“Is holiness an intrinsic quality of certain actions, or are certain actions made holy by virtue of their being pleasing to God?”
What constitutes an action as being holy? The definition of holy then is:
holy adj. 1 Dedicated to religious use; belonging to or coming from God; consecrated; sacred 2 spiritually perfect or pure; untainted by evil or sin; sinless; saintly 3 regarded with or deserving deep respect, awe, reverence, or adoration 4 [slang] very much of a: a generalized intensive. Often used in interjectional compounds to express astonishment, emphasis, etc.
We must necessarily restrict our understanding of the premise to refer only to actions rather than to include objects. I am compelled to make this distinction because every object in the universe is composed of matter. Matter being an intrinsic property of all things, if one thing were to be also intrinsically holy, then any other thing could likewise be considered holy and thus the entirety of the physical universe be holy. To say otherwise, that one thing being of matter and intrinsically holy and another thing being of matter and intrinsically not necessarily introduces an external qualification for holiness; the object’s arrangement, the date of its creation, its status in the eyes of God, something. Can objects engage in an action then that could be considered holy? A rock of its own accord cannot do anything. Matter without thought cannot decide to do anything. Any apparent behavior displayed by any object is merely the observed effect of the physical laws of the universe acting upon it.
It would seem then that the second definition of holiness is the one from which we may most readily explore the holiness of Man’s actions either with or without an external standard. The first definition, being in terms of an action’s status of having come from or belonging to God, can only apply to one half of the premise, and therefore cannot be of use in making a distinction. The third definition is subjective to Man’s perception of an action. The status of an action’s holiness being different from person to person necessarily disqualifies its intrinsic holiness lest such holiness exist apart from Man’s base perception and only be acknowledged more or less clearly by each person; an interesting distinction to the premise. The fourth definition is wholly irrelevant.
Under the second definition, “…spiritually perfect…” implies a standard against which an action may be deemed imperfect as does “sinless”. Sin is that which is an offense against God. That an action be “pure” does not necessitate the use of a standard. A thing can be said to be pure by observing that it is wholly unto itself; untainted or unmixed. But can an action be pure?
purity n. the quality or condition of being pure; specif. a) freedom from adulterating matter b) cleanness or clearness c) freedom from evil or sin; innocence; chastity d) freedom from corrupting elements e) freedom from mixture with white; color saturation
A pure action then could be said to mean any action that is free from adulterating matter, evil or sin, or corrupting elements. Again imbedded in parts of this deeper meaning are implications of a standard which is external to the action itself. The word adulterate means, in part, to make inferior. Since nothing can be said to be either inferior or superior with regard to only itself, to be free from adulterating matter requires that the action be judged against something else. To be free from evil or sin requires that a standard exist by which a distinction may be made between good and evil, sin and obedience to God.
From this preceding discussion, the only independent understanding of holy actions are those which are pure by virtue of their freedom from corrupting elements. Further parsing this meaning around the meaning of corruptness:
corrupt adj. 1 changed from a sound condition to an unsound one; spoiled; contaminated; rotten
we find then that holiness is an intrinsic property of those actions which are pure by virtue of their being composed of no parts which would change its soundness to unsoundness. Here I have to wonder if this line of reasoning doesn’t end with, “that which is holy is holy because it is not unholy.” However it does seem to introduce the idea of the holiness of the uncorrupted action; breathing for instance. Uncorrupted by speech or toxic inhalants, could breathing be a holy act?
What constitutes an action as being holy? The definition of holy then is:
holy adj. 1 Dedicated to religious use; belonging to or coming from God; consecrated; sacred 2 spiritually perfect or pure; untainted by evil or sin; sinless; saintly 3 regarded with or deserving deep respect, awe, reverence, or adoration 4 [slang] very much of a: a generalized intensive. Often used in interjectional compounds to express astonishment, emphasis, etc.
We must necessarily restrict our understanding of the premise to refer only to actions rather than to include objects. I am compelled to make this distinction because every object in the universe is composed of matter. Matter being an intrinsic property of all things, if one thing were to be also intrinsically holy, then any other thing could likewise be considered holy and thus the entirety of the physical universe be holy. To say otherwise, that one thing being of matter and intrinsically holy and another thing being of matter and intrinsically not necessarily introduces an external qualification for holiness; the object’s arrangement, the date of its creation, its status in the eyes of God, something. Can objects engage in an action then that could be considered holy? A rock of its own accord cannot do anything. Matter without thought cannot decide to do anything. Any apparent behavior displayed by any object is merely the observed effect of the physical laws of the universe acting upon it.
It would seem then that the second definition of holiness is the one from which we may most readily explore the holiness of Man’s actions either with or without an external standard. The first definition, being in terms of an action’s status of having come from or belonging to God, can only apply to one half of the premise, and therefore cannot be of use in making a distinction. The third definition is subjective to Man’s perception of an action. The status of an action’s holiness being different from person to person necessarily disqualifies its intrinsic holiness lest such holiness exist apart from Man’s base perception and only be acknowledged more or less clearly by each person; an interesting distinction to the premise. The fourth definition is wholly irrelevant.
Under the second definition, “…spiritually perfect…” implies a standard against which an action may be deemed imperfect as does “sinless”. Sin is that which is an offense against God. That an action be “pure” does not necessitate the use of a standard. A thing can be said to be pure by observing that it is wholly unto itself; untainted or unmixed. But can an action be pure?
purity n. the quality or condition of being pure; specif. a) freedom from adulterating matter b) cleanness or clearness c) freedom from evil or sin; innocence; chastity d) freedom from corrupting elements e) freedom from mixture with white; color saturation
A pure action then could be said to mean any action that is free from adulterating matter, evil or sin, or corrupting elements. Again imbedded in parts of this deeper meaning are implications of a standard which is external to the action itself. The word adulterate means, in part, to make inferior. Since nothing can be said to be either inferior or superior with regard to only itself, to be free from adulterating matter requires that the action be judged against something else. To be free from evil or sin requires that a standard exist by which a distinction may be made between good and evil, sin and obedience to God.
From this preceding discussion, the only independent understanding of holy actions are those which are pure by virtue of their freedom from corrupting elements. Further parsing this meaning around the meaning of corruptness:
corrupt adj. 1 changed from a sound condition to an unsound one; spoiled; contaminated; rotten
we find then that holiness is an intrinsic property of those actions which are pure by virtue of their being composed of no parts which would change its soundness to unsoundness. Here I have to wonder if this line of reasoning doesn’t end with, “that which is holy is holy because it is not unholy.” However it does seem to introduce the idea of the holiness of the uncorrupted action; breathing for instance. Uncorrupted by speech or toxic inhalants, could breathing be a holy act?
1 comments:
You definitely plan to go to much deeper places on your blog than I do on mine. Good stuff here though. I'll add you to my RSS reader. Maybe if you get bored and want to slum it a bit, check me out at aBitBehind.com
-- Snider
Post a Comment