May the odds be ever in your favor.

This is my post for the week. It's uncommonly early to post for the week but I must obey the muse. enjoy.

-Mal

The Paper Games

a darkness settled over the kitchen. it was like that time Bella
chewed the powerlines, but worse. Malniss froze in anticipation of the
coming storm.
but the storm never came.
instead, unable to process her thoughts, she sat, frumpy and reluctant
at the glossy pine table and attempted to write The Paper That Will
Change The World. thoughts streamed in and out of her mind like lawn
chairs or rubber duckies in a maelstrom. all the while the brooding
tempest matched her mood.
when suddenly, a light came on.
metaphorically, it was still dark outside. Maybe bella really did chew
the power lines again.
the light was like the golden light of truth, bending down to her,
telling her something.
LISTEN TO MY BRAND NEW SINGLE
hmmm. wait, no that's not what the light was telling her, that was the
spotify playlist.
she closed her laptop to clear away distraction and listen to the light. and-
shortly after closing the laptop she realized this would render it
impossible to type the story. she opened the laptop and continued.
she also silenced spotify.
the light came toward her and said "you know what to do."
so then, like magic. it hit her. right as the electric current from
the laptop sent a shockwave through her body rivaling that time she
slid in her socks through walmart and then touched a shopping cart.
The power also came on again unexplainably.
she gasped with the shock of the truth: existentialism is baloney.
she knew now what to write THE PAPER on. she allowed a brief moment to
daydream of turning it in on tThursday: "The Baloney of Existentialism- and
other Lunchmeats." to the joy of Talmage and Abernathy's Chargrin. she
picked up the pencil, brandishing it like a skilled archer and then
realized that she needed to get back to typing- so the pencil was merely a metaphor for her skills as a
writer. she knew she must out-write all other Honors Tributes or else perish.
let the paper games begin.

Easier Said Than Done

"To hold to God is to rely on the fact that He is there for me, and to live in this certainty."

Something that caught my attention as I was reading Barth was the way he talked about faith in relation to God. This is something that has been on my heart for quite a while now and that God has been trying to get me to understand. Philippians 1:6 says "being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ." For some time now, its as if God has been telling me over and over again, "Why the heck would you ever doubt Me?! How the heck could you not believe that what I have for you is so much greater than anything you could ever think up for yourself?!" That is exactly why this passage from Barth caught my eye. Holding to God means living in certainty that He is for me 100%. All too often, things go south for me and I immediately begin to lose sight of what it is God has been doing in my life for so long. And when that happens, I am always brought back to this passage in Philippians. God is at work in my life and is never going to stop just because I don't understand how or why. Barth would go further and say that He is always there for me and intended and deeply desires for me to live my life with that certainty firmly grasped in my heart.

Barth

     Ok, so here some stuff I got from Barth. Everything in " " are Barth's writings.
      First I learned what dogmatics were. I had heard of the word before, but never really knew its full meaning. Dogmatics: the study of the arrangement and statement of religious doctrines, especially of the doctrines received in and taught by the Christian church. 
     Barth says that Dogmatics is a science. Science is linked with human knowledge.  Which means, flawed knowledge, since man is fallen. "I repeat dogmatics is not a thing which has fallen from Heaven to Earth" (page 10, para 2), "The Christian Church does not exist in Heaven, but on earth and in time". "Christian dogmatics will always be a thinking, and investigation and an exposition which are relative and liable to error". So the dogmatics which is so important to the church can never be perfected, it is a flawed thing. Which leads me to ask is dogmatics important? I think that they are, but not on the same level as Salvation. If one dives to deep in Dogmatics, one can get lost. Just like anyone can get lost in the motions of 'worshipping', or get caught in 'doing good list' trap.
     Second thing, Faith. Oh Faith, how I loved reading Barth's view. I agreed with most he said. When I say I believe I start of with faith. When I say I believe it means I'm not alone. "God comes to meet us and as our Lord and Master He comes to out aid. We live and act and suffer, in good and bad days, in our perversity and in our righteousness, in this confrontation with God.....but God meets me one way or the other". "Faith speaks of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as Him who meets us". 
    "Christian fatih is the meeting with this 'Immanuel', the meeting with Jesus Christ and in Him with the living Word of God." "When we say, I believe in God, the concentrate meaning is that I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ". "It is a meeting in which man becomes free to hear God's Word". 
    I think this is the crucial difference between a 'believer' and a 'follower'. For a believer they 'know' about God, but do not have faith or have shaky faith, because they never understand a one-on-one relationship with Christ. They do not have fellowship with Him. Anyone can believe in God, but not everyone will encounter Him (though everyone had the opportunity too). Faith and believing is more than just observational things. It an activity that a follower must take part in.


Well that is soooo late in the night, my thoughts are becoming somewhat jumbled. I hope I've made some since. Those are two things that stuck out to me from reading and discussion. You know I love rereading parts of stuff, especially things I highlighted, because I usually get a new take from it! Like tonight when I came to write this post! Anyways goodnight, or goodmorning to everyone!

the limitations of dogmatics

In Section 1 of Barth, he speaks of science, and dogmatics, as limited in their very nature. Our theories in dogmatics will only be as close to the truth as our reason allows… and our reason has failed us before. He states, “Christian dogmatics will always be a thinking, an investigation and an exposition which are relative and liable to error.” Thus, the theories of dogmatics will only ever be our limited human attempt to understand something that is beyond our grasp.

Taking this view of dogmatics, any given theology, though it may seem appealing over another, will never fully match up to the truth in its entirety. Why then is it that we have so many dogmatic theological arguments today as if one theory is right while the other is completely wrong? Can we have a theory that is better, less limited and closer to the truth than another? How will we know?

If we take the approach that Barth is taking concerning dogmatics, would we ever be able to accept one theology as greater than another? (Does Barth do this?) Or would we forever be left in a realm of possibilities, not ever able to accept a theory, but relying only on faith alone to get us through. Let’s just throw reason out the window. It’s faulty anyways. No, I believe Barth would hold that we need dogmatics, but he is mainly just giving us a caution against relying on our own man-made theories as truth. But still the question remains, how do I know which one is the closest to the truth??

I commented on Cody Martin's "Barth confuses me so I'll talk about science"

What to Say?

On page 11, when discussing Christian's job to share the gospel, Barth writes "what as Christians do we really have to say?" This is a huge question that every new christian, hopeful missionary, or pastor asks them self at some point in their life. What do you really need to say in order to tell non-Christians about God's amazing gift for us, or about his love and mercy? By excepting Jesus as our savior we take on the awesome task to attempting to save the souls of the lost through the power of Christ, and on this job all of Christianity rests. Without the spreading of the gospel, or any religion for that matter, the belief would just die out.

Well, I may have it all wrong, but I think that Barth is trying to say that the way that we Christians need to fulfill out duty and spread the good news is through dogmatics. I also think he says that by using dogmatics you can see that Christianity isn't just some religion, but it has a true history and has proof to back it up. I always remembered my youth pastor saying that the number one way to get an atheist or someone like that to believe what you're saying about the Bible is true won't be to use the Bible, but to use history and science. If you throw out scripture to someone who doesn't believe the Bible in the first place, your words will mean nothings to them. However, if you give them facts, they will listen. I think that I am understanding this reading, but I'm still not sure . . . I 'm sorry I missed class on Tuesday!

I commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's blog!

-Susan Berner

Communication Is Key

Communication is an extremely vital part of our world. What would happen if language was lost? There would be no way for things to stay in order. We always need to communicate with God. I would become lost if I could not pray. Praying to God brings a sense of comfort and happiness. We need to communicate whether it is with God or with each other. I have a deep respect for missionaries because they go into foreign lands to attempt to communicate the gospel to the natives. They understand how to talk to the foreigners in a way that cometimes makes them want to know God. Their communication is so vital. We use communication to spread the word of our Lord and Savior. Without it, there would be no way of spreading the word. We just need to learn how to make it easier for people who do not know God by using terms that they understand.

P.S. I commented on Jamie's post, "Lost In Translation."

"You are more than my words could ever say..."

Language is definitely one of my major interests, thus, this talk about the often failure of language. Being semi-proficient in two languages I see this a lot. Those close to me know the frustration I feel at trying to communicate something and sometimes having the word be lost in translation. The more fluent I become (in Spanish) the more I see this happen. I don't know if it's the excitement of learning a new language or reality, but I feel like the English language falls short in many ways in trying to communicate certain senarioes. Thats right, I like Spanish better than English. Learning another language can really give one a cool perspective on worldview and just meaning. Saying all puts even more emphases on what Barth says about the failure of language in relation to talking about God. Right now... I'm having a problem communicating all my feelings because words are hard!!!!.... right. okay.... bye then.

commented on Danielle's

Rebel Heart

“The greatest hindrance of faith is again and again just the pride and anxiety of our own human hearts. We would rather not live by grace. Something within us energetically rebels against it.” Why is this so? Why do we have a problem accepting grace? Why do we have a problem with faith? I think it’s because it’s something that is out of our control. We have to trust and leave the end result up to Someone else. For control freaks (like me) that’s kind of hard. Pride and anxiety are two natural reactions of the human heart but faith bursts through them both. But how do we have faith and keep anxiety from overwhelming us? By recognizing that circumstances are out of our control and trusting Him. We have to realize that His grace is sufficient. I know I’m probably preaching to the choir, but reading this in Barth really stood out to me and was applicable to my life today, and since I realized that I still needed to blog, I decided to talk about it a bit. ☺ We say we want to live by grace but how often do our actions reflect this? I know mine don’t always because I try to take things into my control…

The battle rages on/ as storm and tempest roar/ We cannot win this fight/ inside our rebel hearts/ we're laying down our weapons now/ we raise our white flag/ we surrender all to You/ all for You...

p.s. commented on Danielle’s

We Are the 1%, But Sometimes We'd Rather Be the 99%

So last Thursday we rebelled against the norm, and noise, and trekked across campus to a new location. As we were walking, Dr. Abernathy, who had no idea what we were doing, tried to get us to return to the Library. It made me think about peer pressure, which may or may not have anything to do with Bonhoeffer, but fits in my mind. At the moment I’m still not sure who the peer pressure came from, Dr. Abernathy or Dr. Schuler, who insists he was liberating the class. But I do know that Bonhoeffer had to have received a lot of pressure not to return to Germany. But he did it anyway, he stood strong.

As Christians, this is something we have to do. There is a lot of outside pressure to conform to what is easy and normal, but we can’t. We have to hold fast to what is written in God’s word. We have to be the 1%, not the 99%. If we’re the 99%, we’re taking the easy way out, even though I’m sure any “Occupy Wall Street” protestors would argue that the 1% has it easier. As the 1% we have to walk the straight and narrow path. Following this path isn’t as easy as it seems, especially during those times when everything seems to be going wrong, when we’re seemingly going straight uphill. It would be easier to take the wide path that slopes gently up and around, but we must take the more difficult route. We have to trust that Christ will guide us through the difficult passages so that we can arrive triumphantly on the other side.

I’m pretty sure I made no sense tonight, but add together being home, a family who doesn’t understand homework, a four year old who potentially has pink eye, and the stress of having to remind them I should not yet be at home, and you get a jumbled mess of thoughts that refused to organize themselves.

Enjoy class tomorrow, and someone please let me know via the Facebook page what we’re reading for Tuesday!

Tantum E Tenebris Receptum Constabit

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Jamie’s post “Lost in Translation”

Barth Confuses Me, So I'll Talk About Science.

The title says it all. I'm going to talk about using science to prove God.

I don't remember who it was that said it, but in class, it was mentioned that science could be used to prove God. I beg to differ. Science, by definition is a process used to observe phenomena, formulate a hypothesis, recreate the initial observed phenomena in a controlled environment, and then draw a conclusion from the observation of the experiment. There are a few problems present in the 'proving God' theory.

1) Science only deals with the empirical world.

We can't use science in the supernatural realm of understanding. Why? because it doesn't apply. for example, look at the Old Testament. Looking only at the Old Testament we could use 'science' to conclude that God will order mass genocide of all those who don't believe or make him angry. Now looking at the New Testament, we can see that this is not the case. As a matter of fact "It is not God's will that any should perish, but that all may come to know Him."

2) Science can only draw conclusions from observable, repeatable phenomena.

As before, we can't exactly draw a solid conclusion about God from looking solely at the Old Testament. His decisions differ from one another, as do His methods.

3) Science can't prove anything.

Science, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, is the observation and examination of observable, repeatable evidence. It also says that science can only draw conclusions from these observations and experiments. Science cannot prove phenomena. the closest anything dicovered by science can be to a property (the closest thing to an absolute truth in science) is a law, which is still disprovable.

4) Theology is not a science.

We talked a little bit about theology as a science. Unfortunately, this does not fit within the plane of science. Again, according to Britannica, science only deals with the physical realm. Last time I checked, theology did not deal with the physical world. Now, let me explain, theology is a study, thoughts and ideas can be derived in theology by the use of reason. However, it is not a science.

Now that all that's been cleared up, we can begin to clear up the discrepancies. Yes, we can use reason to deal with theological concepts. No, we cannot prove God. To do so would put God in the finite capacities of the human mind. Soren Kierkegaard said in our book last semester "In this day in age, no one is willing to stop with faith, but goes further." He was spot on, we try to understand who God is or why He does, but ultimately we will fail.

I hope that made sense.

~~Cody Martin

Commented on Hunter's 'To See His Face'

To See His Face

"To the ones with broken dreams, and to the lost and hopeless,

to the ones that stand up for what's right to the world,

come meet your King!"

-For Today, The Advocate

One of the great things about being an Honors student is being able to have deep discussions about life not just in class but outside. For example, at dinner today I took part in a lengthy discussion with Cody, Ben, and Bethany Polinkas, the latter of which is not an Honors student, but very intelligent. We talked about everything from the meanings in The Passion of the Christ, the nature of science, and everything in between. More specifically, we discussed the nature of realism vs. existentialism. The realist observes something in nature and knows what it is because of what it is, but the existentialist asks "why" it is what is. For the realist, there is nothing we can observe in this world that is beyond what we can see in this world and what is observable through science. However, philosophy is the means through which we examine reality and the way we live, and what we determine from that is passed on to science to get a full picture of existence. However, as Cody and Bethany clearly demonstrate, realism does not exclude the divine at all, because a science based mindset only highlights the incredible power of God and the unexplainable mystery of faith and the resurrection. There is no possible why to prove this, allowing for a more faith dependent of life and even more ardent worship.

I say all of that to talk about Barth and his perception of faith. To him, to accept God is to personally meet with the Holy Trinity and see it in its glory and truth. In this meeting, the new man understands that God is God because He says He is and that He is sovereign to the point that the man's life is automatically forfeit. He is clear and present in the sight of perception of the new disciple. Now, this would not seem to make any sense to the realist. The Christian realist understands that God, in His supreme majesty, is something he cannot possibly fathom, for he is so limited as a human being. How can He possibly meet us? Yet it is this supreme strangeness that makes God who He is, for it is only when the Holy Ghost breaks into the world through the invasion of Jesus Christ, which points us to the majesty of the Father's creation, that the realist can understand who God is. One of the most important things that my dad has ever taught me, and I've mentioned this several times, is that the Holy Spirit is literally standing with you at any given moment, and Barth would say that that understanding that is the once and for all decision. Faith is the ultimate freedom, but only for those who are willing to accept it. I personally have come to understand that I can't always count on hearing His voice. I have to understand Him through the scriptures, which truly are the voice of God, but when I earnestly ask to hear Him and see His face, it never fails. I have to make the choice to tune into His frequency, so to speak, not just shake Him like an 8 Ball. I must go and meet my King, and His ambassador goes with me. That is faith, and yes, it is a science, for I observe it every day.

Thank you for reading, please feel free to comment or argue as you please, I commented on Meghan Johnston's We Are the 1%, But Sometimes We'd Rather Be the 99%.

The Deconstruction of Truth.

As I read through the third section of Barth, I came across the word Logos a good many times. It stated that Logos is truth. This led me back to an apologetic article that I read on the postmodern condition. It states that ministry is harder than it used to be because of modern human nature. It said that modern society has a very unique perspective on truth. To society, truth is not relative. It stated that the definition of "truth" had been deconstructed so that each person has their own definition of what truth is. It continues to say that anyone that claim to have an ultimate source of truth is to be rejected. So as Christians, since we claim to have an absolute truth and moral standard, we are to be shunned. Also, documents that claim to be sources of the truth, such as the bible, are to be rejected as well for trying to force false truth on people. Unfortunately, since people turn their backs from relative truth, they rely on their own morality to tell them what is right or wrong. However, as sinful beings, our own morality can be faulty. Our morality can justify drug addiction, murder, and other atrocious things because there is no moral standard.

Jesus Christ needs to be our moral standard. Jesus Christ showed us the model lifestyle. He laid the foundation for Truth. It's like John 14:6 says: "Jesus answered, "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the life."

I commented on Jamie's "Lost In Translation"

Lost in translation

While reading Barth, I couldn't help by think of Chemistry. (No, I'm not crazy, I promise.) Before I started taking Chemistry in the fall, the language was completely foreign to me. Many of the most basic equations looked like the greek alphabet threw up. Now, however, it is becoming easier to understand. What once meant nothing is now useful to me.

In my mind, this is how people outside of the church hear "church language." It sounds cool, but has no real meaning. As Christians, we are supposed spread the Gospel, but how can we possibly do that when much of the world doesn't understand us? We know that we have information that is useful, but unless we can communicate that information in a way that can be comprehended by those who are not part of the church, our information is completely useless. It is necessary for us to use the "common language of the world" in order to reach those who have yet to learn to speak our language.

Commented on Joy's

I think therefore I am...a Christian

Well I literally wrote down my thoughts… as I was thinking them. I’m trying to work out my thoughts about faith and reasoning. I’m still real lost trying to sort it out, but this blog is me attempting to think it through nonetheless.
So I was getting a little confused trying to follow the class discussion. I suppose the idea that faith and reason or intellect not being connected doesn’t make sense to me. I think that the ability to reason makes faith that much more valid… I’m getting stuck trying to process my thoughts right now… but okay In the Bible when it says “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’”. (That phrase is found in Matthew 22:37, and in Luke 10:27) With all your mind… I read that and maybe it is off base but I do think it does mean with your ability to reason. I don’t see how faith can be separated from ones intellect. I don’t really believe that people can be separated from their reason… no matter the situation one’s ability to reason is always a part of them. To separate that from faith would seem to me to be causing a divide of self… and when you think about it oneself is their only real means of sacrifice to God (maybe that’s not phrase right but I’m thinking Romans 12:1 and the whole idea of offering oneself as a living sacrifice). But maybe when we talk about faith and reason it’s not really about separating faith and reason but sacrificing the ability to reason in the sense that you accept what can’t be rationally explained. So this is where I’m at now…
Faith and intellect can’t be separated because one’s mind is so much a part of them that the separation of the two creates a divide of self… but when the Bible talks about living sacrifice that includes the mind, right? If so then yes Love God with your mind but still give up the ability to reasonably rationalize the divine because first of all it’s impossible and secondly because the mind is included when God calls us to sacrifice ourselves…

Ps. Wrote on Jannah’s post questioning assassination.

Never Alone

“Never Alone.” That’s a phrase repeated over and over in one of my favourite book series, The Door Within. It’s a reminder that servants of the King are never alone in any task they undertake for His glory. I know that it’s understood that God is always with us, but I’d never seen that specific phrase anywhere other than that series before I read Barth. He takes it more in depth; explains the weight behind those two words. Behind “Never Alone” is the unconditional and absolute promise that God has your back no matter what happens. That you are always in His company no matter where you are. It’s something that we’ve always been told in church, that God is always with us and that He sees everything, but sometimes it takes a fresh voice to make you really think about something. So, never alone.


P.S. I commented on Will's "Cohesion"

The Failure of Language

As an English major and writer, I am a lover of words.

So what happens when I start realizing that they fail? They confuse. They lose their meaning. Even more--what does that mean for me, loving the description of Jesus as 'the Word made flesh'? Sometimes I catch myself wondering what that even means.

Barth translates the Word as Logos, which he later defines as meaning and truth. If Christ is the Word, the Meaning, the Truth--that starts to mean a whole lot more. In modernity, the world seems to have turned to mush and lost it's meaning. Language has ceased to be sufficient, and words seem to hinder us connecting in meaningful relationships. Even worse is the fear that once something is spoken, it ceases to lose it's meaning. It is no longer in your heart and mind being meditated on, but thrown out into the universe and often forgotten. Words typed up on a page are skimmed over or not even read at all. "Words, words, words!" as Hamlet says. It's somewhat maddening. But Jesus as the Meaning--now that is something modernity needs.

--commented on Will's

So because I am writing my paper partly on Bonhoeffer I decided to blog on some things that stood out to me in The Cost of Discipleship.

In section 5, Bonhoeffer begins to talk about Luke 14 verse 26. In this verse Jesus says, "If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Bonhoeffer makes the statement that, "It is Christ's will that he should be thus isolated, and that he should fix his eyes solely upon him.," where, "he," refers to a disciple. I find this to be one of the most difficult parts of discipleship, because I highly value my relationships with those around me. The idea of isolation honestly scares me and it is a constant struggle to completely focus on God in this aspect. Continuously fighting to put God first is an extremely rewarding battle though, filled with growth that I truly long for.

P.S. I commented on Will's post

Cohesion

One thing I've learned here at UM is that no matter which classes I take, there is always cohesion.

I picked up on it again in the last session.

Barth speaks of the difference between scientia (knowledge of) and sapientia (knowing something intimately). Right before reading this piece, I had thought about Spanish and the difference between "saber" and "conocer." The former means "to know information", the latter means to be familiar with. They both translate into "to know" in the English language. Unfortunately, this may actually be a point that foreign languages are allowed to put on the scoreboard over English.

This, I believe, is the difference in Dr. Talmage's illustration. One person, the scientist/philosopher that looks strictly at the empirical evidence, uses personal knowledge to attempt understanding. Another person, the person of faith, sees the empirical evidence and is touched by God's knowledge.

Language is key in understanding Barth, science, philosophy, and even God, yet it does fall short quite often.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. I commented on Samantha's "Titles Vex Me."

Titles Vex Me

What are we to think and say about Karl Barth?

Well, I do know that the whole evolution discussion took me back to biology with Mr. Carey last semester. If you ever want to have a real argument about it, step out of our minor honors debates on the matter and sit down in his office one day, then come talk to me. I type that with excitement not condescension.

I know I said this in class, and I know I go back to this a lot, but I am ever reminded of my first true encounter with doubt and fighting for my faith in Mashburn's class. Getting to the point that I do not believe what I believe because of ______, but that I believe in spite of _____ was no easy feat, but that is the resolve for me. It was nice to see it affirmed with Barth. "When we believe, we must believe in spite of God's hiddenness. This hiddenness of God necessarily reminds us of our human limitation."

In chapter three when Barth says that Christian faith is not irrational, anti-rational, or suprarational, I think he does something crucial to his defense against scientia. It is not a war against science, so to speak, but I think he takes the scientific view that we cannot bring issues like metaphysics, faith, and the like up against science because there can be no solid proof. And sure, Mr. Carey and many of his colleagues are right, there is not necessarily empirical evidence for any of this. Barth brings Christianity, faith, and God back down to Earth when he puts the Church into earthly history and earthly time. He makes it something for the flawed rational, he makes it something we can touch because he reminds us of Christ becoming wholly man. Barth brings it down so that we can encounter faith and Christ the way we encounter one another. When Christ came, he was just as human as you and I but he is also wholly God. He was and still is One to be encountered and to know, as in the Spanish verb conocer: to be familiar with or acquainted with, as in a person or place.

I am not sure what Barth wants us to do about it flawed and fallen as we are. And maybe he only does all of this so we can better ask the question and understand it: What are we to think and say?

COMMENTED ON JOY'S

Macroevolution

Today something was said in class about Christian evolution... You know trying to make those two things mesh just does not work out well. You are trying to mesh two different beliefs. I do not believe that God left room for us to interpret macro-evolution into the creation story or the grand scheme of things. He did so intentionally. "GOD CREATED." That is not to say that there is not micro-evolution. To say that would be like saying someone from up North can never adjust to our weather in Mobile so they have to move back up to New York or wherever. Or saying that someone from Mobile could not adjust to the cold up North... God did create us to be able to adapt. However, we did not evolve from other creatures and I do not believe that the world is millions of years old or that it formed from two atoms striking. Science, history, and the Word do not support such a belief, they actually disprove it.

Ps - AJackson "Never Alone"

talking of Michelangelo.

We’ve been given these books about suffering because they’re supposed to be speaking to us. Talking to us. And all I’ve found is waste and misery. And strange feelings of contempt for myself as I complain about my slight headache. As if my own life is something I should hold onto more precious because it is free from pain. And yet finding, like the Catcher in the Rye and like Prufrock- that I can’t.

I turn back to Ecclesiastes, because last semester Dr. Mashburn assigned me a paper on it and ever since then I haven’t been able get it out of my mind. If everything was really meaningless would we really have the need to read Frankl’s book? I am beginning to understand that there are some questions I may never answer. May never be able to put into boxes in my mind. Right now it feels like there is no answer to suffering. No meaning in the silence of God. Because really- do existentialists ever face the why? I mean they are into the how, but the why? In this I mean to say- why do you want to live? Why do you want to avoid suffering? In this case it seems to me that evil is universal. It must be- to further the conversation. Suffering is real and tangible to all. This feeling of suffering seems universal and sweeping and all-encompassing. Surely if this darkness is so very real, there is a hope that is greater than this.

well, now i feel a lot better. maybe this will help my paper writing. we're allowed to blog rant right? it's a direct response to my reading, but for good measure I'll just throw in that I liked Bart but i don't know what Talmage would have to say about his whole "faith being knowable" thing. seems directly opposite to what Talmage said last week- yet i see in myself signs of both.

Here are some quotes that help me make sense of everything:

defenseless under the night, our world in a stupor lies

yet, dotted everywhere, ironic points of light

flash out wherever the Just exchange their messages.

may i, composed like them of eros and of dust

beleaguered by the same negation and despair

show an affirming flame.

-auden

“The world is not respectable; it is mortal, tormented, confused, deluded forever; but it is shot through with beauty, with love, with glints of courage and laughter; and in these, the spirit blooms timidly, and struggles to the light amid the thorns.”

- George Santayana

What is Evil? (An Infographic)

Last Thursday, the Honors class discussed the nature of evil: what it is and how it manifests itself in human affairs. From my notes, I created an infographic to outline the discussion and to keep future conversation focused.

Click to enlarge.

Among us, it may be generally assumed that evil is whatever is contrary to good, but this raises other questions. What is good, and if so, who or what defines it? Is there good? Is there evil? These are questions for which an answer must be sought, but for now, I digress.

EDIT: I commented on Joy Vignuelle's "Macroevolution."