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