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