Abstract
Homo sapiens has developed during some 300,000 years.
During the recent 10,000 years humankind invented grammar, in order to use
language to reason about discoveries. Grammar empowered rapid discovery of the
ineluctable truth and how to benefit or pursue the good. No other species has
the power of discovery, so humankind is in charge of ordering life on earth.
Humankind’s
technological achievements seem exponentially fast. For example, flight
progressed from hot air balloon 240 years ago (ya), to small engine plane 120
ya, to jet propulsion to the moon 54 ya. NASA now plans a colony on Mars.
However,
humankind’s constraint of political chaos seems regressive. Grammar is used to justify
enmity and war on arbitrary bases rather than on ineluctable evidence. People
steal and murder, because they want to. What has empowered the divergence of
technological and political achievements and what can be done to pursue an
achievable better future? This essay proposes a solution: education to human
being (verb) more than to worker.
the-God and the-good
In our
world, it seems responsible to think something constrains to the-good the
choices a person may make. From the moment of birth, a person endures the world’s
crisis march and either develops awareness and perseverance to the-good or wanders
toward the-bad. By their sequence of choices, each person may pursue perfection
of their unique human-being, as they approach death. They encounter both
personal and global crises, and by cumulative choices each person achieves
their destiny. Good choices sustain life: bad choices invite early death. The good choice neither initiates nor
accommodates harm to or from any person, including self. Some people never
accept their individual power to choose the-good, and some expect a higher
power to act for their benefit. Often, necessity motivates a person to pursue
the-good, and from that moment on, they may live without repeating an error, if
not live error free.
What is the-good?
Many
people attribute the-good to a doctrine they construct, in order to negotiate
favor. However, doctrine is like “truth”; if someone wants to distort “truth”,
they may change the subject.[1] Similarly, few people
humble to the-good their doctrine. People either humbly accept or arrogantly
deny that the human-being may and can responsibly, independently pursue the-good
-- always reject the-bad. I think (do not know) that the attraction
to discover the-ineluctable-truth[2] is the-good. In
other words, comprehending and practicing the-good draws humankind to life and
evil promises chaos. Humankind’s destiny rests on both individual and
collaborative choices that pursue the-good. But some people seek aid and
comfort from either mystery or force; either the-God or government.
The-God
Unschooled
to persevere to the-good, most monotheistic cultures construct their doctrine
to characterize the-God[3]. Theologians
compete, and assume, honestly or not, that the other is pursuing the same deity
but hasn’t responsibly characterized it. They assume that non theists
nevertheless may accommodate religious doctrine. Often, theists speak in
different times and places, never imagining that their constructs conflict with
each other and probably with the-God. Most believers never consider the folly
of characterizing the-God.
Government
Some
fellow citizens do not pursue the-good. Consequently, coercion and force is
necessary. Most nations use military force against foreign offense and police
for domestic constraint. The rule of law is preferred. Its challenge is to pursue
statutory justice, which requires written law without injustice. Paul wrote to
a church, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” Many philosophers assert that the
common good must provide privacy in human choices such as means of earning the
living one wants and practicing a religion or none. Partnership of church and
state cannot offer much less provide justice.[4]
To fulfill Genesis 1:26-28, the good must neither initiate nor accommodate harm
to or from any person or institution. In self-interest, the civic citizens
appreciatively pay the cost if their government purses legislation and law
enforcement if not statutory justice.
Physics and progeny
For all
I know, the only power that can constrain human choice is physics. Something initiated conversion of potential
energy into kinetic energy plus mass, at the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.[5]
Evolution has followed the laws of physics and evolved its progeny, such as
mathematics, psychology, and lies, ever since. There remains the question: What nudged physics at the Big Bang? Perhaps
the-God caused it. I know of no ineluctable evidence.
I think
discovery of how to benefit from physics empowers humankind to eventually
discover the-good and constrain the-bad. The citizen who reliably chooses
the-good also mimics the-God visiting earth, whatever the-God is. I think and
trust that the-God facilitates and encourages the-good that human-beings may
pursue. I trust-in and commit-to, some say “have faith-in”, physics. And the
activation of potential energy, 13.7 billion years ago, for all I know, was an
act of the-God. It is not necessary for me to solve the-God mystery in order to
pursue the-good. It seems folly to try to characterize the-God. However, I
think it is essential for believers to retain sufficient humility: My-god probably reports to the-God.
Western thought seems built on myths
In
Mesopotamia, 5500 years ago, spiritualism reason morality. Polytheism prevailed
in competitive civilizations. Many polytheisms were similarly constructed: to
explain the universe based on primitive perception. For example, many cultures
worshiped the sun as a god; after all, overexposure to the sun often killed
humans and other animals. Many worshipped a god of wisdom and other gods, for
example, of creation. In the Middle East, polytheistic Sumerian kings invented
rule by law, impacting many subsequent religions. Most Sumerians pursued
the-good under law codes. Dissidents and rebels suffered enforcement of the
codes. Civic[6] citizens benefitted,
and so did dissidents who reformed.
Monotheism
By
4000 years ago, the formerly polytheistic Middle East seemed dominated by
competitive monotheisms. Three major Abrahamic monotheisms developed, starting
2700 years ago, as expressed in Israel’s Old Testament; a branch was canonized
1600 years ago in Christianity’s New Testament; and another was recorded about
1400 years ago in either the Qur’an or the haddith. Other monotheisms persisted with smaller
followings. Thus, modern religious debate is bemused by competitive monotheisms
recorded during 1300 years beforehand, then debated for the last 1400 years, repressing
and obstructing principles from the far-ancient past. I suggest that modern
human-beings can improve present and future comprehension by canonizing an
Ancient Testament, comprised of spiritual and political philosophies from
Mesopotamia, including Sumer. Readers might then perceive the confusion of gods
that is constructed in competitive monotheism and perhaps together pursue
the-good without doubts imposed by assumption, belief, or denial about mystery.
In other words, accept the-God mystery and associated comforts, in order to
improve ways of living on earth.
For all
I know, each monotheism slowly pursues the-God by working to improve their doctrine,
but, so far, religion and civility, church and state -- civic morality -- has
not kept pace with technology, the observable consequence of research and discovery.
Humility is lacking. In other words, perseverant integrity[7] hasn’t supplanted regretful
honesty. It seems competitive monotheism begot chaos.
Opportunity to reform erroneous ages of spiritual dominance
Viewed
as the recent edge of 300,000 years’ emergence of homo sapiens, nearly 100,000
years of spiritualism led to the polytheisms 5500 years ago. Then, 4000 years
ago competitive monotheisms prevailed: civilizations constructed doctrinal gods.
Religious literature created by 1400 years ago bemuses western political
thought. Now, information on the Internet[8] empowers humankind
to reform church and state, in order to develop humankind rather than to
maintain competitive religions and traditions. It won’t be easy to reform 4000
years’ competitive literature that is even now exponentially expanding. I hope
this article gets counted in the kaleidoscope.
Mesopotamian doctrine
In
Mesopotamia, the ancient Middle East, Sumerian clergy held that the universe emerged when Nammu, the primeval waters, gave birth to Ki (the earth) and An (the sky). Earth and sky produced a son named Enlil. Enlil separated heaven from earth and claimed the earth
as his domain.[9] His
rival brother, Enki, created humankind.[10]
Perhaps “creator” expresses the-God, my lower-case “c” to retain humility
respecting actual-reality: deity or not. Sumerian cities had patron gods.
Citizens hoped they would be saved by their-god
if an enemy attacked them.
Civic citizens empowered to rule
Sumerian
kings, leading invention of the wheel for work effectiveness, irrigations, and
many other human advances, concluded that the mysterious creator assigned rule
of life on earth to humankind. Perhaps being the first civilization to write,[11]
Sumer kings also first-developed law codes that empower civic[12]
citizens to constrain dissidents and rebels. The code of Ur-Nammu is about 4100
years old. It protects widows, orphans, and the poor. (These specific provisions
were later repeated in the Bible as Moses’ law.) A murderer must be killed.[13]
Sumerian law codes progressed through about 3800 years ago, when Hammurabi
conquered Mesopotamia. The Hammurabi code added the presumption of innocence.[14]
Sumer took responsibility for order on earth by continually pursuing the-good
as statutory justice[15],
leaving mystery to the creator, the other gods, and to each city’s god.
Other Mesopotamians
Also
Mesopotamian, ancient Semites who developed Israel were polytheists.[16]
Their transition to competitive monotheism may have come through Hebrew El and
its Arab cognate La, the precursor to competitive Abrahamic religions. Israel recorded
civil codes, purported to be moral, as Moses’ law. Yahweh would protect Israel
in war, for example, defeat Chemosh, god of the Semetic Moabites in Canaan. A
branch of Israel imagined an anointed one would empower Israel to unite the 12
tribes. A subsequent, minor Jewish faction perceived Jesus was the anointed one[17].
When Gentiles perceived Jesus’ political impact, they dominated the Jesus
movement under, eventually, “Christ”, the English translation of the Greek word
for “anointed one”. “Christ” lessens Jesus’ civic influence by deluding the
suggestion that Jesus is in fact the-God. In
other words, does Jesus, Divine or not, accept competitive church changing his
name? Do the churches care? Many gods are involved in this reported
Mesopotamian history, and the Bible has many illustrations of groups using gods
to divide from humankind rather than to collaborate. For example, today there
are under 10 Christian canon[18]
and 47,000 Protestant sects[19]
worldwide.
A pivotal civic message to humankind
The
Sumerians perceived that Enki left it to humankind to choose to order to the-good
life on earth. Reviewing Mesopotamian literature, primarily in law codes and
treaties, Israeli scholars could write, in Genesis 1:26-28, that on earth, with
land appearing from a watery void, humankind is in charge: the creator cannot
usurp human duty. Quoting the NIV text,
Then God said, “Let
us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they
may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the
livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along
the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in
the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God
blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the
sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the
ground.
I quote NIV, the New International
Version, because of the phrase, “so that they may rule . . . and subdue”.
Coming from the creator, “may” implies “can choose to”. The Complete Jewish Bible has “and let them
rule”, whereas some translations cite dominion,
which accommodates rather than discourages capricious conduct. In other words, free will would accommodate choosing the
bad whereas may and can choose to rule does not. Genesis 1:26-28 is a
matter-of-fact statement, coming from what I call “the-God” and Sumer called
Enki. Yet perhaps that actual entity controls the consequences of human choice,
like physics. Doubtfully, it’s Jesus, one of history’s pivotal political
philosophers. (Being aware of bemusements does not imply misperception.)
Impact
The
Genesis-1 message asserts that only humankind has the psychological and
physical power to order life on earth. Only the-good facilitates order. Persons
who choose not to rule on earth are the dissidents or rebels to be constrained.
Additionally, humankind continually demonstrates that they may and can
constrain or survive the chaos that natural phenomena impose. The Israeli scripture
is about 2700 years old, but the Mesopotamian political thought is perhaps 5500
years old. And it seems that everything humankind has discovered since then
affirms this claim: on earth, humankind is responsible to discover and choose actions that
increase order rather than accommodate chaos. The person who chooses
chaos rejects human being (verb). Knowingly choosing error is sin.
Experiences
and observations inform that neither church nor government can usurp
humankind’s reason for being: collaboratively pursing the good. An individual
may and can choose to independently constrain chaos in the way they live and to
resist injustice by aiding statutory justice in legislation and law enforcement.
When most citizens pursue responsible human independence, Genesis 1:26-28 is
fulfilled. As of 2023, irresponsibility and chaos march on if not prevail on
earth.
Development of G-d
Steeped
in Semitic[20]
polytheism, ancient Israel segued from “God” in Genesis 2:3 to “the Lord God”
in Genesis 2:4. Instead of Genesis 1’s “God” who created woman also in their
likeness, Israeli scholars describe “the Lord God”, Yahweh, “Adonai, God”. That entity overtly instructs Adam,
alone tending the Garden of Eden and needing a “suitable helper”. “[Adam] gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and
all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.” So
Yahweh created a woman from Adam’s rib (even though God had already created
male and female). Yahweh lessened female from Genesis 1’s
co-likeness of the-God to a derivative of Adam. Israel became patriarchal. Yet
physics informs us the woman produces the ova from which a human embryo may be
conceived! I think there are many other instances of unapologetic if not
arrogant separation from the-God and friend of humankind to a god the
constructors would influence to destroy other groups of humankind. Yahweh
favors not only its culture but the men therein.
From Adam on,
Old Testament writers seem to hold that God is One, with many labels revered to
accommodate a story. Some Jews write “G-d” to indicate the One.[21] I prefer the-God.
I have no problem when people want to develop doctrine, and I want them to know
my opinion, respecting civic integrity. On hearing and considering my opinion,
they are positioned to share a view that humankind may consider: Humankind has the power on earth.
The
transition from Genesis 1’s “God” to Genesis 2’s “Yahweh” introduces personal
dialogue with elite persons. Some personal encounters with G-d, according to
Complete Jewish Bible, include:
1.
Yahweh told Adam to avoid the knowledge of good and evil, Genesis 2:17.
2.
God instructed Noah about the
flood, Genesis 6:13-14.
3.
Yahweh ordered Noah to enter
the ark, Genesis 7:1.
4.
God told Noah when to leave
the ark, Genesis 8:15-17 and blessed them, Genesis 9:1-17.
5.
Yahweh told Abram to leave
his homeland and blessed him, Genesis 12:155.
6.
Yahweh sent Moses to Egypt to
rescue Israel, Exodus 3:10.
7.
Yahweh told Joshua to lead
Israel across the Jordan, Joshua 1:1-2.
8.
Yahweh told Samuel Eli’s
family was evil, 1 Samuel 3:11-14.
9.
Yahweh asked Isaiah who to
send, Isaiah 6:8.
10.
Yahweh said “I am God
Almighty” to Abram, Genesis 17:1.
I know not if the contacts with Noah represent
interchangeability of “God” and “the Lord God”: perhaps God, of Noah’s age,
differs from Yahweh, introduced for Abram’s descendants, from whom Israel
developed. In some cases, Yahweh speaks to actors through emissaries, in
dreams, in spirit, and in personal opinion. Some protagonists name G-d[22],
and I don’t doubt their sincerity. I still want them to consider “the-God”,
because it addresses an extant entity, whatever its characterization, whereas
“G-d” proudly expresses humility.
Competitive
theism is illustrated in a particular Bible passage. Ruth 1:16-17, CJB, states,
“But Ruth replied, ‘Your people will be my
people and your God my God. May the Lord deal
with me. . . if even death separates you and me.” Ruth, a Moabite,
was changing from Chemosh to Yahweh, and admitting that the Lord would judge her.
I think this informs us of a Jewish tradition: earnestly arguing theism while
reserving humility to the-God, whatever it is -- a good practice. I hope G-d
carries equal humility.
It
seems to me Abrahamic scholars wrote in Genesis 1 a creation story consistent
with Mesopotamian tradition: the creator, God, positioned male and female human
beings to choose to rule to the-good on earth. Then beginning in Genesis 2:4,
following the Sumerian tradition of cities choosing their patron god and
Semites choosing their military gods, Abrahamic scholars wrote a story about
the Lord God talking to Adam. Through Adam, the Lord God would rule on earth,
the woman separated from the Genesis 1 image of the creator. I doubt the wisdom
of subjugating Eve.
The Greeks
Scholars
vainly debate the character of the-God. Plato, 2500 years ago, in “Symposium”,
wrote about a philosophy group debating Eros’s impact on humankind. Agathon,
rather than addressing impacts on men, characterized
Eros as both the cause of everything and appreciator to the-good. “His greatest
glory is that he can neither do nor suffer wrong to or from any god or any man.”
Similarly, Israel expresses the-God’s character with “Khesed”, the combination
of enduring commitment,
generosity, love, and loyalty.[23]
I perceive all 4 characteristics in the-God’s message in Genesis 1:26-28.
Accepting these 4 expectations to me, I doubt neither mine nor my neighbor’s
ability to choose the-good. And when I perceive the-bad, I express my perception
with ears, in order to encourage someone to change: either my appreciative,
corrected neighbor or grateful, accepting me, after I considered and accepted
their response.
Plato (d. 348
bce), in Euthyphro, has Socrates ask,
“"Is the [good] loved by
the gods because it is [good], or is it [good] because it is loved by the
gods?"[24]
The philosophers reason that the good must satisfy all the gods, which is
unlikely, since the gods compete. It seems competitive monotheisms have, long
since, exacerbated chaos rather than approached order. Since humans construct
the gods, it’s no wonder that order on earth seems charged to humankind.
The-God could be as obvious as physics or the ultimate good humankind pursues
but probably something no one has imagined.
Jesus in the world
Isaiah, a Jewish
prophet, predicted that an anointed one would unite Israel for a future age of
peace. Later, a Jewish minor faction thought Jesus is the anointed one, and gentiles, observing Jesus’ political influence
projected Jesus as the Greek, Ο Χρισμένος, later translated “Christ”. Some
Islamic factions also think Jesus is to bring future peace.[25] Thus, all three
Abrahamic religions (and some of their competition as well as some pagan antagonists)
consider if not appreciate Jesus.
Today,
monotheism may be more disperse than polytheism could ever be. There are too
few ancient unknowns to sustain polytheism. For example, we know the sun is a
natural nuclear reactor. Whereas the polytheisms discover explanations for
their constructed mysteries, the monotheisms preserve tradition and rationalize
internal divisions[26].
There are many Jewish movements,[27]
Islamic branches,[28]
Christian sects,[29]
and pagan religions[30]
derived from ancient Middle Eastern beliefs, not to exclude Eastern
philosophies and religions. Perhaps the world population has 0.015 billion
Jews, 2.4 billion Christians, 2 billion Muslims, and 0.003 billion pagans among
8 billion people. Additionally, 1.3 billion Hindus, 0.5 billion Buddhists, and
some non-theists appreciate Jesus’ civic influence to the-good. Thus, 6.2 of 8
or 78 % of the world’s population appreciate either Jesus, or Christ, or Jesus
Christ, or the Jesus-mystery. I think my influences to the-good during 7
decades came from publically, persistently considering Jesus and attempting to
perform according to my comprehension. There is no mystery, to me: every good choice I made during my 80 years
was influenced by considering Jesus’ civic influence. Fortunately, I recognized
this at age 78 and increased my intentions to the-good.[31]
Jesus’ civic influence
Jesus did not
write, so we only have opinion and stories written about him decades after his
execution. Complimentary contemporary recollections are in the 4 gospels:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, written 4 to 7 decades after Jesus’ death. New
to me is the epistle of James, Jesus’ brother, issued in 48 AD, sooner after Jesus’
death in 33 AD. James seems unencumbered by other writers’ memories. He seems
to encourage fellow Jews to accept Jesus’ improvements on Moses’ law, and to
expect to enjoy Jesus’ return as the Messiah. Hopefully, the authors kept
journals as they walked with Jesus. But their reports are dubious, often
conflicting, and always controversial. Writers portray Jesus variously as man,
fellow citizen, teacher, rabbi, political philosopher, son of man, son of God, the-God,
and the Word[32].
Jesus’ improvements of Moses’ law challenge its origin; was Jesus present, with
competition? Despite these mysteries, Jesus
is my civic influence.
The civic
Bible-reader can discern in Jesus-the-represented-man a political philosopher
who wastes no time in establishing relationships with the various people he
encounters. As a fellow Jew, Jesus engages the rabbinic improvement of Moses
law and reminds sincere Moses-lawyers of the principles in Genesis 1. As a
fellow citizen, he confronts errant civic behavior, accepting without objection
the person’s ethnicity, and suggests reform. He cautions people not to
misrepresent him. His caution to be humble is for the poor as well as for the
rich. Facing his grand civil inquisitor, Pontius Pilot, Jesus denies kingship,
stating that he was born to witness to
the truth. The truths Jesus speaks are affirmed by humankind’s experiences
and observations in every generation, and I attribute seeming contradictions to
the writer, preacher or scholar. I listen when fellow-citizens offer new
viewpoints about Jesus’ civic guidance; I seek to learn reasons to reconsider
my opinion. I pursue the-ineluctable-truth, because I do not know: my opinion
is never sufficient. I think Jesus was only an authentic man pursuing the-good,
but for all I know, he is the-God. I
feel liked in the world and in my Sunday school class and church, even though I
am neither Baptist nor Christian. I could be wrong to feel good.
New Testament unintended support for Genesis 1:26-28
With all the
above background, I am now in a position to invite the reader to consider an
often examined epistle and evidence that its unarticulated objective is to
practice, encourage, and facilitate responsible human independence as suggested
in Genesis 1:26-28. Thereby, I want to make the case that humankind’s opportunity
to live pivots on civic integrity[33]
rather than on religion, for example, salvation of souls or salvation from sin
-- surrogate redemption after intentional personal error.
I considered the
New Testament book of James using both the New International Version and the
Complete Jewish Bible. Jesus’ brother, perhaps 1 decade after Jesus died,
understood Jesus statement, “The world can’t
hate you, but it does hate me, because I keep telling it how wicked its ways
are.” [34] I think
James, intending to affirm Messianic Jesus (rather than Christ), effectively
suggests simply accepting the-God, in order to rule life on earth. Accepting the-God without characterization plus
pursuing Jesus’ civic influence helps me discern the-good in human connections
and transactions.
Considering the book of James, Chapter 1
Entering my 9th
decade, and having studied political philosophy to the-good for 7 decades, I
feel placid, even though I do not know the-ineluctable-truth. Based on
my experiences and observations, the message in Genesis 1:26-28 seems reliable.
The message is: only humankind can pursue order to the-good for living on
earth. In other words, when humankind does not accept the responsibility to
the-good, chaos prevails. It is a message of enduring commitment, generosity, appreciation,
and loyalty. To the listening and considerate individual, it means she or he
can choose to constrain chaos in their way of living. Each person may and can
pursue responsible human independence. Not choosing the-good invites death.
Mistakes cannot be repeated without harm. It was that way in the beginning. Can
James 1 be interpreted as motivation and inspiration to accept Genesis 1:26-28
and behave for the-good?
James, in his
way, appreciated his brother, Jesus. I won’t fault anyone’s unique attention to
Jesus. For my years, now in 2023, I think Jesus voluntarily advocates the-good,
expressing Genesis 1:26-28’s reliable message. For examples, I perceive Jesus
expresses the following ideas for successive generations:
1.
A man shall unite to his wife’s motivation and
inspiration, Matthew 19:5.
2.
Before Abraham was born, civic citizens
persevered to the-good, John 8:58.
3.
Aid your Commander-in-Chief, Matthew 22:21.
4.
Pursue civic perfection; other humans may
mimic you, Matthew 5:48.
5.
I was born to discover and practice
the-ineluctable-truth, John 18:37.
6.
Individuals may and can choose the-good, Mark
7:14-15.
7.
Don’t debate competitive religion, Mark
12:13-15.
8.
Good intentions necessitate good actions, John
12:26.
9.
Don’t repeat mistakes, John 8:11.
10.
Necessity demands the-good and punishes
the-bad, John 12:47-48.
This list is only a sampling. I hope the reader perceives that I
don’t know the mystery of Jesus yet can perceive the-good. I don’t want anyone
to think as I do but want to listen to any appreciation of Jesus, so that I may
consider improving my appreciation. Let’s see what James wrote. I will keep
track as I review Chapter 1’s verses.
James, Chapter 1
First, James
thinks his sibling, Jesus, is the Messiah. James addresses uniting the 12 tribes of Israel unto peace rather than inviting gentiles unto soul salvation. For
all I know, Jesus is the-God to humankind and I perceive certainty that Jesus
advocated the-good against the-bad. Addressing Israel separately, in Genesis 2
and beyond, lessens the Genesis 1 focus on humankind (James, Verse 1).
Faithfully
(responsibly) choosing the-good after consciously weighing the-bad is its own
fulfillment, so temptation, to the civic citizen, is rare if not out of the
question. A person’s accumulated choices determines their perfection or ruin,
so civic citizens persevere until death ends their unique opportunity. Some
persons choose the-bad, not on temptation, but through familiarity with bad practices
and ruinous people; when you’re a gangster, you’re reliable-to and proud-of the
gang and its doctrine. To pursue order, civic citizens work to persuade
dissidents and rebels to reform to the-good, (V 2-4).
It seems that
asking-for rather than pursuing wisdom is equivalent to doubting the
reliability of Genesis 1:26-28’s message: humankind may and can choose to rule
on earth. Once a person accepts Genesis-1’s message, their good vs bad
deliberation favors the-good. Perseverance to avoid, at least not repeat, human
error lessens the frequency of bad thoughts. The civic person is self-reliant
to the-good, knowing that she/he already has supreme psychological likeness. Civic
persons expect fellow-citizens to mirror humanity if not Jesus. Intentional
error is sin. Not repeating a mistake restores the path to perfection (V 5 -8).
Humility is
for the poor as well as for the rich. The rich fund the infrastructure,
including statutory-justice, law-enforcement, and education that sustains the
poor’s opportunity to recover/ establish economic viability. Each fulfillment
is commensurate with loyalty to the-civic-good, without attempting to usurp the
mysterious realm. Civic integrity reaps a life worth living whereas error
invites early death. Death may be the constraint on human choice and thereby
may be the-God. Death limits the human-being (V 9 -15).
Exemplary living, facilitation, encouragement,
and statutory justice to the-good among citizens who accept Genesis 1:26-28
assures reliability in the face of mystery. The Genesis 1 message is reliable.
The-God is reliable. The civic citizens, who accept the image of the-God, are
gods facing inevitable death. To doubt personal image of the-God is to doubt
the-God (V 16 -18).
In mirroring
humankind’s mature image, there is no place for civil emotions: religion,
stonewalling, anger, craving, satisfaction, and evil. Only intending to accept the Genesis 1 message (the word) is insufficient:
there must be accomplishment.
Humankind must rule life on earth. Accepting the image of the-God necessitates pursuing
perfect living as a god facing death (V 19 - 26).
It seems
James accommodates support for my interpretation of Genesis 1:26-28 without
either intentions to do so or awareness of the possibility. Nowhere in this
first chapter did James deny humankind’s potential to persevere to the-good and
thereby lessen death. If James’ purpose is to unite Israel through Jesus, the
Genesis 1:26-28 message might facilitate reform. However, it seems unwise to
apply benefits to a group rather than to humankind.
In his second
inaugural address, President Obama said, “Together we determined that a
modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce,
schools and colleges to train our workers.” The U.S. may and can choose to
educate its youth and adults to acquire the comprehension and intention to
develop their person as human being (verb) instead of agent of personal
satisfaction.
Conclusion
Evolution cannot preclude its start; humankind cannot resist
the-good.
I think James,
Chapter 1, is intended to convince Jews that Jesus is their Messiah. Believers avoid error, by mimicking Jesus in
their actions rather than by professing religion. James suggests salvation from
error in life rather than of souls in death.
Yet James’ expressions
incidentally support accepting Genesis 1:26-28’s message to humankind to rule
to the-good on earth. Christ-believers may interpret James 1 for salvation of
the soul, and Israel believers may interpret to expect a future Messiah to provide
peace to the 12 nations. Since the-God is a mystery, I cannot fault believers.
However, I hope their transcendent intentions and actions aid all civic people while
encouraging dissidents and rebels to reform to the-good.
I think
James, Jesus’ brother advocated civic perfection, a political philosophy beyond
religion. Each person may and can pursue their unique journey the moment they
decide not to tolerate error in their ways of living. Our nation may and can
educate its youth and adults to pursue their opportunity to comprehend and
apply the good.
I would
appreciate comments on my study; I read and write to learn from fellow
citizens.
Epilogue
I think James,
Chapter 1 clearly encourages fellow Jews to consider the possibility that Jesus
is the Messiah, who will return to unite Israel in peace according to the
continually improved Talmud.[35]
Jesus participated in improving Moses’ law and thus contributed to the Talmud.
Jesus’ improvements add doubt to perceptions of the law’s origins. Genesis
1:26-28 proffers insight, if the ancients to Israel, such as the Sumerians, are
considered.
I think the
rest of the book of James continues to unintentionally promote the Genesis
1:26-28 message: rule to the-good your way of living. For example, I quote
James’ opinion in 4:17, “If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do
it, it is sin for them.” In other words, sin is intentional error. I
leave it to the reader to consider the rest of James’ epistle.
Interpreting
James’ writing to support salvation of all people who accept Jesus as both the
man and the deity who was sacrificed for their sins seems more difficult. A
recent example of such scholarly work is Mariam J. Kamell’s “God Gave Us
Birth”.[36]
Acknowledgements
I appreciate
many years of discussion with my immediate family and friends, and especially my
wife, Cynthia, and our 3 children for motivation and inspiration. University
Baptist Church, Baton Rouge Louisiana, during 5 decades helped me discover Jesus’
civic influence – especially late in my 8th decade in Nomads Sunday
School Class led by Kenneth Tipton and in Courage Class represented by Vaughn
Crombie. I appreciate Michael Cavanaugh for suggesting I write about the
literature gap created after monotheism dominated Mesopotamian political
philosophy.
Copyright©2023 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is
hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as
this complete copyright notice is included. General update on September 15,
2023, on September 28, 2023, and on October 19, 20, 22, and 23, 2023.
[1] For example, Bill Clinton famously said, “I did not have
sexual relations with that woman”; he artfully applied his definition of sex. See (252) USA: CLINTON DENIES
HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH MONICA LEWINSKY - YouTube.
[2] Ineluctable
means: not to be assailed, avoided, changed, escaped, neglected, obfuscated,
rationalized, or resisted. Ineluctable evidence grounds the-ineluctable-truth.
Lawyers and judges protect the people from knowing “ineluctable”.
[3] I write “the-God”, in order to suggest there exists only
one causality and accept that it may
be divine. For this reason, “the” uses lower case while “God” uses uppercase.
[4]
Machiavelli objected in irony to the church and state partnership. See The Prince by
Niccolo Machiavelli: Chapter 11 (online-literature.com).
[5] In
Einstein’s equality, E=m times C squared, E is kinetic energy, and before m
emerged at the Big Bang, there may have been only potential energy. For
example, instead of Stephen Hawking’s infinitely small, infinitely dense mass
negating the left side of Einstein’s equality, potential energy negated the
right side. But what sparked kinetic energy and mass?
[6] "Civic" refers to the necessary responsibility in
human connections and transactions rather than to civility.
[7]
Integrity constrains action when there is doubt.
[8]
The Internet empowers readers to use sources they trust, in order to check an
opinion-writer’s claim. Therefore, I only note the information I used to check
personal recall.
[12]
“Civic” also means neither initiating nor accommodating harm to or from anyone,
including self.
[13] The
Code of Ur-Nammu: When Ancient Sumerians Laid Down the Law, Everyone Obeyed |
Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)
[15]
Statutory law is the aim of a civic court, and every citizen’s aid is needed to
pursue statutory justice.
[31] I
recall Ralph Waldo Emerson’s statement, “He learns that his being is without bound; that, to the good, to
the perfect, he is born, low as he now lies in evil and weakness.” See Divinity
School Address - Ralph Waldo Emerson (emersoncentral.com).
[33]
“Honesty”, a feeling, is insufficient to integrity, which requires wholeness
and correctness.
[34]
John 7:7, CJB.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want your opinion and intend to respond.