I was reading an article on Christianity Today
(amongst other blogs) earlier on about the subject of "organic church" and its possible success and probable future failures. Now, I'll admit I didn't (don't?) know a great deal about
organic church other than I've heard the name thrown about before. According to the article it includes " at least three ingredients" to be counted as "organic". First being "Frustration
with the-church-as-we-know-it" - well I'm sure there's quite a few people who would fall into that category, I know I do! The second ingredient for this recipe for church is "a
focus on people (vs. programs)" - now this is another point I reckon a fair few church-goers could relate to. I know we like to say the focus is on people, but there are times
that come to mind where it's meant to have been about the people, but the project became the focus. With phrases like "it's our baby" and taking all the ownership of a project too heavily.
Not that feeling a sense of ownership is necessarily a bad thing, but maybe when having a project means more to you than the impact it's having on the people it was initially intended for,
then maybe it has become a bad thing and the program or project defines you rather than the other way around. We all like control and the feeling of our own little empires, but I believe
Jesus was more about giving up those desires to follow the Kingdom and its principles - which is definitely people focussed. If a program isn't reaching people in a positive way, yet we
cling onto keeping it alive and running, then we have lost the focus and care more for our own thing than for people.
I'm not saying all churches are like this, far from it, just that we ought to be aware of such things happening. Especially if we are serious about "doing" church right, doing it "the Jesus way" (if there is such a thing), expanding the Kingdom, being people focussed - being organic.
The third ingredient for this church-pie is "mission (vs. institutional maintenance)". Again, another heavily focussed people initiative, which is very similar to the second point, but at the same time much broader. Whereas programs are internal structures for members and maybe external but select groups of people, mission should be global. However local, local church may be, the mission field is still all the places outside of the church doors, and therefore global and not confined to a particular group of people. Yes, I'm aware that mission trips etc are often focussed in a particular area, or people group, but that doesn't take away from the fact that mission is a global endeavour - Jesus' words "to the ends of the earth" should echo through the very core of mission, and indeed, the Church as a whole in terms of where we should be going and aiming for.
Now contrast this with "institutional maintenance" - however you define that, it definitely doesn't sound much like "mission". Should we really be trying to maintain an institution? Is that really what people want in or as a church? But the real question I think is this: do non-church people want an institution?
The Church, the spiritual movement, that Jesus began and that was continued through the apostles should be transformational to people's lives. The love, grace and healing power that comes through Jesus is what should define and change people in the Church and those that come to be a part of it. Institution breeds apathy and comfort that's easy. A place that we can proclaim to be a part of and attend each week, and maybe on a Tuesday and Thursday as well for Bible study and prayer from 7.30 until 9.30pm. If we're honest with ourselves, after reading the Gospels and Acts and then looking at our own church, and maybe the Church as a whole (at least in the Western world), does it match up, even slightly? Is what we have really what we want for Church?
I haven't read lots on the subject of organic church, but from my brief reading today of websites and blogs from church leaders who advocate this style of doing church, but what I've wrote here is what I can gather organic church to, at least in a small part, be like or aiming to have these qualities.
And this is the kind of church I'd like to be a part of.
Leave a comment Like Back to Top Seen 92 times Liked 0 times
I'm not saying all churches are like this, far from it, just that we ought to be aware of such things happening. Especially if we are serious about "doing" church right, doing it "the Jesus way" (if there is such a thing), expanding the Kingdom, being people focussed - being organic.
The third ingredient for this church-pie is "mission (vs. institutional maintenance)". Again, another heavily focussed people initiative, which is very similar to the second point, but at the same time much broader. Whereas programs are internal structures for members and maybe external but select groups of people, mission should be global. However local, local church may be, the mission field is still all the places outside of the church doors, and therefore global and not confined to a particular group of people. Yes, I'm aware that mission trips etc are often focussed in a particular area, or people group, but that doesn't take away from the fact that mission is a global endeavour - Jesus' words "to the ends of the earth" should echo through the very core of mission, and indeed, the Church as a whole in terms of where we should be going and aiming for.
Now contrast this with "institutional maintenance" - however you define that, it definitely doesn't sound much like "mission". Should we really be trying to maintain an institution? Is that really what people want in or as a church? But the real question I think is this: do non-church people want an institution?
The Church, the spiritual movement, that Jesus began and that was continued through the apostles should be transformational to people's lives. The love, grace and healing power that comes through Jesus is what should define and change people in the Church and those that come to be a part of it. Institution breeds apathy and comfort that's easy. A place that we can proclaim to be a part of and attend each week, and maybe on a Tuesday and Thursday as well for Bible study and prayer from 7.30 until 9.30pm. If we're honest with ourselves, after reading the Gospels and Acts and then looking at our own church, and maybe the Church as a whole (at least in the Western world), does it match up, even slightly? Is what we have really what we want for Church?
I haven't read lots on the subject of organic church, but from my brief reading today of websites and blogs from church leaders who advocate this style of doing church, but what I've wrote here is what I can gather organic church to, at least in a small part, be like or aiming to have these qualities.
And this is the kind of church I'd like to be a part of.
Leave a comment Like Back to Top Seen 92 times Liked 0 times
x
Subscribe to Updates
If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates ?
Subscribe today and get some STUFF for FREE!
Subscribe to Blog updates
Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS 
All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.
Related Posts
Lewk | 17th October 2022 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 05th August 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 05th August 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
MrLuke | 22nd February 2015 | Blogging
So I finally made that theology blog I mentioned in the last post on here. This blog is no longer used, so go check out some new articles of mine here: http://www.thatancientfaith.blogboss.co.uk/...
MrLuke | 24th March 2013 | Blogging
Is this what "time" looks like?Can anyone actually answer the question of "what IS time?"Is it, like some imply, a metaphysical reality - a "place" that we are "in" and God is "out" of? Or something else entirely?Or is it merely just the measurement of events and moments in a way that makes sense to us so that we can plan and do things with some kind of order and structure?If it's the latter, then time is only an illusion. We aren't "moving" through time, it only appears that way because of how we perceive the world, history and the future.In reality, we are all just in a fixed point of moments that we comprehend and experience in our minds. Our bodies, our cells, deteriorate and fail and we get "old", yet we haven't really moved anywhere in time, we've just essentially, "broken down".If time is viewed like this, then God being "in" or "out" of time can make more sense because God doesn't age or brake down, so the illusion continues due to our perspective.But if it's the former idea, and "time" is a metaphysical place that we reside in, and it is also something that has points we move to and from, and is also, in theory, possible to travel within by jumping to a farther or previous point - then God being "in" or "out" of time makes sense in a literal way, but what does it really mean? It's this idea that brings about the weird theologies that we can pray today for a past event and God can intervene because he is "out" of time and can go to that point and do something.Now, does God 'jump' around in this place called "time"? Can he go to the future and see what will happen, or go to the past and intervene in order to affect the future?Or does he just experience and have what we humans only have too: this moment. To act, to affect the course of our day, lives, futures? Only with more insight, wisdom and foresight than we could possibly know and have?I propose that time is an illusion, it's not "real", or at the very least then, time is completely relative and not what we imagine it is as a fixed line of points from A to B where God can jump in and out of and affect the past or future before we "get there".The past is just memories, the future only possibilities. All we really have is right now.Update (27th March): After having this as a discussion on Facebook, I'm adding some further thoughts and/or clarification below to follow on from above.In the case that Time exists as a fundamental aspect of all matter, then surely the "time" that is real, and the "time" that we often describe and think of, especially in theological matters, are two different things? At least, that's how it appears in conversation with people sometimes.At the very least then, Time is completely relative and not what we imagine it is as a fixed line of points from A to B where God can jump in and out of and affect the past or future before we "get there".Whenever I speak to people about this or people mention God is "in time" or "out" of time, their understanding almost seems like time looks like the blue tunnel from Doctor Who that we're all just zipping through and God just pops in at the right point and then pops back out to eternity, as though they are two separate places or worlds. This is more the illusion if time that I speak of; the idea of time like a road we travel along, which from the little I do understand about time in a physics sense, this isn't the right way of thinking about it.I don't deny the fact that things (and us/our consciousness) had a beginning point and will eventually have an end point somewhere - I am really questioning the way we measure those two points. Yes, things have duration, they have some order and structure. This happens, then that, then the other. Th...
Recent Posts
Lewk | 17th October 2022 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 05th August 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 05th August 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...
Lewk | 18th March 2021 | Blogging
Tu enim ista lenius, hic Stoicorum more nos vexat. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nihilo magis. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Maximus dolor, inquit, brevis est.Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia.Que Manilium, ab iisque M. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Hunc vos beatum; Habes, inquam, Cato, formam eorum, de quibus loquor, philosophorum. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Epicurus autem cum in prima commendatione voluptatem dixisset, si eam, quam Aristippus, idem tenere debuit ultimum bonorum, quod ille; Illud non continuo, ut aeque incontentae. Vide, quantum, inquam, fallare, Torquate. Laelius clamores sof�w ille so lebat Edere compellans gumias ex ordine nostros. Nam, ut sint illa vendibiliora, haec uberiora certe sunt. Dicam, inquam, et quidem discendi causa magis, quam quo te aut Epicurum reprehensum velim. Nam adhuc, meo fortasse vitio, quid ego quaeram non perspicis. Videsne quam sit magna dissensio? Sin dicit obscurari quaedam nec apparere, quia valde parva sint, nos quoque concedimus; Non dolere, inquam, istud quam vim habeat postea videro; Ut nemo dubitet, eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? Dulce amarum, leve asperum, prope longe, stare movere, quadratum rotundum. Quamquam tu hanc copiosiorem etiam soles dicere. Si quidem, inquit, tollerem, sed relinquo. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Quod totum contra est. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc ita separantur, ut disiuncta sint, quo nihil potest esse perversius. Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Quaerimus enim finem bonorum. Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. Hoc sic expositum dissimile est superiori. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio. Obsecro, inquit, Torquate, haec dicit Epicurus? Sed finge non solum callidum eum, qui aliquid improbe faciat, verum etiam praepotentem, ut M. Non pugnem cum homine, cur tantum habeat in natura boni; Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; ...