I’m Back

Today in my Jewish Philosophy class, I had one of those random, out of place “revelations”, or light bulb moments in the middle of a discussion that practically had nothing to do with what I was thinking about. I love those times; I love that the Lord still blesses me with insights and thoughts when in the middle of a secular, very liberal university. Anyway, we were discussing Plato’s Sophist dialogue. The dialogue is meant to first define a Sophist and what it is (vs is not), then to discuss questions of “being” and “non-being”, and then finally discuss more of what a Sophist is in terms of “being” and “non-being”. Basically Plato is practicing the art of philosophy (acknowledging and accepting only things that exist that they can have power/rulership over) by rejecting the practice of Sophists in terms of their validity of philosophical stances and methodology of delivery (dialogue vs speech etc). That was a really poor way of explaining the context of the discussion, but it’s not really important for my point (I don’t think).

Basically in the midst of this discussion, we were talking about an example that if you had children, and one of them was getting too close to the street, with passing cars, coming and going; As a parent, would you tell the child, “Don’t get close to the street!” Or would you say, “Hey, come over closer to me,” (without acknowledging what not to do). Which one would be more successful or beneficial? Instead of linking this example strictly to the issue of “being” and “non-being” in regards to the Sophist, my mind went to Genesis 3 and the garden, which God commanded,

“But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, you shall not eat, nor shall you touch it, lest you die” (vs 3) (2:17).

To put this very simple and straight forward, Adam and Eve were given two options; To not eat of the fruit and obey or to eat of the fruit and disobey. In class I thought, “wow, humankind has had two options from the very beginning, and it is the goodness and mercy of God that we had/have two options. (Side-note : even before sin required it, there was mercy. Ahh!) First we discover urgency. To explain I will jump back to the example with the child being close to the road and the oncoming traffic. As a parent, if you tell your child, Don’t get close to the road”, as opposed to the other option, the child is going to weigh that command as being crucial, or urgent, rather than not acknowledging the negative, the “Don’t.”

This urgency and also the available two options we have invites us into a capacity for greater love – When we have a choice and a decision to choose a path, our obedience and devotion becomes valued to us. The ability to choose places value on it.

As I thought about it, I was having a hard time getting my mind around that concept : “We have a greater capacity to love when we choose it.” Why? Well, as I was thinking and asking the Lord, I realized that when we choose, there is a cost. There is something that we are giving up, or turning away from when we choose. You’re choice becomes valued because there was a cost, a sacrificing, a laying down of the other.

While God does not tempt, He informed us, acknowledged that there are two options: obedience and disobedience, and with that comes an invitation of as much fullness (capacity) of love as you choose.

Okay, I realize that all of that was a lot of “scatteredness” , but it is so fresh in my mind and I just spewed it out. Sorry Let me know what you think and if you have anything to add or discard.