Marinated

Wow, after poking over some of the blog posts this fine evening I can't help but notice the prominence of Aggripa's work. It seems that there is so much to say about how crazy the different ideas he stated are, but what really stands out to me is this seeming obsession with differences we have been studying lately.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that there are differences, but I just find it fascinating how polarized the sides we read are. While men and women generally view the world in some slightly differing ways, ultimately we are all human and suffer under the same burden of sin. We are all part of the body of Christ, and all contribute to it in uniquely different and important ways. It's interesting how the focus here is more on separation than unity.

I wonder if this mindset of finding differences was caused by the stresses of the time with almost a battle of the theologians taking place, and separation of those with lives dedicated to the church and then the blindly following. All of this division ultimately leading towards the reformation like labor pains. Perhaps this divisive and "different" mindset is what marinated the mind of Aggripa when he wrote this?

Or maybe Drs. Olsen and Bear are just showing us some pretty polarized views to get a grasp of the time. And if so I'm not gonna lie, it's pretty stinkin hilarious.

Original Sin

I found Agrippa's view on female salvation to be unusual. The very thing that he is arguing is odd in and of itself. In saying that woman is not to blame for causing sin to enter the world he places all of the blame on Man. I have heard this argument before but never so bluntly. He simply states it is mans fault and man alone. Poor Eve was just an innocent bystander. He proceeded to link this to the passing of original sin through a man instead of through woman. If original sin were passed through woman than Christ would have bee affected by it and therefor not sinless. As interesting as this was in it peculiarity, I don't think God would be happy with the battle of the sexes these men were raging.

P.S. I commented on Brannen's      

Cornelius Agrippa Was Ridiculous...... (Or a Comedic Genius)

I found myself incredibly thankful for the author explaining that historians are uncertain of Agrippa's purpose for writing. If Agrippa was sincere in his writing, then he formed some of the weakest arguments that I have ever experienced. On every point he tried to make, Agrippa consistently supported himself with weak and outrageous statements. Even after taking into account my own understanding of the beliefs prevalent in 1509, it was still incredibly difficult for me to be convinced that Agrippa was in any way fully convinced of his own argument. If his original intention was indeed to be amusing, then he succeeded.

p.s I commented on Kelli's.

Weird Ole' Agrippa

Agrippa begins conventionally enough: men and women share the same essential nature as humans and have the same souls and the same goal of eternal happiness. Well, this is a proposition that even the most conservative theologian would have agreed with. But after that, he comes up with some pretty strange conclusions. Though he initially  seems to be trying to prove that in every way except external physical traits, women are fully equal to men, most of his essay, or at least to me, seem to argue for the superiority, rather than equality, of women. Since we share the same Creator and the same human nature, men and women are inherently equal. Yet, according to Agrippa, from the very beginning women have been superior. “Adam” means earth, and “Eve” is translated as life. Eve was the summit of creation, because she was the last creature made directly by God (Adam only the next-to-last.) He argues that Man was created outside of Paradise among the beasts and then placed in Eden; Eve was created in it. Then, Agrippa says Woman is also superior in terms of the material that she is composed of: Eve was not made out of clay, as Adam was, but from a purified body having life and a rational soul (from Adam, that is). Man is the work of nature; woman, the creation of God. So, therefore Agrippa thinks women are better. 

But that's just weird...

Ps. I commented on Mary Kate's. 

The Battle of the Sexes

I have never been one who understands the "battling of the sexes." Our reading on witches last week and now this weeks reading of Agrippa both equally infuriated me in different ways. I do not think women to be either higher or lower than any man who walks the earth. I hold firmly to the Biblical understanding that men and women are meant to serve different roles within the world. If men and women battle against each other, then how can there ever be a marriage between them that displays the beauty of Christ and the Church in the way that a marriage is intended to? There cannot be. Therefore, in that sense, we have failed one of the commandments of Christ. Women are not superior, nor are men, but they are called to different roles that are intended to compliment and complete one another in order to carry out the commandments and the call of Christ upon the lives of those who follow him.

P.S. I commented on Kelli's post

Wycliffe

I was skimming through Wycliffe's translations when I had to open my bible. I did pretty good in the beginning, the scripture was familiar enough that I could make out some words, but eventually I had to give in. I mean who knows what the word "axiden" stands for? Context can tell you it is asked. Yet when I hit "oon i, or titil" there was no hope unless I knew the verse. What I am curious of is if the words used mean different things than the words I am interpreting them to be. I'm always curious of what concepts we lose in translation. Like Dr. Bear said there are so many words in old English for sorrow and when we condense these we lose part of a meaning.

p.s. I commented on ... I'll come back to this. Jeremy's.

Body Image

Leave it to me to blog about something that has zero to do with the actual meat of the readings but that’s just how it’s gonna be tonight. In Agrippa’s praise of women, I couldn’t help but notice how much the definition of beauty has changed in the last five hundred years.

I’ve never been one for women’s rights or whatever but I do have issues with society’s narrow view of attractiveness. The media has taught us for years that thinner is better. There has been a recent shift in this mindset and more and more body shapes are becoming accepted as pretty, but Victoria’s Secret is still the benchmark for beauty. 

Agrippa used awesome phrases like “wonderful softness”, “large and prominent chest”, “roundness of breasts and belly”, “full hips and thighs”, and “plump calves”. I’m not about to say that bigger is better because then I’d be just as bad as the rest of society but there is something about refreshing about complementing women as they are naturally, and not how they make themselves.

P.s. I commented on Collin's post

Soli Deo Gloria

     Out of this selection of readings, I found myself mostly in agreement with John Huss and also Gabriel Biel. The two focus mainly on Christ, looking at Him as the standard. I believe that when Christ is the center, all other things will fall into place (eventually). I feel like this is my stance on most readings, and my typical response to most issues in general. But consider the reading on The Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex. The title alone shows where the glory is. Preeminence? No woman, neither the Virgin Mary nor Mother Teresa can live up to that standard. That title should belong to Christ alone. When we start talking about topics like baptism, circumcision, or the sacraments, we must remember that those things have no value or purpose in and of themselves. They all point to Christ, and Him crucified, buried, and resurrected. This is the problem with the modern day church as well. People want to talk about who is right and who is wrong, but they won't read the Bible for themselves and ask Jesus to change hearts and minds to honor Him and bring Him glory, to bring unity to the body of Christ.

When Christ is the starting point and ending point, we can rest secure on a firm foundation.

p.s. I commented on Caleb's hilariously invigorating blog post.

p.p.s Thank you, Jeremy for that shout out. I don't know if this post is comment worthy, but I appreciate the sentiment.

Miscellany

Pope Gregory threatens to withhold indulgences from Wycliffe.  That forgiveness of sin could ever be attributed to anyone but Jesus is beyond my understanding.  "Who can forgive sins but God alone?"  The religious teachers understood, in a sense.


The humility that God portrays in the incarnation is incomparable.  He who created humans as a subjugate, became one himself.  "... he who gave the law made himself subject to the law by his circumcision...", says Biel.  This idea is so unique to Christianity.  Muslims see this as ridiculous, and Eastern religions, as unnecessary, but for Christians, it is beautiful.


***I'll comment on Abbey's or Brydon's when they post.

Insufficient Superficiality

After reading Henricus Cornelius Agrippa's, "Declaration on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex," I'm left quite dissatisfied. I was totally gung-ho when he was the soulful equality with which humans have been made. When he moved into his arguments stating why women are superior I hopped off the band wagon. His first argument....that they're more beautiful. For one thing, this is so superficial!! Are we going to set standards on the sexes based on our differing physical appearances? When I think of women worthy of honor, certainly not of greatest importance is their outward attractiveness. He also commences to describe the perfect white woman. So if a woman is to be superior to a man must she be Caucasian? Again I'm confused. Adding to this is that by his own earlier statement he cannot use this argument to support female superiority. He says that he will set aside the divine essence of the soul in humans to delve into his discussion.........what more is there to a human? If you remove our soul from the equation then all you are describing is the fallen, carnal husk our soul embodies. This body is not what we are. Furthermore, he states that beauty is the refulgence of the divine countenance shining through the body............but haven't we removed the divine countenance from our argument? This means that beauty isn't actually what makes women superior because it isn't women who are beautiful it's God shining through that actually constitutes beauty. I appreciate what the author is trying to do, but he has too many holes in his argument. Too many. Probably left behind from removing our souls. 

P. S. I commented on Brannen's post. 

Are women better?

     At first I believed the author to have been sarcastic as he described a woman. He sounded as if he was saying what a woman wanted to hear as he described her beauty and perfection. However, as he continued there were moments where I saw some truth. The clique of Christians in China and various other countries is an older, widowed woman. So when he called women religious I could follow that. But then he completely cleared women of the original sin which I do not completely agree. He claimed it was Eve's ignorance that cleared her, but I have met men who are equally ignorant to some of the women I have spoken to. Finally, as a woman I do not want the weight of being called religious and holy compared to men. My sin is no better than any man's sin. Although this might have been meant as a compliment, to me it was a burden that I can not meet.
P.S. I commented on Collins!

Blood

"Nor did He redeem us with corruptible things--with silver and gold but with His own precious blood...not a mere measured drop of blood (which however because of its union with the Word would have sufficed for the redemption of all humanity) but as it were an unmeasured flood." This statement really stuck out to me last night when I read it for the first time. I thought it was a beautiful thought because I had never heard it said that way before. After thinking about it a little more, however, I'm not entirely sure I agree with it. According to the Bible, "the wages of sin is death." Would one drop of Jesus's blood have been enough to satisfy God's requirements? When God demanded an offering in the Old Testament, He didn't ask for a drop of blood from the animal. He commanded that the animal be killed at the alter and burnt. What do you think?

I commented on Collin's blog.

Sexism

I appreciate Agrippa's trying to combat the preposterous sexism going on around him, or at least taking a pass at the illogical arguments used for misogyny. I do, though I've never been much of a feminist.

Still, if you take his little argument as a serious attempt to do away with some of the bitterness towards women, I think he does it in a wrong way. What he is essentially doing is being equally sexist towards men, which is humorous at first but Increasingly dangerous the more you laugh at it. All of the beautiful things he says about women would be seen as exceedingly misogynistic if he were talking about men; exalting one sex over the other, even to combat unfair stereotypes and beliefs, is always sexism and always harmful, as well as always unchristian.

As a sort of takedown of works like the excerpt on witches, however - using faulty reasoning and hyperbole to make a point that his audience would consider ridiculous - I really enjoyed this small work. It could be used to make a good point about gender relations.

PS I'll comment on a blog when someone else posts.

Help! I'm undergoing existential crisis meltdown!

     So, I absol hate to be that girl, but I am going to have to ask about presestion. I've never been exposed to this idea previous to reading Bradwardine tonight and my head is litterally spilling out my cerebral cortex onto the floor. I don't understand what's happening. Bradwardine writes, "For he did not say, 'He gave them power to make themselves sons of God,' but, 'to be made sons of God.' But by whom? Not by themselves. Not out of their own will. Whoever has produced himself? Whoever was born out of himself? What son of the devil can give birth to himself and appear to be the son of God?"
    This statement contradicts everything I have ever known. And, someone please stop me if I am incorrect. But, is Bradwardine proposing that we do not come to salvation of our own admonition? Is he suggesting that salvation we do not choose to receive? I was always taught that salvation was a gift that you could either choose to receive or reject. Now, I do believe that once we accept that gift, the Lord then makes us become his sons and daughters. But, how would God choose who would be Hus sons and daughters? It's hard for me to imagine God picking and choosing for some of his creation, his beloved, to spend eternity apart from His presence.

Someone please explain this to me.

Witches or Sexism?

I will be honest, I would be lying if I said that I did not find the accusations against women slightly funny at first. After I read through some of these points of why women are susceptible to demons I found them to be directly correlated to most the stereotypes a lot of men have towards to women.  Women are always physically weaker, women are always intellectually less capable, and women always give in to their emotional desires. All three of these points and more were made by the reading and it was strange. I never realized these sexist points have been constant throughout every scene of history until it hit me tonight. People are so inept at learning to accept new values that we generalize things in the same way for thousands of year. Sure people can make a few laws that make it look and sound better to the public, but the same inadequate views exist.

I commented on Matt Henson's post

Noah's ark and the Church

I must admit that I have never looked at Noah's ark in relation to the Church. However it does make a great example (minus a few flaws). "There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed." God provided Noah specific instructions for how Noah was to build the ark, much like how Jesus provided specific instructions to the disciples on the building of the Church. Ultimately we as Christians should be on the ark, following the guide and navigator (Christ). We should be a ship on the horizon providing hope for all those around us.

Commented on Brannen's

WHOA.

Ok. I had never ever thought of this statement: If Adam had not fallen, only the predestined would have been born. WHOA. So then, where do the implications of this go?? I think of the billions of lost from history, they would not have existed. It adds a whole new depth to the verse about being sons of God versus being sons of Satan. Going along with this thought stream, a lot of obvious things that we already know take on new meanings. For one thing, that means those billions only exist because of sin. They wouldn't otherwise. Now of course the only reason anything happens is so that God's glory will be magnified. But wow. The implications for human existence here. I'm very interested to read deeper into this topic.

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

faith:grace, grace:faith

     After struggling through understanding where Bradwardine was going with the idea of predestination, I also questioned whether or not he was saying one could lose/give up salvation, but then I came to his discussion on understanding whether or not grace and faith were payments of one another.

     I as well am clueless as to whether grace/faith are reciprocal of one another, but in trying to clarify on my own, I have understood that one is not necessarily 'payment' for another, but grace can be greater understood in a firm test faith and the reciprocal of that. Therefore, one understands grace by working in faith, and with greater understanding comes greater appreciation and it may seem as though a new kind of grace.

I commented on Miss Fox's blog.

Doctrine of Cruelty

The idea of predestination has always seemed one of the most unpleasant ideas proposed by Christianity. There is so much unnecessary cruelty inherent in the belief. Bradwardine's writing only emphasizes the worst parts about the belief.

Bradwardine's theory of predestination reads a little like "Caliban on Setebos," a poem by Browning I just read for another class. They both depict a god that picks and chooses out of caprice, boredom, and spite, not from a supernatural supply of love. Some of the god's subjects can go unharmed and even blessed while others go broken and smashed, for absolutely no reason at all except that the deity can, and his might makes it useless (and dangerous) to question his actions. Why should a God who loves all his creation make it impossible for some of that creation to have a paradisiacal eternity?

Though the entire thing was fairly horrible, it continued to get worse until the last page read something like a nightmare, a few degrees worse than "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." The idea that God would irrevocably condemn so many of his own beings just to make the elect's time on earth more holy is appalling. The elect are already destined for heaven, and nothing, apparently, can change that - why on earth would God eternally doom their "reprobate" counterparts just to teach a few earthly lessons?

I feel a little nauseated. This idea is not the kind of Christianity I want to be a part of.

PS: I commented on Abbey Griffin's post.

Translating the Bible gone too far?

When I started to read Unam Sanctum, I was interested. I had never thought that Noah's ark was symbolic of the one Church. However when Bull of Pope Boniface VIII started discussing the superiority of Peter, he started to lose me. Then he started using phrasing such as "according to the order of the universe" and "necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Potiff." The farther I read, the more I was reminded of what Dr. Olsen said last week about people translating the Bible too liberally, so although in the beginning I was interested in his views, by the end of the Unam Sanctum, I was doubtful of Bull of Pope Boniface VIII's understanding.
P.S. I commented on Brydon's post!

Title of Post

I have known for a long time that Peter is considered the first Pope, but not until now have I seen how revered he was and is.  "Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ" says Boniface.  Are non-Catholics sheep?  I am confided to Christ and no other man, not even the most saintly.  To an extent, I understand Boniface's argument, as Peter is given much authority in the New Testament, but to what extent am I to be submitted to the authority of Peter?  I am open to suggestions.


*** Brydon's

Congregation

"...concerning pastors: no one does more harm in the church than he who, having the name or order of sanctity, lives in sin; for no one dares to accuse him of sin, and therefore the sin is widely spread, since the sinner is honored for the sanctity of his order." This statement caught my attention because it's crazy to see how different church people are today. I grew up in the church that my dad pastored, and my family and I had quite the opposite experience. The congregation I saw was always ready to accuse my father of sin, no matter how much love he showed them. I'm curious to know when that changed occurred and how.

Commented on Abbey's blog.

I was Predestined to write this Blog

Why are we so concerned about Predestination? Is it because we want the confidence that no matter what we do wrong, we will still make it to Heaven? Or are we obsessed with finding a way in our own strength to secure our salvation? I think all these questions point to us rather than God.

It is equivalent to the question of original sin. On page 46, it says "A rational soul and free will with which man can freely and voluntarily receive grace in the present and glory in the future so that, in both the present and the future, they might become the sons of God." I don't think the writer gets around to the point, which is my question: Why are we so concerned? If we believe that we have received grace, then let's walk in it and share the good news with others, in the hope that they will receive it too. If not then why was it written, "Blessed are the feet of those who bring good news"?

p.s. After I post this I am going to comment on Abbey's blog

Could We Make a Spoof?

So personally I found the reading this week just a tad hysterical. I mean, there were definitely some serious points in all the reading, but there was a part of me, especially in the Dominican treatise that could do nothing but laugh.

The author definitely brought up some mostly valid points concerning humanity and general temptation, but I found his view of women quite interesting. It started off as though to get to the root of why women are apparently more affected by satan than men are, but then it seemed to turn into more of a rant. I suppose all of his points do relate back to the objective, but I do get a feeling of venting sometimes. It was quite funny to me, and honestly made a part of me want to write a comical treatise from the opposite perspective.

But in all seriousness, I do think he made some good points about jealousy and perpetuating anxiety, etc., but I feel like they could apply to both men and women. Maybe focus less on why women become wicked more easily, and more on areas in life where sin-prone humans must be cautious and aware. Or maybe I just love application too much, haha.

Justice based on the section of Ambush

I found this section intriguing. This idea brought to mind the argument of whether an act itself is holy or if an act is holy if God has judged it to be holy. I personally agree with the latter. This section reminds of this because Aquinas speaks on the righteous outcomes of the ambushes. Justice exists in an act of holiness and these acts cannot inherently be just or holy due to the same acts being able to be used for different outcomes. This is where I bring up the part of God "approving" an act for holiness. Without having the a correct moral compass an act cannot be judged as is needed.

I commented on Kayleigh's

Just War

I found this reading rather interesting. The method he used in the exploration of his thoughts proved much like my own in that he would follow his thought process. One could tell that he was exploring as many of the different aspects that he could find. Just like in the normal human thought process he would occasionally contradict himself. In the first except I could not determine if he was in agreement with Augustine's four senses of not. Never the less I loved the open flow of his thoughts.

I also found his thoughts on a "just war" very intriguing. The thought ambushing was unbiblical because it was a form of deception. In this time period they seem to reflect on the justness of every act. I find it refreshing. Especially when we live in a time when people don't reflect on things.

P.S. I commented on Brannen's post     

Love thy neighbor

When Aquinas addressed the issue of war and whether it was a sin or not. I was surprised he did not mention Romans 11:19-21 (Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (‭Romans‬ ‭12‬:‭19-21‬ NIV)).  According to that scripture we should show love to our neighbor by tending to his or her needs and looking past the pains he or she has caused up, and in doing that we will be overcoming evil with good. Now, I am not sure if a country or government could actually survive and flourish without war. If it could that would be amazing; however, I felt as if these verses would have helped back up Aquinas's argument that war was sin. It would have fit perfectly with the argument that out enemies are our neighbors and we should treat our neighbors as we would want to be treated  which is objection three under "Whether it is lawful to lay ambush in war?"

P.S. I commented on Caleb's.

Well. Ok.

So. I'm reading Aquinas. And I quickly realize. Wow. I really don't like this. And it makes no sense for me to not like it. He does so much right. He stays objective. Unemotionally attached to the subject. He's scholarly. Drawing from trustworthy wells of knowledge and wisdom. I didn't always agree with him. But I have much respect for him for his technique and tact in his writing. However, I really hated reading it. Perhaps the specifics of his writing style didn't fit me or something. I don't know. I felt like he was talking in circles. Or that it didn't really come to an end. He'd state one side of an argument. And then its opposite. And then he just tried to reconcile, or maybe mesh(?), the two together. It just didn't suit me. 

I commented on the post of Abbie George. 

Modern Ambushes

I don't think that the section about ambushes in war could have been presented to us at a better time. All I could think about the whole time I was reading it was the American Sniper controversy and all of the arguments for and against the actions of [great] men like Cris Kyle. I have never once questioned the necessity or morality of snipers or other soldiers that achieve their objectives through subverted means, but many people (especially recently) have been doing just that.
It has been said that snipers are "cowardly" for not fighting openly.... I'm not going to dwell here long for fear of getting thrown off of the blog due to my explosive anger, but I would just like to say that, like Aquinas, I believe that ambush warfare is completely valid and in no way is unjust if done in the pursuit of some righteous cause. And is, in no way, cowardly.

P.s. I commented on Abbey's post

Fact and Mystery

  On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): "Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery."

I thought the phrasing of this quote, and its placement in the argument, was beautiful. The imagery that the scripture goes beyond every science man can fathom is one that speaks to me as a biology major on a high degree. It gives me more of a connection among the literary language and philosophical thinking, and while I do enjoy both, my greater capability and enjoyment still lies in science. Science itself is full of facts that when numerously and specifically tied together in one certain order can halfway explain some phenomenon that God has created. God Himself can reveal a mystery within a simple fact. I just enjoy imagining the magnitude this quote carries for the extent of God and scriptures' ability. 

P.S. I commented on Abbie's.

Not Just Black and White

       Aquinas' view of scriptural translation reminds me of the discussion from another class, where we are talking about the use of arts in worship and how beauty has so much more value than utilitarianism. Beauty is not just didactic, but metaphor, which paints an even deeper, sometimes clearer picture to aid our understanding or experience. Aquinas argues that Scripture never contradicts itself when it speaks literally or theoretically. I would agree that scripture, just like art, is much more than just prose, but can be interpreted on a number of levels, under the guidance of the holy spirit. It is best interpreted in light of Jesus' redemptive work on the cross.

p.s. I commented on Collin's post

Possibly too Simple?

I found the style of the writing this week quite intriguing. I'm sure that if I did a bit of research I could get some context to the stream of arguments we read and the voices that spoke them, but as it was I felt very much like I was inside my own head. Aquinas talks to himself about the randomest things and only partially comes to conclusions with himself. So much like me! 

But in all seriousness, the reading did seem a bit like a chess game where both sides are taken on by the same person. While there are moves and counter moves, the game is really set from the start. While I suppose this could be a recounting of a two person conversation, the arguments seemed a bit flat to me, and didn't really pick apart all sides of the problem. It was as though the questions were chosen in view of the answers. 

Perhaps it's the little debater crying out inside of me, but I felt that points were surrendered so cheerily and flawlessly that certainly the original speaker could not have truly believed their own stance. While there were some great points and counter points, I leave thinking "That was too easy..."

Comments on Matt's musings

The Art of Thoroughness

I love Aquinas. I read and cited some of his works in my major paper last semester and he was quite helpful to my "big question" regarding the nature of suffering. What I love about Aquinas is his complete thoroughness. When he makes a point, he will give you every angle, every possibility, every aspect of that particular point so that the reader can have no doubt that the man's content is credible.

I found this not only with the reading assigned. As I perused the rest of "The Summa Theologica" I found the general structure of his arguments to be the same. Using phrases and titles like "Objection 1," "I answer that," "Reply to Objection," and "On the Contrary" not only gives order and structure to his point, it tells the reader that he is not afraid to bring up every possibility.

Many times we see him begin a particular section with a claim, then he will refute or qualify that claim toward the end as he argues the endless possibilities. His thoroughness shows his fearlessness in the face of a questioning world. His thoroughness shows the real complexity behind truths that we often regard as simple. His thoroughness reveals the endless and satisfying Answer to every question..."and this being we call God." This is why I love Aquinas.

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

Context

As a whole, this was an interesting read. The only real complaint that I have is that I didn't have any context to the passage. Why is he arguing the four senses of Scripture and the nature of war? They seem to be two very unrelated topics. Also, I couldn't really tell if he was arguing against Augustine or agreeing with him. At times, he quoted Augustine to strengthen an idea, but then other times he seemed to be creating an opposing viewpoint. The things he said made sense, but I don't understand why he said them.

I commented on Collin's blog.

Just War

The subject of war has always been an uncomfortable one for me. Or, if not war - because war is inevitable and the most you can do is try to stop it as soon as possible - the subject of Christian rationalization of war.

Aquinas is one of the most balanced views of war that I've read. He puts the emphasis of war on protecting those who are wronged, and trying to wage war "correctly" instead of simply slaughtering the enemy wholesale.

However, the idea of war being "kindly" seems like an almost insulting description. No war I've read about could ever be described as "kindly" or anything approaching it. Again, it seems as though, in an attempt to reconcile the reality of war with a Christian lifestyle, Aquinas obscures how truly terrible war is. The fact that war is inevitable doesn't mean that it has to be rationalized. He quotes Augustine as saying, ""The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war," which seems ridiculously idealistic in the view of recent wars. Of course, a righteous war sounds good - but what Aquinas describes is almost too good to be true.

Maybe I'm reading too much of a modern perspective into it, but, though Aquinas does have some good points (especially about achieving peace and "uplifting the good"), some of what he says goes too far for my taste.

PS: I'll comment when another post appears.

Dual Nature of Jesus

Growing up in the church I was taught that there are certain questions about the nature of God that cannot be understood. Since we are mere humans there is no point in questioning  these things because after all we cannot understand them. I have long had this idea imposed on me, yet reading works I feel like I can finally ask the questions that have been longing to be ask. For instance, the duel nature of Jesus Christ. That alone is enough to inspire months of thought. Thinking of the two natures of divinity and humanity and how they somehow are combined into one being without making some weird third nature between man and the divine is fascinating. 

This topic reminds me of an iconography lecture we had on campus last semester. One thing the artist/priest mentioned was the symbolism behind the colors of the clothing of Christ, as depicted in Orthodox iconography. He is often painted wearing a red tunic with a bluish cloak. The iconoghrapher stated that the red tunic represented the humanity of Christ being covered by the blue tunic of his divinity. This dialogue continues to discuss the different views of God based on the this manifestation to human flesh. I love the conclusion that was reached in the dialogue that no human weakness from the humanity of Christ could be attributed to his divine nature.    

P.S. I commented on Danielle's  wonderful blog. 

get out of my head

     It could quite possibly be the circumstances I grew up in, bu the questions that are tackled in the excerpts from Anslem are those questions that only children would dare ask. Honestly, (Surely, I am not alone.) I find myself asking these questions, but also immediately putting them aside as too strong. How dare I question the ways of God? Also, I see a turn in the culture that surrounds the Christian faith, We are asking the bold questions. Exploring how our faith and walk apply to areas we never realized it touched. I was enlightened by the questioned asked, and it brought much peace to my curious mind. I find that I was encouraged not to settle, but to yearn and to seek a greater knowledge, After all, that was what this is all about.

I commented on Kayleigh's blog.

Don't Just "Go With It"

"Let no one, then, plunge into the obscure questions that concern divine things without first seeking earnestly, in soundness of faith, for gravity of conduct of wisdom. Otherwise, running about with heedless frivolity through a multitude of sophistical distractions, he may be trapped by some stubborn falsehood..."

I feel like this is a perfect description of what its like to start college (at least at a Christian school). We've all been raised up in the faith and a lot of us (especially those going into Christian ministries) are super fired up about God's glory and the unending love of the Savior. While things things are well worth getting excited over, I fear that so many up and coming Christians take a passing glance at the intricacies of God's word before opting to "just go where the Spirit takes them". This kind of flippant attitude often leads to superficial believers who pass their thin, emotion-driven faith onto others who may have benefited much more from a Bible study than a ten minute worship song.
I know that, for me, college has opened my eyes to the importance of analyzing and studying the word. I hate to play favorites but Dr. Mashburn has done more to cultivate my faith by teaching me to question it than a lifetime of preachers telling me that "God works in mysterious ways" had ever done.

P.s. I commented on Brannen's post

Christian Apologetics As It Should Be Presented

As I read Anselm, I was impressed at how effective his method was. He even explains that the dialogue technique is "clearer to many (especially to slower) minds, and so more acceptable." The question and answer method, as we have seen so much of in philosophical works, really allows the breakdown of the Christian faith to be much more detailed and actually intimate. The fact that the two people are communicating with one another going back and forth on the ins and outs of the faith makes the entire subject more approachable to an outsider.

 I just like the way the writer went about it. He takes on the unbelievers who "scoff at Christian simplicity" and call it "absurd" using a great apologetic, dialectic method, breaking down the belief subject by subject by means of simple question and answer. He uses the simple to explain the deeper truths.

P.S. Commented on Matt's post.

Balance

"While the right order requires that we should believe the deep things of the Christian faith before we undertake to discuss them by reason, it seems careless for us, once we are established in the faith, not to aim at understanding what we believe." I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I think that there are many Christians out there who don't know why they believe what they believe, and it is most definitely important to invest time into your faith and relationship with God. That being said, I do think that there is a delicate balance there. Many people have been led astray by focusing their attention on things they will never fully understand. I believe that is part of what Jesus meant when He spoke of having faith like a child. Having faith that is innocent and humble, and content with not knowing everything. I think it is important to accept the fact that we are finite and possess a limited understanding of who our infinite God is.

Commented on Kelli's blog.

Anselm

What I found so interesting about the readings, particularly the piece by Anselm was the explication of the 'why' of Christ. Why he had to be human. Why his sacrifice was sufficient. I am awed anew by the perfect completeness that God orchestrated in the way he sent his son. I had never really thought about the fact because Christ's life is worth infinitely more than all of the sin ever committed, therefore his sacrifice was able to cover every sin past, present, and future.
I was also grateful for an explanation as to why Satan and the other fallen angels could never be redeemed- because they were unprompted and untempted, and above human.
Overall, I was fascinated with the theology presented, and I thought it was beautifully written. I really liked this.
P.S. I commented on Abbey's

Why Christ?

The below phrase struck a chord with me. This phrase to me beautifully portrays as to why Christ had to suffer and die on our part. Yes, I understand that a Holy God cannot commune with an unholy man. But I have always wondered as to why Christ had to come into the world the way he did and have to be crucified the way he did. 

Human=Sin

Human=Forgiveness

Eve=Sin

Mary=Forgiveness

Tree=Sin

Cross=Forgiveness

"For when death had entered into the human race through man's disobedience, it was fitting that life should be restored through the obedience of man. When the sin which was the cause of our condemnation had its beginning from a woman, it was fitting for the Author of our justice and salvation to be born of a woman. Since the devil, when he tempted man, conquered him by the tasting of a tree, it was fitting for him to be conquered by man's bearing of suffering on a tree. And a

good many other things, when we consider them carefully, show the inexpressible beauty of our redemption thus accomplished."

Commented on Caleb's

Sex, Marriage, and the Apostles

The theological standing of these medieval French men and women is really throwing me for a loop. Look Heloise. I really don't think you should be pulling scripture in defense of Abelard's singleness after joyously taking part in multiple acts of fornication with said philosopher. It made me think of Augustine's romantic stint first off. But it also made me think about what sins our culture overlooks. Every culture overlooks something. I just always find such lack of scriptural awareness funny. Not haha funny. Ironic funny. That is all. I commented on Jeremy's post. 

Stylistic and Philosophical Quandary

Anselm really got me wondering what the church of this era thought of philosophers and the role of philosophy in the church.

When reading Augustine and his talks with some of his mentors, I personally got the impression that some of the church was definitively against some philosophies even being introduced to the church, while others were readily built upon because they pointed to Christ.

As Brannen, and perhaps others, mentioned, this particular work seemed quite Platonic. The whole use of dialectic as the method of discovering truth is almost directly taken from Plato and perhaps Socrates. And in this work it is quite effective, although at times I even wanted them to be more nitpick-y.

Another note on the style: like Augustine, it so so very clear and concise. In other philosophical and poetic works that we have been reading, the style seemed quite a bit confusing. That may just be me adapting to the style of the time(s), but if not, when and why did this style begin to exist in such contrast? What caused this change? Motive? Evolution of language?

Notes on Brannen's post.

Links

Abelard often refers to Greek myth and literature.  This is similar to Augustine and the question of what we should do with such literature.  How should we study it?  What place does it have in our worldview?  Dr. Mashburn has said something like, "Though we wouldn't accept the religious aspect of the Greek literature, and some of the moral aspects even, it still contains truth."  It seems as though Abelard would say something similar to this, and I continue to ruminate on this question.

I ruminated and wrote on Mary Kate's blog.

Someone tell Dr. Bear I am using ruminate.

Anselm and Plato

Throughout the entire reading, Anselm continued to remind me of Plato. I first noticed it on page sixty where Anselm is saying this is the problem but we cannot deal with it until we discuss these things first which is exactly what Plato would do. Then the whole narrative set up only reenforced my theory. However, Anselm does not have his head in the clouds as much as Plato did. Also, Plato seemed to write with this arrogance that he knew better no matter what anyone else said while Anselm started off humble to the point where Boso had to convince Anselm to answer the questions. While comparing the two, I have to say Anselm is  my favorite. In the beginning, Plato and I did not get along, but he's gradually growing on me. On the other hand, Anselm has captivex my attention from the beginning. My observations may be completely off, but I found the correlations between the two really interesting!
P.S. Commented on Kelli Brown's post!

The Conclusion Comes First

In Anselm there is a constant theme of knowing and committing to the given principal before you may analyze and understand it. The whole first section is discussing how a Christian should be steadfast in his faith before he begins to undertake the "loftiest questions of faith". This is so that if the man raises a point that cannot be reconciled with the given principal, he will not lose faith in the principal and overall religion. Instead, the man is supposed to either presume he has reasoned wrong or lacks the necessary information to complete the puzzle because the concept is solid. This is such a contrast to today's times where if we believed in a concept wholeheartedly as a child or young Christian, but later we find misleading evidence or can't understand the concept completely, we abandon it or say it is nonsensical.

P.S commented on Sydni's.

"For in every race, gentiles or Jews or Christians, there have always been a few who excelled their fellows in faith or in the purity of their lives, and who were set apart from the multitude by their countenance or by their abstinence from worldly pleasures" (23).
This quote made me think about how man times I have heard people talk about how a non-Christian person could never possibly be a "good person". To that assumption I reply: no one, not even a christian, can ever be a "good person". We will all, always, be wretched, no matter how many times we volunteer to help out with VBS.  However, on that same note, if we are to define "good person" through earthly language, then anyone, even a supposedly wretched atheist can be a "good person." It all depends on how you define your terms. In this case, I agree with the wise lady, there are many throughout the centuries who have earned the right to be called a good earthly human being, no matter their religious affiliation.

P.S. I commented on Collin's post