s hotarati. Vor doar sa se scoale si sa se ridice si fac planuri si vor sa se duca la tata si nu mai apuca sa ajunga. Mor asa, cu gandul bun. Si asta s-a sculat militareste, „Ma duc la tata, nu conteaza cat ma costa. Nu conteaza cat e de dureros, nu conteaza cata rusine mananc, ma duc la tata!” S-a sculat si s-a dus. „Vine pruncul. Toata lumea afara!” Lacrima, bucurie, s-a intors acasa. „Muzica, vitel ingrasat, hainele cele mai bune!” „Tata vreau sa-ti fiu rob.” „Nu poti sa fi rob aici in casa mea. Tu esti copilul meu! Esti fiul meu, ai un statut aparte. Esti mostenitor pe ce-ti mai dau. Bucura-te!”

Apare acasa fratele mai mare, cel ce a ramas acasa. In clipa aceea bucuria toata se duce. De fapt, cand a venit fratele mai mare acasa si a inceput sa vorbeasca cu tata, acolo in fata portii, nu il numeste pe fratele lui, frate. Ci spune: Acest fiu al tau. O fi fiul tau, dar nu-i frate cu mine. Dar, de fapt, nicaieri nu il numeste pe tata, tata. El nu avea probleme numai cu fratele sau, el avea probleme cu tata, pentru ca atunci cand ai probleme cu fratele tau, tu de fapt ai probleme cu tata. Nicaieri nu-i spune tata si nici la fratele, frate.

Despartit de tata poti sa te ocupi de via tatalui si nu de tatal viei

Ce poti face despartit de tata? Desi, sa stai cu el in casa, in biserica aici, poti sa te ocupi mai mult de via lui, de via tatalui, decat de tatal viei. Asta a ramas acasa, tacut, muncitor, despre el nu s-a auzit in ziar. Duminica la biserica, seara cu prietenii, cateodata se mai si ruga. Jocuri nevinovate, mai un film, e in casa. Dar ii lipsea ceva esential, dragostea. Cand a venit fratele lui acasa scapara scantei. Spune cuvantul lui Dumnezeu ca nu avea dragoste si bucurie si daca cititi in Corinteni 13, spune ca poti ca sa ai tot, dar daca nu ai dragoste, nu ai nimic. El nu iubea. Nu iubea pe tatal, nu iubea pe frate. Cand a venit cel zdrenturos acasa, in loc sa se bucure toti, cand l-a vazut, automat a vazut negru inaintea ochilor. Nici o dragoste, absolut, pentru celalalt. Dintr-o data s-a stins lumina. (28:00)

Stiti ce frica am in biserica? „Bucurati-va,” zice Pavel. Si eu nu va vad bucurosi. Stiti ce spunea Constantin Noica despre el, despre fratele ramas acasa si ce tristete avea? Tristetea pe care o au copiii nostri, se vede in ochii lor. Stiti care tristete? Tristetea de a nu fi pacatuit. Sa nu sti tu cum e pacatul ala? L-ai face daca ai putea si esti trist ca nu l-ai facut, nu l-ai facut inca.

Observati cum gandeste. Pe el se inalta in pocainta. Zice, „Tata, eu nici odata nu ti-am gresit.” Dar, cum poti spune asta? Isi ridica pocainta lui pe culmi mari si coboara pe fratele sau in prapastii. „Si-a petrecut si si-a distrus tineretea, si-a distrus banii, mostenirea pe care i-ai dat-o cu femeile desfranate. Mai rau nu se putea. Cine i-s fi spus de ele? Nimeni! Dar trebuia apasat. Apasa-l! Vorbeste rau despre el daca se poate! „Eu niciodata nu ti-am gresit.” Oameni in casa, oameni care asculta predici, oameni care canta cantari, oameni care s-au nascut aici (in biserica0, n-au bucurie, n-au dragoste. Sunt in casa. Ceilalti jos, pacatosi. Noi suntem sfinti, sfintii lui Dumnezeu, condamnand mereu pe ceilalti. Nascuti din Dumnezeu si sa ne lovim toata ziua unii pe altii, sa-i apasam pe ceilalti. Nici o compasiune. Cand a auzit ca fratele sau a pacatuit, a publicat pe internet tot. „Il dau eu pe fata.” Repede si-a facut blog: „Stiti ca am avut un frate….stiti. Nu? Stiti cu totii….. va spun eu, ala-i 100% cu femeile desfranate acuma. Spun eu…” si deget intins.. fratilor, cand ma uit in lumea asta, si vreau sa vorbesc putin despre lumea asta putin cunoscuta de o mare parte din dumneavoastra- lumea internetului. Cu cata pasiune- niste gunoaie care trebuie sa se pocaiasca, asa numitii frati ai nostri, abia asteapta sa greseasca cineva ca sa publice pe internet.

Cand a murit Ionatan si cu Saul, David, care era primul care trebuia sa se bucure cel mai tare, cel putin de Saul, vine si spune, „Nu raspanditi vestea asta in Gad, nici o femeie si nici o fata sa nu se imbrace in negru, sa nu creada astia ca e jale. Da-ti drumul la muzica, sa nu se bucure cei din lume.” Cum, adica, oameni buni, eu ma duc si scot gunoiul? Pai, daca sti ca fratele tau a facut ceva gresit, du-te si spune-o lui. Roaga-te pentru el, nu populariza ce a facut. Cei mai multi oameni dintre fratii nostri nu se roaga pentru cei cazuti, ci merg sa spuna altora ce au facut. Cum e treaba asta? Eu nu m-am rugat pentru el, nu i-am spus un cuvant si ma duc si scriu si fac, il distrug. Nu trage in fratele tau. E fratele tau, nu trage in el. A spus Isus Hristos oamenilor acelora in Ioan 8 „Cine dintre voi e fara pacat? Cine si din biserica asta are dreptul sa ridice piatra? (35:00) Suntem in fiecare zi supusi ispitelor, in fiecare zi pacatului. Satana e dusmanul nostru si noi ne impuscam fratii, uitand de fapt, ca noi suntem ca ei, poate mai rau.

Zice tata, „Intra in casa. E muzica, intra in casa!” Stiti ce sindrom are? Sindromul fratelui mai mare. Intotdeauna i se pare fratelui mai mare ca e neindreptatit. Cand ne nastem, si la doi ani stim ca toata felia de tort e a noastra  (totul e al nostru). Dintr-o data, mai apare un leagan si se injumatateste felia. Nu mai sunt atatea pupaturi, se impart in doua. Fratelui mai mare i se pare ca merita mai mult. Nu vrea sa intre in casa. Si fratii sunt hotii bucuriilor, aici fura bucuria mantuirii fratelui sau. Era la fel de pacatos ca fratele sau. Dar diferenta dintre ei este ca unul avea pacatele pe fata si la celalalt erau ascunse. Unul a pacatuit departe, unul a pacatuit in casa. Cand a auzit muzica in casa, lumina, cand a simtit miros de vitel a ars a luat o sluga si a bagat-o dupa hambar, „Ce-i in casa noastra?” Dumneavoastra vedeti ca el nu vorbeste cu tata? De ani de zile ma chinui sa imi invat biserica aceasta, care este si Penticostala, ca sa vorbeasca direct cu tata. Ca pana la Dumnezeu te mananca slugile. Nu mai vorbiti la mana doua, mergeti direct cu tata. Aveti intrare libera la tata. S-a rupt perdeaua. Puteti vorbi cu el direct, nu mai vorbiti cu altii. Cereti raspunsuri si rezolvare sus. Cereti binecuvantare sus. Vorbiti cu tata pentru orice. Amin.

Ce imi place aici de Dumnezeu. Stiti ce spune tatal lui? „Fiule, tu nu ma numesti tata, tie ti-e rusine de cuvantul asta, tu nut-i numesti fratele, frate. Dar, tu tot in inima mea esti. Fiule, hai in casa ca te iubesc.” Zice tata, „Acuma, cand l-am castigat pe asta inapoi, sa te pierd pe tine? Oare ce blestem este ca nu reuseste sa-si aibe  amandoi copiii in casa? Cand e unul, cand e altul plecat. Cand unul nu vrea, cand celalalt nu vrea. Ce ne face sa nu putem sa stam in biserica impreuna? „Eu cu ala nu satu. Eu cu aia, nu. Ma duc.” „Fiule, vreau sa fiti cu toti aici langa mine. Sunt tatal vostru. Voi nu ma numiti pe mine tata, dar eu va numesc pe voi fii”. Si ce-i daca a pacatuit? Daca-l primeste tata, eu sa nu-l primesc? Cand o sa vad fratii mei ca pe frati, cand o sa vad strainii ca pe frati, atunci se face zi. (40:00)Vezi povestirea cu Romanul care a trecut oceanul cu vaporul la topul paginii. (49:00)

VIDEO by Fiti Oameni 15 iulie 2012

Reclame

In Awe of God’s Creation – Monster fog in Newfoundland Canada – Ceata uriasa peste Canada – Coplesit de Creatia lui Dumnezeu

Photo credit www.businessinsider.com

Someone accurately described it as ‘scary’ and ‘Armageddon like’. if you don’t know that it’s fog, as it’s coming towards you and your household.

Sometimes fog just looks like, well, fog. But other times – say, in this mesmerizing video just captured in Newfoundland – it can look like a moving mountain, or a waterfall, or a giant rolling wave. The fog here is streaming over the Long Range Mountains near Lark Harbour. VIDEO by Perry709

Ancient wall found in Israel matches up with Bible’s tale of Assyrian attack

A mud-brick wall was found at the heart of ancient fortifications at the Ashdod-Yam dig. Photo credit and story from http://www.nbcnews.com/science/ancient-wall-israel

Archaeologists say they have unearthed the remains of massive fortifications built about 2,700 years ago around an Iron Age Assyrian harbor in present-day Israel. The ruins appear to have a connection to Assyria’s takeover of the region, as mentioned in the Book of Isaiah.

„The fortifications appear to protect an artificial harbor,” Tel Aviv University’s Alexander Fantalkin, leader of the excavations at the Ashdod-Yam archaeological dig, said in a news release issued Monday. „If so, this would be a discovery of international significance, the first known harbor of this kind in our corner of the Levant.”

The discovery was announced at the end of the first excavation season at Ashdod-Yam in the contemporary coastal city of Ashdod, just south of Tel Aviv. At the heart of the fortifications is a mud-brick wall measuring more than 12 feet wide (3.6 meters wide) in some places, and 15 feet (4.5 meters) high. The wall is covered in layers of mud and sand that stretch for hundreds of feet on either side.

When they were built in the 8th century B.C., the crescent-shaped fortifications would have defended an inland area covering more than 17 acres (7 hectares).

Philip Sapirstein / TAU – A 3-D rendering created by Tel Aviv University’s Philip Sapirstein shows the collapse of mud-brick structures that was thought to have occurred in the 2nd century B.C., during the Hellenistic period.

Age of Sargon II
During the late 8th century B.C., Assyrian King Sargon II ruled the entire southeastern part of the Mediterranean basin, including Egypt and the Middle East. Inscriptions tell of a Philistine king in Ashdod, named Yamani, who tried to organize a revolt against the Assyrian Empire. The Assyrians responded harshly, took control of Ashdod in 711 B.C. and eventually destroyed the city. As a result, power shifted to the nearby area of Ashdod-Yam, the site of the current excavations.

Tel Aviv University said the fortifications appear to be related to these events, although the precise relationship is not yet clear. They could have been built before or after the Ashdod rebellion was put down, either at the initiative of the local defenders or at the orders of the Assyrians.

Based on earlier excavations, the late Israeli archaeologist Jacob Kaplan concluded that the rebels built the fortifications in anticipation of the attack — but Fantalkin said the construction seems too monumental to have been done under such circumstances.

„An amazing amount of time and energy was invested in building the wall and glacis [embankments],” he said.

Staying out of the fight
Sargon II’s harsh action against Ashdod was mentioned in Isaiah 20, as a warning to those who backed the rebellion. „In that day, the people who live on this coast will say, ‘See what has happened to those we relied on, those we fled to for help and deliverance from the king of Assyria!'”

Hezekiah, king of Judah, stayed out of the fight — presumably at the urging of Isaiah.

Fantalkin and his team found more recent ruins on top of the sand of the Iron Age fortifications, dating to the Hellenistic period, between the 4th and 2nd centuries B.C. They say the buildings and walls were apparently built after the earlier fortifications were abandoned, and were probably destroyed by an earthquake in the second half of the 2nd century B.C. Ancient coins, weights and other artifacts were found among the ruins.

During the Byzantine era, Ashdod-Yam was known as Azotos Paralios, or Azotus Paralus. An impressive citadel called Kal’at Al Mina was built on the site during the Early Islamic period, sometime between the 8th and the 11th centuries. In 1033, that citadel was badly damaged in an earthquake.

Update for 10:50 p.m. ET Aug. 20: The caption for the 3-D representation has been revised to indicate that it reflects the collapse of the mud-brick structures during the Hellenistic period.

By Alan Boyle who is NBCNews.com’s science editor. Read more here http://www.nbcnews.com/science/ancient-wall-israel

Dallas Willard – The Nature and Necessity of Worldviews at UCLA

The Veritas Forum at University of California at Los Angeles. Dallas Willard:

  • Truth is in trouble, not just religious or moral, but TRUTH!
  • Truth does not accommodate belief; belief has to accommodate truth.
  • No one has ever made a proposition true simply by believing it.
  • Here’s a question of fact or truth and it has incredible bearings on how we approach our life: Am I, fundamentally, a material object that exists or gets organized by DNA and exists for a little while and then I stop existing? Or, am I an unceasing spiritual being with an eternal destiny in God’s Universe?
  • I always tell my students: The burden of proof is always mine because I am the one who wants to know.

The power of the world view. Dallas Willard talks about what it is and how it works in context. Notes:

Nature and Necessity of World View

  • Your „world view” consists of assumptions about the realities and values that govern you and the world in which you live.
  • It is a biological reality, built into your usual actions and responses.

Knowledge

Our ability to represent things as they are, on an appropriate basis of thought and experience
This is what our universities are devoted to.
But knowledge requires TRUTH.

Truth

A thought or statement is true if what it is about is as that thought or statement represents it.

„An institution of higher education is, by definition, dedicated to the search for truth and its dissemination”. Harvard had a little problem with this and they changed their shield several times. Primarily they were troubled about the issue of the unity of truth and that is: Does truth include the religious, the moral and the other dimensions of truth? Gradually through the years there has been a drift in university affairs that relegates truth to just the natural world. And so our ability to represent God, personal character of the human beings, spiritual side, all of that is eliminated from knowledge. But, truth itself does not do that.

Truth does not accommodate belief; belief has to accommodate truth. No one has ever made a proposition true simply by believing it. Now, maybe their belief in it caused them to act and to bring something about, that made the proposition true. But, merely believing doesn’t make propositions true. A group of people believing it doesn’t help get up a movement. It won’t make it true.

The bitterness of truth is its total indifference to human will and desire together with the fact that human desire and will is set on reshaping reality and therefore truth to suit itself. This is the fundamental conflict in human life. It is the conflict between desire and will and truth. And that conflict affects everything we do, including what we do on the university campus.

The Main World view questions

When it comes to these world view questions the same questions are there. The question: How do we know the truth? still applies to those. Here’s a question of fact or truth and it has incredible bearings on how we approach our life: Am I, fundamentally, a material object that exists or gets organized by DNA and exists for a little while and then I stop existing? Or, am I an unceasing spiritual being with an eternal destiny in God’s Universe? Wow, what a difference. See?

The Main World View Questions:
*The nature of reality
-What counts as knowledge of reality?
*Who is really well-off?
-Blessedness
-The Good Life
*Who is a „really good” person? (one of the deepest questions)

Jesus and his tradition responds to each of these questions… as do Plato, Buddha, Freud, etc. In the university setting the dominating world view is expressed through what is accepted as research and what counts as possible knowledge. You (university students) are in a system that teaches a world view without responsibly defending it.

How is a world view taught?

  • Mainly by body language, facial expressions, tones of voice and inflections, „looks”, off hand remarks about people and events
  • By what is permissible
  • By example – how we treat people (in class, out of class, colleagues)
  • By who gets rewarded or punished in various ways in the academic or other context
  • Rarely (almost never) by explicit statement. Explicit statement is only used to reinforce what is taught indirectly as previously indicated.

What we have to do with is a kind of orthodoxy, a secular orthodoxy. That is a sociological reality, not a rationally supported outlook. I am, more or less, calling attention to this and saying: Look, this is something we have to deal with. UCLA answers these questions in a pretty straightforward way but, they don’t stand on the street corner and argue for it.

How does the University answer the Four Great Questions?

  • Reality is the natural, sense-perceptible world
  • The spiritual is not real and/or not knowable – That’s been developing for a long period of time in our academic culture and although there’s an increase in talk about spirituality, when any serious moral issue arises it will be treated as not for something which will be treated as a subject for knowledge and that’s because it falls in a non physical realm. You cannot make any sense or morality if you stick to your physics. Same thing is true about logic. Logical implication is not something in the physical world. That doesn’t mean it’s not real. But, one of the funny things in philosophy is you watch people/students who go to study logic and they want to know what it’s all about, what are those funny symbols on the board and they very quickly learn and are socialized that you do not ask that question because if you ask that question, you’re too stupid to understand the answer. Logic, like morality is not a part of the physical world. Now that doesn’t mean it’s not real, it doesn’t mean we don’t know it. It means that under the prevailing outlook, we can’t come to grips with it.
  • You are your body
  • Well being is physical/social well-being: success, money, health

These „Answers” are the Assumptions of what we do and do not do

We wouldn’t try to defend them except in some philosophical context, possibly. But they are the assumptions that we live by and we set up our curriculum in those ways and we judge the qualification of people to teach and not to teach, to publish or not to publish, to get grants and not get grants. That’s where the world-view takes hold.

  • …and HOW we do (or do not do) it
  • They are the assumptions of the training, professionalization, socialization of our faculties.
  • They are not the outcome of rational research. No one has DISCOVERED them, found them to be true.
  • They are not knowledge

How does Jesus answer these four questions?

  • Reality is God and his activities, including the natural world (physical, social)
  • The person is well-off who has a life deriving from God and his „kingdom”
  • The good person is the person pervaded with God’s kind of love: AGAPE love
  • You become a good person by becoming an apprentice of Jesus Christ

Uploaded by

I want to stress this fact: A world view, a basically unified world view that is taught by inflection, action, model. You get crosswise of that you will soon find out that you’re not acceptable. It is very powerful, it is a sociological reality.

There is another world view, it is the one that founded the universities, and, intact dominated the universities until about 75 years ago. That change has come very recently. It is a part of a socialization process that is going on in history, a necessary one, in many respects, in which the university had to divorce itself from the implicit institutions of religion and society. (Recommends the book: The making of the modern university). It wasn’t that suddenly, someone found out that Jesus was wrong. Nobody found that out. It was not discovered, it was negotiated over a period of time in which people decided that it would be that way, and was able to set the tone against it. That’s what happened.

Where we now stand

  • The answers of Jesus constituted the world view of the universities well into the 20th century.
  • We have been locked into a sociological, not an intellectual reaction. We like to think of ourselves as engaged in a rational enterprise in the universities and we are apt therefore simply not to miss and understand the sociological realities that determine the world view that is actually taught.
  • See Julie Reuben, The Making of a Modern University (Book)
  • That goes along with the disappearance of logic from the campus. There’s almost no university or college in the world today that requires a course in simple logic, that is a part of the degree program. Your argument is now judged by your conclusion, not your conclusion by your argument.
  • The answers of Jesus have not been shown false and the now prevailing answers true. Until you recover the sense of logic you can never take that issue up.

Where to now?

  • Recognize that our world view assumptions are what govern life
  • Assume the „burden of proof”. Be a rational „skeptic”. I always tell my students: The burden of proof is always mine because I am the one who wants to know. I’m not in this discussion to put you back on your heels. I’m here to determine the truth and the burden of proof is mine. I’m not trying to win an argument. I think that’s one of the most important things that’s especially for Christians to understand. They’re not here trying to „duck and dodge”. If you can find abetter way than what is Jesus Christ’s offers, He would be the first person to tell you to take it and f you don’t believe that about Him, you can’t be His disciple because you can’t trust Him.
  • Thoroughly consider the teachings of the Bible and the record of Jesus’ people on the main world view issues.
  • Put His teachings to the test of life.
  • Do the same for the world view teachings of the current intellectual.
  • Then honestly compare. Don’t just rest in your „intellectually respectable” prejudices.

Question and answer session begins at the 35th minute.

  1. Do you consider Intelligent Design and Creationism a Science? What is and isn’t science shouldn’t be our fundamental question… Science, for me, is just a fancy word for knowledge… To me the fundamental question is, for any of those ideas is: Are they reasonable? Do they have strong support in the evidence? Do they fit together with a coherent world view?
  2. An atheist states: You use the words :knowledge of God”. I would argue that nobody can read or know the Bible or the Koran really well and know the customs and prayers really well and be sincere in their heart that it’s true, but how can one know God if one, can’t know at the same time, that miracles don’t exist? Logically, those are independent issues. You had many people who had standard arguments for the existence of God who had rejected miracles. It depends on whether you’re going to be a deist or a full blown theist. Christian theists tend to depend upon knowledge of miracles for their knowledge of God, at least partly.
  3. Dr. Willard, you had mentioned during the outlining of the secularization of the university that it was necessarily so, and possibly indicating that it was a good thing. How will I, as a person who does research in the sciences and yet, also have faith in Christ, integrate that and is it wrong to do that? And if the segregation of faith and academy is a good thing? In the period right after World War II, colleges and universities were thought not to be training people well for the future of the country. They were concerned particularly about technology, about science, but they were also concerned about international relations and things like that. There was a lot of criticism and what they experienced was this: Nearly all of the colleges and universities were closely aligned with denominations and what they found was that the denominational distinctives were not open to inquiry. That is why there had to be an opening up between institutional religion and inquiry. That is a good thing because the truth claims of religion should be open to scrutiny as any other field. Historically, religion has not been and that’s why there had to be some distance. Let’s open it now. That is what I am complaining about now on the secular side, we don’t have it (inquiry) because the secular side has trained itself to say that religion is not open to inquiry. That’s the change that had to be made.
  4. What steps do you think can be taken to encourage people to have open forums and do you see the university going in a positive direction or a negative direction? In philosophy, things have gotten considerably better in my lifetime.

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari