Pride comes before a fall...

Pride is an issue both Pope and Swift dwell on in their writings… and I find this interesting because so often pride is the flaw we tend to excuse the most. In An Essay on Man, Pope says, “Shall he alone, whom rational we call, be pleased with nothing, if not blessed with all?” I found this funny because we “rational” humans want and want and want… and are never satisfied for very long. We excuse the incessant wanting as natural, but there is a reason the Houyhnhnms believed Gulliver was telling of “the thing which was not” when Gulliver told of what wars are fought over and the lengths people go to acquire more stuff! We sound so silly! To become upset over not getting our way and dislike others simply because they are not like us… how God must look on us with sadness! This world is not what He created it to be because of sin, but how often do we as Christians fall into the mindset of the world? Trying to acquire things, people “who find not Providence all good and wise, alike in what it gives, and what denies?” Thinking we know better than God and trying to orchestrate events so they go the way WE want them to. I know I’m guilty of it. It’s just convicting to read this and think about how you live and what you spend your time and effort and money on. Are they things that moth and rust will destroy, or are they treasures in heaven? Pride and selfishness are two of the hardest sins to overcome because they are so much a part of our sinful human nature. Swift paints us to be only slightly more rational than Yahoos, and it seems the Houynhnhnms have a hard time believing we are “smart” creatures when we waste so much effort through falsehood, scheming, and destruction just to get our own way. So, maybe I just went off on a tangent; I’m sorry! It just bothers me to think about how much money and time we spend on luxuries when people are dying and going to hell without knowing Christ. There’s such a bigger purpose for us being here than primping (Rape of the Lock) and planning and searching for happiness. I loved how Pope ended An Essay on Man:
“Know thy own point: this kind, this due degree/ Of blindness, weakness, Heaven bestows on thee./ Submit…/ Safe in the hand of one disposing Power…/ All Nature is but Art, unknown to thee/ All Chance, Direction, which thou canst not see/ All Discord, Harmony not understood/ All partial Evil, universal Good/ And, spite of Pride, in erring Reason’s spite/ One truth is clear, whatever is right.”

It’s all clear to God. Even though our pride makes us stumble and occludes our reasoning, He is in control and does whatever is right. We might not understand, but we aren’t supposed to; it’s just our pride that tries to take the reins and say “Okay God, I’ve got this. Let’s do life my way.”

Hopefully you understood my scattered thoughts! :)
P.S. Commented on Samantha’s

Insert Witty Title Here

Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice, on being an accomplished woman: "Oh! certainly," cried his faithful assistant, "no woman can be really esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half-deserved." (Caroline Bingley) [...] "I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder now at your knowing any." (Elizabeth Bennett) Maybe my thoughts were directed here during my reading of Pope's The Rape of the Lock due to the fact I am currently rereading Pride & Prejudice for the umpteenth time. Nevertheless, I see so much of Belinda in Caroline Bingley's vision of a woman it makes me giddy (nerdy banter; please forgive and bear with). When Elizabeth responds to Caroline and Mr. Darcy's expectations of an accomplished woman, Caroline is appalled in similar, though more realistic, fashion to Belinda's. When Caroline was insulted by Elizabeth's response, her honor was disparaged, but this is only because Caroline was brought up in a higher society that convinced her such honor was to be had. If you could look on the inside of Caroline Bingley, the measure of the woman is small and fully dependent on her abilities instead of her heart condition. And while Elizabeth is no saint, she at least recognizes what the true measure should be, and so, has a sense of self-evaulation that Rachel discusses in her blog. There must be more to you than what you can sell to people. "Nothing is more deceitful," said Darcy, "that the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast." In the same way, when you take into account lines 15-18 of Canto II concerning the "graceful ease, and sweetness void of pride" of fair Belinda...Pope seems utterly and completely sarcastic. You can sense the pride, and almost Apollonian force of containment of Belinda's true self. It begs the question of if she really has an identity anymore underneath her facade of beauty and grace. By Contrast, Elizabeth Bennett has no trouble being who she is on the outside. Thus, in Caroline Bingley's eyes, Lizzy is savage and without form (Dionysian). So, which is correct? COMMENTED ON RACHEL'S

In the Rape of the Lock, Alexander Pope displays how people are too obesessed with physical beauty, when we should be focused on inner beauty. In Canto I, we see some of her materialism,"Puffs, powders, patches, Bibles, billet-doux. Now awful Beauty puts on all its arms." When a lock of her hair is stolen, Belinda is fixed on getting it back because it is a part of who she is and a symbol of her outer beauty. Although it was only hair, the meaning behind it turns into a war perhaps between surface and depth or genuinity and imitation. Was she to pretend to be someone that people expected her to be just to fit in? Or was she to just be herself without caring what others thought?

This war wasn't merely about the hair, but about power and honor and what could become of the world because of one person's actions.

Watch

My blog this week may be slightly swayed by the fact that I watched “The Debt” this weekend. (Quick Synopsis: Three Jewish secret agents after World War II are assigned to capture and bring to trial the Surgeon of Birkenau who murdered and mutilated many Jews with his experimentation. The plot centers around challenges of honesty, retribution, justice, etc.) Anyway, at one point in the movie, the three agents have captured him and are awaiting a plan for how to get him to Israel for a trial. One of the male agents constantly admonishes the others not to listen to this manipulating evil man, and this is reinforced by the way they keep his mouth sealed with tape. The only time his mouth is uncovered is when one of the agents feeds him. He is speaking to the younger male agent and he says something along the lines of, ‘The reason it was so easy to eliminate your people is because you were all so selfish. Think about it, 4 agents lead a group of 1,000 into a gas chamber, and all the while all of those people were only thinking of themselves, even when we took their children away’. Let me just finish this thought by explaining a couple of things, I DO NOT agree with this statement, in fact the reason the Surgeon says it is because he is manipulating this Jewish man. Secondly, if you research the Surgeon of Birkenau and watch this movie you will find that although there was such a man, Joseph Mengele, but in fact the events of the movie are fictitious.

Now as I read Gulliver’s Travels Part IV, As Gulliver steps into this country and begins to observe and describe the humans he does not realize that those whom he sees are like himself. He writes, “On the whole I never beheld in all my travels so disagreeable an animal, or one against which I naturally conceived so strong an antipathy. So tat thinking I had seen enough, full of contempt and aversion, I got up and pursued the beaten road”. The truth is that when we begin to see our fellow man in such a dark and detached light it allows for injustice and mistreatment to occur. Throughout history we find dehumanization sometimes following with annihilation built on foundational misconceptions. (which is why we discussed in class digging back down to the foundation and examining even simple believes)

This is why texts like Descartes and others within the enlightenment are so important! They challenge the reader to question, even those things which have been practices or truths since before their time. For example, as the tensions between the North and the South rise regarding politics and the sticky issue of slavery, authors like Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin. This anti-slavery novel sparked a lot of discussion surrounding question of slavery, and forced some much needed dialogue between politicians. Slavery was an issue that stretched across generations of people, and as people began to reexamine the practice the need for action became unavoidable.

The enlightenment philosophy and literature arranged for us to read so aptly by our teachers begins to awaken deeper questions unrelating to specific historical or current events. In this age of politically-correct tolerance jargon what presuppositional lies and even truths have we allowed to be ingrained into our thoughts? As Swift writes this slightly comical portrayal of humans acting much more beastly in their nakedness, interactions, and work, I do believe this points to a deeper meaning. A call to reexamine ourselves just like Descartes and Pope (I mention these so often because these are what we have read so far). This may seem repetitive, but only because the message is so crucial! If I cannot accept that I could be wrong, and therefore do not undergo this process of self and world examination; then I will watch as people groups are destroyed, and as injustice is heaped upon someone else. Swift in his writings gives a gruesome picture, absurd as it may seem, of what can happen if one is apathetic to others.

Post 2 -

Alexander Pope’s writings are an interesting read in some parts. However, I would like to focus on Belinda and what her story brought to mind. The writer says early on that “the world Belinda inhabits confuses small things with great.” She becomes so consumed with the lock of hair taken from her head. The writer touches on the fact that “we see only parts, not the whole,” I would believe that this was the case for Belinda. She let the fact that her “favorite” lock of hair had been taken from her consume her. The hair could not be re-attached to her head, but she wanted it back none the less. She was obsessed with vanity. But when I thought about it, vanity is all around us. Think about it. We always want to look good. For each person the definition of looking good will vary. To some it is just not having zits on their face and their hair staying nicely in place. For others it is getting dressed up in a nice outfit, fixing their hair, doing their makeup, and looking all put together (guys I know you just love doing all of those things!). But scripture says that all is vanity. Why? Because this life is just passing us by, it is but a vapor. Do not get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with looking good, but when we put looking good above seeking and doing the will of God it is wrong. It is like the Pope says “let an action be never so trivial in itself, they always make it appear of the utmost importance.” We make so many things around us seem important. But here is my question, why would we want what we do to “seem” important when we can do something that really is important? I do not know where all of you stand with Christ, but Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior. Which means the most important thing I can do as a believer is bring Him glory. “What mighty contests rise from trivial things.” I agree. We make contests and spats over things that do not matter. Romans 15 talks about God granting us “to live in such harmony with one another… that together [we] may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I know I am not the only believer in the class, I do believe that many of you have surrendered your life to Christ, so we ought to strive to be biblical brothers and sisters, not living for the things which are vain but for the things which are eternal. However I do warn in the words of the Pope from a scriptural reference, “know, then, unnumbered spirits round thee fly, the light militia of the lower sky.” There is spiritual warfare taking place everyday. We need to pray God’s armor onto ourselves that we might be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. I would urge us as believers to also pray for others salvation. Because just like in the story when “the meeting points the sacred hair dissever from the fair head, forever, and forever!” so it is true for everyone who is not found in Christ. They will be separated from Him forever and forever if they do not know Jesus Christ as Lord. So let’s be intentional with our lives.

“Beauties in vain their pretty eyes may roll; charms strike the sight, but merit wins the soul.” ~ Clarissa from The Rape Of The Lock ~

Joy Vigneulle

PS - Comment on Will Drake

Behold the First in Virtue as in Face

In reading through "The Rape of the Lock," I noticed many similarities in form and structure with epics from antiquity. This poem of course has much more rhythm and rhyme than the epics of old. I was rather disinterested in this poem, as it seemed to have very little to teach (I enjoy philosophy more than storytelling. I probably would have sided with Plato and Socrates against the poets ;)

I did, however, find a tasteful piece in Canto V. Clarissa definitely took hold of my attention when she gave the speech. The wisdom she speaks with is definitely a lesson that many overlook even in old age. The fact that she questions why people are so shallow and pursue a fading physical beauty is possible irony given by Pope, as that seems to be beauty within itself. Clarissa on many occasions mentions the superiority of good morals and good sense (a quick mind, if I may interpret). She asks near line 8 of Canto V, ". . . why are beauties praised and honored most, / The wise man's passion, and the vain man's toast." That is a question I myself ask. Why do so many people, male and female, pursue "good looks" over a stable educated mind? She is most certainly baffled, and possibly disgusted with the fact that men pursue a woman who merely looks like an angel, and is yet ignorant. If I were the Baron, or any other man in this poem, I would have most certainly pursued Clarissa and not Belinda. If I were Arabella Fermor to whom the poem is addressed, and I had been told I was represented by Belinda, I would be rather upset, despite Pope's preface.

Maybe this is also a question Pope is asking himself . . . or one he wishes more people believed so that he could be unchained from social expectations.

"Charms strike the sight, but merit wins the soul." :)

Oh, and is that a heart to the left of line 35-36 in Canto V...?

- Will Drake

(edit 9/8/11: Forgot to post about my comment. It's on Joy's)

comment to Lucy's

Well, I must admit that I love Edwards. And that I've agreed with only one point you've made, and disagree with the rest.

For your first point: I might remind you that Edwards is not directing any of his statements to believers, but to those who have rejected a relationship with Christ. All the scriptures you pointed out were for believers. However there are scriptures for un-believers that prove the wrath of God. And yes, there must be wrath for Him to be a just God, otherwise He would be a liar, and that is impossible.
"Look, the LORD will come with fire - His chariots are like the whirlwind - to execute His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire. For the LORD will execute judgement on all flesh with His fiery sword" Isaiah 66:15-16
"Thus He will repay according to their deeds: fury to His enemies retribution to His foes," Isaiah 59:18
"Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned." John 3:18
Paul tells us in the New Testament that anyone who does not have a personal relationship with God is an enemy of God.

Yes, there is divine love of God for sinners. This is why Edwards goes on and on about God holding them from hell for his sovereign pleasure.
"This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4
"Therefore, house of Israel, I will judge each one of you according to his ways. This is the declaration of the LORD God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, so they will not be a stumbling block that causes your punishment. Throw off all the transgressions you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in anyone's death." Ezekiel 18:30-32
This is what Edwards is talking about when he talks about God's pleasure. God is loving and wants everyone to come to Him, yet God is omniscient and knows that everyone will not come to Him, that is the purpose of hell.

Also, we are of course called to have a certain fear of the LORD.Edwards says, "What are we, that we should think to stand before Him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down?" This is the beautiful picture of grace. We don't deserve the love of our Savior, in no way. Yes, we should be confident in it, but it is good to be reminded of how more holy and powerful He is than we.
"Guard your step when you go to the house of God. Better to draw near in obedience than to offer sacrifices as fools do, for they are ignorant and do wrong. Do not be hasty to speak, and do not be impulsive to make a speech before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few." Ecclesiastes 5:1-2
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" Proverbs 1:7

Edwards is often looked down upon because he used the scare tactic. I think most miss the motive behind his tactics though. He paints God as angry and condemning because Edwards has a sense of urgency about him. He understands that Jesus will come like a thief in the night and for many it will be the point of no return. They will not have the chance to repent, it will be too late. At that time, God will no longer be merciful towards them. He will punish them and pay them all that is due. I also think that Edwards had a bold hate for sin, as did Paul who said, "Stop sinning for some people are ignorant about God" 1 Corinthians 15:34
Lastly, Edwards has compassion, which most people never see. He says speaking of a non - believer in his congregation: "If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation what was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him!"
Edwards prayer was that people would be saved from an eternity of misery.

One last thing, while God is our Husband and Friend, He is not just those two things alone. He is also our Master, our Judge, our Savior, our Rock, our Comforter, Love. He is all these things and many more. We can't just pick one that we like the most and ignore all the other things of God. He is reigning on the throne as our Judge and Master, and again, this is where a certain level of fear and respect must come into play in our relationship with Him.

I'm Doubting This Post!

I'm hoping that I do this correctly and that there is no problems. Let me know if I need to edit this!

To be honest, the reading was a bit long and really hard to get through. It wasn't because of the deep and intellectual sense of the reading, but the lack of practicality in his ideas and process. I personally thought "Why go through all this trouble only to doubt yourself." The fact that DesCarte was doing this because he had all the time he needed only emphasized my doubts that someone in "normal" circumstances could do the same in our modern day.

It was tedious, but the more I thought about what DesCarte was aiming to do, the more it made sense. Here I was personally doubting another man's way to become closer to God, which isn't my place, showing that doubt can lead to knowledge and understanding. Doubting everything you were told to be true, so you can get down to what you believe to be absolute is not only a great idea, but a rewarding process. Is it for for everyone to take part in? I'm not so sure. You would have to be very intelligent, certain of your faith, and have an attention span much bigger than mine.

P.S. I commented on Katina's post.

Late Night Thoughts...

Have you ever done as Descartes did and imagined, if just for a moment, that your hand was not yours? I tried it the other day in class and for a few seconds was able, I think, to capture that feeling he had. It’s rather weird to be honest. Think about it. What if you were simply a consciousness that either resided in the body you are currently in or had made it up completely, including everything around you. The brain is capable of having hallucinations, so why couldn’t everything around you be one. You start to feel that the conscious, thinking part of you is separate from the physical part of you. Anyways, I just thought that it was cool and really interesting if you can experience that feeling, even if only for a few seconds.

One thing I thought about during the reading is how like and yet unlike every human being Descartes is. He is just like the rest of us, I think, in that he too is searching for that one irrefutable truth that will become his springboard for life. It will be the truth upon which he builds his life, something that he can stand firm on when trouble comes. Everyone wants something that they can fall back on; something they can trust will never fail or be false. People are looking for it every day and some find it, some don’t. Not everyone knows what they are looking for, where to look for it, or even that they are looking for it. Descartes is unlike the rest of us in that he is willing to throw into doubt absolutely everything that he knows and thinks he knows. Not many could ever successfully do that, nor would many be willing to do so, I suspect, for fear that they would get lost in the doubt and never climb back out again. I wonder if he knew the answer all along…

-Anna

P.S. I commented on Susan Berner

Infidels don't have souls

After a semester of reading journals, I am more than excited to get back to my home turf: the blog. Although actually getting this post up was a strenuous process, it feels so good to be home. With all of that out of the way, let's jump into the text!

"for although to us, the faithful, it be sufficient to hold as maters of faith, that the human soul does not perish with the body, and that God exists, it yet assuredly seems impossible ever to persuade infidels of the reality of any religion, or almost even any moral virtue, unless, first of all, those two things be proved to them by natural reason."

This quote ranks up there with my all time favorite quotes from honors literature. Why? Because it's just as relevant now as it was when it was written. In this context, the word 'infidel' means someone without any religious beliefs, or with beliefs differing from one's own, as opposed to a terrorist with a gun and a turban. While the two are not mutually exclusive, I felt that clarification might have been necessary considering that I was picturing myself having a theological debate with a turban-wearing, gun-wielding, long-bearded "infidel" when I read it.

We can't hope to change the minds of others about moral issues if they don't believe in God, or even that the soul and body are separate. If you don't believe that the soul and body are separate, that means that you must believe that after death there is nothing. I.E. Earthly consequences for actions are all you will receive, and once you die , you won't be rewarded or punished, you will just cease to be. Without believing in God, there is no higher authority to answer to than humans, and therefore there is no fair way to decide what morals need to be upheld, as one human's opinion should not be valued greater than another. Because of these two things, convincing an 'infidel' of anything related to morality or spirituality is next to impossible.

In a country full of 'infidels', how can we hope to impress the correct morals and virtues into society? The first thing we have to do is go back to the basics, and address the issues of God and the soul. Only then can true progress be made.

So, what did we learn today? That infidel doesn't necessarily mean muslim terrorist? That blogspot hates me? That having four questions at the end looks a lot more aesthetically pleasing than just having three? All good answers.

Tune in next week for… whatever we're reading next week.

P.S. I commented on Danielle's

COMMENT

There have been some issues with commenting (i.e. it literally will not let your mouse even click the post button). Here is my comment to Danielle Standifer's blog:


Danielle, I am so glad I am not the only one in this strangely manufactured boat. I have had moments in my life, the occurance of which never attributed to a certain mood, circumstance or significant time, in which I have doubted everything. The flow of these moments are as such:

Doubt in God > doubt in self > doubt in existence and eternal outcome of self > doubt of sensory perception > need for absolute truth > truth found in God > assurance found in God > reestablishment and strengthening of faith in God

Like you said, this process never takes longer than several minutes and even though it sounds quite upsetting it does seem to present some hope, or shimmering light at the end of the darkness. It is the progression from insecurity to “but God”. It always seems to increase my faith in God, just as my mother’s words reminding me that she loves me when I thought otherwise bring me to a better understanding of her love for me.

it wont let me post my comment... so this is it.

I attempted to comment on Amy Smiths post:

I feel like it's so easy to doubt God because physically he's unseen, it's easy to doubt yourself because you know you have flaws, and it's easy to doubt other people because we have a harshly human nature. But Descartes went above normal doubt and doubted everything. He went as far to doubt reality itself. To an extent I respect that. He opened his mind and it led him to his truth. I love the idea of the existence of faith and God, how it's a gift. I believe that completely.

Sometimes, I think our professors are brainwashing us...

Ah, to hearken back to the days of yore...and by yore I mean my freshman year with Dr. Mashburn, and by Mashburn I am referring to my reading of Descartes' Meditations in his Philosophy 101 my first semester. Beyond that, I am referring to my reading of Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God my tenth grade year in old Coach Tuggle's class. Good times. However, I much prefer the present as my understanding and desire to learn have both significantly increased since.

So, Descartes. What a loaded passage! I could have stayed in class for another three hours at least the other day just to pry through this. So many heavy words like "utility" and "accidents"--both of which I fear for multiple reasons:
"Now although the utility of a doubt so general may not be manifest at first sight, it is nevertheless of the greatest, since it delivers us from all prejudice, and affords the easiest pathway by which the mind may withdraw itself from the sense; and finally makes it impossible for us to doubt wherever we afterward discover truth."
"...the human mind is not made up of accidents, but is a pure substance."
Benthem and Aquinas meet Descartes...what a dinner party that would be. For the freshmen, Betham's concept of utility is actions based on consequences (pleasure vs. pain) while Aquinas' accidents are attributes which do not affect the essence of a being. Now with those being what we are merely picking at right now, I can only imagine what sort of brain fever (ahem, Dr. Mitchell) we will be getting into.

At the heart of it, what I have drawn from Descartes is more than likely incorrect, but I could not help but think that he has a point to prove by moving beyond having faith. It seems he is attempting to approach something more tangible that others who have never known faith of any sort may at least ATTEMPT to understand (atheists, agnostics, etc.). It appears to me, Descartes is almost enticing relativists and their uncertainty into his playground of the mind. Correct me, please?

One final thought, am I the only one who feels that George Orwell may have read a lot of Descartes?

Saving my thoughts on Edwards for class,
Sam.

COMMENTED ON WILL'S

Lucy Beth: 3 Edwards: 0

It is of my humble opinion that Descartes was quite full of pride. Although I must respect the fact that he had the willingness to reevaluate his entire set of previous beliefs and foundations assumptions, he was quite sure of himself once he had done so. His idea that the leaders of the theology of Paris should present his writings to the members of the congregation with their full endorsement, to the security of right beliefs in the minds of each member of the church, was quite presumptuous. (This can be found in the first section, point six) On the other hand I must credit to him that he did ask the aforementioned leaders to critique and correct his writings before the public distribution of the works. I would also venture to say, seeing as he did “apply [himself] earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all [his] former opinions” (and I do believe him to have been, for the most part, successful in this), that he does have, as much as can be given from a young student, the right to speak with any amount of authority. Many of his statements did appear to be in line with what I consider to be realistic, logical and true. But see here! I have already taken enough time to speak on the text about which this post is not. Let us move on…

…to Edwards! Oh, loathsome Edwards. I apologize in advance for anyone who, like Malory Green, has fallen in love with him and his writings. I do not mean to discourage your enthusiasm for the man. I however, find him quite…obnoxious. My first point of contention is this: that he speak much too often of the wrath of God and hardly at all of His love and grace. Now I know what you might be thinking. “She’s gotta be a flower child. Peace, love, happiness and prosperity gospel.” Let me correct you in that. The wrath of God, sin, hell and the devil are VERY REAL THINGS. However, so are the grace, mercy and love of God. I do not have an official count but if I had to estimate the ratio of John Edwards’ mentions the first set of things to the latter set it would be about 100 to 1. While I do not condone preaching that assumes to expel the concepts of hell and wrath from its messages, I also cannot support preaching which focuses all its words on such truths. The wrath and love of God come together, in one God, in one moment. He has not His wrath without His love, nor His love without His wrath. 1 John 4:17-18 says, “By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear”. In looking for the place where God’s just wrath and perfect love meet, look to the cross.

Ultimately my response to Edwards and “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is best demonstrated by the words of Augustine: “God’s love is incomprehensible and unchangeable. For it was not after we were reconciled to him through the blood of his Son that he began to love us. Rather, he has loved us before the world was created, that we also might be his sons along with his only-begotten Son—before we became anything at all. The fact that we were reconciled through Christ’s death must not be understood as if his Son reconciled us to him that he might now begin to love those whom he had hated. Rather, we have already been reconciled to him who loves us, with whom we were enemies on account of sin. The apostle will testify whether I am speaking the truth: ‘God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ [Rom. 5:8]. Therefore, he loved us even when we practiced enmity toward him and committed wickedness. Thus in a marvelous and divine way he loved us even when he hated us. For he hated us for what we were that he had not made; yet because our wickedness had not entirely consumed his handiwork, he knew how, at the same time, to hate in each one of us what he had made, and to love what he had made.”

Lucy Beth: 1 Edwards: 0

Most of his doctrinal statements seemed correct to me, with the exception, as far as I can tell, of only one. Under DOCTRINE, point two he states, “The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads and ‘tis nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God’s mere will, that holds it back”. I bring to question this “arbitrary mercy”. First let us define the word arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. I find every reason to contest this description of mercy. God does not act randomly or without reason. So either this mercy is not God’s, which makes the statement a heresy, or it is wrongly describe as “arbitrary”. Throughout the Old Testament it says that God was not quick to be angry with His people. One who is not quick to be angry also does not act outrageously upon a whim to punish. Psalm 51:1 describes not His random love, but His steadfast love. Isaiah 16:5 says that He “will rule with mercy and truth. He will always do what is just and be eager to do what is right” (NLT). This does not sound like arbitrary mercy to me.

Lucy Beth: 2 Edwards: 0

Furthermore, I did not like the emotions and ideas towards God that were stirred up inside of me upon the reading of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. At any given point during the reading I could find myself feeling fearful, disdainful, unappreciative, angry and defeated. It momentarily removed far from my mind the possibility of a loving, gracious God who wanted to have a personal relationship with me. I could not, within Edwards’ context, imagine a love so deep and so unfailing that it would send its one and only Son to die for me, a filthy sinner, that I would have eternal life in communion with my Creator. It caused me to want to hate God yet at the same time to fear Him, almost to an unhealthy extent. Although these teachings may have jumpstarted revival, I do not see how they could have taught Christians that a personal relationship with the Father was possible; that they shall no longer call Him “Master”, but “Husband” and “Friend” (Hosea 2:16, John 15:15).

Lucy Beth: 3 Edwards: 0

IT WONT LET ME COMMENT ON POSTS!!!!

So for some reason, maybe it's my own fault, but anyways, for some reason I am not able to comment on a post. So I figured since I only have seven minutes left this is what I am just going to have to do.

Here is my comment to Nick Hamptons post:

First off, AMEN to the first paragraph!I practically said the same thing, except maybe not as nicely or positively haha. I agree with what you are saying. While I too did not really understand most of his writing, what I did get from it was the understanding that it is ok to doubt. It does not mean you have to be skeptical about everything, but doubting knowledge, like you said could be very helpful. Although for me it would more so help me to understand better the workings and knowledge of my own mind and how it reacts to and retains information from the world, instead of enhancing my understanding of the world itself.

- Bethan:)

O.O

Descartes- If I’m going to be blatantly honest, and I try to be, I don't thing I have never heard that name before this class. I was initially, and maybe still am, overwhelmed by this class and this reading. But if I look past the mumbo jumbo I’m looking at one question: what is reality? My reality may be something completely different than someone else’s, but who’s to say it’s any less real? When I look at a color am I seeing the exact same thing as someone looking at the same color, and even if it’s different does that make it any less real? It's puzzling. The mind is a wonderful, and disturbing thing. And though I don’t buy that we can free our minds of all prejudice I do think that there’s value in what he tried to do. He tried to find his reality. He tried to find truth.

This is a post.

As strange as this may sound, I have doubted everything before in ways much similar to Descartes’ methods; though it was not necessarily as intentional and systematic as Descartes, it has transformed the way I’ve thought ever since.

Think about it: how much of your life do you really remember? What do you really know about your existence apart from what your parents, Sunday school teachers, and textbooks have told you?

Perhaps it was not my past that made me question everything as much as it was my life and struggles at the time. It was as if I did not recognize where I was or what I was doing, and for a moment even my name seemed the most absurd thought, and I recognized it even less than the world around me. It felt like a dream—like insignificance. How do I know that I even exist? Everything I ever knew was only based on my personal perception; this is when I began to wonder if it were ever possible to be completely certain of anything—if in fact there could ever be such a thing as absolute truth.

I could not think this way for long, though. Just as Descartes deduced, our very thinking is a certainty because we think it to be certain. It reaffirms itself. And truth is something that we long for, something that our soul needs, and to deny its absolute existence is not only foolish but also impossible.

Though it can leave us in a whirlwind of thought and confusion, it gives me a glimmer of hope: first of all, because I feel somewhat less crazy for having pondered these things, and secondly, because I find the answer to be so very beautiful. We exist, and that is certain; knowing that beyond a doubt leads us on to search for God, purpose, etc.

Going through the darkness allows us to appreciate the light so much more; we dare not forget the questions, lest we cease to appreciate the answer.

--Danielle

And I commented on Bethan's.

I am not a fan of the way Descartes thinks but that doesn't mean I can't agree with some of the things he says. In his own words, "I must nevertheless here consider that I am a man, and that, consequently,...representing to myself in dreams those same things,...,which the insane think are presented to them in their waking moments." I thought this was very enlightening to those of us who find ourselves occasionally questioning the reality of our waking moments, because often our dreams can seem more real to us than those experiences we have throughout the day. While I cannot wrap my mind around the concept of my hand extended in front of my face not being part of reality, I can see how our perception of something we know to be real can change over time because of our own doubting nature. I thank God that He gives me a peace to supercede these doubts.

P.S. commented on Katie Mclamma's post

I HATE BLOGGING

I think it would be fair to say that Descartes and I are not the greatest of friends. To be honest, reading his meditations gave me a headache to the point where I felt as if pieces of my brain were falling away like wet cake. However, I did find something interesting and powerful enough to numb the pain for a bit so I could get some thinking done. So here goes.

Finally, my struggle ended at part two, paragraph six. Here, Descarte doubts the existence of his own body, and therefore all the functions that go along with it. He claims that, " if it be true that I have no body, it is true likewise that I am capable neither of walking nor of being nourished." Preceeding this paragraph, all of the things in which Descarte has claimed are doubtable have seemed quite insane to me, and I had not been able to properly grasp what he was trying to say, including this. Then I got to really thinking, and I came up with this: Descarte claims that we may have no body because our mind perceives that our body is just there, like a trick of the eye; something that we build around what our mind thinks and perceives should be there. It all comes down to our mind, we are " thinking thing[s]". So If our body is not really there, and we just perceive that it is, can we doubt that perception, like he asks, at the same time we made it? Descarte answers: " Perception too is impossible without the body; besides, I have frequently, during sleep, perceived objects which I afterward observed I did not in reality perceive." This is like in dreams when you are surrounded by people and you have this strong sense of knowing who they are; you can talk to them by name and distinguish them by faces, but when you wake up and think back on it...these unknown blobs from your dreams dont have a face, let alone a name, that you can recall. I think that this is what doubt does to us. If you can doubt your own mind's perceptions, then why not, as Descarte suggests, doubt your own existence? For the mind is, as he claims, the strongest reality of our existence.

Hopefully that made some kind of sense and was not too convoluted. It was my first attempt at blogging and to be fair to myself I only had one coffee today and it tasted like soggy dirt, so please dont be too harsh!

Descartes' Doubt

If I were to say that I understood all that I read this week, You could call me a liar. With that being said, I am not exactly sure how I plan to do this, but it will be good.... Hopefully... :)

After reading Descartes’ Meditations, I realized that a lot of my knowledge is based on things that I heard second hand and didn’t learn through my own experience. Some of these things are probably not wrong, but how can I be sure? Unlike myself, a person who will probably not do a single thing about this question that I just asked, Descartes took upon himself the challenge of seeing what, if anything, in life could be proved. I liked how he took all his thoughts and ideas and began to look at every detail from them and doubt what he saw until he either, a) found something that he could not doubt, or b) discovered that there is nothing certain. Through this process, he made quite a few uncertain conclusions, from the idea that God was deceiving him to the thought that a demon was making him see the imaginary world that he thought was around him. I do think that the idea of doubting knowledge could be very helpful, but I don’t ever plan on taking that to Descartes’ extreme and doubt all that I know.

Descartes’ Meditations definitely helped me understand that doubt isn’t bad as long as you are truly looking to gain more understanding and knowledge of the world, God, or anything else. As long as my doubt isn’t based merely on just wanting to go against everyone else, it shouldn’t be an issue.

P.S. I commented on Amy Smith’s post.