Boasts and Arrogance

One thing that's stood out to me throughout most of the major pieces that we've read this semester is that there's a lot to do with - for lack of a better word - boasting, or at least talking about oneself. Augustine, Beowulf, and Abelard all really like discussing their actions and attitudes.

But there's a lot of room for difference between boasting and arrogance. Augustine is violently preoccupied with boasting about God, not about himself; his flaws are almost perversely touted, making ample excuse for thanksgiving and gratitude. Even Beowulf's boasts have a thread of humility to them, when it's obvious that he is only telling the truth in a culture that values valor and strength over all. His boasts don't border on bragging.

Abelard's running theme, however, tends to be focusing on his own martyrdom and victimhood. From the very first, he makes it clear that he is the greatest sufferer that he knows, and that he doesn't know of anyone who deserves to complain after they hear his story. His detractors only hate him because he speaks the truth. The account reeks of arrogance - bragging about his suffering, focusing only on the injustices done to him. He doesn't recount what God was done for him, or really much of what God has done at all; he doesn't even follow through on his promises, as Beowulf would.

Of course, Abelard does suffer - no one could say that his life was easy. But it's insulting and exceedingly arrogant for him to say that his suffering trumps everyone else's. Abelard is a disheartening, uncourageous follow-up to heroes like Augustine and Beowulf.

PS: I commented on Brydon's post.

Persecuted?

       While reading of the weary, sad, tragically pathetic life of Peter Abelard, I cannot help but scoff a little at his emphasis on how miserable his life was. Granted, in the class God, Evil, and Suffering, we are reading about the Holocaust, so in comparison, I have little sympathy for Abelard.
       On the other hand, it stands out to me the fact that the "Christian" community seems to be the worst for discord and violence against one another. It was so bad for Abelard that he sought community with the pagans rather than his own "kin". That is truly what is pathetic. I do not know if I consider Abelard a martyr for his sufferings. Yes, he devoted himself to doctrine and logic and teaching, but his attitude is much less humble and pious than Augustine. What I have read so far of Abelard's devotion to the faith is stale and two-dimensional compared with Augustine's devotion and pure love of who God is.
       I have not completed reading Abelard yet, but I am finding it very dull and uninspiring. Perhaps it is because Abelard complains so much about himself and does not seem inspired by his doctrine that he is giving his life too, he seems more interested in empty knowledge.

p.s. I have no posts to comment on yet because I am the first one for this week. But I will.

Deep Water is Scary

Water is always a good thing for someone to throw into a spooky tale they are writing. Water encompasses a kind of mystery that no other thing on earth can. This is why a lake is the best place for Grendels mother to build her home. The commonality of water is what brings about the horror. Water, especially the ocean, will always be incredibly mysterious to man because they will never be able to see all of it, nor will they be able to conquer it. Yet, it is all right at their finger tips, always taunting them with its mystery. It is so dangerous and quick to kill, but people need it in order to stay alive. Of course Grendels mother would be at the bottom of a huge churning lake; she would be the one who is able to conquer the water because she has been separated from any kind of humanity she ever had. The element of water makes her much more terrifying, and it is very impressive that Beowulf was able to conquer the one who conquered the water.
P.S. I commented on Danielle's

Beauty in Oration

While reading this epic I was immediately intrigued by the phrasing used to explain the battles and the scenery. This makes since, given the story was originally orated. When telling a story it is crucial to keep your audience intrigued and give them enough detail to envision what is happening. I was enthralled by the explanation and the detail given to describe the dragon and his lair.  They also use a ton of compound nouns to offer a fuller picture to the audience. The way this epic is written gives me the longing to vividly read this it to the masses.  

P.S. I commented on Brydon's post. 

The Knight in Shinning Armor, Yikes

      Maybe it's my recent obsession with all things OUAT (Once Upon a Time) or Galavant, but I can not help but to read this epic a bit sarcastically or with a bit more humor than maybe was originally intended. Beowulf's telling of his battle and the praise he receives are just a little overdone for me to attempt to take in the most literal sense. While Beowulf is telling his account of (anything really, but specifically) the defeat of Grendel and his (oh, so loving) mother, he seems to be boasting and not even denying or being even a bit subtle about it. I have to question whether the situation was as quite as dramatic. Also, the praise from Hrogarth (okay, probably not right), is too saint-like. Maybe I'm am all wrong, but he seems to push Beowulf ego through the roof with his "your words are from the Lord" comments. Like, yikes.

I commented on Matt's blog.

Pride

"Unferth...was not man enough to face the turmoil of a fight under water and the risk to his life. So there he lost fame and repute." This is interesting to see because of Unferth's boasting and challenging of Beowulf earlier in the poem. It's sad that so many people pretend to be something they aren't to live up to the expectations that they believe others hold them to. Unfortunately, if their character cannot back up their claims, they will let themselves down and run the risk of letting others down as well.

I commented on Kelli's blog.

Beowulf a Tale of Bravery?

Beowulf a Tale of Bravery?

              I want to reverence what we have talked about in recent semesters about what bravery really means. Specifically, the “essence” of bravery. I, from what I see in this story, believe Beowulf does not seem to be brave or rather he does not portray bravery but rather reckless. Although I do not see it expressly stated in the reading he defiantly seems to take on these challenges out of a sense pride in who he is and what he is capable of doing. On the other hand, Wiglaf seems to fit a definition of bravery. He could have easily ran away with the other men without any consequences from any one. Instead he chose to stay and fight. As I see it, Wiglaf at the least shows a mire genuine form of bravery.

Comment 

Beowulf, the Warrior King

I am kind of continuing off of my comment, but i found this to be the only real ending to Beowulf. He was described as being the most fair and kind king to have ever lived, but that is because he was not a true king. Beowulf had a warrior's heart and in this time a warrior is meant to be the kindest and most fair to his brethren when off of the fields of battle. These traits naturally carried into his rulings. Beowulf, had to die in battle, though, because of his inherent fighting nature. If not the dragon, some greater foe would have had to end Beowulf's reign. This is because of his refusal to sit idly by and die like a "normal" man.

I commented on Brydon's

And They (did not) Live Happily Ever After

     "They said that of all the kings upon the earth He was the man most gracious and fair-minded, Kindest to his people and keenest to win fame." line 3180

     What a bittersweet ending to such a fantastic story. To see Beowulf at his best, slaying Grendel and his mother, becoming world-renown, and then for him to make an attempted comeback in old age, and fall in his final hour-maybe that is better than him dying in his sleep on a heap of gold. 

     My concern, or curiosity rather, is what happened to the people after Beowulf was gone. They were safe from the dragon, but who knows what other fears or other forces lurked on the horizon. Perhaps there would rise up contending forces within their own country. With such a 'gracious' 'fair-minded' king gone, what would become of the people who loved him? Beowulf's departure should remind all of us when the time comes for us to step up to the plate, and rise to the challenge.  I think it's a great opportunity for a sequel. 

P.S. I commented on Ms. Hyatt's post

Writing Styles

Ok, so am I going to get in trouble for admitting that the majority of this book was incredibly boring to me? Don't get me wrong, the story was great, but emphasis was always placed on the gatherings and conversations and not much time was devoted to the battle scenes.
Now, please don't mistake me for an action junkie. I don't think any book/movie/tale is complete with six fight sequences, a sensual moment between the protagonist and his lady, and a sunshine and rainbows ending (I need more substance than that). But there was so much hype over Grendel's destruction and only a handful of verses were devoted to his death. The same thing happened again with his mother and again with the dragon. More time was spent introducing bad guys, giving out prizes for their defeat, and retelling the whole thing over again to someone else.
Is this kind of writing just how it was done back then? Something with this little detail given to pivotal scenes would never make it onto this century's best seller list but Beowulf has endured almost twelve hundred years now and is (obviously) still being read. It's really interesting to me to look at the literature of these different time periods and see how the writing styles have changed. We are still penning new hero vs. dragon stories to this day but they sound absolutely nothing like this classic epic.

P.s. I commented on Sharla's post

Man or something more?

Reading Beowulf makes the reader realize the difference in the ways of the world. In today's times mourning is encouraged, but in Beowulf mourning is made to show weakness. "Wise sir, do not grieve. It is always better/To avenge dear ones than to indulge in mourning." This quote left me saying, "Bro! The guy's friend just died, give him a couple minutes to collect his thoughts!" Instead we see a rigid warrior spirit in Beowulf that shows that nothing phases him, making me wonder if Beowulf is actually human, or if he himself is a god like being. The lack of emotion is in line with the gods of ancient texts. Also Beowulf's godlike strength also leaves me wondering if he is mortal or not. Could Beowulf had been the Odysseus or Achilles of the Anglo-Saxons?

Commented on Kelli's

Tolkien Thoughts

I can't help but recognize themes and elements in the story of Beowulf that lead me to and remind me of Tolkien's work.

For instance, the naming of swords. Just as Bilbo's sword was named "Sting," Beowulf had a sword named "Hrunting" when battling Grendel's Mother and then later has a sword named "Naegling" when fighting the dragon that is terrorizing his home.

The dragon is another thing. A dragon under the kingdom who lusts for treasure and terrorizes the land and eventually kills a King and  ultimately brings down a civilization. Sound familiar? Much like Smaug in The Hobbit.

There are many other elements that remind me of Tolkien's writings. I'm sure it just has to do with the culture and time period he is emulating and capturing. Even so, here are my thoughts.

This is not a deep blog, I just found these things to be interesting and dorky to point out.

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

When I read Beowulf it makes me want to grab Beowulf by his shoulders and just shake him. Everything he does, he does for glory or honor. I understand that was just the way people lived back then but at the same time, there is more to life. When he goes to fight the dragon he is at least seventy years old. He is a king that his people look to and depend on so I can understand if he wanted to fight to protect them. But he fights solely for the glory of it. To me this is one of those situations where stepping back and allowing someone else to receive the honor of killing the dragon would be better. His people need their leader and Beowulf is all too ready to give it away just for the sake of reliving past glories. I don't really see how that is the better thing to do at all. 

P.S. I commented on Collin's blog

Religous Presence

Throughout the whole book, but especially in the latter parts, I found the dependence, praise, and belief in God and His abilities more prominent that I had presumed it would be. The strong belief that God's will allowed those in the right to win. The continuous mentioning of God and his blessings. Even the mention that it was God's will the divined Beowulf's last day, and that His will could not be altered. The presence of a religious influence is highly active in this magical book with dragons and demons.

P.S. I commented on Sydni's.

Fate and God

One of the things that stuck out most to me reading Beowulf again was the tension between the sense of God controlling men's lives and that of fate doing the controlling. It was more conspicuous in the first part of Beowulf, particularly during the fights with Grendel and Grendel's mother, but both concepts get screentime throughout.

It's one of the things that most sticks out for me as evidence of a clash of culture at the time of its writing. Did the contemporary readers accept both God and fate as the controller of their lives? Or were they more closely connected - God as a sort of agent of fate or vice versa? It's really fascinating to me.

PS: I commented on Sydni's post.

Universal Literary Elements

What is it about a dragon?  An innumerable amount of stories and cultural mythologies include this creature; stories from both the East and the West.  When reading and studying fiction texts such as this, and encountering certain universal literary elements such as, obviously, good and evil, a search for ultimate meaning, and recurring characters such as dragons or leviathans, I always revert to Tolkein's "Mythopoeia".  In this poem, he describes the reason humans long for stories containing these elements, and that is a search for the ultimate "story", so to speak.  I mean a story in which good conquers evil, ultimate meaning is found, and dragons are decimated.  The story Tolkein is citing is the Christian story, the story of redemption and so forth.   Basically, all the main elements included in fictional stories over history mirror the perfect story, and humanity's desire for these stories mirrors their desire for true meaning and the perfection of their creativity, which will occur in Heaven.

I think what I wrote above is true.

I commented on Ms. Holm's.

A Noble Death

One of the most fascinating scenes for me was Beowulf's death scene (morbid, I know). But this is the climax of the epic. Particularly, what inspired Beowulf to face death on behalf of his people. While I would like to think that if I ever had to die for a cause, it would be something incredibly noble, like becoming a martyr, or dying on behalf of my friends. However, this is where I found Beowulf  to be painfully honest- he rose up again to slay the dragon because he was "Inspired again By the thought of glory". I feel almost let down by this. Is it just as noble to do a noble and selfless act if the motivation behind it is anything but selfless? I was even hoping for a thought of his people, or their need for the treasure.
But he found his courage by being inspired by glory. Does this make him less of a hero if he was motivated by self-glorification?
P.S. I commented on Caleb's post

Protagonist, what are you?

Line 2565 says something I find surpringly noteworthy. As a much older, physically weaker Beowulf enters into battle with the dragon that has been wreaking havoc over his kingdom, the text labels them both as antagonists. "Each antagonist struck terror in the other." Each antagonist just strikes me as odd. Shouldn't Beowulf be a protagonist? Why is he counted as an antagonist along with the irksome reptile? So I turned to Google and looked up the proper definitions of protagonist and antagonist. Protagonist simply means the main character. Whereas an antagonist is an adversary. Did the Anglos view life as having no main character other than God? Or fate as they say often in the text? That we are just kind of caught up in it all? Only being able to choose whether to help or harm one another as we go on our way? 

P. S. I commented on Brannen's post. 

Chill Chivalry

Out of all the wonderful things in this week's reading to talk about, one thing that really stood out to me was the issue of family loyalty. In class we talked about how family connections were highly honored, and debts were always repaid, but around line 2030 there is this scenario of conflicting family loyalties.

Beowulf is recounting how Hrothgar intends to marry off his daughter in hopes to heal old wounds and create bonds. However, he then goes on to imply that when a prince is killed, generally violence is bound to reign anyway.  Does this imply that wounds are stronger than bandages? Perhaps family ties passed through the male bloodline are stronger than ties made through marriage? 

Regardless, this bit also seems to imply that one thing NOT highly valued is the concept of forgive and forget. Which means that although this setting is becoming a more Christianized culture, they still hold concepts of vengefulness and family honor near the top of their list. It's interesting, because although I love that the concepts of honor and chivalry are held in high esteem, honestly sometimes I wish they would be just a tad more chill about life, haha. But then maybe that's where we've gone wrong! Perhaps our culture has been "chilled" into apathy.

~commented on Brannen's post~

A True Hero

    "Let whoever can win glory before death." When Beowulf said this he reminded me of a young war hero who died during the Trojan war; however, when Odyssey talks to Achilles in the underworld, Achilles regrets dying young despite his honor. He would rather have lived as a poor slave  who died at a ripe old age. This made me wonder if Beowulf would regret dying young if he lost his battle. But then I noticed Unerf who lent Beowulf his sword was completely honest in his fear and reluctance in fighting Grendel's mother. This led me to the conclusion that there are three types of people. The first is like Unerf who is honest about his fear of death and does what he can to survive. The second is Achilles who in the beginning thought dying for glory and honor was worth sacrificing a long life; however, he revealed his true colors in the underworld. The last is Beowulf who I believe would not regret dying young for honor. The reason I say this is because before jumping into the water he tells the king what to do if he does not win the battle, and then he jumps in before anyone could respond because he was "impatient to be away." He knew the cost and the consequences if he died in battle for glory, so if he had been fatally wounded or been killed by Grendel's mother he would not have regretted his desicion to die young for the sake of glory which makes him a true hero.
P.S. I commented on Abbey Griffins post.

My Creative Mind Has Been Devoured

My original title for this was chapter six of book one, because after this reading the creative part of my mind had been absolutely devoured by the philosophical, theological, and intellectual parts.  I say this not because of difficulty understanding the material, but rather the depth of thought Augustine brought me to.

            Specifically in Chapter six of book one.  The first sentence sums up the idea it says, “ Have I spoken of God, or uttered His praise, in any worthy way?”  To this I would absolutely agree.  Augustine continues in extreme detail - surprised? - Backing up that claim.  I believe that the most important point of that is that God knows that our worship cannot do Him justice at all.  We are not worthy to even speak the name God, yet He allows us to, as Hebrews 4:16 says, boldly come be for the throne of Grace.  How great is Our God?

Comment

God's Wisdom

One of my favorite observations made by Augustine is when he is comparing the wisdom of the world to the wisdom of God. He says "in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God." I think of all the times God has miraculously provided for a situation though I doubted Him at the time. It's comforting to trust that His thoughts are far greater and better than my own. I commented on Sydni's blog.

Man's View of God or gods

     In chapter seven, Augustine focuses on man's understanding by the term God. I understood and could relate to a lot of what he said. As a young child, I imagined God to be a "dazzling brightness." As he continued, a specific phrase stood out to me, "... but that there are many or even innumerable amount gods of equal rank, still these too they conceive as possessed of shape and form, according to what each man thinks the pattern of excellence." When I first read this, I was reminded of how Homer described Athena and Aphrodite to be gorgeous which is how he viewed a "pattern of excellence." This was interesting to me, but I continued to dig deeper. After some quick research, I found that in the Roman Empire (Augustine was after the fall of the Roman Empire, but it still fits) a gladiator that was extremely successful on the sand and very handsome would influence the artists, and gradually the little statues of the gods sold at markets would start to look like the popular gladiator who stood for the "patter of excellence" at the time. I just thought that was interesting!
P.S. I commented on Ashley Harding's post!!!

Chapter 4

In chapter four Augustine compares the use versus the enjoyment of earthly things. I was quite perplexed when I first delved into the chapter, but as I continued it began to make sense. Augustine is reminding us as children of God to keep our love pointed in the correct direction. We are often to tempted to love the creation above the creator. I think this is largely because our world is tangible, it is what fills our consciousness every waking hour. We are more than willing to pour out our love on earthly things. The love of a newly married couple is so apparent it is almost tangible. It is easy for anyone observing them to look at them and say that is love. However, Augustine is reminding us that all things of this world are to be tools of understanding God and bringing Him glory. So the love of that newly married couple should point a Christian back to the love and sacrifices of  God. As Christians it is our responsibility to look above and keep our pursuits pointed towards God, who is all things eternal. This is a discipline that is lacking in our culture but Augustine has inspired me to hold it close. 

I left a comment on Abbie George's amazing post!

Ch12 and Earth's Wisdom of God

I found it interesting how he described people's wisdom and God's wisdom side by side. The fact that Augustine says that the world has no wisdom for God was kind of confusing at first. I then realized that he meant that people will never truly know anything that is of or from God, but people will try to find out what they can while describing God in mere worldly terms that do him no Justice. God, on the other hand, knows everything that can be counted as wisdom and must, for a lack of a better way to say it, "deal with" the lack of wisdom He experienced when he came to our world as a man.

P.S. I commented on Abbie Geaorge's

The Frailty of a Messiah

"Seeing then, that man fell through pride, he restored came through humility... We used our immortality so badly as to incur the penalty of death; Christ used his morality so well as to restore us to life. The disease was brought in through a woman's corrupted soul; the remedy came through a woman's virgin body."
I love how eloquently Augustine portrays the opposing remedies we see through Scripture. I had never noticed these pairings before, especially the first line. everyone would be looking for the Messiah to come with a triumphant return, yet He came to us through the frailty of man. He could have come as a forest fire, a powerful hurricane, an erupting volcano, a shattering earthquake, with lightening and heaven's army at his heels. But no, he came gently, quietly, and humbly.

I posed on Sydney's.

well fed

(trying out a new app with blogger. Awesome, but I lost my work... take two.)

Let me start off by saying this: since first reading Confessions, this reading was filled with much more light. It was encouraging. It became something I could not put down. Augustine thoughts and language affirmed for me many beliefs I already had. His diction in particular was filled with hope and strength in phrases such as "unbroken peace" and "unchangeable wise." The passage that I fell for was in Chapter 17, paragraph 16, when Augustine writes "while we are on our way." Recently, I have obsessed and been enlightened in the idea of grace. Augustine appears to present a question, but truly he presents a statement of hope. How much more could the Father do than to graciously give His son for us. I was most reminded of the verse in Romans, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (5:8). He has presented this example of being barred by a hedge of thorns (where I then was reminded of the tale of Sleeping Beauty, but nonetheless). He made a way through grace.

comment on Caleb's blog: http://honorsblogging.blogspot.com/2015/01/god-utilitarian.html?showComment=1421729629146#c8515002975165494703

Augustine and The Cave

'As I was reading Chapter 9 and 10 my ears perked up as I recognized some familiar language that reminded me of the philosophical works we covered last semester. In Chapter 9, Augustine introduces the metaphor of a "blind man in the sun, whom it profits nothing that the splendour of its light, so clear and near, is poured into his very eyeballs." He continues with this analogy saying that the man "who sees but shrinks from this truth, is weak in his mental vision from dwelling long among the shadows of the flesh." At this point my mind immediately drifted into Plato's "Cave."

In the allegory of the Cave there are  prisoners that have always lived in the cave in shackles and shadows. Once freed from these chains, they are exposed to the light and immediately blinded by the sun, as their eyes have been conditioned to live in darkness. While Plato was hinting that the sunlight is a higher "Truth" or " Good" that man must slowly be exposed to, Augustine knows that The Highest Truth and the Highest Good has a Name.

Like Plato, Augustine believes that man is meant to discover greater truth, except that Augustine knows this truth to be God. In Chapter 10 he states that "the soul must be purified that it may have power to perceive that light, and to rest in it when it is perceived."

I loved the parallels that could be drawn from these works. To me, whether he meant to or not, Augustine took the ambiguous cave analogy and created a metaphor that reflects salvation and reveals the truth that God is the real "Light" that man is to be exposed to.

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

Happiness?

"But the beauty of the country through which we pass, and the very pleasure of the motion, charm our hearts, and turning these things which we ought to use into objects of enjoyment, we become unwilling to hasten the end of our journey; and becoming engrossed in a factitious delight, our thoughts are diverted from that home whose delights would make us truly happy."

I'll go ahead and admit that I had a hard time with Chapter 4. I think it stuck with me party because I spent so much time contemplating happiness with Aristotle last semester and partly because (and this is super cheesy) I am really happy with my life right now. 

My husband and I have made it a goal of our marriage to travel the world and enjoy everything that we can. Does that take us farther away from the kingdom of God? There are a billion and one things I want to see and do and experience on this earth before I die but is that "becoming engrossed in a factitious delight"?

I guess what I'm grappling with is Augustine's definition of "enjoyment". Certainly he meant that enjoying this life was only detrimental when it distracted from the pursuit of Christ.... Right? Or was he one of those people who thought that suffering was the only way to get to Christ? Ultimately, I have a hard time believing that wanting to get the most out of this incredible life that God has blessed me with is steering me away from His eternal kingdom and I'm just trying to figure out what Augustine thought.

P.s. I commented on Caleb's post

Wisdom Incarnate

I thought chapter 12 was really interesting, because I had never really thought about how the Wisdom of God came to the world. I thought it was fascinating that he made the distinction between spatial movement and the descent from the spiritual into the physical world. 

“Why then did He come, seeing that He was already here, except that it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe?”

 This thought has never occurred to me, although it probably should have. If Jesus was here already, then why was it necessary for him to inhabit the physical as well as the spiritual? 
P.S. I commented on James's post!

God help the Conservatists

While reading De Doctrina I came across several exerts that struck me as incredibly odd. Augustine says things like God is foolish and the Serpent is wise more than once in just the first twenty chapters. In my church I know, if you were to say things like that some of the people would freak out, especially some of the elders. But not only does Augustine say things like that, he showed me some analogies that I had never thought of before. He compares God becoming flesh to words becoming sound. At first I was totally confused, but then I started thinking about it and it slowly made sense. When we speak, our words have the same meaning as they did in our head, except now they have a sense to accompany them. When God became flesh, he didn't change from being God. He simply became a form that was easier for us to understand. I get it that that's still kind of confusing but the point was, Augustine said some things that shocked me, but he also said some things that helped me a little.

P.S. I comment on Kelli's blog

Loving Others

Lewis must have studied Augustine thoroughly.  In Mere Christianity, Lewis continues to explain, in a similar manner, loving others and how that looks.  However, we are not discussing Lewis, but Augustine.  So, by loving people, as loving people is taught in God's Word, we are using them.  Yes, we are using them to magnify God, which will lead to our ultimate enjoyment of him.  And when we enjoy him, we magnify him, at least according to John Piper who states, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."

 I wrote on Abbie's.

Verification?

Augustine makes a lot to do about the "rules" to be followed in reading and understanding the Bible, along with people who prefer to read the Bible without commentary or instruction from other men. He is less than approving of these people. But my question is, How are people supposed to choose whose word to follow, if they do read commentary? There are, of course, a plethora of commentators and instructors from which to choose when it comes to "understanding" the Bible, and all of those are fallible and mortal. Who do you choose?

Wouldn't you have to choose based on who you thought followed the Bible's teachings most closely, in order not to believe blindly? But in that case... doesn't the Bible have to be your primary source? And are you not foregoing other's instruction by studying the Bible first, on your own? His argument seems circular to me, unless I'm reading it incorrectly.

While I do know that the inspiration and instruction of others is a highly beneficial tool for the Christian, I don't understand how you can read the Bible truthfully without starting at the Bible. Other men bring in traditions, worldviews, personal preferences, and biases that color their interpretations. Of course, so do you, but it's easier to remove your own filters than to remove others'.

Or maybe I'm taking this preface too seriously/incorrectly. I'm not sure.

PS: I commented on Kelli's post.

Dignity

"God is that which excels in dignity all other objects" (18). This is such a beautiful line to me. He has such a wonderful understanding of God, and this sentence exemplifies it beautifully. I love the use of the word dignity here. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word dignity as, "a. The quality of being worthy or honorable; worthiness, worthiness, worth, nobleness, excellence" (OEDonline). I don't know what else to say about this, because the definition of it says it all. Using this word to explain God is so beautiful, and I have never hear anyone do that before. This also gives a more clear understanding of how important it is for us to maintain our dignity as human beings. Dignity is something given to us by the Lord, and this definition shows to it is a part of himself that his has placed within us. Therefore, we should protect and cultivate our dignity.

P.S. I commented on Abbey Griffin's post    
Works Cited:
"Dignity, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2014. Web. 19 January 2015.

Eloquent Facts; Logical, yet Loving

While doing the reading this week, I was often reminded of C.S. Lewis. Perhaps it is Augustine's rhetorical background that reminds me of the lawyer in Lewis. I must say, the logical side of me was beautifully satiated!

Often modern Christians focus on the love that God has shown us, in an almost hippie-like way. While God is loving, Augustine helps logically reveal the skeleton of our faith. Now that we have the bones in place, they can be clothed in flesh to reveal a fuller picture of Jesus's entire being; both the loving side, and the logically sound side.

Not only does Augustine thoroughly explain the facts about our creator, but he proves that logic and fact can be expressed beautifully and eloquently in marriage with one another. As he explains, he expresses his joy at realizing that he is truly loved and is definitely saved. This expression written in a delightfully straightforward and logical way truly inspires me, and provides a cause for my inspiration!

~Comment on James('s, s', s's?) Post

Chapter 12

I love reading about the manifestation of God through Christ. Chapter 12 begins with "And though He is everywhere present to the inner eye when it is sound and clear, He condescended to make Himself manifest to the outward eye of those whose inward sight is weak and dim."Augustine elaborates on John 1:1-5, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."Augustine argues that  man, through our own perverse nature made Jesus into nothing more than a good man, sent by God for our own benefit. So, then why did Jesus come into the world? I would have to agree with Augustine, that even today we look at Jesus as God's Son who came down to Earth to save us from our sins.

I commented on Kelli's

The Image of God

I enjoyed how Augustine's perspective differentiated from today's commonly taught views on several occasions. One of my favorites involves a statement that we are "made after the image and similitude of God, not as respects the mortal body in which he is clothed, but as respects the rational soul by which he is exalted in honour above the beasts". The different spin on the usual conception that we are strictly made in God's image by our appearance, but instead that we are made in God's image by our rational thinking and reasoning that sets us above the ability of animals was something I hadn't thought of or heard before. In my opinion, the idea that my thought processing is similar to God's is much more important than my physical similitude to Him.

p.s I commented on Brydon's.

God the Utilitarian

Ok. The question has been asked as to the state of things "aesthetic." My personal opinion, for this is surely my opinion and I shall not claim to be writing concrete fact and even seek to be challenged on this point, pulling from chapter 27 where Augustine states, "No sinner is to be loved as a sinner." God can't enjoy us because then he'd be enjoying sin. He loves us. Enjoyment, it seems, is the state of loving the use of something. For God to use us He has to use our sin. And he does not love sin. Does this make God utilitarian? Well sure! Does this totally discount God's nature still being imbued in the aesthetic things of life which have no practical use like beauty or art? I don't believe so. Not at this point in my studies. But nevertheless I do still believe that we serve an objective God. I believe that the highest mission is the glorification of Yahweh. Likewise we should be objective. In everything we do. And with everyone with which we interact. Is objectivity bad? Not in this connotation. For as we've already seen God is our highest good. If we are constantly, intentionally pushing our action towards him and towards his glorification then we also are objective and, necessarily, utilitarian. Just like the Lord. For we no longer are looking to just have something of this world which can be enjoyed for itself. For everything earthly now becomes a tool to help us step closer to Him. Perhaps I've contradicted myself somewhere. But I am merely clay speculating the inner workings of my potter's mind. Feel free to expound on this! 

P. S. I commented on Brydon's blog. 

The Enjoyment of Things

     Towards the end of Augustine's first book of Doctrine, he begins to reflect on the value of material things in life. His view is that the Christian's goal in life is to love God, and love others as yourself. Because our only true enjoyment should come from eternal things, from things of the Lord, we shouldn't love or enjoy things that don't have eternal purpose.

"'Enjoy' ...in the sense of to "use with delight" For when the thing that we love is near us, it is a matter of course that it should bring delight with it. And if you pass beyond this delight, and make it a means to that which you are permanently to rest in, you are using it, and it is an abuse of language to say that you enjoy it."

Is Augustine saying that all things aesthetic are useless? In Chapter 22, he says that "neither ought any one to have joy in himself...but for the sake of Him who is the true object of enjoyment." Even later he says that God doesn't enjoy us- He loves us, but he can't enjoy us for our own sake because he "uses" us. I am not exactly sure the point or the impact of what Augustine is saying.

I think I agree with the fact that our satisfaction should come from God, but there is much spiritual and emotional value to be found in things that are not utilitarian by technical standards.