This passage from the Book of Enoch is interesting in that it underscores a point that Christian churches almost never point out: God doesn't forgive everyone who repents. Christians say, "God loves you," as easy as drug dealers say, "this is the good stuff."... and well, that's not surprising since it's a lot harder to convince sinners to become Christians if you tell them, "you may not go to hell but let's give it a good try."
What's pernicious about the whole thing is that you end up with a bunch of people who think they're Christian and going to heaven, and when one already believes he's going to heaven, his pride and self-righteousness usually does the rest. This is the same prideful road as those Muslims who believe killing a Jew will land them 72 virgins, and somehow, the word "sex orgy" will have a different meaning in heaven than on earth. On a side note, C.S. Lewis, wrote a terrific chapter on pride in his book, "Mere Christianity."
What's even more horrible is that you also have a bunch of people who think that God can be easily fooled. Want to end up in heaven? well.. just repent at anytime. It worked for the thief who was hung next to Jesus, so why not you? And you end up with people who expect to sin because, well, no one is perfect, right? and if you do, just confess your sins on your deathbed, and away to heaven you go. What a joke.
In this passage, the fallen angels calls on Enoch to be their intercessor and asked God for forgiveness on their behalf. Enoch prayed for them so that they may be forgiven, but he was brought up to God's throne so he could speak in person and meet Him face to face.
The fall of the angels is described in the Book of Enoch. This book, for some reason, was excluded from the Bible... which is really too bad because it contains a wealth of information that answers questions to a lot of Bible readers. Enoch was one of a very few select men whom God chose to reveal the mysteries of heaven-- he was brought across all seven levels of heaven and reached God's throne. He was probably the only man, except for Jesus Christ, to skip death completely in that God raised him directly to heaven in his old age (leaving his wife and children behind). Even Moses died and did not have this priviledge.
In this excerpt, we see the fallen angels make a secret agreement with each other to sleep with women of the earth, and have children with them. These children turned to become giants, and they were also evil and corrupt. When we say, "evil spirits," or "demons" it's actually the spirits of these giants, not the spirit of dead grumpy old men who got pissed that they couldn't take their million dollar bank accounts with them.. It's also because of these giants that God decided to wipe out the earth with the flood.
The fallen angels who slept with the women are called "Watchers," and it's they who introduced men to various crafts from making swords to astrology, to women's make-up.
Pay particular attention that Sataniel (i.e. Satan) is not mentioned here. :) Another passage of interest is that the fallen angels later repented and asked for God's forgiveness, but God did not forgive their sins. I lost that passage so I can't give any excerpts here.
I've started reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S Lewis. For those who aren't into literature, he was the author of the Narnia books, and he was also an atheist who later converted to Christianity with the help of J.R Tolkien (Lord of the Rings). The latter was what interests me since I was curious as to how he became a convert. In one of the chapters, he used a thought mechanism which I call the "box philosophy"-- something that I use. In this chapter, he made a strong assertion that if an all-powerful God exists, he must be good, and he must be One. In other words, there can't be multiple "gods" as in, for example, the Greek mythology where you have Zeus, Athena, Hera, etc.
There are essentially two views of "good and evil." The first view is that "evil" is a corruption in a world of "good." The second view is that there are two independent powers (good and evil), and these two powers are behind everything that is good and evil and there is an endless war between them. This latter view is called dualism, and it's also similar to the Chinese Yin/Yang philosophy.
Now, the fundamental axiom is that evil cannot exist by itself-- that is, you can't do evil for evil sake, but rather, a person who is doing evil is a person who is trying to do good for himself, but in the wrong or immoral way (such as hurting others in the process). A concrete example is someone who robs a bank to obtain wealth for hiimself-- i.e. it's good that he wants wealth, but robbing others is the wrong way of reaching that goal. This axiom invalidates the duality theory because evil is now dependent on good--- i.e. there is no one who does evil just because it's evil.... or in other words, an evil action is good for somebody-- usually the evil-doer. This necessarily implies that pure evil is self-destructing, and cannot exist by itself.
Supposing now that there are two "gods"-- one is good and the other one is evil (as to which one is which is a matter of preference).... then in this case, the god that is doing evil is really someone who is misguided and has gone the wrong path. This realization implies that there's a higher moral standard under which the behavior of these two gods can be judged--- and this higher power is the real God. If you take a more concrete example-- lets say Zeus, a "god" from Greek mythology-- he is married to his wife Hera, who is also a "god." However, he had several affairs with other women, one of which is a mortal woman, and eventually gave birth to a son-- Hercules. By any man's standard, having an affair with another woman is a wrong thing to do... hence, this moral standard cannot possibly come from Zeus himself, who does the immoral act, but must come from a higher authority that is higher than Zeus. Therefore, this higher power is the real God, and Zeus is no more divine or morally superior that the average man.
I call this the "box philosophy" because its similar to fitting something abstract into a bigger box until you can measure some degree of truth. Suppose you're moving to a different house, and you need to move your belongings. How big a truck do you need to move all your stuff? One way is to measure the dimension of each posession you have, and compute their sums (gee, what's the dimension of my broom?). If you do that, you'll never get anything done. The fastest way is to put your belongings into boxes of known sizes, then simply count the number of boxes. You put the smaller box into a bigger box, until you have one big box that's measureable. Ultimately, that one big box is the truck that will carry your belongings.
When I was back in high school, I made an assertion that probably still stands even now: you must either believe in God, or believe in aliens.
What?
Consider this: the universe is either infinite, or is not. If the universe is not infinite, then there is a well-defined boundary which necessarily means that the boundary is created and designed. Why? In the movie, "The Truman Show" Jim Carrey attempted to sail the world, until his boat hits the wall... why is the wall there? clearly, the wall is there because someone put it there. A goldfish might ask, "why am I in a bowl?" The existence of the bowl proves the existence of its owner, and the fish knows that there's something beyond the bowl, beyond the boundary, but this is something that it can't reach. If the universe had an end, you might ask, well,... what is the "end" made of? if you had a spaceship, will your spaceship hit rubber material? or solid rock? but what is that made of? what's beyond this material that limits the universe? Lets start drilling and find out about this "bigger" reality -- e.g. maybe the universe is wrapped inside another universe that's even bigger? But if the universe was truly finite, there would be an absolute end. A piece of material where you can't drill through... this is where you find your maker... the creator of the wall... i.e. God, on the other side of the wall. This is the point where you realize that you're the fish in the bowl.
Now, if you consider the universe as infinite, with inifinite number of planets and stars.... if you had a spaceship and start travelling one way, your spaceship will never see any end. There's always more planets, more suns, more galaxies,... an endless number of them. In this case, you must necessarily believe in the existence of aliens. Why? consider the question: what is the probability of life in the universe? Whatever the answer is, it is greater than zero because we exist. If the universe is infinite, then it will beat that probability, no matter how small it is, and therefore, there must be life on another planet somewhere.
You could argue that perhaps the universe is infinite, but the number of stars are finite, however this is a self-defeating argument because what you're essentially saying is that the universe is vastly empty except for a super-micro section of it that contains life. It's as self-defeating as saying that the universe contains infinite number of stars, but we happen to be the only living things that ever existed in the universe. Logically and mathematically, these arguments doesn't make sense. To say that we're the only living forms to have ever existed in an infinite universe has the same profound implication as the Christian view of creation and in fact align itself to it. You could also argue that the universe does have a boundary, but no one built it--- however, this argument is as absurd and insane as a man walking into the Great Wall of China and believing that no one built it and that it always existed for no reason at all.
For Christians though, they needn't worry about the infinite because the number of stars in the sky is finite. God counts them and calls each star by name (Psalm 174:4), so the probability of aliens existing in our universe is much, much smaller! :)
I came across this New York Times article which lists the top 100 things that waiters should never do. Although most, if not everyone, will probably agree that they're pretty good etiquettes to follow, one of them stands out among the rest:
34. Do not have a personal conversation with another server within earshot of customers.
I had lunch at a diner one day, and the waitresss was having a loud, hearty conversation with another customer. We were all sitting at the bar, so everyone within twenty-feet can hear what the conversation was about. Now, the waitress was pretty busty, and although the man was married, he was talking to her the same way a teenage guy would talk to a cute girl among other male peers--- with a mission to impress and standout among the rest. In a different, more upscale social setting, he'd probably be identifiable as the guy who drives a Bugatti with something to compensate.
But I digress. These two were having their private conversation straight through my meal, and it annoyed me so much I left without leaving anything on the table. Annoyed is actually putting it rather lightly. Disrespect is a more accurate word. Why is that? What exactly, then, is the meaning of respect?
How does one 'respect' a person? Is it done through verbal recognition, such as calling a man "sir" instead of "dude" ? Does respect manifest in an action, like an employee sucking up to the boss through flattery and being agreeable all the time? The dictionary defines 'respect' as "to hold in esteem or honor." -- useless as usual, they just give you the runaround by stating similar words. I can follow the dictionary's definition of "honor" and it will go back to "respect" which eventually tells me nothing about the real meaning.
Respect, is an acknowledgement and deference to one's existence. How does one 'respect' a person? Ironically, the most appropriate example of one giving respect is at a funeral when someone gives the dead person a moment of silence. In more simpler terms, the measurement of respect is time. Someone who is respectful of others is someone who knows how to shut their mouths and speak only at the appropriate time, which the waitress obviously had no clue about.
Are you following me? A more real life example may make more sense. I hate it when people talk to me while doing other things. If you want to talk to me, stop whatever you're doing and give me 100% of your time and attention. If you're talking to me and making a sandwich at the same time, it shows that your sandwich is just as important as I am, which is insulting because I'm definitely more important than a sandwich.
So, do you respect your wife? Turn off the TV when you speak to her and look at her eyes. Do you respect your husband? Have the same courtesy.
...in due time © 2008. Blog design by Lucian E. Marin — Converted by Randomness!