Moral of the story: get pumped about heaven

I know my post last week was about The Hedge, but there are a few other ideas that I've been thinking about that might make more sense to me if I put them in writing. I understand that the reading was not necessarily a Christian allegory, but for my purposes, it will be.

The question we were asked at the end of class is really what got me thinking about this idea. "Would you be happy on the other side of the hedge?" When I first thought about this, my answer was indefinitely yes. However, if I get down to some of the details about that situation, my answer becomes a little foggy.

The garden, in this case representative of the garden of eden or of heaven, was characterized more than anything by its lack of progress or even purpose. The road began in the garden and ended in it, and was seen as altogether pointless because of that. However, there are several questions I began to struggle with when I thought about if I would be happy in the garden or not. Its true that in the garden, all the struggle, pain, and hardship of striving to progress would not exist, but is that because it is a better place or simply because those within do not strive for such ends?

To answer this, I think that both are true. Because of that, I think an interesting perspective to take on this reading was that Forster was making an allegory about the human perception of heaven. As Christians, we sometimes doubt that heaven will be all it's made out to be. We see this possibility of the rest of eternity spent with God, and, I'm ashamed to admit, we can only focus on the fact that its just a really long time and that anything, no matter how amazing, can get old after too long.

I know that sounds really bad so I'll try and wrap this up. Like I said when talking about Heidegger, I think our problem is our perception. We are only humans and thus can only grasp things within our understanding. It would make sense then, that a concept like an eternity with and infinitely loving and wise God would be far beyond our understanding. This sounds almost like a cop-out, but I believe we sometimes doubt whether or not we would like it on the other side of the hedge, or whether heaven will be that great, simply because we truly can't comprehend the possibility that it will be infinitely greater than anything we could imagine. Knowing that, the whole argument pretty much becomes moot. Once we get to the other side of the hedge, we'll know what we've been missing, and God will have been right all along.

ps i commented on Amanda's

Oh hey, Faulkner. We meet again.

My first encounter with Faulkner in As I Lay Dying was less than pleasant. The Bear was a little more BEARable, but not by much.

I didn't really get much out of this reading besides man's attempt to control nature. Then once nature is conquered, we realize it was not our's to conquer in the first place. Isaac (and Faulkner) follow the Native American ideology about land ownership and respect for nature. Old Ben was majestic and powerful and seemed to have authority over all nature. Isaac had opportunities to kill Old Ben but didn't because he respected him.The hunters even seemed to think they had an understanding with him, as if they could negotiate with a bear!  Isaac believed that nature was for the benefit of everyone and should not be owned by any one person, and hunting Old Ben with the intention to kill was an attempt to own and conquer him.

Commented on Lane's

The Bear...

"He seemed to see it entire with a child’s complete divination before he ever laid eyes on either—the doomed wilderness whose edges were being constantly and punily gnawed at by men with axes and plows who feared it because it was wilderness, men myriad and nameless even to one another in the land where the old bear had earned a name, through which ran not even a mortal animal but an anachronism, indomitable and invincible, out of an old dead time, a phantom, epitome and apotheosis of the old wild life at which the puny humans swarmed and hacked in a fury of abhorrence and fear, like pygmies about the ankles of a drowsing elephant: the old bear solitary, indomitable and alone, widowered, childless, and absolved of mortality—old Priam reft of his old wife and having outlived all his sons."

I think this passage really goes along with the theme of our recent discussions. In the allegory 'The Other Side of the Hedge,' there is a stark contrast between the road of progress and the garden of tranquility. Faulkner likewise contrasts the 'men with axes and plows who feared it because it was wilderness,' with the raw power and mystery of the bear. Though it almost sounds like Faulkner is a hippy at first glance, one can see that he is getting at the real beauty of the earth, the original intent of and power of wilderness. It's as if he is ok and is promoting the wilderness. Both Faulkner and Forster seem to have similar stances on progress, they perhaps have a different view of the alternative. Forster's garden is vastly different from the kind of forest Faulkner portrays.

So I would like to offer the difference between the road, the garden, and the forest; I call forest.

--Commented on Tori's, yo.

Is the "Grass" Really "Greener"???

Would you be happy on the other side of the hedge? This is question that I thought about for a couple days after discussing Forster’s story in class last week.

To answer this question, I look at our society today and see that the people in it would probably never be satisfied on either side of the hedge. On one side, Forster shows people running a rat race to try and find something great at the end of the road only to never get anywhere which would make people of our day extremely disappointed. After crossing through the hedge, we see people who are stagnant and never get anything done. These people seem happy and relaxed, but this also would not be an acceptable lifestyle in our postmodern time.

Therefore, no matter what side someone from our day is on, chances are, they would not be thrilled with either option.

PS I commented on Cameron White’s “Isn’t It Ironic”

Through the Hedge, the Moat and onto....

      GAS PRICES ARE STUPID! That is why the narrator left the Road! Well not really, but I just needed to get that off my chest.
      So anyways from the reading, I got that the Road represented life, our fast-paced self absorbed life. The Hedge in a way represented Christ, and the Moat represented Baptism. However to me the other side of the hedge, represents heaven in a way. It seems perfect and endless, also time stops there. The pedometer the narrator carries cannot work on the other side of the hedge.
      My question is does the other side of the hedge represent the garden of Eden or heaven? I know that it represents where man first started off. It is the origins of mankind, our urge to 'walk' represents some downfall. We leave 'paradise' the walk a road which never ends, it continually loops and doubles over. We leave a lush green land of plenty, for a dusty dry burdensome road. We yearn for our own discovery, only to discover what we left behind.
   Maybe this is confusing but this is some of what I got out of it.

To Narnia!!!! Through That Hedge!!!

Was I the only one who thought a little bit about Narnia when the narrator was going through the hedge? Pushing through the coats that turn into trees to get to the back of the wardrobe. Pushing through the branches to get through the hedge. I'm just saying I see a little similarity there. Then when they both get through to where they're going they find lands that are the exact opposite of where they are. After being pulled out of the water the narrator finds himself in a fertile green land opposite of the dusty cement sidewalk he was on before. Lucy finds herself in a land of ice and snow that is the opposite of the green lands that she was living in before. The man finds himself having to adjust to people not constantly being in competition with each other while Lucy has to learn to deal with talking animals. There is no direct correlation from one to the other at all but I thought they did share a little in common in a strange way so I thought I would share it with everyone.

I commented on Justin's post

.................

I almost always end up doing my blogs on the class discussion we have, but I do want to talk about The Other Side of the Hedge. I liked that there were some sort of Biblical illusions that where possible, with the garden being much like The Garden of Eden. I guess what I took out of it was that it wasn’t necessarily supposed to be strictly Biblical, but that it had those elements without that being its sole purpose. I think the main focus is the idea of progress and how it’s this never ending cycle. Humankind can’t really escape this need to continually progress, and that’s what the narrator proves when he returns back to the road. In the garden there is no progress and that’s why when he enters his pedometer stops because there is no real progress to track. There is mention that there was a gun that someone brought in and it wouldn’t work, and I thought it possible that it was meant to subtly reference the same concept that progress can’t be made in the garden. What I’m getting at is when you shoot a gun there’s an end and a purpose to it and I think that’s why it won’t work there. That’s just my take on what happened.

The Bear is hard for me to follow, I’m not opposed to hunting by any means but I don’t fully understand the lingo. With its whole hunting theme it’s just not my cup of tea, I first started it and I was reminded of reading The Nick Adams Stories in high school and I absolutely hated that semester of English where we read all these hunting, fishing, stereo- typically masculine stories that, might I add, had very few female characters at all. Sorry to go off about Nick Adams but I really hated that little unit we did… just know I have a very serious nickname for them that I shall not say here.

-commented on Meghans

I loved our discussion about The Hedge and how Ms. Bear discussed the allegories that lie within it. The irony of how we can search our entire lives for something "more" and when we find what it is we think we are looking for, we realize it still isn't enough. The fact that we have a desire to search endlessly instead of being content is, in my opinion, the definition of original sin. When we sin, it is our way of saying that we are not content with the way our lives are at the present. The desire for contentment can only be satisfied through a relationship with God, and those who are inside of the Hedge seem to be realizing this, while those on the outside constantly run to find more and more of nothing. If we could find contentment with what God has given us, we could live our lives with a more definite purpose and sense of joy. I think that living with joy and contentment is really how God created us to be, and that we have perverted this is the ultimate sin.

P.S. posted on Cameron White's

Going On a Bear Hunt!

    I have to be honest, I didn't really like “The Bear” (not “The Bear” as in  Dr. Bear who is quite cool, but the “The Bear” as in the reading by W. Faulkner which is not-so-cool). After a few pages, it started to remind me of when I had to read The Call of the Wild in 9th grade: extremely boring and reminding me of the other more interesting things I’d rather be reading, like The Hunger Games! So instead of typing about surviving in the wilderness, I’m going to type about No Exit, which I thoroughly enjoyed! 
I think I mentioned in a previous blog how I like it when things from different areas of my life line up with something I learned in a class. Last Sunday at North Mobile, Pastor Ed started talking about how we are always looking for something else to fill the void that only God can fill. That made me think about when we were discussing “No Exit”. How each of the three people were looking for someone to affirm what they had done while they were alive. They were all looking for someone to tell them that they mattered even though they were dead. The pastor said that unless you are profoundly sure of your own worth, you will always be looking for someone or something to affirm you. The only way to gain that certainty is through the love of God. I know that Sartes probably wasn’t a Christian, but I think he’s kind of opening his readers mind to a greater truth. It is impossible to find your true worth through human beings or actions. It’s like Inez said to Estelle, “Suppose the mirror started telling lies?” You could never truly trust another human to tell you of the true you. The only One who could do that is the one who built the model and wrote the manual-- the Creator. Sort of feels like I’m rambling, but that’s what was on my mind tonight.


P.S.: I commented on Jamie's "The Road vs. The Other Side"

Seeing God in The Bear, at Least in My Mind.

“Because he recognised now what he had smelled in the huddled dogs and tasted in his own saliva, recognised fear as a boy, a youth, recognizes the existence of love and passion and experience which is his heritage but not yet his patrimony, from entering by chance the presence or perhaps merely the bedroom of a woman who has loved and been loved by many men. So I will have to see him, he thought, without dread or even hope. I will have to look at him.”

Originally I had thought to focus on Faulkner’s use of descriptive words in The Bear, of which there are many, since I spent all night last night writing about descriptive words in poetry. But then, this passage caught my attention, and stuck with me. The emotion he seems to be experiencing me, reminds me of the emotions we experience when we as Christians think about meeting God. It seems that he is yearning to see the bear, even if he isn’t going to kill it. It’s almost an obsession with seeing the majesty of the creature.

It’s the same with us and God. We long to see God, and yet we fear Him because His majesty is more than we can comprehend. Yet, like and unlike the boy, when we think about seeing God there is no dread, but there is hope. We hope for something we know nothing about, we hope to see our creator. The boy made the decision that he HAD to see the bear, but there was no assurance he would. We as Christians know that we WILL see God one day since we have accepted the gift He gave us by sending His Son to die for us.

I realize that this is probably not what Faulkner was trying to get at with that passage, but these are the thoughts that popped into my head when I read the passage, and they refused to leave me alone. I’m looking forward to discussing this tomorrow, because this is a very intriguing story that will be fun to delve into.

Until next time,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Will’s post “Control”

Control

While there is a plethora of meanings in "The Bear," one seems especially important. Faulkner places an evident difference between the narrator's thoughts when living in nature and when observing man's creations. In this passage, he is experiencing nature:

The boy listened, to no ringing chorus strong and fast on a free scent but a moiling yapping an octave too high and with something more than indecision and even abjectness in it which he could not yet recognise, reluctant, not even moving very fast, taking a long time to pass out of hearing, leaving even then in the air that echo of thin and almost human hysteria, abject, no sense of a fleeing unseen smoke-colored shape.

(Chapter 1)

This is one long sentence. He uses this style quite often, but it definitely in stark contrast to the form used when addressing the human accounts and records in chapter 4. It is also an obvious difference when compared to the dialogue so often used between human characters. This parallels the issue of human control that Faulkner is driving at throughout the short story. Humans desire to cut down and dissect nature in order to control it.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. Commented on Hunter's "William Faulkner's Sausage Festival!"

"BIG" "FAT" "UGLY" BEAR

I am not really up for the challenge to decipher meaning behind "The Bear", in fact I have to be honest I did do a little internet research to help me understand exactly what this bear thing is all about. And after all that internet research I can't say that I am a whole lot more ready for understanding Faulkner. I felt a lot like I was running through thick sticky mud. It wasn't that it was so unpleasant to read as much as it is a thick and murky and sticky and there is a lot of it. Further, I find/found (my tenses are getting CRAZY) it hard to draw conclusions after reading this piece. However, I suppose everyone who made an attempt at reading "The Bear" this week would really understand and begin to wonder if I am not just writing nonsensical phrases so as to lengthen my blog post....OR to make Hunter laugh. But you are all wrong, I am using this extremely long introduction to think about what I am really going to write about-

I have never had a desire to hunt. My sister likes to shoot things. I think this in some ways is due to some sort of teen angst that I missed out on, but none the less her and my father share a kindred enjoyment of guns and such. In Faulkner's "The Bear" hunting is pivotal. The characters are only explored during their time hunting. The "narrator" begins very young and progresses into a young man. I believe Faulkner uses this common avenue to paint a vivid picture of simplistic life which as the years pass on becomes more and more modern. In some ways the reason they are able to kill the Bear is because there isn't room left in the world for such a tall majestic unknown. In some ways our culture has knowledge at its fingertips and we no longer marvel at the majesty of the unknown.

I commented on "The Road" by Mallory Searcy

It's always a little hard to blog when there hasn't been a class discussion but I will try!

Despite all the hunting lingo in "The Bear" I have really enjoyed it. When I say enjoyed it I mean I was pretty much biting my fingers during the part when they finally catch the bear and all the drama therein.

That being said- I'm not sure how to respond as far as the literary sociological significance at this point. This definitely seems to be one of Faulkner's cleaner readings in my experience with him. In addition to that experience, he seems to be interested in the human phychi and what the interaction with humans (or lack there of) seems to do to someone.

One interesting thing I noticed was the interracial relationships that were displayed. This seemed like this would have not been common and also, it was hard for me to distinguish who was who. To me, all of the characters treated each other well. Knowing that Faulkner was a white man who spent a good portion of his life in Mississippi, which as we know is where a lot of oppression to our black brothers took place, it is surprising to see the black men of the story in such a equal and positive light.

commented on Rachel's

Isn't it Ironic??

Before I say my peace about "The Other Side of the Hedge", I would like to give a shout-out to Ms. Bethany Bear for leading us in a very productive and thoughtful class discussion. It would be poor desicion and lack of vision to not have her on board as one of the Lit. Professors. Kudos, Ms. BB.

As far as the text goes, I noticed something about it that I didn't the first time I read it. Isn't it ironic how the turn of events played out for the narrator? He starts off by giving us the impression that he was happy that he did not end up like his brother. He claims to have walked more wisely. The idea to notice here is how the rest of the story plays out. When the narrator gets to the other side of the hedge, he continually sees the people of the other side singing. The fact that there was a man to help him through this new area for most of the remainder of the story leads me to wonder if this was intentional of Forster. Then at the end, we notice that the narrator is being aided by the very person he went left behind in pursuit of a "wiser" travel, his brother...

p.s. I commented on Susan's Life on the Road.

William Faulkner's Sausage Festival!

"Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood."
-George S. Patton

As of this moment, not a single person has commented on William Faulkner's The Bear so I guess that duty falls to me. Yes, duty, now that is the appropriate word, isn't it? For those of you who have actually been reading this piece, masculinity is front and center for the entire duration of the piece. Maybe I've been misreading it, but I have barely seen an ounce of feminimity in the entire story, and with good reason. The story is about a boy being instructed on how to hunt-that's the story on its most basic level. He learns to go to the tree stand on his own, how to handle a gun, what not to do in the woods, etc. He also learns about the various creatures that live in the woods that the protagonists call home and the dogs they use to help them hunt. But of course, that's just the surface level-what I see is all about what it means to be a man and the measure of a man. Of course, what the heck is that even supposed to mean anymore?

Consider what the current perceptions of manhood are. TV shows portray a man as either a business and pleasure minded scoundrel (Mad Men) or, on the opposite, completely lame and spineless (Samantha Who?). There's the infamous commercial for Dr. Pepper 10 in which a group of militant men race through an action packed jungle talking about how manly their drink is and end the commercial with the words "Dr. Pepper 10-it's not for women!" as though manhood is some exclusive club. Manhood is equally dividied musically, with thugs and sex fiends on one end and more courageous and selfless heroes on the other. What is the measure of a man?

The main way that Faulkner expresses masculinity is through his language. It's very dry but very descriptive, and he doesn't skip on a lot of details. To me his writing style is like an old leather bomber jacket-wrinkly, smells funny, durable, and many stories to tell. It will never fail you, it is always dependable, and there is a strong, silent dignity about it that's hard to replace. That also serves to describe Sam and the hunters that teach Ike in the story. They're battle hardened, they're capable, and what drives them the most is a sense of duty. They want to teach Ike how to hunt so he can carry on the tradition. They want to protect the land and follow its rules because it's their home. There's no need for romantic or soft-spoken language in here, because the men in this story don't hold Ike's hand when they're teaching him to hunt, but they are determined to make sure he follows through, because that's duty. If loyalty is the Biblical hallmark of womanhood, duty is the likewise hallmark of manhood, and though Faulkner may not be writing with that specifically in mind, the prose speaks the truth.

Thank you for reading, feel free to comment as you please. I commented on Anna Rhodes' Let's Go Off-Road!

Let's Go Off-Road!

History goes through time in waves. Ideas enter the general consciousness one minute and in the next they are gone. Progress is one of those ideas and is the central focal point in Forester’s Over the Hedge. One aspect of the poem that struck me was the main character’s mind-set of progress. He almost seemed brainwashed. He felt that he must continue to move on. He only stopped walking because he was so tired; his stopping was “shocking” to him. Lost of all motivation he laid on the ground praying that he might give up. He could not seem to give up, but there was something inside of him that wanted to. Once he was in the garden, he still did not want to give in. It was not until the very end when he took a drink from the garden, that he finally accepted the idea of life off the road. This is pivotal. The character not only turned away from the never stopping mindset of the road, he was faced the new idea of success found in the garden that he could choose to accept of refuse. In the garden something is worthy just because it is. The traveler was faced with the decision to stay on the road, which he was familiar with, or stay in the garden with a new idea of success to get adjusted to.

The allegory reminds me so much of our world today. We are constantly moving forward, yet we don’t seem to understand those who aren’t moving according to the idea we have of success. The daughter who has to stay home and take care of her sick mother—is she successful according to the road? People like her are those who aren’t on the road. Does that mean she is not successful? What would those on the road think about her? And what would the garden people say?

This leads me to the question: What is my definition of success? What makes life successful? It’s easy for those of us living in the real world today to get caught up in the hype and dust of the road until we find ourselves at the Hedge too.

P.S. I commented on Callie's Blog

just call me indecisive... but not really ;)

I really enjoyed our discussion in class on Thursday about The Other Side of the Hedge. Ms. Bear asked us to think whether we would rather be on the road or inside the hedge, but I don’t think I could choose. I don’t want either! Obviously, the hedge is more restful but there isn’t any direction to life. On the other hand, the road just leads in circles and you are constantly striving to an unknown goal. The road, after seeing that it leads nowhere, is really not an option. However, if we didn’t know that it was an unrewarding path of futility, I think many of us would choose the road. It has been ingrained in us to work for something, anything, and everything. Perhaps that’s why some people have a problem overcoming pride to accept salvation- they are still trying in some way to work for it, or to make God love them more.
In the poem, it also speaks of the hedge as a barrier. I think many people lose the joy and peace of salvation because they start looking at all the rules, and faith becomes legalistic and a list of what you can and can’t do. Yes there are rules, but when you desire God before anything else, then doing right isn’t something you have to think about, it’s a natural overflow of the heart. In this way, the hedge shouldn’t begin to feel like a prison, because it’s what you want to do- not what you have to do.
On a final note… I liked Ms. Bear. I do not like “The Bear.” I couldn’t find anything to blog about with that... and the run-on sentences are driving me crazy! Ok, I’ll be done with that rant and this blog so I can get back to reading… Class tomorrow should be fun :)
P.S. Commented on Mallory’s The Road
*my comment explains further why I wouldn’t choose either of Forster’s options

Life on the Road

In E.M. Foster's The Other Side of the Hedge the man on the road mentions his brother in the very beginning. He says, "At first I thought I was going to be like my brother, whom I had had to leave by the roadside a year or two round the corner. He had wasted his breath on singing, and his strength on helping others. But I had traveled more wisely, and now it was only the monotony of the highway that oppressed me." This quote got me thinking, what kind of horrible world would I live in if helping someone in need was considered a weakness, and expressing joy through singing was frowned upon. Then I thought, it's that sort of the opinion that the world is headed to now? While there is still good in the world, there seems to be a lot more bad. In a lot of ways we are already like the people running around along a road that leads to goodness knows where. Fortunately, that is hope that for Christians that one day they will get to the other side.

I commented on Jamie Kilpatricks's post

Road Vs. The Other Side

Would I rather live on the road, or the other side of the hedge? I have been wondering for a while now. I'm a science girl. I love looking for answers and finding new ways to do things, so at first it would seem only logical that the road is where I belong. Could I ever be truly happy in a world where there is nothing to accomplish and nothing to discover? The more I thought about it though, the more that I was sure that, if faced with the decision, I would most definitely choose to live on the other side. Maybe I'm crazy, but I honestly think that I would be happy. The idea of living in a place where I didn't have to worry about success is really appealing to me. To look over and see a boy running just for the sake of wanting to run or to hear a woman sing just for the sake of wanting to sing is an amazing thought to me. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but the other side of the hedge sounds pretty good to me.

p.s. Commented on Callie's "Man's Search for Meaning... in a Hedge"

The Road

At breakfast this morning my youngest brother told me about the allegory he is studying in his English class. I told him we just studied a little bit of allegory in Honors but I don't like it. Then i realized, I was probably making a general statement about Allegory when what i really meant was "I don't want to live on either side of the Hedge."

At the end of class on thursday, Ms. Bear asked us to think about which side of the Hedge we would want to live on. I still contend with what Will Drake said in class, that our culture has trained us for the Road and we would be unsatisfied through the Hedge. But i also think that i wouldn't want to live on the road either. I drew an example of what i imagine the road and the other side of the hedge look like, but it was in Mac's equivalent of Microsoft paint, so I don't know how pretty it is. Regardless, the point of the illustration is that it is a terrible, mindless circle. There really isn't any point on either side of it. There has to be something higher, something more, something Other Than. Otherwise, it doesn't much matter which side we are on. We either sit and do nothing, or we run and do nothing. sounds fairly miserable to me.

ps- i also added the moat (in blue) for good measure.

I commented on amanda gaster's blog:)

Man's Search for Meaning...in a Hedge

In The Other Side of the Hedge, Forster really presented an interesting worldview. Those "of the road," though they sought something greater and better, were really getting nowhere. There whole idea of progress was just an illusion in which they were trapped. However, the life on the other side of the hedge does not look much more appealing than the first. The people just sleep under the stars, living a simple life like "cattle." They are simply Being, and with this they are quite content. The problem that the main character had with life "on the other side of the hedge" is that it is not going anywhere. The people are content with life as is and thus they are not seeking greater ideals or improvement. Also, in class we discussed how one might think life on this side of the hedge rather boring.

I find this view of the other side of the hedge to be very interesting. Man constantly searches throughout his entire life for meaning, purpose, something greater. There is constantly talk of the gods, and of utopias and heaven - a place where we will all be content and satisfied with life "as is." However, when we actually see such a society drawn, such as Forster's "other side of the hedge" we automatically begin to look down upon it. The people to us seem ignorant for not wanting to advance their position in life; we have fears of the boredom that must be present in such a place. Why such a great contradiction? It would seem that there is a great conflict within man as to where meaning/ contentment lie.. for he would like to be content with life as is, but on the other he feels that meaning cannot be found where he is but only as the product of hard work.

I commented on Joy's Reminiscence of Thurs

Thursday Reminisce

Okay, so I had already written my blog for last week when the reading for Thursday was posted, but the rules say we can blog about what was discussed in class on Thursday! I really enjoyed Dr. Bear. She knows her English and her Greek!!! (:
“For we of the road do not admit in conversation that there is another side at all.” This passage is marked off in bold on my text. When talked about how the story is very allegorical. We also touched on how it could be assumed that the writer is making reference to some biblical principles. This passage, if taken in a biblical perspective, could relate to unbelievers in the sense that many people who are head strong about there not being a God will typically not admit in a conversation that they have wondered at the thought of there actually being a Divine Creator. Sadly, some believers will not admit in conversation to believing in the spiritual realm (in demons and satan). Let me state here, satan and demons are very much so real and they desire to attach both believers and keep non-believers from hearing the truth. We as believers though have to be willing to know what the truth is so that we can “admit in conversation” the truth. “What I [Jesus] tell you in the dark say in the light, and what you hear whispered proclaim on the housetop.” We ought to be speaking the truth boldly, no lying or cowering back from it. I am going to stop here because I could keep going with this topic.
Dr. Bear did a great job and I enjoyed her teaching on Thursday!

Ps - Callie George