Questioning God

Many people often assume that questioning God shows direct defiance to the authority of God. Job consistently questions God throughout, yet never displays a lack of fear or respect to God. Although Job is constantly attacked by his peers for questioning God, he constantly reaffirms his faith and fear of God. Job shows fellow Christians that there is a difference between questioning God and disobeying Him. I think it’s a fine lesson to be learned. While there is certainly a very fine balance to be upheld, careful questioning proves as a means of further growth and development in a walk with Christ. Just as a student prompts his or her instructor in order to gain more wisdom, so too should a Christian approach God with similar intentions.

ps.  I commented on Kennedy's post.

Strange Ending

So, I have read and heard the story of Job many times, and trying to find a new or unique view on the story was difficult. What I did notice this time was the abrupt ending to the story. I have heard so many many people talk about how God blessed Job in the end and gave him this and that, but literally the end was seven verses long.  It seamed to be an, “oh, yeah and by the way this happened.”  This really emphasized to me that the important part of the story was the struggle not the ending.


Comment

Return to God

While reading Job, the part that stuck out to me the most occurred in chapter 11 verses 13-19. Here Zophar says that "if you put away the sin that is in your hand and allow no evil...then you will lift up your face without shame; you will stand firm and without fear." This reminds me of the hope that we have in Christ. When we try to do things on our own without God because we think we know best, we are often quickly humbled and reminded that we cannot find what we need in the things of the world. And in this passage, we are reminded that even when we do venture off on our own, God will still be there when we come running back to him and we will "forget our trouble, recalling it only as waters gone by." We all stumble at times, and how comforting is it to know that no matter what, our God will be there waiting for us to return to him.

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

God's power and Satan

I saw an earlier post on this and wanted to expound on the thought of why Satan went through God to do these things to Job. God lets Satan into his presence in order to prove a point to Satan. God is also showing how even humans, who are so easily corruptible, are willing to be faithful enough to respond to Satan's trials in a way that doesn't openly curse God. God is letting Job know how powerful he is by letting Satan do these things and shedding light on the situation afterwards. He is powerful enough in order to bring Job to an eternal resolve and rebuke Satan.

I commented on Abbie George's

WOW!

This was the first time that I have studied Job, I knew the stories from sunday school but never knew them in depth. I have the upmost respect for Job, I have gone through far less than what he went through, unlike him though I would turn and run from God. Job's five trials alone would have caused me to curse the name of the Lord. Yet he never loses his trust in God. The difference between Yahweh and the gods of the Greek's is that Yahweh cares for his people, the gods of the Greek's tend to be only after their own selves. A difference between Job, and the characters of Greek mythology is that Job never blames or curses Yahweh, however the Greek's are eager to blame the gods. I believe that I may have a new favorite piece of literature.

I commented on Abbie's

Eliphaz and Job

One of my biggest pet peeves is when I approach a friend seeking advice and they quote me. When they remind me of a time I had helped them in a similar situation and what I instructed them to do. This happens to me all the time. It is usually involves them reminding me in a loving way that I already know how to deal with a situation. That still does not help the fact that it is bothersome. As I reread Job chapter 4 I came across this exact thing happening. Job is in so much pain that he is morning his birth to Eliphaz. He is truly suffering and I imagine him crying out to his friend hoping for comfort. But Eliphaz, being a true friend, instead reminds him of how Job had helped people during their suffering and advises him to take his own advice. He challenges Job to in essence council himself like he had other people. I know how difficult it is to do this and I can not imagine how difficult it would have been for Job to look outside of his own suffering. I commend Eliphaz, yet I simultaneously sympathize with Job. 

P.S. I commented on Kelli's post. 

Loving Leviathans

“Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?
² Can you put a reed through his nose,
Or pierce his jaw with a hook?
³ Will he make many supplications to you?
Will he speak softly to you?
⁴ Will he make a covenant with you?
Will you take him as a servant forever?
⁵ Will you play with him as with a bird,
Or will you leash him for your maidens?"

Job 41:1-5

          I know what you're thinking, "leave it to the marine science major to fixate on the giant sea creature". Yeah, we all know I'm predictable. But this was really beautiful to me. 

          When God speaks of the Leviathan, my mind instantly goes in a couple directions. Namely, the sperm whale (thanks Moby Dick) and the great white shark. But I like to believe that way back in Job's day, there were even bigger, fiercer, more awe-inspiring creatures roaming our oceans.

          Whatever the case, God's point remains the same. No human can top the Leviathan. No person can overcome its strength and natural ability. But its really the second part is what really struck me. 

          People could argue that, with today's technology and modern techniques, even the mighty Leviathan could be brought down into submission. But even with our most significant scientific advances, we can not tame it. We can kill and fin (for the safety of all involved, don't get me started on finning) as many sharks as we please but we will never domesticate them. We will never have pet whales that nuzzle up to us affectionately like a puppy. They will always be more wild than we can ever hope to overcome. But God can have that relationship with them. God can 'make a covenant' with an orca and have a pet great white. 

          I guess my point is this, we can accomplish infinite things and conquer nature in many, many ways. But only God can do so out of respect. We can bully things into submission all day long but the Creator only need ask and creation responds willingly and, even more impressively, lovingly. 

P.s. I commented on Tori's post

Slight Insight

In my past readings of Job, I've always found the exchange between Satan and God to be very interesting. I never quite understood it and I will not venture to in this blog post. However, I have read some things that give me a little bit of insight. (This insight is no new news. Just simple truths that help me process the book as a whole.)

In chapters one and two we see Satan "present" himself before God. I find this interesting. Satan doesn't just go to Job without having to go through God first. This detail escaped my memory through the years. I think it's significant to note this exchange. I'm sure there is more to it than what I am getting. Just pointing it out.

The book of Job is hard to grapple with. There are many questions that are left in our minds that leave us feeling hopeless and helpless. One of these is why would God do these horrible things to Job? Why would He inflict disease and cause the death of his family? Well, He didn't.

Job 2:7 says "So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and struck Job with loathsome sores..." The text clearly says that Satan struck Job. God did not inflict disease. God does not inflict disease. The fallen world and the attack of the enemy is what inflicted Job to suffering. Satan had to go before God, however, in order for this to happen.

Again, these details are not very deep nor are they full of revelation. However, these details seemed to have escaped my mind in the past and I'm glad to rediscover these truths in this reading.

P.S. I commented on Abbey Griffin's post.

Job's Feelings

I highly respect Job's friend's seven day wait in silence as they grieved with Job. However, these sympathetic mutual feelings soon dissolve into strife. As Job's' friend's accuse Job and declare that he must have committed sin, Job sarcastically denies their allegations and wisdom. Job even states "Doubtless you are there only people who matter, and wisdom will die with you!" (Job 12:1). Job didn't need the advice of his friends or the pressure and accusations they brought. "What you know, I also know; I am not inferior to you. But I desire to speak to the Almighty and to argue my case with God." (Job 13:2-3). Job wanted to personally talk to God, which showed a higher level of faith to me to be able to talk one on one.
Commented on Collin's.

Job in Puritan Society

      Over the past few weeks my history class has talked about the Puritans, and as I read through Job I could not help but think about how the Puritans would have felt towards Job after all his misfortunes. In the Puritan community, everything revolved around the church and the Covenant which was an agreement between the Puritans and God. If they lived a moral life, God would bless them, and when bad things happened (house fire, crops destroyed, animals die, etcetera) it was because one was not living up to the Covenant. In my mind as I read, I placed Job into this society. Job lost everything, so to the Puritans that meant he did something AWFUL!  However, as we all know, Job just loved The Lord and God let Satan attack him to test him.  Job would have completely been misjudged in the Puritan society, and as I thought on this I couldn't help but think how even today we associate trials and tribulations as consequences from sin. From now on, I will definitely look a whatever trials come my way in a different way!
P.S. I commented on Caleb's post!

A Universal Story

This story could relate to any culture, no matter the religious background.  All religions have a way of appeasing a god for wrongdoing, and similarly, a view of how wrongdoing affects people.  When suffering occurs, one naturally assumes that it is direct result of himself.  This is present in all worldviews.  We see in Job's story that maybe our problems are not always our fault.  This should be comforting, but I don't think it is for most modern people, especially Americans.  We like to be in control; we are very intrinsically minded.  If something happens out of our control, we become upset.  This is opposite of stoicism, which has a kind of "oh well" mindset.  In short, I think this story should be encouraging.  We can rest in the idea of not being in control over everything, and entrusting that control to Someone higher.


YO-Caleb's

Songs in the Night

The story of Job really impacted me so much more today than it ever has before. Job wasn't going through his trials because of sin in his life or something he had done wrong. But rather he was being tested because he was a righteous man who was doing everything right. I feel like so often I ask God, "why is this happening? What did I do? Why me? Is this all my fault? Why am I struggling?" I look around and see wicked people being successful and I get so confused and aggravated with God. But the road we walk wasn't meant to be easy, was it? Paul said to suffer and die for Christ is to gain. I am taking hope in the story of Job today.

Job 35:6-12
Look up at the heavens and see
gaze at the clouds so high above you.
If you sin, how does that affect him?

If your sins are many, what does that do to him?

If you are righteous, what do you give to him,

 or what does he receive from your hand?

Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself,

 and your righteousness only other people.

“People cry out under a load of oppression;

 they plead for relief from the arm of the powerful.

But no one says, ‘Where is God my Maker

  who gives songs in the night,

who teaches us more than he teaches^[b] the beasts of the earth

 and makes us wiser than^[c] the birds in the sky?’

He does not answer when people cry out

because of the arrogance of the wicked.



p.s. I commented on Abbey Griffin's.

Prepare for Ignorance

While reading the book of Job, and viewing the way Job’s friends tried to point his suffering to some cause, I’m reminded so much of we Christians today. When we are undergoing trials, or are confused, or having a hard time understanding God, we so often go: this is God’s plan, and while I don’t see why this is happening now, I’ll look back someday and understand.

This simply isn’t the case.

In the case of Job, we have no reason to believe that he looked back and understood the purpose for his suffering. he may have realized his spiritual growth throughout that time, but not a root reason or cause. Even Biblical scholars nowadays look at Job and ask why. It’s so much like the tragedy we have been reading. Bad things unavoidably happen to pretty much innocent people (or at least undeserving of the tragic circumstances in their lives), and there is nothing that can be done.

What did Job do? He trusted that God was still all-powerful through what he didn’t understand. And he didn’t go: I’ll trust You because I’ll look back and understand someday. At times he goes on about how he doesn’t understand at all. He questions God. He suffers into the truth. But he doesn’t gain the smack up knowledge of why. However, he always maintained his integrity and trusted the God he didn’t he was self-admittedly clueless about. When confronted with the awesomeness of God, he said: I’ll trust You because You are who You. Unconditional reliance. That’s a tragic spirit we could do with more today. Trust God because God is who He is, not because we can or will always know the why. He’s not a tame lion.

Hardship

One of my favorite things about the book of Job is how it lambasts the idea that good people don't get hurt.

Almost anywhere I hear Christians talking, I hear about how being a good Christian means you get a good Christian life. Preachers and other Christians use the Bible like a vending machine - you put in righteousness, piety, obedience, patience, whatever, and you get good stuff. The more you put in, the more you get out. Like God is your checkout person at the grocery store.

Eliphaz says the same kind of thing, beginning in Chapter 4:

"Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished?
Where were the upright ever destroyed?"

And Eliphaz doesn't exactly get the blessing of God by the end of the book.

We have a whole book in the Bible dedicated to weeding out this idea that, if we're good enough, God will ignore us when he's passing out tragedy. It was written long before Jesus was born. And yet so many people still pretend that it doesn't exist, and continue to twist the idea of love and obedience to God into a telemarketer's attempt at physical comforts.

PS: I commented on Mary Kate's post.

To Whom it Belongs

While many place the focus of the story of Job on the suffering he went through, and it is important, there does seem to be another facet of this story. What I was most intrigued by was the idea of authority. From the beginning of the book, when Satan is compelled to ask permission for Job's temptation, it is clear that the Lord God is in complete control. However, when Job's friends begin to blame his sufferings on his own actions, and restrict God to simply being the wrath dispenser when Job sins, that is when they are wrong. The main point of this book then, is found in chapter 41.
"Who then is he who can stand before me? Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine" 
This statement could be interpreted as a harsh one, especially following the monologue in the previous chapters, as an authoritative trump card, as God declares his own glory. However, I think that this is actually a relief to hear- the suffering in my life is not always a direct result of my own sin, because ultimately God has complete authority.
For those that know the Lord, this is comforting. He is in control of everything that happens in my life, and it happens for his glory.

Sleep

As I was reading over Job, one specific stanza caught my attention. Job says in 7:13-15, "When I think my bed will comfort me and my couch will ease my complaint, even then you frighten me with dreams and terrify me with your visions, so that I prefer strangling and death rather than this body of mine." This passage helped me see Job's pain on a deeper level. Sleep is supposed to pull us away from our pain, at least for a moment. In the epics we have read lately there has been a great emphasis on sleep as this type of escape from pain. Job does not even have that. This lack of restful sleep allows us to truly understand this torment he has been placed under. Sleep is a blessing from God, so it makes sense that this be taken from him to under these conditions, but it is hard to understand a life without at least a few moments of quiet. This goes to show just how blessed we are, I suppose.

P.S. I commented on Caleb's post

JobityJob Job. Job.

Job 4:18 "If God places no trust in his servants, if he charges his angels with error..." This wording threw me for a loop. I had to go read commentaries. Plural. Haha. Meaning many. And of course now I realise the obvious example of the fall of Lucifer and his followers. But I didn't automatically take it that way. But it does still work, in my mind, for the non-fallen angels. They are created beings. Thus. They do have the ability to commit sin. However. They have the ability to not sin as well. Which we don't. But. It magnifies God's grace to me. I mean they also have no concept of salvation. Not can they receive it once they've fallen. They see God in his full glory. If you sin after that...man. It's just nuts. 

The end of this play struck me as a bit strange. Athena seems to talk these eternally hateful Furies into loving, joyful beings. It's an interesting twist on the the theme of justice. It seems as if the Furies would be the last people in the play to receive hope of redemption.

I commented on Abbie's blog.

When the Furies and Apollo argue about the nature of justice, I am reminded of my philosophy class where we are talking about what is just and what is unjust. Socrates and Euthryphro argue about what makes something just or holy and what makes something unjust or unholy. They end up reaching no conclusion, but are left with the question of "is something holy because the gods approve of it, or do the gods approve of something because it is holy?" I am reminded of this while reading The Eumenides because they spend a lot of their time arguing about the justifiability of Orestes' crime.

P.S. I commented on Abbi George's post.

Epic Scene

            So, I just want to comment on the parallels in these plays, especially the epic "standing over the bodies”  theme we have going on here.  In the first play Clytemnestra stand in the palace over the bodies of Agamemnon and Cassandra, and now Orestes is standing over the bodies of Clytemnestra and Aegisthus.  Interesting not only because of the similarities in the two plays, but I think the way the “murders” or “avengers” -whichever you prefer- points to this “justice” or “injustice" that everyone else is talking about in their blogs. 


Comment

Male vs. Female

While reading the Eumenides I noticed an interesting topic emerge in Orestes' case. It seems like the verdict depended on the answer to this question: Which sex is the more important? Which murder is more excusable, of the father or of the mother? The Mother simply (simply-ha!) nurses the child and carries it for a short amount of time, but without the Father there is no life, Athena argues. Athena has no mother, and was born of Zeus. Therefore, Athena argues that Orestes should be pardoned for the vengeance of his father.

What I found MORE interesting was a comment from Athena: "I honor the male, in all things but marriage." What is it about femininity that causes her to say this? What is it about the value of marriage that places the importance on femininity?

1 Corinthians 11:8-11 says, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God."

I commented on Kayleigh's. 

True Justice?

The Eumenides brings up the interesting point of what actions are considered more just and less just. Clytemnestra believes Orestes is wrong for taking revenge when she took revenge on her husband and a princess. The Furies are doing what they are told but are being judged by Apollo. Situations like these are always seen as circumstantial, but in reality there is no such thing as true justice in a world full of humans. Every person has their own sense of justice that is corrupted by their own experiences so even with a group coming to a consensus the outcome will never be an honest assessment of justice.

I commented on Sharla's post

No justice or hope?

I am having a hard time following along with what all is going on. There seems to be a never ending cycle with justice. If the gods suppose to help ensure justice then why do they keep preventing justice, whatever justice might be. Also I would have hated to live during this time period in history. The mythology of this time period offered no hope for the human race. On top of there being no hope the Greeks added the furies, so now there is no hope and bloodsucking creatures are out to get you if you do wrong. I am beginning to wonder how the Greek civilization survived for as long as it did.

I commented on Colin's

Speech Class?

What can we learn from Apollo's speeches in lines 566-776.

In his first speech, Apollo attempts to influence these jurors with an appeal to authority rather than an appeal to reason. The Delphic oracle was known for having made some big mistakes in political matters, especially when it opposed resistance to the Persian invasion. The jurors are made to wonder whether Apollo's morality is as subject to error as his politics.

In his second speech, Apollo comes at Clytaemestra for killing Agamemnon. He implies that there is no difference between matricide and other forms of murder, a view that would probably offend the jurors. Then, Apollo is alluding inadvertently to the sacrifice of Iphigenia, an event bound to cause the jurors to have more sympathy for Clytaemestra while when he is trying to emphasize her wickedness.

Then after all these strong two points Apollo lets us down in speech class? Apollo's third speech is really weak because he ends with a shameless offer to bribe the jurors if they vote in favor of Orestes.

ps I commented on Abbie George's

The Difference

I find the relationship between the gods and the furies to be interesting. There is an obvious tension at the opening of The Eumenides between the two parties. The exchange between the furies and Apollo is a harsh one as Apollo says things like "no god will ever shepherd you with love." The two parties are immediately at odds. In contrast when the furies encounter Athena the exchange is not one of harshness, but one of mutual respect. The furies express this when they say "We respect you. You show us respect." Initially I assumed that the furies were at odds with all Olympian gods but that is not the case.

P.S. I commented on Ashley Harding's blog.

Athena and The Furies

One thing that I found particularly interesting was the relationship between the furies and Athena. She seems to have this twisted sort of respect for these vile creatures. She goes on to praise the wisdom of furies stating that she herself will never be able to reach their level of knowledge. This is shocking considering Athena is the goddess of wisdom and she is stating that they are above her. She sees them as ancient creatures throned in all their disgusting glory.
P.S. I commented on Brennan's post :D

Marriage vs. Parentage

So, I'm having a hard time working this one out. A guy kills his mother because she killed his father because he killed her daughter to win a war. There is nothing cut and dry about this case. But, if I was forced to decide who was more guilty, Clytemnestra or Orestes, I'd say Orestes.

I have a reason for this, I swear, but I'm having a hard time putting it to words. To make it easier, lets scale it back a bit. Since both of them committed the same crime (murder), then I'll use an illustration in which they both do the same (less drastic) thing. If I yell at my husband, that's one thing. Whether he deserves it or not, it's bad communication and is incredibly rude. If I yell at my mother, it goes beyond rude right into the realm of disrespect and it just plain feels wrong.

Maybe what I'm getting at is that the relationship between a husband and wife is a voluntary one in which two people choose how they relate to one another. The relationship between a parent and child is one in which nature itself has created a hierarchy with the parent on top. I think that's why, for me anyway, Orestes' crime just seems... heavier.

P.s. I commented on Collin's post

Blind Justice

In the Eumenides the Furies are viewed as the bad guys because they want to kill Orestes. Granted, he did kill his mother, that's a point for another time. In all actuality, the Furies are only doing what they have been told to do, just as Orestes did. This raises the question as to why would you blindly follow the orders of someone else? But don't we in modern society do that? We don't ask why the laws are the way they are. We just follow them because someone "wiser" put them there. I read an interview that a newspaper did with an old Nazi soldier one time. They asked him why he did what he did and his response was, "I did what I was told to do. We all did. We weren't supposed to ask questions." More often than not we are rebuked for questioning authority. So how are we able to judge the Furies for doing what they were told when we do the same?

Injustice and Hypocrisy

     Hypocrisy and injustice are a reoccurring theme in not only The Eumenides but most of the Greek literature we have read throughout the semester.  Not only the humans or the divine creatures that are under the gods, but the gods themselves display both of these themes. Apollo is determined to save a murderer while the Furies are determined to kill the murderer for another murderer, and the ghost of Clytaemnestra is demanding justice for being murdered after murdering her own husband. These characters are soaking wet in hypocrisy and injustice which reflects the Greek culture and how the people were unjust and hypocrites. Since they were not perfect they could not imagine gods who were any better.
P.S. I commented in Caleb's!

Las Furies

The Furies are philanthropists, feminists, but their mission doesn't seem to seek peace or a betterment of the human race.  They just complain over and over, with very illustrative language, which makes for an interesting read.  In fact, the words would make for a wicked death metal song.  But, how could they blame Orestes?  Think about how much he wanted to see his old man, and his mother killed him.  Not only that, now he has a step-dad.  The entrance of a step-dad into a family RARELY goes smoothly.  Anyways, Cly. did a bad thing.  It was not just for her to kill Ag.  Therefore, it is not just for the Furies to seek revenge.

I did Collin's

Justice and Hope

The idea of justice in this play is one of the most predominant themes. While there seems to be little on stage action, the real plot and focus of it is the question of true justice. Is Orestes right in avenging his mother. The constant threat of the furies makes his future seem incredibly bleak. The furies present a very primal sense of revenge, in that they are valuing an older tie of blood over marriage. However, Apollo advocates for the sanctity of marriage, which makes him a representative of the newer, more civilized age. This clash between the old and new makes this not only a conflict over the fate of Orestes, but a conflict over what is more valuable. Instead of being a play about one person and their family dramas, it brings a whole new meaning to it by making it a decision between the ancient and the modern.
The fact that Athena sides with Apollo and Orestes makes this play one of hope, that there could be a more modern, and civilized form of justice.
 P.S. I commented on Collin's!

Justice?

I'm really frustrated.

It's infuriating (pun definitely intended) to see the unbalanced view of the crimes that have been committed. Orestes's crime of matricide can be examined from his own point of view. The play goes to some lengths to justify the murder because of his motive - he killed Clytemnestra to avenge his father.

But what about Clytemnestra's motives? She didn't just go into a fit of senseless rage and murder her husband for laughs. She killed Agamemnon to avenge her daughter. Why isn't this taken into account?

What Clytemnestra did wasn't right - not by any stretch of the imagination - but it makes about as much sense as what Orestes did. And yet Orestes receives pardon and Clytemnestra is still seen as a villain. Athena admits herself that she's not an impartial judge - she outright states that she prefers men's causes to women's. The entire 'case' was lopsided and full justice, in my opinion, was not served. Both Clytemnestra and her son deserved punishment, not just one of them.

PS: I commented on Caleb's post.

Justice Trumps Tragedy

I found it interesting how the tone throughout this book changed from one of sadness to one of joy. It starts out in the spirit of tragedy, and Orestes' life looks like it is going to end in sadness and futility as the furies (champions of punishment) chase him throughout the land. We even get an element of the futility of being led by a god, as most of this was really brought on by Apollo. But then the tone changes drastically after Athena begins talking with the Furies, and gives them the power to bring prosperity. After logic and justice win the day, the tone of the story changes to one of joy and optimism.

It seems to me that in a world where justice is always dealt out, and where logic is always conclusive, joy and prosperity would always be abundant. The true tragedy is that we do not live in a world like that. Our world is flawed, and entropy is unavoidable. But, just like the world of Orestes, one day our world to will be dealt our due, and prosperity and joy will reign once again.


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

Wisdom

It's strange to think that we often react to God like people react to Cassandra. I know personally that I've felt God warning me not to do something that I did anyway, or calling me to do something that I chose not to do. We often disregard the wise advice of our leaders in order to do what we feel is best, even if they've been given God given wisdom and insight. 

I commented on Abbie's blog.

GO FURY

I love the rant of the Furies! These are primordial deities of VENGEANCE. Yet they criticize the guilt that belongs to both sides of this situation. Most of all they criticize the pseudo-justice of the upstart gods who lead from Olympus. "Such is your triumph, you young gods, world dominion past all rights. Your throne streaming blood, blood at the foot, blood at the crowning head-I can see the Navelstone of the Earth, it's bleeding, bristling corruption, oh, the guilt it has to bear-"

These new gods have been the cause of so much bloodshed. The earth is tired of it. I believe the Greeks are sensing their own corruption and the inevitability of their fall. These new gods they've chosen to follow have become much too human. However, they're caught in their fear of the gods power to actually cast them off. The Oresteia seems to a play of cultural enigmas.
P. S. I commented on the blog of Collin. 

Enter the Chorus

I found it very interesting how the chorus didn't speak as if they were a horde, but as individuals. They way they spoke gave them individuality while the quantity of people gave them strength. It would be really interesting to watch this play in person, as I can't really get a good picture of how this would "play" out in normal life. I'm interested to see how the chorus will be utilized in the future, especially considering how the people are now split into for Clytemnestra and against. Will the chorus split? Or will they merely gain more individuality?

Distrust and fear

I find it interesting that distrust for the gods seem to be universal. These people lived a life in fear of the gods’ trickery. They were like living chess pieces, they knew they were being played but they could do nothing to stop it. They were constantly worried about appeasing the gods, so that their lives would be spared. This leads me to consider the motifs of the Greeks when worshiping Greek gods. Perhaps it made more since to them that a higher power would be so spiteful, given the evil state of man. They saw the state of man and thus created gods that treated the tiny mortals the way they deserved to be treated.

P.S. I commented on Jeremy Beaman’s Post

Good and Bad Death

As I read this tale I could not help but wonder which death would have been better for Agamemnon; a meaningless death, or the death that he received. His death at the hands of his treacherous wife did have meaning, and it brought about action, but it was terrible. Nothing positive came from the murder of this man. However, a meaningless death may have been just as horrible to him as the one that he received. Which is better? I would argue that Agamemnon would have voted for the death he received over one void of meaning, because at least this was a story to be remembered and retold.

P.S. I commented on Kelli's post

Cohesive thought? or nah?

"Go honored elders, go to your homes, and yield to destiny before you suffer; what we had to do we did-all you can do now is accept it." -Clytemnestra

C's self-satisfied declaration seems to be the anthem of this dismal anecdote. The chorus continually makes comments about the grief and hopelessness of life. "If only truth and good news were the same! It's hard to hide it when the two are split." C's action is driven from her passion for JUSTICE, but are her motives pure? (Of course not.) I recall our class discussion from Tuesday-are any of us innocent? There is a moment in The Living Last Supper (an easter play) that reflects on the response of the disciples when they find out one of them will betray Jesus. The narrator asks the sobering question, "Or will all of us betray him before the night is over?" I have been thinking about the implications of Dr. Mitchell's lecture. We all have free-will. We are also fallible, we will make mistakes. We will sin. So what do we do with that? Is free-will power or a weakness?

My question for you is, will you take Clytemnestra's advice and go to your homes, yielding to destiny before you suffer? Or will you choose to be a person of action in the world you live in? How will you use your free-will? The choice is yours.

I commented on Brannen's blog.

Clymenestra's Security

Something that stuck out to me was how Clytemenestra did not seemed worried after killing her husband. She even came out to the people and bragged about her successful murder. Sure her daughter was dead and no one was left to avenge him except the people and she had them under control. However, there is someone else to avenge Agamemnon's death, his son Orestes. Clytemenestra did send her son off, but what makes her so sure Orestes won't come back? The answer is simple. She had just killed her husband who was a king, so she's high on power and success. In her mind, she feels like no one can take her off her pedestal. Thankfully, that's far from true.
P.S. I commented on Kelli Brown's post.

Agamemnon's family is not known for making peaceful decisions. Agamemnon's father, Atreus was mad at his brother Thyestes for sleeping with his wife, Atreus then killed Thyestes's children and force Thyestes to eat them. Then Agamemnon kills his virgin daughter. Then Agamemnon and his lover end up getting killed. I'm pretty sure that according to todays standard this family would be the topic of a horror story. Not sure how the gods felt about this family, but I have a feeling like they might of hated them.

commented on jeremy's

Pan, patron of the wilds

I'm ignorant as to Aeschylus' relation to Homer and his epic chronologically speaking, so I can't delve as deeply there as I'd like to. However, I immediately recognize a more mortal centred mindset. Homer always, ALWAYS referred to the dawn in her form as a goddess. Not so with Aeschylus. He refers to dawn without any of her deified attributes. Then directly after, as the cry of Menelaus and Agammemnon is raised to the heavens, three gods are referred to: Apollo, Zeus, and...Pan! For one thing, Pan doesn't live "on high." He lives off in the hills and the meadows. He's not even an Olympian! Pan serves as the patron deity of shepherds and the wild. This is in stark contrast to his peers who each embody some aspect of civilisation. Why is he put into this group?? Seen in the Odyessey is such a strong emphasis on civilisation. Yet here we see Pan being given possible credit for intervention in the Trojan War?? It's incredible. Simply incredible. I believe Aeschylus is showcasing a more mundane view of the cosmos and it's workings. Much less reliance on the sovereign gods above.
P. S. I commented on Jeremy's blog.

Cassandra

I think of all characters in this story, I pity Cassandra the most. After her city being utterly destroyed, and everything she knows is annihilated, she is brought back as a slave by the conqueror.

What I find ironic about this is that she was a slave long before her capture. With the curse that was placed upon her by Apollo, she could never escape the bondage of rejection and the accusation of insanity. Her conditions were already less than ideal in Troy and in Greece they only get worse. Maybe this is why she is so forlorn at first. Her killer greets her and not a word is spoken. She knows her eminent death, but at this point that seems to be the only real option for her.

As the dialogue between Cassandra and the Leader picks up, the pace of the writing is full of unrest. The nonsensical bits and phrasings cause the reader to join all of Cassandra's accusers in assuming her insanity. However, the truth is soon revealed as she lays dead. I think the gods definitely gave her the bad end of the stick, and there is no real justice for her.

She just lives a very sad and estranged life and I thought I'd pity her with a blog.

P.S. I commented on Collin's blog.

Eye Opening

Agamemnon shed a lot of light on his death, but the most disappointing fact to me is how much the Odyssey misled me. In the Odyssey Clytemnestra is portrayed as a villainous traitor to Agamemnon, but here it is revealed that Agamemnon is not innocent either. Not only has he sacrificed his daughter, but he also brought home another woman. Whereas in the Odyssey I agreed with Agamemnon's ghost of cursing Clytemnestra and praising Penelope, I now realize how much the husband's actions before leaving may have determined the faithfulness of the wife. Penelope and Odysseus had the hope of each other to hold onto, but I highly doubt Clytemnestra had any hope of returning to the man who sacrificed her daughter.

I commented on Collin's blog.

This one's about Ag.

Ag. seems to fear the gods.  He decides to refrain from walking on pretty fabric, in fear that if he does, he will offend the gods.  But... how did he not think killing his daughter would offend them?  I realize that I am not studied in the theology of the Greek pantheon, but surely there is judgment due for his action. AH! There is, in his death.  Clym.... However it is spelled, she is the tool of judgment, I think.  So, did she do the right thing? I guess so.


Oh, and I commented on the blog of Collin.

Clytemnestra

What Clytemnestra did was, of course, horrible. She took a lover and killed not only Agamemnon, but also Cassandra, an innocent prisoner. In those respects, she's definitely a villain.

I can't help but see her side of the conflict, though. Her husband murdered their daughter - just so he could get out of port and go to war. It's hard to blame Clytemnestra for being furious. It doesn't help that her accusations of a double standard seem pretty legitimate.

The point is not that murder is okay - that Clytemnestra should get away with murder because her husband did. But why is Clytemnestra damned for doing what her husband did? Where was Agamemnon's condemnation for his treatment of Iphigenia?

Murder and infidelity are never justifiable, but I think some of Clytemnestra's indignation and fury is.

PS: I commented on Abbie George's post.

Attention!

All current Honors students (and blog readers) we will be postponing the blog till Thursday, due at 1 am. Tuesday will be an introduction to tragedy and the Thursday reading is Agamemnon from The Oresteia. 

How Quick, How Sly

Genesis 42-44

It was a such a familiar text. As I read, I was thrown back to the days of felt story boards when the story I was told came across much simply.

There are two ways that Joseph could have reacted upon recognition to his brothers:

1. He could immediately show excitement and love on his family he'd missed so dearly. 

2. He could immediately be filled with evil and regret and sentence to a spies death as he threatens.

Neither of these things happen. Yes, Joseph accuses them of being spies and threatens death, but I must argue that the threat was somewhat empty. Joseph had to put each of his brothers on edge. Joseph sought not revenge. Joseph was going to teach a lesson. He was going to show off his power. He was going to hold the knife to their throats just so they could feel how icy the blade truly was with no further pursuit. I contemplated whether Joseph was justified in doing so. That's where I was until moments from now. Then, I realized that he completely was. The more I thought, the more I realized how much we are like the brothers. How He loves us, but He is great and in control and without His love, we are no better than spies.

Comment >>>> William Carpenter's http://honorsblogging.blogspot.com/2014/09/genesis-24.html?showComment=1410238742936#c1107321709889790173

Like father like son??

7When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, "She is my sister," for he was afraid to say, "my wife," thinking, "the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful." 8It came about, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out through a window, and saw, and behold, Isaac was caressing his wife Rebekah. 9Then Abimelech called Isaac and said, "Behold, certainly she is your wife! How then did you say, 'She is my sister'?" And Isaac said to him, "Because I said, 'I might die on account of her.'" 10Abimelech said, "What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us." 11So Abimelech charged all the people, saying, "He who touches this man or his wife shall surely be put to death." 

12Now Isaac sowed in that land and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. And the Lord blessed him, 13and the man became rich, and continued to grow richer until he became very wealthy; 14for he had possessions of flocks and herds and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him.

In Genesis 26 we find Isaac doing the same thing as his father Abraham. Could Isaac have already forgotten the ways of his father? I am sure that at some point Abraham would have warned Isaac against doing the same things that he had done. However we do not find Isaac or the Philistines punished by God. Why is this time different from the times of his father's trickery?

PS I commented on Charlie's