What did Jesus mean when he said, "Whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
by Roland Clarke
Jim Elliot said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose” thus echoing Jesus words, “whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me...will save it.” Emulating Jesus, Jim Elliot and his four teammates laid down their lives as martyrs so the Waodani people could hear and receive eternal life. Interestingly, the paradox of 'saving/losing' one's earthly life has wider application. As Solomon wrote, “Give freely and become more wealthy; be stingy and lose everything. The generous will prosper; those who refresh others will themselves be refreshed.” Jesus also said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” A modern Kurdish proverb echoes this paradox, “What you give away you keep,” as well as Arabic proverbial wisdom, “If you do charity your house will always be rich.” So what is the outcome of living this way? Cherokee (& Persian) sages came up with an interesting proverb, “When you were born you cried and the world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice.” (cf. Book of Ecclesiastes 7:1-5)
Jonah's Story Was A Central Motif in Jesus's Preaching
“[L]et us consider which is harder, for a man after having been buried to rise again from the earth, or for a man in the belly of a whale…to escape corruption.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
Catechetical Lecture 14.18 [1]
Jonah Ίωνας
The Jewish Tanakh, or the Hebrew scriptures of the revelation library that is the Old Testament of the Bible, contains the full writings of all the writing prophets. This includes the entire book of Prophet Jonah (4 chapters). Jonah is also importantly referred to in the New Testament by Jesus himself, as recorded seven times in two of the four gospels: three times in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 12, once in verse 16:4, and three times in the Gospel of Luke chapter 11. In both gospels Jesus is asserting that he himself is greater than both Jonah and Solomon, and that is all the more reason why his audiences should repent. So much so that if they did not, then both the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites will rise up at the time of the final divine judgment to condemn them. Very strong words. But where did Jesus get off claiming to be greater than both prophet Jonah and King Solomon? Where indeed? Clearly Jesus believed he was the greatest of the prophets, and more than a prophet, the one-and-only Messiah, and rightful King of Israel (even though he never sought political power). If he was not then it
A Solution to the So-Called Euthyphro Dilemma
by John Shaheen—
*John wrote this as a pre-med senior at UM-Dearborn (Biology) who graduates this weekend. He has also been the student president of Ratio Christi all four years, as well as a co-founder and Vice President of Faith & Reason in his final year.
Despite having been written over two millennia ago, the Euthyphro Dilemma remains one of the most famous and persistent problems in philosophy of religion. It is still being discussed in published literature today and taught in nearly every intro philosophy course. In its original form, Plato writes of a dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro (Plato et al., 2017). Socrates asks Euthyphro whether moral goodness (piety) was defined by the gods choosing it, or were the gods just cognizant of a standard that existed outside themselves? This question has been reposed over the centuries to apply to a more orthodox, monotheistic conception of God. While many thinkers have merely accepted and defended one of the horns of the dilemma, others have contested that it is a false dilemma and proposed other options. William Alston, Paul Copan, and William Lane Craig are a few names that have defended the coherence of a third option (Alston, 2001, Copan & Meister 2008, Craig & Moreland, 2012.) Furthermore, they defend that an argument for God’s existence can be crafted from the existence of objective moral values and duties. This argument require that their theistic explanation is the best account of morality that is currently available. The Euthyphro Dilemma, if successful, undermines this project. Here I will argue that the Euthyphro dilemma is unsuccessful in this regard, hence the moral argument cannot be criticized from this direction.
Why Darwinism Does Not Compromise Swinburne's Design Argument
*John is a pre-med senior at UM-Dearborn (Biology). He has also been the student President of Ratio Christi all four years, as well as a co-founder and Vice President of Faith & Reason in his final year.
In discussing design arguments, Richard Swinburne differentiates between two different variants in this family of arguments. The first variant he describes as arguments from spatial copresence (Swinburne, 1968). These arguments intend to infer the existence of a deity from some observed physical arrangement in the world (that can be recognized at one moment in time) that would be improbable to have occurred naturally. Darwinian evolution has become a formidable barrier to this form of argumentation, so Swinburne presents an alternate form that avoids this objection altogether. I will argue that his route of argumentation is the best way to avoid the implications of Darwinian evolution.
Why Personalism is a Better View for God than Classical Theism
*John is a pre-med senior at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. He has been the student President of Ratio Christi all four years, as well as a co-founder and Vice President of Faith & Reason in his final year.
The discussion of God’s personhood is layered with philosophical, historical, theological, and personal aspects. The philosophical plausibility of this concept will be defended here, first against objections, followed by a discussion of alternatives. A brief examination of the prevailing views of the theistic God (at the most basic level) lead to classical theism and theistic personalism. The former is a view developed and perpetuated by medieval philosophers and purports that God is simple, changeless, timeless, and essentially indescribable by human thought. The latter is a more modern development that embodies the idea that God is more knowable and understandable than classical theists say, and may even change. Essentially, he is a person. Within each of these schools of thought, there are likely subsects of philosophers that adhere to weaker and stronger tenets of the ideologies, but generally, the above beliefs are held in common.