Every now and then, on a Friday, I’ll step into the deep waters of Philosophy, ramble on about some idea and maybe even interact with something I might be reading. Most of the time, a real philosopher could probably read my drivel and speak into it offering a corrective—but for now I’ll speak from ignorance. After all, it is Friday; what better way to have fun than with philosophy. In this post I’ll answer the question “Am I Here?” referring to you the reader, not me Rey, in under 700 words. Heh.
Category: apologetics
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. (Col 2:16-17 // NASB95)
I’ve seen this passage used quite a number of times to support several conclusions: (1) that the ceremonial portion of the Law were a type that pointed to Christ (the anti-type) and therefore should not be followed anymore—whereas the moral portions should be followed; (2) that the Torah was integral to pointing to Christ so that a person currently has the freedom to keep it (yes, including the ceremonial portions) as long as they do so in respect to Christ; and (3), that all those things that belonged to Israel (law, tabernacle, priesthood) were shadows that now belong to the body of Christ, the Church, to be used by her as she sees fit. Obviously some disagreement on to what should be done with the shadows in Colossians 2—but they are in agreement that the shadows are the things from the past. I deny all three positions.
I wound up summarizing my series on illegal immigration with some of the solutions consisting of public policy implemented at the governmental level and then some vocational wisdom that is likely the only real world activity we can practically implement. The problem with some of solutions I gave is in what I didn’t say resulting in making some of the solutions the moral superior ideal even though I noticed they technically aren’t.
The problem point is found in the second paragraph: I listed government sponsored health benefits, public education, government programs to train with banking, and public housing with cultural support. Why is this situation listed as ideal? What makes it morally superior?
A while back I did a post where I attacked the position that one must dress up for church. But there was one workaround I purposefully ignored in light of its complexities. “Since it is true that I don’t have to dress up for Church to impress God”, says a reader,” therefore I can dress how I want.” The first half of the answer to this sort of response deals with the subject of modesty and gender specific clothing—a topic I’m not planning to get into in this post. The second half of the answer deals with how we use what we wear.
This doesn’t only apply to clothing. There’s nothing in Scripture against movies (well, certain kinds of movies anyway) but movies can also fall under the usage I plan to explain here. There’s nothing in Scripture against cell phones, iPods, video game systems, cartoons or cheerios either—but all of these will fall underneath the same header: Things that can one can use to illustrate the Gospel.