What is a human being? Take 2.

So here is my second attempt at defining what it is to be a human being; should be simple enough..!

Humans are relational beings and have the ability to have relationships with one another as well as with God. In Genesis 1:26-27 we read that humans were created by God in his image, ‘imago dei’. We must therefore explore God’s nature in order to infer how this reflection is relevant to human nature. In the ‘Nicene Creed’ - a statement of belief written for believers to outline their faith – the concept of the Trinity is highlighted. God is referred to in three forms: Father, Son and Holy Spirit whereby each of these has a ‘role’ to play in fulfilling God’s will. They are all God whilst still being able to work together in a communicative, relational manner; the three aspects to God are connected and associate with the others. This notion of relation must in turn be a quality of humankind and must apply to human beings seeing as they are made in the very image of God himself. The Bible states, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” in Mark 12:31 which enforces and further suggests human capability for relation. The link between “neighbour” and “self” proposes that humans cannot only interact but have the ability to feel emotion for others through their relationships.

The creation of the world is accounted in Genesis 1 in which we also read of the creation of mankind. Psalm 139 provides an intimate insight into God’s individual, unique design of every single human: “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (139:13) – this vivid image shows how from the moment that we are created, we rely on God purely for our existence. The Psalm also speaks of God’s omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence and how He has “written all the days that were formed when none of them yet existed” (139:16). This shows our human dependence on God throughout our life and the way that we supposedly rely on his provision as we follow the ‘path’ that he has laid out for us.

Finally, it is the ability to be rational that clearly sets humans apart from other species. Christian Theologian St Thomas Aquinas developed several arguments for the existence of God (namely the ‘Cosmological Argument’ and the ‘Design Argument’) both of which essentially conclude by claiming that God exists because he was the ‘first cause’ and ‘intelligent designer’ of the universe. The intelligence that Aquinas uses (through reasoning) to try to understand God’s relationship with the world around us acts as evidence of a rational, human brain. The idea of reason is another aspect of human nature that is enabled by human experience. CS Lewis, in the poem ‘Being Human’ compares angels and humans and outlines the fundamental difference between the two being a human’s capacity (being on earth) to have a sensory experience of the world whilst angels lack sensitivity to these tactile details. Our ability to reflect on experiences, whether painful or joyous, thus influences our future decisions through anticipation and imagination, once again connoting rationality.

To conclude, the human being is relational, created by, dependent and reliant on God with the ability to reason and be rational.

Reflection: "Where the godless don't go"

Whilst browsing the internet for something interesting, current and relevant to read I came across this article which really grabbed my attention. *Do give it a read if you fancy (it might give this post a bit more context and perhaps significance..)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/why-i-believe-in-god

I was immediately drawn in by the honest, real and relatable tone of the writer and found her arguments and claims refreshing as well as authentic and (in my opinion), valid.

I felt much relief when she addressed and renounced the common (and frustraing) misconceptions about those who have spiritual beliefs, more specifically Christians. She writes, "We come to church with our own set of baggage: greed, envy, anger, depression and laziness. We can be close-minded and belligerent. Sometimes we drive one another crazy." Whilst some may consider this admission irrelevant, I think that one of the biggest things that separates believers from non-believers (and vice versa) is the regrettable tendency of each to depreciate each others ideas and obtain a superiority over one another. Therefore, Gee Lewis' attempt to expose the common struggles of her religous peers and highlight their ordinariness acts as an effort to dismantle this barrier and unite humans instead.

The difference (which is arguable fundamental) for her as a Christian lies in what she places her hope, trust and reliance in. "But we keep coming back because we believe, and that belief translates into action."

I LOVE the clear distinction that she makes between 'religion' and 'spirituality'.  I personally cannot stand the term 'religious' - I find that when mentioned, an 'inevitable' opportunity for criticism arises and if I'm brutally honest, it even leaves the poor 'religious' one open to immediate judgement because the connotations appear, for the most part, negative. Hence, I find this quote brilliantly engaging: "I'm not religious, but I am a spiritual person."  Interestingly, when the author that she refers to announced this, "everyone cheered".. To me this shows that people clearly desire 'something' greater than what that life on earth offers us and that we arguably find the concept of spirituality enticing, fascinating and perhaps even admirable. But when it comes to religion, the notion is  unsatisfactory, meaningless and for some absurdly pointless!

The climax (and my highlight) of the article comes towards the end when Tiffany Gee Lewis explains thoughtfully the impact that religion has had on her life and human existence. I largely identify with her declaration that religion changes the way that we view the everyday, it can cause us to consider our own 'self' as part of a bigger picture, it motivates us to serve and be expectant beyond earthly reality. 


"Religion has made me, a wholly selfish person, into someone who cares about something bigger than myself. I don't drop to my knees every morning in some blind fanaticism, but to say, "God, I am at your service." For the faithful, we choose to see God in everything – the first crocus of spring, the curve of a young child's face. We hear his voice, not in a burning bush, but telling us how to parent a challenging child or help a friend." 


I find her ability to recognise, address and challenge the criticism that religion faces with a brutal honesty that presents strong and relevant arguments admirable. I'd like to think that I share her confident assurance of how faith is a choice which brings (at it's simplest) pure joy and appreciation.

Is it ever right for one to denounce this..?

The Creed v. Psalm 139

I am very fond of these two texts. Whilst both of them differ in their tone, purpose and origin, they both give insightful glimpses into how human's relate to God.

The Creed (primarily written for believers and acting as a statement of belief for Christians), seems to be used as a human submission to God, allowing us to recognize all that He has done. In doing so the text 'unites' all humans in their relationship with God which is clear from frequent use of "We believe..". Evidently, the Trinity is highlighted in the Creed which perhaps allows humanity to understand its significance in drawing us close to God in 3 persons. To me however, the reality of this happening through the text itself is questionable due to its nature as a seemingly succinct, chronological, densely packed account of the christian story which comes across as a purposeful practice or 'formality' rather than a spontaneous prayer between God and man. 

God is referred to in The Creed as: Father, Maker, Almighty, Son of God and Holy Spirit. These titles don't make Him seem particularly tangible but imply that He is more of a transcendent ruler. Furthermore, the text arguably lacks a personal feel and does not at any point mention "You" or "Me" with regards to human's and their relationship with God. The Creed also refers to God as "Him" and in doing so, further enforces this separation. I believe that an intimate sense of contact is fundamental for humanity when comprehending what God is and how he relates to us. 

Overall, this text appears to function as a collective way for human's to communicate with God however, does so in a way that disregards human emotion or circumstance and its effect on the relationship between the two.

On the other hand,  Psalm 139 starts with "O Lord" and  immediately we are led to believe that the Psalmist has regular communication with God himself and therefore uses the affectionate (or perhaps desperate ) address because he believes that God is genuinely listening to him, himself. It is worth pointing out here that the Psalmist appears to claim some ownership over God as his God.

Throughout the Psalm, the Psalmist refers to God's omniscience and omnipresence which suggests that they have experienced acts of God which have led them to this understanding of his character. Accordingly, the writer seems to have a close, personal relationship with God. This is particularly apparent when he asks "Where can I go from your spirit?", thus suggesting that he knows God as an imminent, all encompassing figure who is connected to humanity.

He refers to the "book" written specifically "for me" suggesting God’s provision and plan for each life, each of which is special, unique,and individual. In the passage, the writer believes that God takes an interest in human's and cares about our troubles - to the point that he ‘shines his light’ into our 'darkness' to comfort us ("..the night is as bright as the day, for the darkness is as light to you.") 

Essentially, whilst engaging in a song/prayer of praise and wonder (and at the same time one of fear and reverence), the Psalmist seems to believe in the reality of God being in a relationship with humanity whilst also acknowledging humanity's inability to comprehend God’s acts. 

The two texts highlight God's holiness and omnipotence over humanity however in addition to this, Psalm 139 presents the idea (and opportunity) of a communicative, accessible relationship with God.

  

First post

I really like this picture (which I found on the @fortismerers page)

To me, I guess it suggests that suffering is part of God's plan, showing that He will ultimately use it for good purpose and to strengthen us. This is much like St Irenaeus' theory I suppose. I like how despite the 'brokenness', the pot actually looks richer and fuller after the gold - a good metaphor for human suffering perhaps..?