Feedback Wanted!

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else." -Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

This statement would indicate that it is perfectly acceptable to do anything to injure yourself so long as you injure no one else in the process. But I wonder, is this possible? When we cause injury do we ever injure ourselves alone?

Let's look at a hypothetical situation... Let's say there's a man who just lost his job, financial security, and family. He is sick of living and so he decides to end his life. He jumps from an overpass on a busy road, is hit by a car, and dies. While tragic, this incident is perfectly ok though, after all, he had the liberty to injure himself. His jumping from the overpass didn't injure anyone else anyway, right? Wrong. What about the woman driving the car that hit him? What about the child who now has nightmares every night after witnessing the incident? The man may not have caused them physical injury but I would say he caused them great mental and emotional trauma and injury.

I wonder if there is ANY situation where we are really only hurting ourselves. I'm having trouble coming up with one, but my thoughts aren't fully developed on this topic so I'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback!

(I commented on Kyle's post.)

and it's all because of Mardi Gras...wait, WHAT?!

In class on Tuesday we got into the subject of God's will. Was it God's will that New Orleans was demolished by Katrina? Of course it was!...all because of the alcohol consumption on Bourban Street and the wild habits of Mardi Gras...right? Well, I personally don't believe that Ol' Hurricane Katrina was meant to be taken as punishment for the city of New Orleans and its residents. It was a simple (or not so simple) natural disaster that was bound to happen at some point. When a city lies THAT far below sea level, they should have at last expected that to happen eventually. I do, however, believe that God knew what the after-effects of the storm would be. I think that if God had meant for it to be punishment for the city, he would have offered a way out...kind of like Noah and the flood. He had the chance to make the ark and escape the God's destruction. But, then again, is anyone as in tune with God's plans these days as they were back in Biblical times? I am not convinced that they are. Whatever the reason, Katrina took place and New Orleans is still the home of Mardi Gras...and probably will forever be (they clearly need some Jesus...maybe even another hurricane). :)

Faith of a Mustard Seed

The Bible says in Luke 17:6, "...'If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, "Be uprooted and planted in the sea," and it will obey you.'" (NIV). First of all, a mustard seed is about 1/16 of an inch - or about 2mm. If you only need faith the size of a mustard seed to move a mulberry tree to the ocean, how small is our faith that we can't even trust that God will always be there for us or always provide?

The Bible has never been proven wrong. In fact, those who set out to prove that it is wrong, usually end up becoming a believer. Faith, by definition, is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Although God does not need proof for anything he does, He made sure that there were witnesses to every miracle, including Christ's resurrection. Five hundred people saw Jesus alive, three days after He was buried; and they all had the same account of this event. When have 500 people ever agreed on anything? Why do we need evidence? Why is it so difficult for us to believe the unseen? Why must we rely on science for answers? Theories and Laws could change at any moment, but "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8, NKJV).

Just a little food for thought: do you ever think about whether or not the chair you're about to sit in will hold you up? Probably not. Why? Because you have faith that the chair was built properly and it will hold your weight and not collapse. If we can have that much faith in a chair, why is it so hard for us to have faith in the Almighty God?

Did He create evil???

On Thursday we discussed extensively if it was possible that God created evil. Immediately we would assume the answer is no. However after class Thursday the idea that He may have created evil doesn't seem as far fetched as I'd originally thought. While God never did just decide to throw evil into the world He did create man which sometimes seems just as bad. God did give us free will, we get to make our own decisions and unfortunately this does mean people will not always choose to do what's right.

However, does that mean that indirectly God created evil??? While God does have a plan for everything we do I still cannot imagine our God literally creating evil. Which brings me to the question of what is evil? Isn't evil just the absence of good? I think that God did not create evil but rather allows evil. If there was not an alternative to good then we would all worship Him without having a choice in the first place.

By giving us free will God wants us to choose Him, however, this also means many people will not choose Him. Otherwise we would only worship and obey because we wouldn't know what else to do. I feel that God gave us free will so that we could worship and follow Him because we chose to, not because we had to.

I WANT THE TRUTH!!! I THINK!

It seems that the topic of God creating evil has struck a nerve with some of us. And rightly so. Its no surprise to me either, that we would be interested and enthralled by the concept. We all want to know the truth, but can we? Maybe so...

As I said in class, if God is omniscient, is it possible for Him to create us and Not know that by creating us, he was creating evil? Or that the result would be evil? I say no. And a lot of people believe differently.
I believe that He knew exactly what would happen, that evil would follow the creation of us. But then another idea comes up. If God knew we would do evil, does that necessarily mean HE created it, or did we? I honestly dont know the answer to that, maybe we cant know. Are we as humans even capable of creating evil? I see a lot of it everyday.


Did God just allow the possibility of evil so as to truly make us free, under no obligation to serve him?

And then there it is again, if that is the case, and God did allow the "possibility" of evil, does that mean he created evil?

Its a very hard thing for me to try to wrap my mind around. I personally dont like the idea of God creating evil, but I also think its very possible, maybe even the most probable answer.

Maybe it doesnt matter. Maybe God, in the one hand, created evil as to give us real FREEDOM to choose to follow Him. Him being "good". So He had our best interests at heart. Or maybe God didnt create evil, and WE did. Then its our fault the world is the way it is, but God still loves us the same.

Either way God is still God. And all the truth we know about Him hasnt been irreconciliably changed either way you look at it. Whether God did or didnt create evil may change our perception of God, but it doesnt change the actual character of God.

Personally, I believe he did create evil. That He is omniscient, and that he allowed/made evil so that we could really choose Him, rather than automatically choose him. Thats a strange thought to ponder, and I know ive jumped all over the place, so if you read this far (thanks for reading this all the way through). Maybe it will help someone. I know writing this has helped my thought process. I also know there are possibly gaping holes in my theology but, this is what I believe now, and would love to hear the other side of the argument.

Peace and Love.

Science vs. God

Thursday in class, we discussed the battle of faith and reason. This discussion led me to recall an excerpt from a book I read a few years ago. In the book, Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, the carmelengo of the Roman Catholic church addresses the ongoing struggle between faith and technology or science. Although I do not agree with every thing that is referenced, I believe it is incredibly relevant to the discussion. Plus, it is also one of the most moving monologues I have ever read.

"Medicine, electronic communications, space travel,genetic manipulation...these are all the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of imaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede.'

'But science's victory has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply.'

'Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelenghts and frequencies. The complexitites of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident. Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture and betrayal.Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have at any point in human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God's world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning... and all it finds is more questions.'

'The ancient war between science and religion is over. You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers.You have won by so radically reorienting our society, that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breaktrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades to progress from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. We see UFO's, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests-- all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by it's own enlightenment and it's inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology.'

'Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are far too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species...moving down a path of destruction.'

'Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use tha power? What knid of God gives a child fire, but does not warn the child of it's dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea.'"

Faith vs. Reason

In class on Thursday, we discussed whether faith should be driven by reason (science) or if reason should be driven by faith. I believe that if your faith is truly as strong as it should be, then reason should be driven by faith.

Humans always want answers. That's just the way we were created. Whenever we are challenged with a question, we do everything we can to find the answer. Some people may even go so far, it challenges what they believe (their faith).

One example of this is the many scientists who are Theistic Evolutionists. They believe that God works through the natural process of evolution, thus supporting the evolution theory. Theses scientists say that the first few chapters of Genesis were intended to by "lyrical" or to be read figuratively. I, however, believe that taking that approach to scripture questions the entire authority of the Bible. If the first few chapters of Genesis were intended to not be literal, how do we know that the rest of the scriptures aren't the same way? Theistic Evolutionists let reason drive their faith.

An example of the opposite would be those in the Middle East and Muslim cultures. These people place such a high emphasis on tradition, that no matter what technological advancements or discoveries are made, they won't let it affect what they've been taught to believe. Although many Muslims are only Muslim because that's how they were brought up, they are a good standard for standing firm in your faith. If you truly believe in something, then your faith should be so strong that no form of reason should be able to change what you believe. Although science and reason should challenge what you believe, you should be able to defend it with your faith instead of caving in and letting it alter your beliefs.

Leibniz and Pangloss

Last week we talked about how Pangloss represented the ideas of a great philosopher and mathematician, Gottfried Leibniz. I find this philosophy very interesing and therefore, I decided to look so more about his thoughts related to the optimism and about his believes about God. Actually, when I was reading Candid, and Pangloss was saying how everything in the world has a cause as well as an effect, and nothing could be different because it has already been stablished and it is just perfect, my question was about who made everything that way. Pangloss never attributes this cause to God, he just says it is a cause and effect, but what is the first cause?
Since Pangloss is the representation of Leibniz, I looked up what was that first cause for him and this is what I found:
Leibniz believed that everything in the world consists in monads, which are independent but at the same time, they create a perfect harmony. God created the world so that every monad will adjust perfectly to the rest and this follows the cause and effect thought that Pangloss was talking about. "The appropriate nature of each substance brings it about that what happens to one corresponds to what happens to all the others, without, however, their acting upon one another directly." (Discourse on Metaphysics, XIV) So, the first cause, naturally is God. He also believed that before the creation God made a calculation about every possible world. Following the principle of the best, which states that "God assuredly always chooses the best", He, who is infinitely good, creates the best perfect world.

I commented in Sarah Becky's post

Who am I to question Him?

If we decide to be completely honest with ourselves, any question about God’s creation is a complete mystery. This, I believe, is a good thing, but for the sake of the blog I would like to take a shot at one of these mysteries. Did God create evil? This is one of those questions that can never be wholly answered by our humanly weak minds. However, I am going to attempt to come a little further in my understanding of the matter.

The way I see it is, when God created us he chose to give us free will. Everyone is given this free will, even though God understood what could happen when we, as imperfect beings, are given a choice. We immediately see the effect free will has on us if we look at Genesis 3, which in my Bible is titled, “The Fall of Man.” Both Adam and Eve fell for the temptation the serpent offered them, showing the first signs of Evil in the Bible.

From this, I begin to ask, “Was the creation of evil intentional?” For instance did God just decide to blatantly put evil in the world. The answer I have come to is, no! I don’t believe that God just one day decided that world could use a little evil. I believe that evil was formed through our own free will. God fully understood that when he gave us a choice there was a chance that we would make the wrong one, but he still decided that we needed to have the choice.

Now we can ask, well why would God give us the choice if he thought we would make the wrong one? The answer is not a simple one for us to swallow, but God has done all of this for His glory. We cannot understand how this will ultimately bring Him glory, but who are we to understand this? If you have the chance I would recommend reading Job 38-42. It is five chapters of God speaking to Job through a storm and just asking him basically, who do you think you are to question what I am doing? That is what I needed to hear as I was sitting here writing this. Who am I to question whether or not God did put evil in the world? It is in the world therefore it has a purpose, and ultimately that purpose will bring glory to God.

God and Evil

     Evil is a problem that mankind is forced to deal with on a daily basis. From the creation of Adam and Eve until the return of our Lord, mankind will always have to deal with it. But what exactly is this so called evil? Why is it in God’s great universe, and how does it fit in to His perfect plan?  There is no way to reconcile the existence of corporeal evil with the existence of God. Instead, evil should be addressed in a spiritual sense. 

     In the book of Genesis it tells us that in the beginning of time, God created the heavens and the Earth and all that inhabited it. When He was finished, God looked over it all and said that it was very good.  God’s original creation was good, perfect, and blameless. This proves that God did not create evil Himself. And since God created everything, and he did not create evil, evil therefore can not be a “thing”. Since the beginning of human history, the existence of evil has shown to result from choices that aim to gratify the self. 

 Now the serpent was craftier than any of the wild animals God had made. He questioned the woman, “Did God really say, You must not eat from the tree in the center of the garden?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat from any tree but that tree in the middle, and the Lord said we must not even touch it, or we will die.” “You will surely not die”, said the serpent to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:1-4. 

     This event that took place in the Garden of Eden marks the entrance of evil and sin into God’s once perfect world. But as seen here, the evil was not something that was created by God to be put on the Earth. Rather, it was the result of the selfish desires of man. These selfish desires came from our freewill, which God allowed us to have. Roy Battenhouse states, “Sinning takes place only by exercise of the will… no one compelling… Sin is the will to retain and follow after what justice forbids, and from which it is free to abstain.”

    I'm very aware that I could be looking at all this in the wrong way. But for now, this is my opinion. What's yours? 

Experience: Vital Ingredient... Often Forgotten

In class last Thursday as many have addressed, we discussed the role of faith and reason in religion, specifically Christianity. However, in this discussion, I believe we forgot to account for the role of experience in Christianity and in life. Experience was the main way through which Cunegonde and Candide learned and what eventually made their philosophy on life change. Cunegonde's experience of rape and loss of loved ones convinced her that this was certainly not the best of all possible worlds as Pangloss had taught her. Candide's experience of encountering natural disasters, wars, religious persecution, and eventually slavery served to convince him of the same thing.

In the same way, experience can convince one of the existence of God, His involvement in the world today, and the infallibility of His Word, the Bible. Experience serves to strengthen both faith and reason and I believe lead them to the same conclusion. I have had in my own life such experience. I have seen answered prayers and miracles. I have felt God's comfort and been challenged by His Word. I have seen my own life and the lives of others change dramatically as God's power has taken control of my heart. No one could ever refute this experience because I have seen it with my own eyes - lived it. This experience makes it only reasonable for me to trust Christ wholly and gives me the faith to believe He will do what He has said He will.

Using Reason To Back Up Faith

Each of us are beings created by God. He made us from dust. But, we are beings with a free will and we have free minds as well. We use reason to explain things in life. Some of them we understand, others we don't. Now, it is completely up to each and every one of us to choose what to do with our reasoning powers. We can use them for the purpose of evil and pagan things. We can use them to give glory to man as an ultimate being. Or we can use our reasoning to help back up our faith.
By using our Reasoning, we can give glory to God. When we use our reasoning, I think that it point towards us being intellegent creatures created by an even more powerful being. So, instead of using our reasoning to point towards evolution, or pantheism, I think that we can use our reasoning to point out that we are creatures of magnificent design. And further more, that we have a great Designer that created us the way that we are. Let us use our reason to point that fact out instead of denying it. This is just my personal opinion on what our reason should be used for. Plus, I prefer the idea of being a created person over the idea that our ancestors were monkeys that eventually "Evolved" into the beautiful being that walk the earth tody, but that's just me.




I commented on Seth's "Reconciling God and Evil"

Religious Beliefs: Them vs. You

I just wanted to touch on a question that Dr. Abernathy asked us to think about, but that we didn't discuss. I believe it was Tuesday. The topic came about when we were talking about the devastation of Katrina and how some people believed that it was sent from God to destroy the corrupt New Orleans. Then we were asked if it was right to tell the people who believed that that they were wrong. I believe that it is always okay to state your beliefs to anyone. However, I don't believe that it is right to try to force your beliefs on anyone. So, in this case I believe that you should, or I would, simply tell the person why you disagree with them calmly, and let them take it for what they will. It would be wrong to tell them that their beliefs are wrong and yours is right and there is no alternative. Not only do I believe that to be morally wrong, but it would be completely ineffective for your opinion, and probably leave it completely null to the other. Quite simply, I think the only appropriate response to someone with alternative beliefs to yours is to say what you do believe without arguing it. Anything further would help no one in the situation.

I commented on Sarah Becky's blog.

7 days vs..... ?

It was brought up in class last week that in the book of Genesis God created the world in seven days. But a lot of people take this and say that a day to us is 1000 days to God. Which, is biblically correct. So we went on to talk about whether or not God made the world in seven days. And I just wanted to say that I believe he did make the world in seven days. I also believe that a day to us is 1000 days to Him. I just think that God is so powerful he could make the earth in a true, human, seven days. I think if we try to justify science and all this other stuff by saying that God's days are longer, than we are limiting God's glory and power. Now, it makes perfect sense to try to justify science that way. To us, all of that "stuff" out there could not be made in seven days! Thats ridiculous.. in Human standards. A human has a hard time writing an English report in one sitting, let alone imagining the whole universe, and all of the universe's around us, being made in 7 days. But, He is the almighty creator of the universe, why would he not be able to make the earth in seven days? Nothing is impossible to him. I am not saying that anybody who does not believe that he made it in 7 days is wrong, because I have believed that for a while too. But I do believe that he could make anything and everything in a blink of an eye if he wanted too.. He is God.

Faith vs. Reason?

In class the other day, we had a pretty interesting discussion of the topics of faith and reason, and the two combined, so I thought it would be a good idea to take a careful look at each of these topics, separately, and see if there is any way that we can make these two mix.

Faith.

“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” –Hebrews 11:1

For the most part, if you ask people what Faith is, they will tell you that it is a system of beliefs, a specific religion, or something else along these lines. According to Hebrews, it’s a bit more than that. It is being SURE if what we hope for, and CERTAIN of what we do not see. Faith isn’t just something that we believe in; it is something that we have no doubt in. True faith is a belief that is not just an aspect of our life, but it is strong enough to define who we are.

I’d like to examine another passage of scripture from James 1:14-26

“What good is it, my brothers if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Supposed a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and set them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead”

The point that I am trying to show you here is that faith is not merely belief. Our faith is something that defines us and what we do. Whether we believe in God, Buddha, Gandhi or Star Wars, it is nothing at all unless it is the basis for how we live our lives.

Reason.

Reason is the process of logically breaking something down so that we can understand it. It is based on known facts and experience. It is a God-given ability that is one of the many things that sets us apart from other creations. We were made in God’s image, and our ability to reason is one of the many proofs of that. Reason is used in a variety of different ways, whether that be in solving a math problem, proving a case against a criminal, trying to find lost keys or debating the reason for our existence.

Do they work together?

I think that it is foolish of us to look at these two topics as if they were opposites. Reason does not contradict faith, and faith does not contradict reason.

I’d like to share with you a quote from Pope John Paul II.

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves”

I think that his Popeness is on to something here, or at least being CLOSE to being on to something. I think that faith and reason are both given to us by God to be used to understand Him better (although not fully).

Conclusion.

I believe that faith is our life-guiding certainty in God, and that it is strengthened by reason. Yet at the same time, reason is our process of understanding God, and our faith guides it.

Woe is Me!

Well, I can say with full confidence that I absolutely did not like reading Candid. Yuck! However, I resolved to make the best of it, and I must admit that there are some very humorous lines throughout the text. I will not quote all of them here because I am not sure if the quotes I find funny are actually supposed to be funny. It could just be my sense of humor and I’d hate to look ridiculous ;). However, I will attempt to convey how absolutely hilarious I find it when people pass out throughout the story – especially when they do it more than once! They hear bad news – and they faint! They see something that disturbs them – and they faint! I can understand a woman fainting at a gruesome scene or upon hearing news of the death of a loved one. But a grown man! Maybe this should not make me giggle, but it literally cracks me up! I keep thinking back to Dante’s Inferno when he faints over and over…it just makes me laugh. I’m not sure if there is any real significance to these episodes, but if there is, I will find it before this semester is over. I love that literature can be humorous. Serious stuff is good, but we need to laugh a little! So this is how I made it through Voltaire…laughing all the way.

I commented on Malory's post, "Why do we try to box God in???"

Reconciling God and Evil

We talked in class the other day about some apparent problems with Christianity, faith and reason being in the forefront. We were able to reconcile some things and merely talk about others, but I think the greatest question that plagued us all is the problem of evil. Any thinking person can see through reason immediately that there is a problem. God created everything, evil exists... Therefore God created evil?
If I may quote Ronald Nash in one of my favorite books, Worldviews in Conflict:
"1. If God is good and loves all human beings, it is reasonable to believe that he wants to deliver the creatures he loves form evil and suffering.
2. If God is all-knowing, it is reasonable to believe that he knows how to deliver his creatures from evil and suffering.
3. If God is all-powerful, it is reasonable to believe that he is able to deliver his creatures from evil and suffering."
So through reason, we see that God wants to eliminate evil, knows how to do so, and has the power to do so. Hence the problem, evil exists. Therefore, once again through reason, either God wants evil to exist, doesn't know how to stop evil, or doesn't have the power to stop evil. Some would take this and say, therefore God doesn't exist. However, I hope no one in this class would give up so easily.
Let me break it down further in the words of Nash:
"1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent.
3. God is omniscient.
4. God is omnibenevolent.
5. God created the world.
6. The world contains evil."
We would all agree with these things, quite obviously. There is not an *explicit* contradiction in them. For there to be a logical contradiction, one would have to add as 7, "The world does not contain evil." That would make it illogical. But, most people, deducing from statements 1-5, would say that they insist upon the statement, "The world does not contain evil," therefore, creating the problem once again. The world does not contain evil, but this is not true; it does contain evil, yet it was made by the God described above. This necessitates a missing proposition, one that can make it logically consistent, agreeing with reason, and therefore immune to inconsistency.
The reconciling proposition, to which I owe the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, is that "God creates a world that now contains evil and has a good reason for doing so."
Our argument is now reasonably and logically sound, and Theologically for many:
"1. God exists, is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and created the world.
2. God created a world that now contains evil and had a good reason for doing so.
3. Therefore, the world contains evil."
Isn't that nice? Logically, it is easy to swallow, though for some, not so much Theologically. It is hard to say that God created evil, even though He did it for a good (in the sense of godly goodness, meaning infallible, inerrant goodness) reason. At the end of the day, we can make arguments and reason through tough questions as these, but the ultimate reason and logic behind all of this is far beyond our minds, and we should not inquire farther than we can reach.

"What are you going to do...?"

"Faith, hope, and love; these three remain..." ~1 Corinthians 13



We've barely begun this semester, and we've already delved into the world of faith. (I'm sure hope and love will soon follow. :) The way I blog is as follows: I wait a couple of days after class, I pull out my binder, I look at my notes, and I find the thing that immediately strikes me from the page. This week, the first word that grabbed me was faith. Voltaire's definition in his Dictionary of faith is: "saying that one believes what is impossible to believe is lying." Voltaire calls faith a lie. And I believe that Voltaire is lying.

Every person on the face of this universe has faith, whether they claim to or not. One can have faith in their reason, or one can have faith when they face the limits of reason. Both reason and faith have one purpose: to explain, to give an answer, to be able to put one's trust in something...or Someone. Scientists study for answers to the patterns of the universe, historians search for answers to the lives of humans, philosophers seek out answers to the questions of the soul. We're all looking for explanations...but what makes us different is how we accept those answers. Through faith, or through reason, or through both...

Which leads me to believe that reason is indeed moved by faith, and faith is strengthened by reason. Whatever conclusion one chooses to accept through reason, his faith is being poured into his knowing that what he believes is true. Whatever one chooses to accept through faith is supported by everything he knows to be true through reason. Reason is a gift that GOD has given us; it distinguishes us from all other creatures. Faith is also a gift - a chance to have a relationship with the incomprehensible Creator. Reason is an opportunity to have faith. It directs where our faith lies. Faith is the end result of reason. It is the opportunity to keep living when reason can go no farther. Reason is the path to faith. Faith is the completion of reason.

Thursday, Dr. Biskner asked a question that greatly challenged me: "What are you going to do when reason demands you believe something that's impossible?" I have found my answer. I'm going to believe. I'm going to "walk by faith." I guess Voltaire would just have to live a lie, because faith is the only answer.

The Subtle Art of Brainwashing: or "We Have Found a Witch, May We Burn Her?"

Bonsoir mon petit Honors chums and chumettes, we meet again:

Please, may I direct your attention to the following link for your listening and viewing pleasure? Merci beacoup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g


i have decided to expand upon the one end of the extremes when it comes to faith and reason:

what happens when your faith is what drives your reason; meaning when religious teachings and thought processes get in the way of liberating your mind: hence the Monty Python link and my subject:

The Puritans: clearly not Enlightened thinkers I daresay. They were so consumed with their moral and rigid upbringing that it warped their minds and warped their usage of reason. Literally, they were brainwashed; much like Pangloss and even Candide. [until he saw the light at the end of the story]

The Puritans' faith caused them to have a skewed perception of reality; anyone who was different or perhaps didn't exactly follow the way of the commonwealth was immediately put under suspision and later, once the trials at Salem had commenced, many were executed.

Reason and faith really co-mingle with one another quite well if one uses them in a responsible way together. Had the Puritans really thought about it and used sound logic and reason, I'm almost positive that there would not have been as many accusations, deaths, even preventing this castasrophe from happening altogether. Instead, by allowing too much faith and not enough reason, reality became confused and splintered and the bond between faith and reason became broken.

So, the moral of the story? I wouldn't go out and find a witch and burn her just because she looked funny or turned me into a newt [but got better?] and I suggest that from reading Candide and thinking about the Salem Witch Trials that you all make sure that your reason drives your faith and your faith drives your reason with equal partnership and not one extreme or the other.


[commented on Amy's blog "The Optimist In Me"]

Why do we try to box God in???

In class Thursday, we discussed God's comprehension of reason versus our own. It was brought up that certain parts of the Christian faith don't seem to be reasonable in our own feeble minds. Well, I've thought about it, and come to the humbling conclusion that God doesn't operate on our terms. To those of us who have given the matter a great deal of thought may be resorting to the oh-so-called-for DUH but stay with me for a second. It's widely accepted among Christians that the Almighty (that name alone chastises us for limiting Him to our realm of reason) doesn't operate on our timetables, our agendas, or have to be restricted to our sin nature so why in the world to we restrict Him to our comprehension of reason? I mean, do we really want the God of the Universe acting under our realm of reason that is so often erred? It just doesn't make sense to me.
This being said, I have run into discussions of this sort in the past week in both my philosophy and Literature classes and I must say what I truly feel (though some might call it ignorant). I'm ok with not knowing. Taking things on faith from the One who created me as well as everything I can see, touch, or feel, doesn't seem ignorant to me. It seems like the only "logical" thing to do. I do agree that God gave us minds to form our own opinions about practices of this world or metaphors He used in the Bible but at some point, our questions only get us so far. I firmly stand in my opinion that if God gives tells you something in His Word outright and leaving no room for error, we as Christians need to just realize that we DON'T know everything and believe the omnipotent Heavenly Father!! Now, if I get to Heaven and He tells me, "Malory, that was figurative, I really created the earth in 6000 years rather than six and that is how all of you got your fossils, ok. I fully believe I could be wrong in my belief but it's my conviction and I stand by it. I'd rather err on the side of caution.
In conclusion, my whole basic point with this is that we shouldn't try to box God's reason and logic into our feeble minds. All it will do is take time away from spreading His Word and doing what He's called us to do. That, and it will give us unnecessary headaches. :)

The Optimist In Me

I’m one of those sickening optimists. You know, those embittering people who wake you up too early singing an annoying song like, “rise and shine, and give God the glory, glory” or “this is the day, this is the day, that the Lord has made ...” Yeah, that’s right - I’m one of them. But unlike Pangloss, being an optimist doesn’t stop me from being honest about the genuine state of things. I am learning to be real before others and before God. I am learning to actively acknowledge the good and the bad and to cast them all before the Lord. And ultimately, I am learning to take joy even in the trying circumstances because “the LORD gives and the LORD takes away” (Job 1:20). Though it takes a good measure of faith to be a true optimist, it also takes reason to reconcile it. So, Pangloss - can this really be “the best of all possible worlds”?

We must begin by examining the possibilities. It doesn’t take long to conclude that our current state of affairs doesn’t show much potential for improvement. We are still the same carnal human beings that we always have been, and our world will remain broken as long as we continue in this depraved cycle. We are broken. Consequentially, so is our world.

The possibilities aren’t looking very promising for the optimist. Oh, but the optimist in me presses forward, insisting that there has to be something better ...

But do we dare to believe that there is something better? The pope in the faith reading thinks not: “One who believes what is impossible to believe is a lie.” But he’s depraved too, so this optimist shall proceed for a solution. I think I found it in Luke 1:37: “For nothing is impossible with God.” Sorry, Sir Pope, but it looks like you’re outnumbered. Could God really be the possibility we’re looking for?

If our world is simply stuck in a continuous depraved cycle, then we must look beyond it to find true reconciliation. We must be reasonable enough to conclude that we need faith to examine the possibilities. It appears that the last time our world was perfect was in Genesis 2. Though the “best of all possible worlds” was long ago, there is redemption. And we, as followers of Christ, are redeemed out of this depraved cycle and sent into a compelling lifelong mission to be a part of His Kingdom come on earth.

His Kingdom - and the life spent in getting there - is truly the best of all possible worlds.

So maybe, it’s not just optimism, but faith and reason working hand-in-hand for a common cause. Yes, I’m convinced - it is possible.

---I commented on Lucas' post, 'Reasonably moving along now."---

'Reason'ably moving along now!

So, I'll be the first to continue the discussion from earlier today...

We started off the class this semester with the topic of 'Reason'; now we've got the ball really rolling, and I have a couple' things I want to address.

1. I believe one of the things said earlier (forgive me for not having a photographic memory to remember who said what, haha): that God gave us a mind for a reason (no pun intended), and that would be to use it; at least to a fair extent, and for the Christian, with intent to do His will. And so, I believe faith and reason have to apply together in life. Now, although we may not be able to 'reason' what and who God is and everything to do about him, Jesus Christ, and so forth, that was all said to be done with intention: we were not designed to know -everything- there is to know in this life, at least not now having been corrupted from the Garden. In any case, we should use our minds to reason what we can; everything and anything, so long as we're not strictly biased and do not aim to create/explain something with the betterment of ones' self only. Probably impossible to do as a whole, but nonetheless, we are capable of reasoning without going out-of-bounds of what we call 'sanity' and 'reasonable'.

2. That being said, I now turn to what we view as reasonable, and how we've come to this point. Honestly, 'reasonable' has no universal definition (except probably "what one views as fair"), and everyone does not agree with everyone on what they view as fair, reasonable. First off, we have the Bible to help guide us and teach us on what is good and bad; the things we don't know outside of our own naturally-formed concious and things we have been conditioned to over time. Outside of that, every person -- Christians and all other forms of religious groups -- has come to mold their own viewpoint of the term 'reasonable'; from experience, from witnessing, from maybe even a dream they've had. Simply put: we, us humans, can not mutually determine what is reasonable and what is not.

3. In turn, I believe God is the only one who knows what's what. I don't want to say He knows what is 'reasonable', as He may (and does with other things) view this situation entirely different. Just like when the question was brought up "Did God create evil," we are unable to answer that. There is no concrete proof of that, or of Him, or of very much if you really think about it. Life may be a dream of some extraterrestrial being for all we know, but I won't get into that 'philosophical' venture. XD Nonetheless, for those who believe in Him, we know that he understands what is good and what is bad. The two are black-and-white, but the majority of us have come to view things in a 'greyscale' manner. I'll probably never do this again, but I'll quote an excerpt from an angry 'poem' (document, preferably) I wrote just a couple' months ago:

"... And please, what grey area? Didn't Mrs. Crabitha teach you about molecules and atoms? Look afar and blend your vision, but fear stepping too close, or find the visions you see are only two extremes..."

In my opinion, there is no 'grey' area; everything consists of good and bad, and only when we view things as a jumbled up mess of stuff are we tempted to view things partial to the idea of 'somewhat' good/bad.

And I'll end this blog with a typical question:

What do you think of the term 'reasonable'? Now I'm obviously not asking for a list of things you think are okay and aren't, but do you feel there is any solid answer to this question? And for whatever answer you may give (if any), do you feel as if we can determine whether it is 'reasonable' to question ones' thoughts and beliefs or not? I believe we should, so long as we're not attacking or seeking to destroy their structure. Whether you feel that is reasonable or not is up to you!

Logic vs Passion

Can we really live without passion? Can reason and logic alone sustain our existence?
Think back to the enlightenment. What was the driving inspiration behind the whole era? The search for knowledge. The desire to bring things, to this point uncomprehended, into our realm of thought and understanding. This is fantastic and helped us advance in technology and society in general...but theres a problem. Remember who we are? Little insignificant humans..? Compared to a God who's bigger than life itself..? We CANT comprehend everything we want to. God can't fit into our little minds, nor can all of His creation. I dont believe its possible to live purely emersed in logic, as the Horse (crazy named) race appeared to do in Gullivers Travels. We would all go insane, and logic and reason would fly out the window as we confront situations where there is no logical answer, and reason is obsolete.
We were created by a passionate God. Made in His image. Passion is INSIDE you and me. It's not something we can do without. Its as necessary as the air you are breathing right now.
My point is this. Life can only be sustained in a balance between these two gifts God has given us. Living on the extreme on either end results in insanity. But a balance of reason and passion allows us to fully appreciate the God of the universe and every aspect of our lives.

An Easier Time

So a couple of classes ago we were seperated into our groups and argued which was better: the pre or post enlightenment period. While most everyone will agree that the post enlightenment period has been better for everyone, I like to disagree. Yes, I do believe that post enlightenment has been an improvement in many ways, but not as many as most seem to believe. Before we were all hit with the wave of science and reason that has plagued this world we had something better to live for. We had something unquestionable and unfailing in our hearts. We had a more brutal punishment and more predetermined society, but less crime and less broken hearts. Though this may sound like the words of a pessimist, life has many low moments and occurences that everyone will and has faced. There are so many possibilities out there for a person that the chance of failure is also greatly increased. There are so many choices that we all have to make now that if we pick wrong can end up severely hurting us and/or others. There are just so many negative things that we are faced with today that were either non existent before the Enlightenment or significantly lower. Yes, you were more predetermined to stay at your position in society before the Enlightenment, but were you ever faced with the pressure to get out, or the stress and failure that moving up can very easily entail? I can't find myself disagreeing with pre Enlightenment because it seems like such a simpler time. Basic thoughts, basic beliefs, basic living. It just makes the world today all the more scary a place. I would also like to mention that most of the simplicities that were present then and not now are emotional. However, emotions run everyone and play the biggest part in one's happiness. Pre-Enlightenment made that much easier.

The Great Debate

I think that the debate we had in class this past week was fairly healthy. Unfortunately, time ran out and we never determined who was right and who was wrong. If you think about it, though, the whole thing was quite ironic; we didn’t get to choose which side we were on. We were told which type of thought we would be defending, and then we were given about ten minutes to develop a convincing argument either for or against a subject we knew very little about. Now isn’t that interesting? Just stop and think about it – we were forced to think a certain way and when the time was right we had to come up with several “good” reasons to defend that point of view. Even though we didn’t know that much about what we were defending, we were still able to come up with something to say because our leaders (in this case, our professors) said it was in our best interest. We believed them and this forced-on opinion became our own. So it seems that the process of our debate was a lot like the subject of our debate.

I can imagine that many people during the Enlightenment period supported one view or the other simply because someone told them they should. I would have never thought I could be so easily swayed one way or the other, but then it happened to me! I was so surprised to find myself getting emotionally engaged in the argument – over something as trivial as a class time debate! Just think about how the emotions must have soared over something more serious, like ideals and religious practices. Our debate gave me the opportunity to think about what it really might have been like for one side or the other during the time of the Enlightenment. I think it was a great learning experience and I hope we can hold more debates throughout the year!

Swift's Real Meaning

Many have debated over what Swift really meant with his comparison of the yahoos and the horses (I cannot spell that word to save my life). One society lives purely on instinct, more animal than human. While the other society is so devoid of emotions, that they are inhuman. The fact that the society is comprised of animals is not the point. Swift is showing two extremes in the hopes of alerting the human race to their own problems. Our race cannot survive in anarchy, but neither can we be completely human if we let rules dictate our lives. Emotions and individual expression are essential to survival. They are only harmful when taken to the extreme as Swift illustrated for us.

the aftershock collides.

After Gulliver returned home from his visit with the ever so lovely Houyhnhnm race, it was as if all emotion had been completely sucked from his body. I think that Gulliver could have learned some very valuable life lessons from the Houyhnhnms, however, it was taken a bit too far. For example, when he returned home, he was sickened by the emotional human race and could not bare to even be in his wife's presence. Gulliver could have learned form the Houynhnms to appreciate the emotions that his race actually does have. He could have also learned to think more with his head, instead of making emotion-ridden decisions, which all of us do too often. Like I replied in a previous post, I think that if the Houynhnm and the Yahoo race were to collide, the society created would be one where EVERYONE could live in harmony..and who doesn't like harmony? :)

Speed Bumps

You know those big yellow things in the parking lot that are supposed to prevent us from speeding? Well, they also come in word form! The Houyhnhnms, Thunder-ten-Tronckh, and Don Fernando d'Ibaraa, y Figueora, y Mascarenes, y Lampourdos, y Souza. All of these names were found in the assigned readings. The author may have had a specific purpose when picking these names, and indeed, their desire for naming their characters as such may have even been recognized by the readers. However, all of these names also serve another purpose. They act as a sort of ‘speed bump’ within the reading, slowing down the speed at which the work is comprehended.


Some of you may be saying, wait, those names didn’t have any affect on my comprehension of that work! But think about it for a moment. When coming across names, most people pronounce them in their minds to help catalogue them for future reference. However, when you come across a name that you cannot automatically pronounce, you must stop and either work out the pronunciation, make up one of your own, or skip over it altogether and hope you never have to attempt to say it aloud in class. This exercise has taken your attention away from the main focus of your reading, to understand the story.


If you worked out the pronunciation, you allowed your mind time to jump to other things, to stray away from the work you are reading, if you quickly made one up, then you may become confused when the work is discussed aloud, as the ’correct’ pronunciation and the one that you came up with may be totally different. And, if you skipped it altogether, which is very hard to do, then you have are very likely to draw a blank when asked about that particular character or place, as you merely skimmed the word, unable to understand it.


This brings me to my question: Why do authors use names that are somewhat impossible for the readers to pronounce? I understand that some of the works are older, and the names were more common at that time. But the names, such as the Houyhnhnms, that were merely a product of the authors imagination could have just as easily been written as something more pronounceable. I am not suggesting that all the characters need to be named Bill or Joe, merely that it would be more beneficial to the reader for them to be named something a bit more readily comprehensible than Don Fernando d'Ibaraa, y Figueora, y Mascarenes, y Lampourdos, y Souza (and isn’t that a mouthful).

The Balance

I think that in Gulliver's Travels, Swift was tring to show us that, as human beings, we need to have a keen sense of balance in our lives. As Gulliver traveld into the land of the Houyhnhnms, he saw and witnessed many strange things. First of all he thought that the Houyhnhnms were simplly dumb beasts used for labor, as was custom in the real world. When, in fact the Houyhnhnms we're the ones who thought that he was just some dumb brute. He soon discovered that these creatures were very intellegent, orderly, and followed a strict system of living. They even had developed their own language and civilization. But the Houyhnhnms weren't very intimate with one another, even among the families and the married couples. They didn't touch each other often, or even snuggled with each other.
The Yahoos, on the other hand were in fact human beings who gave way to their brutal, wild, and more animalistic side. They were kept as the Houyhnhnm's working slaves. These creatures were untame, and they had long fingernails. They lived according to the emotional side of themselves, kind of like their own instinct. When they just felt like doing somethng they didn't consider the consequences, or whether it was right or wrong, they just compulsively did it. They were disgusting, unpleasant, and very wild.
So as Gulliver traveled, the Chief Houyhnhnm took him into his own house and kind of treated him as a special pet. Gulliver eventually learned thier language, and learned to understand his new Master. He started to see life through the Houyhnhnm's eyes. He learned thier customs and ways. He even saw how their society worked. By the time that he got back home, he was more like a Houyhnhnm, and less like a human. He didn't even like his wife touching him anymore. Despite that fact that touching one another is a sign of friendship or intimacy among humans, Gulliver was more like a Houyhnhnm.
So I think that through his book, Swift is trying to teach us that we, as humans, need to maintain Balance throughout our own lives. We can't be too emotional like the Yahoos, and just go with our feelings. And we can't be overly systematic and orderly like the Houyhnhnms. We must find a balance in between and betwixt the two. We as humans naturally have emotions, but that doesn't mean that we should let those emotions dictate the way that we act. And some of us have a natural sense of order, but that shouldn't dictate our actions either. We need to be able to feel our emotions and passions, and we need to keep them in control and in their palce. And we should also be orderly to some extent, because we were created by an orderly God. But most important of all, we need to have love and compassion toward others as Jesus did.

the perfect society???

As we discussed in class Gulliver's Travels is Swift's satirical take on human nature. Upon first reading it one may wonder if Swift is simply insane but soon enough the reader learns it is simply satirical. In his tale Swift tells of a bizarre world with talking horses that seem to be living life perfectly. Or is it?? The Houyhnhnm's lives center around the idea that their existence is only meant to be rational or logical. They do not lie, do not believe in any sort of entertainment, and do not feel they need any luxuries. Their approach to the ideas of creating a family is to just find a spouse without love being any sort of factor in their decisions. Which brings me to my point of while this is portrayed as the perfect life, is it really perfect at all? Swift used this tale to show how overstructured he felt his society had become. While the Houyhnhnms may appear perfect, what's so great about not being able to have fun, luxuries and fall in love?

Black Sheep

Throughout Gulliver's Travels, Gulliver finds a friend in each of his travels that is a good person, despite living in a group of bad people. When Gulliver discovers the country of the Houyhnhnms, he first discovers these hideous, deformed creatures that seem to have no idea of civilization. Soon after, he meets a horse and discovers the civilized part of this land and meets the rest of the horses, or the Houyhnhnms. He then finds out that these deformed creatures that he met earlier are the Yahoos, whom the Houynynhms hate and are disgusted by. But what he does not realize is that these Yahoos are people in their primitive form, and he is disgusted by what he sees. The Houyhnhnms decide to take Gulliver into their homes and they let him live with them, because they believe that Gulliver is a wise and reasonable Yahoo. Gulliver begins to emulate every way the Houynhnhnms run their lives. But eventually the Houynhnhnms make Gulliver leave because they know he is just a Yahoo, and they are afraid that he will mess up their simple and organized way of life. Gulliver is eventually rescued by a Yahoo, on a Portugese ship, and they take him home.

Swift is making the point that even in a group of bad people, there are always some good people. The Yahoo that saved Gulliver and took him back home was one of a very few wise and courteous Yahoos, but this Yahoo did what was right and therefore we know that there are other people like that in this world.

The choice is yours

In class on Tuesday we were told that the people of the Enlightenment period started to question the teachings of the Clergymen. I personally believe this was a good thing that happened to the church. It showed that the people were starting to think for themselves, and were courageous enough to stand up and question what they were being told. Because of the Enlightenment men and women, eventually, got the freedom to choose what they wanted to believe. I’m sure many people did end up leaving the church because of this new freedom, which did upset the church. However, the people who stayed in the church would have so much more respect for God’s word. They would have a better understanding of the teachings and would be there to worship God not because they were being forced but because they had a choice and chose to continue praising Him. Even God, our wonderful creator, gave us the choice between choosing to follow Him, or to deny him. If our creator gives us a choice, what makes man believe that he can have the power to choose for us?

Unashamed...

The Enlightenment thinkers questioned everything. Why...why not...what...how... They were part of a movement that affected the entire world beause they were unafraid to question. I, on the other hand, claim "guilty" when I ask myself if I am ashamed to question what I have always declared at truth. I've been raised in a culture where I've learned to accept what I believe because others that I respect and love knew it to be true before me. I've sometimes - often times - been scared to ask GOD why...why not...what...how...and because of my fear, for years my faith has stayed far from what it could have been - what it should have been. When reading "What Is Englightenment?," my mind was brought back to one of the greatest questioners in history. The thinkers a few hundred years ago were not the first to question the subject of the soul, matters of faith and belief, of law, morality, virtue, eternity...or ultimately, GOD Himself. No, there was one thinker - the father of the wisest man in the world - who was one of the greatest questioners in history. Some of his questions seemed as if they would offend GOD. "How long, O Lord?", "Why have You rejected me?", "What gain is there in my destruction?", "Why do You hold back Your hand?" His name was David. He asked GOD questions that most would never dare to ask; they would be afraid. The King of Israel, however, believed too much not to question the GOD he worshiped. He loved Him too much not to ask for answers. He was not rebellious or arrogant or foolish to ask the things He did...he was unashamed. And for His boldness, GOD proclaimed David to be "a man after His own heart." David trusted the GOD in whom he placed his faith enough to question, to ask, to seek, to knock...and GOD revealed Himself to David in ways few have experienced. I am tired of believing "just because." I am tired of living on the outskirts of the Light when I have the opportunity to step into its center. GOD has told me to ask (Luke 11:9-10). It's the way to enter His heart.

The Monster Called Greed

"... in the fields where the shining stones abound, the fiercest and most frequent battles are fought."

Wherever there is great wealth there is the potential for great turmoil. The root of that turmoil is greed.

Webster's dictionary defines greed as, "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something than is needed."

Our culture has adopted the idea that a little is never enough. Everything must be new; it must be the latest and greatest. We purchase a particular item or piece of technology thinking that it will somehow complete our lives, and it may seem to. It may seem to make our lives complete, until a new edition or version comes out. Then, all of the sudden, we become dissatisfied. A second generation iPod Nano is no longer good enough, we need a third generation. Before long that no longer satisfies either and we need an iTouch. We then find ourselves stuck in a rut, a habitual cycle of dissatisfaction and discontent. Erich Fromm, a psychologist, said that "greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction."

When we think of greed we most often think of a lust for gold, silver, or money. The Yahoos fought over jewels, stones, and diamonds. But greed is a problem in many other areas as well, such as material possessions, fame, and attention. Greed attacks all people, it does not discriminate between ages, races, or walks of life. Children fight over who gets the biggest brownie, girls fight over boys (and vice versa), politicians forget the good of their constituents in order to satisfy what is good for their careers and pocketbooks, and kings and princes wage unnecessary wars in pursuit of bigger kingdoms, countries, and spheres of influence.

Greed is a monster. It has claimed careers, families, lives, and even nations. But it is a monster that CAN be tamed and defeated as we make the determination to choose to be thankful for, and content with, what we have, instead of dwelling on the things we don't.

The God of WHAT?!?!

I will go ahead and say, I dont know whether its proper etiquette to use all caps and the famous question mark/exclamation point combination on a blog, but I think it will make my point more clear. So bare with me here.

Last week we had a debate/comparison of the Medieval age, vs. the Age of Enlightenment, and I was on the "enlightened" side. At some point in class someone on the medieval side brought up how the God of the medieval ages was loving, kind, beautiful, etc. Though those may not have been her exact words, you get the point. And as I listened a few things went off in my head.

"If I were a medieval servant, slave, mason, or held any position outside of the church, would this have been my view?"

I say no.

Would you think you served a loving God if he made you crawl up a flight of stairs a few hundred feet, praying at each step, then putting money in a priests offering box, who gives you a promise to save your old Aunt Gertrude from a Hell that seemed so much like the Heaven he referenced as well? No.
Now first off yes, that is a loaded statement, but I feel it is true nonetheless. Even though most of us know for ourselves that the "real" God is not like that, for a servant who crawled up those stairs on her hands and knees, who had been spoon fed the bible from a corrupt priest who most likely violated her, and having been told lie after lie about God all her life, I seriously doubt she thought the God who let the bubonic plague kill her aunt to begin with and made her climb those stairs to save her was a "loving" and "kind" and "beautiful" God.


So I end with this point; that even though some of the enlightenment thinkers wanted God out of the picture, I believe that the God taught in the Medieval ages was as bad or evil enough for people to want that to happen.

Could you blame them?

Sufficient Reason

Many of the Enlightenment philosophers focused a lot on cause and effect. In Candide, Voltaire plays off of these thoughts and he often mentions reasons or causes for happenings. Pangloss states that "noses were made to support spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs as anyone can plainly see were made to be breeched, and so we have breeches." God obviously did not create noses to fit spectacles. The obviousness of this statement reflects how Voltaire felt about the Enlightenment philosophers. He felt the flaws he saw in their thinking were obvious as well. Voltaire is constantly bringing up reason, or cause in obvious cases. Cunegonde is walkin around one day and sees Pangloss "giving a lesson in experimental natural philosophy to her mother's chamber-maid" It is said that "she clearly perceived the force of the Doctor's reasons, the effects, and the causes." She feels she is a "sufficient reason" for her and Candide to hook up. Obviously because she is a girl and he is a boy. Voltaire uses the term "sufficient reason" again when speaking of the war Candide was fighting in. He says the bayonett was "sufficient reason" for the death of so many people. Voltaire's constant use of reason in very obvious cases reflects his thoughts on many of the Enlightenment thinkers.

Better Education Before the Enlightenment?

When public education was first started, students learned scriptures, the curriculum was based on Biblical beliefs, and churches ran most universities. Harvard University even originally started out as a training facility for future pastors and ministers. 

In today's society however, the only schools that are even allowed to mention scripture publicly are the private schools. Public schools are too vulnerable for being sued and suffering other reciprocations for even mentioning God in class. The government in California is even going as far as to say how parents can educate their children. Lawmakers in California have discussed making homeschooling illegal and have discussed the option of shutting down private schools as well. If this were to happen, no parents would have any say as to how their children would be educated. Their children would be forced to go to a public school where the theory of evolution and other such topics are discussed and taught.

After the enlightenment, people began having new ideas. They felt they should have the ability to educate themselves. Many also felt they could learn everything they needed to through their senses. Society got away from the idea of having the church educate them, to the idea of educating themselves or by learning through nature and other resources. 

This brings me to my question: knowing how drastically education has changed as a result from the enlightenment (going from being Biblically based to being 100% against Christianity), was the enlightenment really a good thing? Even though we are now able to make many necessary decisions for ourselves, was it worth taking God out of our schools?

Think For Yourself

After reading the handout "What is Enlightenment," I just sat and pondered. Immanuel Kant's words were like a wake up call to me. For as long as I can remember, I was always told what to do and how to do it. Rarely did I question my authority, but when I did, the response was always, "Because I said so." I know that I am not immature because I do have the ability "to employ [my] own intelligence without being directed by someone else;" however, I had developed that lazy attitude. I rarely took the time to think about different opinions and agree or disagree when necessary. I had the it-doesn't-matter attitude. But in reality, it does matter. If people always agreed, there would be no arguments and no fights and life would be dull. Even though arguments can sometimes be disasterous, I enjoy the fact that people can disagree without fighting. If people had the courage to speak up and tell someone if they disagree, I think life would be a lot more interesting. We could see different points of view and have intriguing conversations with our peers.

So Sapere Aude! - Have the courage to think for yourself!... and don't be afraid to share your opinions:)

Gulliver's Travels

As I was pondering what I was going to write about in this weeks blog, I began to wonder about a few things pertaining to Gulliver himself. A couple of them being, does Gulliver change as the story progresses? Does he learn anything from his adventures?

 Gulliver could be considered a little more tranquil and calm by the end of the story than he was at the beginning. By desiring to stay first with the Houyhnhnms, and then finding an island in which he can live in exile. Through that Gulliver showed that a simple life, without, among other things, the weaknesses of human society might be the best way. But with that being said, one might say that his tranquility was shallow and superficial. Because deep down lies a hatred for humanity that is aroused whenever Don Pedro De Mendez captured him. 

Through all this Gulliver goes through several transformations. From the naive Englishman to the world traveler; then to an  apathetic island hopper; and lastly to a delusional man who dislikes mankind all together. 

Foils: Pangloss and Martin

In Voltaire’s Candide two characters acts as foils to one another. First introduced is Pangloss, the titular Candide’s teacher. Pangloss believes that this world is the best there can possibly be and that everything will works out for the better. Later introduced after Pangloss is presumed dead is Martin, another philosopher who believes that the world has been abandoned by God and left into the cruel hands of men.

Like the title character both philosophers face set back after set back; horrible things happen to them both in their back stories and the story proper. By the end of the story Pangloss still maintains that the world in inherently good; however, he no longer seems to truly believes it. Martin on the other head remains as he was at the beginning: sure of his belief that the world is a terrible place, and he tolerates his current state because he is positive that he would be miserable no matter what conditions he lived under.

Like the balance of reason and emotion that we talked about in class last week, the balance between optimism and pessimism is important. If you are constantly cynical about life, then you will never find a reason to be happy and you will be unable to better the world. Likewise if you insist that the entire world is pure and just, then you will find yourself greatly disappointed and struggling. Understanding that things won’t work out for the better just because the world is supposed to be good and that you have to consciously try to improve your life and the lives of others if you want the world to be what Pangloss believed it to be.

On Satire

Satire is perhaps the greatest form of literature ever to be conceived by man. In fact, the idea that any other form of writing could ever be used to bring about change is totally preposterous. I will here list three reasons why satire should be used by all writers from this point forward.

1. While some would say that satire crosses the line of good taste at times, that appears to me not a legitimate concern. Why would you worry about offending those who are offending humanity and society? I say, offend others as they have offended you.

2. Satire is entertaining. Never is satire disturbing or over the top. It always provides a delightful reading experience sure to please both young and old.

3. In satire, exaggeration is accepted and praised. Never is it viewed as untruthful and biased. Anways, if a person feels wronged, they have a right to present the story as they see it. Why worry with the facts?

So, my fellow classmates, from this moment forth; I exhort you to use satire to it's full extent. Follow the example of Swift and Voltaire and satirize the world!

(And just in case you were wondering, yes, this is in fact a satire on satire!)

Fleating Religion

I love looking at things in ways in which I have never seen them. Never before have I noticed, particularly, the Theological differences between the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence. Now I clearly see the encroaching of enlightenment humanistic ideals. Even through this, however, the United States remained in acknowledgment of the Sovereign God of the Christians. The enlightenment did indeed have effects on American Christianity, specifically a shift from traditional Christianity to contemporary Christianity, and a very individualistic view about our relationship with God, but nevertheless, Christianity remained.
Today, however, we see a similar shift from God, but in a much more drastic manner. The focus is already on ourselves, and has been for quite some time, but now the shift is going from religion altogether, or possibly moreso from deocentrical religion to new age mysticism. But is this necessarily a bad thing?
The American church is unquestionably strongly divided. Division is wrong amongst Christians, but we have been dealt it already by our ancestors. American Theology is loose, always changing to fit our whims; we skip from church to church looking for the best concert and entertainment we can find; we throw our hands in the air for 'worship' and sit back and criticize the preaching. If anyone is as grieved by the state of our church as I am, persecution is no foreboding word. Persecution is a privilege given to us by Christ. Follow Christ, and you are free to suffer, free to face persecution. Persecution cannot hurt us; only strengthen us. What is the most it can do? Further God's kingdom? Let us embrace our secular society with joy that God's church in the United States may once again draw close to Him!

Overboard with Optimism?

"For," said he (Pangloss), "all that is is for the best. . . . It is impossible that things should be other than they are; for everything is right." -Candide by Voltaire

Clear Optimism

Being a firm believer in the perfect work and plan of our Lord Jesus Christ, I see Pangloss' quote as almost a challenge to place our hope and faith in God's sovereignty regardless of our surroundings. In the context of the story, Candide had pleaded with Pangloss for a "little wine and oil" twice. Pangloss then monologed about the "Probability" of the circumstances they found themselves in. Candide fainted and reality struck Pangloss.(Finally). The following day, Pangloss and Candide joined up with others who suvived the "disastrous circumstances" and shared a "mournful" meal. Assuringly Panglosss gave them the quote above. I don't know about you but if I had just gone through what these fellows had I would want to make Pangloss my meal or at least fire wood at this point just to shut him up! Why Didn't We Toss Him Overboard?
Does Pangloss have a point or is he stirring the pot and aggravating to those around him?

Top Ten Reasons Why Voltaire Is My "Homme"

"Homme" - french word for man.

Bonsoir, mes petits amis and travel with me to the illustrous world of "Candide" and the amazing Author, Francois-Marie Arouet... aka Voltaire.

Okay so how many of you guys at this point on Sunday evening have even read "Candide" yet? Raise your hands.. come on!!

Anyways, I digress.

"Candide" is Voltaire's most famous satire, a biting response to a movement in the Age of Enlightenment called "optimism"

"Optimism is founded on the theodicy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz that says all is for the best because God is a benevolent deity. This concept is often put into the form, "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" [Wikipedia]

I agree with the ideology for all that Voltaire most certainly didn't and wrote "Candide" to poke fun at this. Optimism, however, is a key integer to faith and belief that God will come through and save the day no matter what. I think that Voltaire, who saw destruction on a massive scale in the form of a terribly nasty earthquake, lost this "optimism" and felt like if God wanted to do bad things to the world then benevolence was no longer implied and the world isn't getting what is best for them.

Which isn't true at all, of course. We all know that God has a reason for everything and just because bad things happen, it doesn't mean we as Christians should give up on the optimism that gives me peace of mind that God will take care of us. Poor Voltaire, he was so out of the loop, wasn't he?

Think about this when you read "Candide" and see if you can pinpoint Voltaire's attacks on religion and faith... maybe if he had realized that God does what is best for his people then maybe we wouldn't have had "Candide"... even though "Candide" is an amazing work of literature.

Til next time, mon petits honorlings!

A Passion for Reason

From the very beginning, Guilliver is disgusted by the yahoos. He tries to conceal his resemblance to them and is offended when their similarities are pointed out. He sees them as animals of pure passion, no reason. He seeks to liken himself to the houyhnhnms, seeing that they are extremely reasonable creatures. Despite his efforts to conceal and deny his connection to the yahoos, Guilliver is attacked by a female yahoo while bathing in a creek. No longer can he deny their resemblance. He is unnerved by this incident. Is it the attack or the cause of the attack that is so disturbing to Guilliver? The passion displayed by the female yahoo is unlike anything Guilliver has ever known before. There is no reason behind it. He did nothing wrong; it was only natural. He struggles to understand. The problem is that he cannot understand. Both reason and passion are vital to humankind. One cannot properly function without the other. Guilliver spent so much time running away from passion only to discover it was passion that fed his need to reason.

The opposite of enlightenment

Our country has always been one that boasts in our freedom. We ARE children of enlightenment, even though it took place so long ago. Every day when we go to work, school or church, we are experiencing the vision of men long ago who were unafraid to stand for what they believed. Men who decided that they would work for themselves and their families, instead of working for the established government, and letting them decide what was best for everyone. Men who decided to worship the sovereign God, instead of the power hungry church.


Yet in today’s society, we see the exact opposite happening. In the name of “tolerance” we see people supporting those who would destroy the freedom that we have supposedly come to cherish. For example, it will soon be against the law to speak against homosexuality in churches and it IS against the law in some states to refuse to hire a person because he or she is “married” to someone of the same gender, even though that marriage in and of itself, is illegal. Our government is beginning to limit our freedom to try to make certain people happy.

(For an article going into further detail, go to: http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo6/6karnick.php)

I believe that the people of America once again need to leave behind their immaturity, and decide to REALLY think for themselves, instead of thinking for themselves the way that the government wants them to. It’s time for us to not be afraid to stand up and protest when our company is being forced to hire someone who we do not wish to hire. It is time for us to NOT be afraid to refuse to read an assigned book when it has graphic descriptions of things that blatantly go against our beliefs and convictions. It’s time for us to not only begin to think for ourselves, but to stand firm on our beliefs.

Gulliver Chose the Houyhnhnms

Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels; our class’s latest victim to be viciously ripped apart word by word, in order to free the deeper meaning trapped inside its pages and allow it to enrich our minds.
When we left class on Thursday, it was our opinion (for only the author knows the true meaning of his or her work) that Swift was poking fun of the two sides of human nature: Reason and Passion. We determined that the Houyhnhnms represented reason and the Yahoos represented passion. After making this distinction, we concluded that neither society is one we would chose to live in, for, like one of my classmates very insightfully stated, “It takes two legs to stand on.”
However, I have a problem with this. Yes, we as a class determined that we would not want to take part in neither the Houyhnhnms’ nor the Yahoos’ lifestyle and I fully agree with this. However, what of Gulliver? Dose he not get a say in this, his own story?
When we come to the end of Gulliver’s voyages, he is back in England with his wife and child, and he is completely miserable. Gulliver rejects society, his own society, and chooses to keep himself in the company of horses. Thus, a question, and the question that has been nagging at me, is why? Why dose he choose this for himself? Or, a better question, why has Swift chosen this ending for his character?
Well, my thoughts are these. People are not intuitively reasonable, we instead are naturally passionate creatures. Reason is a learn behavior, taught to us not only from our parents and teachers, but also from our own experiences. It is reason that controls our passions, making our society a more peaceful place to live. After all, how peaceful would our lives be if we continuously seek out our passions; get into fight because we feel rage, steal because we feel jealously, etc. If we did not learn reason, our world would be a very chaotic place to live.
That is why I believe the reason (no pun intended) that Gulliver so much desires the Houyhnhnm’s lifestyle is because peacefully living is the result of reasonable actions. It is this message that I believe Swift was trying to also put across. Think of where he is at, Swift is living in Ireland during a famine and the Irish, knowing there is not enough food to go around, keep making lots of babies. Do you believe this is the cause of reasonable thought (perhaps they took “A Modest Proposal” a little too seriously) or the result of passion?
We use reason to control our passion in order to live a peaceful life. Even if the reasonable thing to do is live without so much reason in our lives! While I believe reason brings harmony, passion brings joy. With the absents of passion, that is a life not worth living.
I am sorry about the length! Please give me feedback! If you like it that's great! If you didn't that's even better!

Incomplete Existence

Last class we discussed Gulliver's Travels and the balance of emotions vs. reason in the Yahoos and Houyhnhnms. I wondered at first why Swift didn't just use two different sets of people to make it more relatable to us. Why did he choose to use horses? Upon some further thought, I realized that Swift understood human nature. He knew that no human can live on reason alone. Emotions are what govern our lives and thoughts. They even sometimes affect our reasoning. It reminded me of Flowers for Algernon when Charlie begins to learn so many things all at once. His intellect raises a great deal and though he tries so very hard to forget his former life that was based almost solely on emotions, he can't.
I believe Swift understood that the only way to make it relatable to us was to use an animal whose actions are based on instinct rather than emotion as it would simply be impossible for a human to relate to one of their own kind with no emotion. This raises a question in my mind of which I would choose if I had the ability. If, somehow, we were able to choose between emotion and reason, would I choose the chaotic life based on the whim of my emotions, or the nice, clean life of one who lives in the realm of reason?
I think I would have to choose emotion. I realize it would be much more chaotic, messy, and probably violent as Swift pointed out with wars and murders and such, but I think the reason that it is human nature is that love is the driving force behind our lives. Humans were created to love and be loved, to worship the Creator out of love for Him. We were created to love our families, our friends, and to serve them out of that love. I can't imagine a society in which that doesn't hold true, even if it becomes perverted in our society all too often.
Which brings me to close. If you could choose, which one would you pick?