How Christianity Changed the World

Call me biased, but it appears to me that virtually no aspect of history has been left untouched by Christianity. In The Protestant Ethic, Weber explored the phenomenon of Protestant prosperity in society. Though he highlights many factors which may influence this prosperity, (including asceticism), I am intrigued by the truly monumental impact it had on society.

Christian ideals influenced politics through many of the founding fathers of our nation. Christian ideals have influenced economics through Adam Smith and Biblical stewardship. Christian ideals have influenced the formation and development of nations due to missionary exploration and impact (David Livingstone, anyone?). Christian ideals have influenced health and medical care through compassion-driven research (think Clara Barton). Christian ideals have influenced art, music, education, law, families, and even ... religion. (Starting with the Jews, then the Gentiles, and fast forward to Martin Luther). I could go on and on ... but I think you get the point:

Whatever transforms the heart and soul of the individual will surely transform a society.

Perhaps the Jews didn’t know what they were getting into when they said about the apostles, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also!” (Acts 17:6).

Kudos Karl

Before our discussion on Marx I never really knew much about him, but everything I did hear about him had a negative connotation. However, after discovering more about him and what he wanted, I truly admire Karl Marx. Now, granted I do not really believe in or agree with pretty much any of his ideas, but he wanted a better life for everyone. He truly believed in the little guy and was fighting to help him. The life that he and most everyone lived in that period of time was hard. It was much harder than any life I’m sure anyone in class has ever experienced. But, instead of just shutting his mouth and scraping by like all the others, Marx tried to do something. He started to take action, and take action for those who truly needed it. That is an extremely admirable quality, at least to me. And the fact that he did all of that in a time when it was much harder to do than it is today, at least in America, is even more admirable. I believe that Karl Marx had good intentions and I think that everything he did was quite impressive. Marx really wanted people to get paid for what they did and even enjoy their work, at least to an extent. He wanted fairness, and even though he had different opinions than mine of how to achieve that, he did try, and I find myself really liking the heart of Karl Marx. He was a better person that I’ve ever thought.


I commented on Ashley's blog labor=value?

Marx and Franklin

I have always had a skeptical view on Marx, mainly based on my lack of knowledge about him. We are all raised knowing he's the father of communism, and thus, is not a great guy. But after reading him in class the last couple days, i've gained a new respect for him. Although his ideas are ludicrous for today's time, they actually made alot of sense in the age he was living. I respect his effort to try and reform the labor system and create a more work-friendly atmosphere across the board.

Then i read Weber, the section where he quotes Benjamin Franklin. Franklin is a nut, plain and simple. While i do agree with his theory on opportunity cost, that by working 5 hours out of 10, you are really losing 5 hours worth of pay, i cant follow it all the way through like he does. Franklin seems to believe that making money is an end in itself, rather than a means to be able to purchase something. I dont think retirement would be an idea he would support, based on the short passage we read. If one's only goal in life is to make money, and keep making money, what are you really living for? you'll never complete your task.

labor=value?

In class this past week one idea of Marx really got my attention. His theory on the amount of labor giving something its worth is completely ridiculous. I simply cannot understand how this is logical. If I were to grow apples and spent several days growing them and taking care of them would that really make them more valuable then a diamond ring that was made only in one day. I think Marx may have had some okay ideas but his ideas on this labor theory were quite ridiculous

Illegal Industrial Reserve Army?

Marx found that through out history there was always an industrial reserve army that helped to keep wages low. This army came in the form of slaves and serfs. Without this group people would have continued to demand higher and higher wages in Marx's view. In class, we decided that today's industrial reserve army is illegal immigrants.

So in the view of some, illegal immigrants are actually helpful to us by their effect on wages but I'm sure that those who have to lower the rate they would usually work for so that they can get a job over an illegal would disagree. It's obviously wrong for an employer to a give a job to some one in the country illegally just to cut costs but many do. It is pitiful that so many citizens are out of work while so many here illegally hold jobs.

My question is "Are the illegal immigrants necessary to our economy by forming this industrial reserve army? Could we have a legal one?" I honestly don't think that many citizens would be willing to work for the wages illegals are for obvious reason. But there are those who while they wouldn't not for dirt-cheap they would work for lower wages than most and do it legally. So I think we could have a legal industrial reserve army. they are just over shadowed by illegal immigrants.

heart surgeries and hair cuts

Marx's Labor Theory of Value has me a bit confused about what I think. He says that the value of labor=the time spent on it; the skill going into the job doesn't matter. I can see how this would be beneficial in some situation, but there is NO way that I could even imagine someone getting paid the same for a haircut as they would for open heart surgery. That just seems crazy. However, I do like the idea for some jobs (maybe). This could keep people who play a game for a living from making more money than someone who has to work so hard just to keep food on the table. So, like I said, I am still not sure how I feel about the Labor Theory of Value...just another thing for me to think about from Honors Lit!

To mark, or not to mark...

During our discussions last week, Dr. Abernathy brought up a subject that I have struggled with as a book lover. She told us in no uncertain terms that we should be marking up the text which we are reading. I find something fundamentally wrong with this idea myself, perhaps stemming from years of being taught books are to read, not to write in.
I also find it very hard to go back and reread a piece, especially a difficult one, if it is covered in pencil markings or highlighter. It seems to be more of a distraction than a helpmeet to me when a passage is highlighted, it makes it harder to concentrate on the rest of the text on the page.
On these political works that we’ve printed out I can see the benefit of the marking, as I will probably never want to read them again. But it just makes something inside me cringe to think of taking a pencil to Crime and Punishment.
Is there no other way? Are we condemned to the fate of having penciling on our pages? Could we not merely make side notes in a notebook of our own, or is there truly something fundamentally helpful that I am missing by not marking on my pages? This is the question I pose to you. Is it truly more helpful to pencil our reading, or can we get the same benefit out of notes made on separate sheets of paper? My opinion on this particular topic is bias, so I leave it for you to decide.

Another Post About Marx

Seriously, everyone is doing a post that includes Marx somehow. It's like we're reading him or something...*cough*... Moving on.

As quite a few people have said Marx's ideas are understandable when you look at society how it was back then. Things were horrible: insane work hours, dangerous and unhealthy conditions, little pay, and no respect. It makes one wonder why there wasn't a revolt like Marx thought there should be? Of course there was miniature revolts in the form of Unions, but why not the society overturning one?

Personally, I blame the internet or, more specifically, lack of. Sure there were many other factors, but think about if we lived in the conditions back then yet still had the internet. People would have a much easier time spreading the word and organizing the revolt. (Ignoring the fact that working so long and being paid so poorly would make having internet unlikely.)

On the final note, please don't take this post too seriously. I'm not entirely lucid right now. Viva Revolution!

What would Marx say?

Okay, so we've been talking alot about Marx and his views on how the working class works. I'm assuming everyone paid attention, but for a refresher...What I'm addressing is the fact that the working class is being taken advantage of by the business owners.

Something Dr. Schuler said stuck out to be, about this totally disregarding intelligence and training and so on, but I was wondering if thats true.

For example, my father works for the Anniston Army Depot as the Database Admin at chemical weapons disposal plant. He spends all day running codes, reports and checking to make sure that the computers are doing what they are supposed to do. He's spent YEARS learning how to do this, and there aren't a whole lot of people who CAN do it....if he starts talking about it around most people, they either start druling or get violent.

Now, his the company that we works for honestly does not pay him what he is worth, or treat him with the respect that I believe he has earned. BUT they DO recognize his use, and pay him more than they pay others. I see this as only partially taking advantage of his skills, because they aren't COMPLETELY ignoring what my father can do, they just aren't COMPLETELY giving him what he is worth, either. What do you think that Marx would think? Speak.

The Value of the Incalculable...

I like Marx. I never thought I would say that, because I used to base my opinions of him on the fact that he was the terrible founder of the "C-word." Shhh...
But I've changed my mind. I can see why he said what he said; his explanations make sense when I consider the times he lived in and the horrors he and all society faced. His criticisms can very well be held as valid...
I have a problem with Marx. I always thought I'd say that, because the man's thoughts began the spread of the "C-word" throughout the world.
I haven't changed my mind. I can see now why I have a problem; it's not with his theories or his philosophy...it's not with Communism (yes, I said it!)...
My problem with Marx lies in his definition of value, not of apples or pears or factory wages, but of the soul.

Men are selfish by nature. That's a fact I do not doubt for even a second. As long as we realize we determine what value is, we will always make sure that we are valued the most. Life is about us, about what makes us happy, comfortable, safe, and secure. The more we learn of how to manipulate, the more we will change our definition of value to bring what we want - what we think we deserve. Marx's plan included the value of work, or time, of apples and pears, of factories, of private businesses...he made the graphs and the statistics and the percentages...but he left out one thing when he wrote about value.

He held no value for the soul.

That is why his government thrived, then crumbled. People are the same as slaves. Babies are aborted. The old are murdered. Christians are persecuted. Children are hungry. Human beings are packed into cities like animals....because man thinks he can determine what the value of a life is. Sure, a man can calculate the amount of work he can do in a lifetime, the number of children he can have, and the money he can make. And he can fall overwhelmingly short at the truth.

True value is determined by the soul.

Man did not create the soul. Man has no power over the soul. Man cannot control the soul. Man cannot prove the soul. Man cannot determine the value of a soul. That belongs to the Creator. He may be a "crutch." I was hungry, thirsty, cold, alone, afraid, and wounded....gladly do I lean on Him for life, for love, for purpose, for value. For hope. If JESUS CHRIST is a crutch, then let me be completely lame and carried by Him for my entire life, and for my eternity.

Marx made no room for the soul, only for equations that will change with our selfishness. The only One who knows our worth and gives us purpose to fulfill it, Marx denied. He limped through life, just at the Communist countries of the world continue to struggle to survive...and he finally collapsed, for on the day he died, his value was no more. If only he had accepted the gift of the crutch of CHRIST...he could run in the vast meadow of the healing of true worth.

"For what good does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but to lose his own soul?"

"..Which Perpetuates the Economic and Social Differences In Our Society..."

Bonsoir my lovelies!! It's so good to be back in the blogging world and to see your shining.. er.. words.

anyways:

The Word of the Day, children, is Marx. Karl Marx. And Karl Marx's labour movement.

I now direct you to this link, of which most of you will find wildly appropriate and tastefully hilarious.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

Seems Dennis the peasant and Marx kind of had the same ideas.. perhaps Dennis was the forerunner of Marxist theory even? An anarcho-syndicast is someone who wants to abolish "wage-slavery" among other pleasant things, which is something that Marx took a huge stance on.

Now, I'm pretty sure the Python men really weren't thinking about Marx in the 70's when they created this but when it comes down to it, the boys nailed it on the head. "Workers of the world, unite" as the Manifesto says, and so Dennis says that supreme executive power is derived by a mandate from the masses. The proles. Working class. Meaning not the King [sorry Arthur] and not the bourgeois of Marx's time.

The peasants pretty much ruled their own through organization and Marx wanted society to slowly assimilate into a wage-slavery free society run by the workers.

Either way, Monty Python has suddenly been turned into an educational lesson on political science. I do so love being an Honors kid!


until laters, children!

material happiness

Learning about Karl Marx is very interesting to me. The two questions that are the basis for Marxism really intrigued me. The first one grabbed my attention the most though. “Do people typically want stuff and more stuff if possible?” The answer to this question is quite obvious. We are always longing for more stuff! It seems that the more stuff we get, the more we tend to want. As Americans we tend to be a very materialistic group of people. American’s base their happiness on what they have. Do we have the nicest house, nicest car, or the nicest clothes? This thought is very saddening to me. Our happiness should not be based simply on what we own. Our happiness should always come from God, not from the things of this world. However, I believe Marx was completely on target with this question. Even as Christians we stumble and fall to the wants of worldly things. We enjoy, if we can, living in spacious houses, driving nice cars, and wearing nice clothes. If we aren’t able to have those things we find ourselves longing for them. As Christians, we have to choose each day to live for God and not for the things of this world. It is not something that once we are saved is automatic for us. This choice isn’t always easy, in fact it’s rarely easy, but it is always the best choice.

Marx...unintentionally right about religion?

Marx and Religion

The two don't go together. I mean, think of Marx's whole basic view of religion. He basically said it was what the oppressed used to comfort themselves. I can't help but wonder though, isn't that what alot of people thing today? And furthermore, is there not a grain of truth to that? I don't mean to the extent that Marx said it, but we are the oppressed...in chains of sin. Until Jesus came and freed us from our bondage anyway. Before we follow Him and live in faith, we are in the chains that we brought on ourselves. We are slaves to evil, slaves to the enemy. We are oppressed. Psalm 46:1 says "God is our refuge and strength, our ever present help in trouble." 2 Corinthians 3:17 states, "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." So, while I don't believe that Marx meant it this way, he was inadvertantly right. Of course he believed his view to be right, but now I'm just rambling.
In conclusion, Marx's views on faith and God were pessimistic to say the least. He didn't think people should need religion and that it was society's fault they had to fall back on it. My heart breaks for him as I can't imagine a life without the fullness and beauty of Jesus Christ. It's no wonder he had such a negative view of life. I applaud his efforts to equal all men and wonder what he would have said were he to see the countries carrying out his "views" today. Most have perverted his philosophy so that I wonder if he would even recognize it.

Social Classes

Last Thursday Dr. Biskner asked if nowadays society cares about social classes as much as Europe's society in the nineteenth century. Well, I think it depends in the development of each country or city. I really think that in third world countries, people that have money or just an important last name have way more opportunities than the rest. I don't think this situation applies to developed countries, or at least, not as much.

In third world countries it is very easy to see the differences between social classes because the distribution of resources is extremely uneven. In these countries there are more people in the extremes, either they are very rich or very poor, and the middle class is smaller. Also, the elite is very close, people that belong to it does not want to accept other people. Just to say an example, in Colombia, if someone that is very poor and works very hard to get money, achieves a high economic position, people in the high class will call him a “new rich”, which is a pejorative adjective. They will say that even if he has money, he doesn’t have culture or education and he will be rejected. Some other people will just start gossiping about how he got that money, at least someone may say: he must have been dealing with drugs. It is sad, but it is just the way it is. This situation will not occur if you are in a big city of the country, but it can be seen a lot in smaller places.

Last name and economic class can influence a lot of decisions, like getting into a school, getting a job, among others. There is this thing that we call “palanca” and it really does not have any meaning in English, but it is used to identify this type of situation. If for example, someone wants to get into the best medical school in Colombia, and the person’s family is very prestigious or some of the person’s relative is an important doctor, then that person is said to have palanca and he better use it in order to get there. It is kind of like “moving your influences.”

Material World

I must say that I really enjoyed the break from blogging and I'm finding that I am not motivated to blog except for that constant reminder that it is for a grade.

Although we like to think we have evolved from a society of different social classes, we haven't. Everyone in the "middle class" secretly looks down on the poor and either looks up to the rich, hates the rich, or feels subordinate to the rich. But who, or what, separates rich from poor? We subconsciously see rich and poor based upon what people have and have not. A person could have a 3-story house, an expensive car, and nice clothes, but that doesn't mean they are rich. They could be so far in debt from buying all those things that they will never be able to pay it back, thus leaving the debt for their family once they pass away. Or a person could drive a really old car, live in an average house, and wear clothes that belong in the fifties, but they could have more money than they know what to do with.

I guess the point I'm trying to get across is that we judge people based on what they have and what they don't have. We live in a material world. And as I say that, the song "Material Girl" pops into my head and probably won't leave for a while.

Anyway, we shouldn't look to the rich because they have so much stuff and shun the poor because they have so little. None of that matters. Yes, we all have a tendency to want more stuff, and it does make us happy; however, our goal needs to be joy instead of happiness. Happiness is dependent upon the situation, but joy is dependent upon your attitude towards the situation. You could have everything and then suddenly have nothing, but you won't be miserable if you choose to have joy in the situation. And as Christians, we should live from strength to strength instead of weakness to weakness. That way our focus is on God and not our troubles. :)

From Marxism to Socialism: A Demonstrable Journey

Big title for a little blog, but whatever.

In what we've read so far regarding Karl Marx, it seems like someone (or someones) later on in life took it upon themselves to exploit the theme set up in what we call 'Marxism' to benefit themselves while seeming like they were aiming for a goal to help the general public. What Marx proposed himself was faulty in the first place, since he disregarded the core of humanity and the true reasoning behind religion. But it certainly didn't have to build up into what we call 'Socialism' of today; someone could have contributed to his work in a better way, rather than a worse one, and perhaps have come up with a form of 'Socialism' that truly integrates society.

I already don't like the wording of this blog I'm writing, as I sound just like others in class and am using similar wording. But I suppose that just means I agree with them overall; Karl Marx -- 'Marxism', as a whole -- was at some point misunderstood, then constructed on top of to form something that destroyed the lives of so many for years and years afterward.

I think if someone had come along and incorporated the missing aspects in his viewpoint, something better (even if not by much) could have been formed than Capitalism or Socialism. Anyone agree?

Marx in Denial

Karl Marx was in a society of capitalism gone bad. He realized that there were major problems with the way things were, so he and Engels set out to figure out why and to fix these problems. While we agree that Marx was indeed insightful and had some great ideas, on the larger scale his conclusions were ultimately wrong. He thought that the class struggle would erupt, causing a workers revolution and the widespread institution of socialism.
Marx was disillusioned with the idea that if man would accept his form of government, all would work happily together for the good of the society. The heart surgeon would gladly receive the same pay as the cashier because ultimately the same amount of time goes into them. I know Marx was a smart guy, but even I have to question this belief. He obviously didn't know people very well and didn't realize that man is selfish and looks out for himself, not for one another. Perhaps Marx should have taken a step down from idealism and looked into the heart of man a bit closer.

Society and the Soul

In most perspectives, Karl Marx is one of the infamous ‘bad guys’ of history. Realistically, however, his ideals seem to be simply good intentions gone bad. Most of us, though raised in a capitalistic society, have pondered the dichotomies of rich and poor, privileged and disadvantaged. Marx attempted to be the healing balm on these often problematic distinctions, but unfortunately, it went very, very wrong.

Though there are many economic and philosophical speculations on where Marx went wrong, one ideal in particular sticks out to me :

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless

world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their

real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand

to give up a condition which needs illusions.”

-Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Apparently, Marx pegged religion as an expression of oppression rather than an expression of the need of redemption from human depravity. Thus, he tried to build a society based solely upon the “here and now” and he denied the soul of the very people upon whom he built a society. But Marx failed to recognize an essential reality:

The nature of a society will never be anything but the nature of its people.

So, even in politics, we must not neglect the soul. For a temporary happiness will never quench the reality that we have to hope in something. As for me, I cannot put my hope in man alone. Brooke Fraser paraphrases a statement by C.S. Lewis well:

“If I find in myself desires that nothing in this world can satisfy, then I can only conclude that I was not made for you.” -C.S. Lewis Song, quoting Mere Christianity.

If we want to redeem our society, we must first redeem ourselves. Clearly, we are unable to do so ... so for now, we wait, we hope, we keep watch. For there is a King who has made my heart new, and He is coming to make all things new.

“Show me your ways, O LORD,
teach me your paths;
guide me in your truth and teach me,
for you are God my Savior,
and my hope is in you all day long.” -Psalm 25:4-5

The Maker and Marx

Marxism and Christianity.... they can be viewed the same. If you want to try to warp your vision and see the ties with me, then please continue reading.
Marxism points to 3 stages of History-1. Slavery 2. Feudalism 3. Capitalism(freedom, free market, private property). I believe these three phases can be paralleled to our spiritual lives. We were born into this world as slaves to our sinful nature. Somewhere along our lives we encountered the redeeming love of Christ and became heirs and vassals under our king. Some could speculate and say that this is simply obligation, and they are, unfortunately, often right. How many of us have gone through the motions of a "christian walk" and felt obligation to live our lives for the lord? My point exactly, even at times I have felt this way. However, the story does not end there. As we become more and more like Christ, our lives are transformed and we see changes in our behaviors, attitudes, and actions. This is when we experience a freedom previously unknown an intangible to us. We also start to use the private property of our hearts with more wisdom. We do this by allowing Christ to step through the doorway of our hearts and giving Him the keys. Are you making the connections? Maybe it's a stretch... I don't think so :)

Self Reliance!

I really like Emerson! Every line I read from this Chapter about Self-Reliance, I just loved it. It is so true everything he says. How many times, when we are making decisions we will think, but what would someone think about this? or how many times we have done something just because everybody else is doing it? So, in these cases we are just feeling afraid, terrified to show what we really are or think. And this conformism is what keeps us away from progress.
It is like the same analogy that is used in a lot of kid's stories. There are two ways from which you can choose: an easy way, or the harder one. Well, the harder one will lead us to much better things, however the easier one leads us to the conformism Emerson is talking about.
I just want to finish my blog my telling what a very good friend of mine told me once:
"Difficult things will lead to good thinks, but things that seem impossible lead to the greatest things. Don't feel scared of impossibilities!"

One With Nature

Today in class we are supposed to sit outside and become one with nature. This to me at first sounded very bizarre. However, once we discussed Emerson's Nature a bit it has given me somethings to think about it. But mostly I am just intrigued by this whole transparent eyeball idea. I have a feeling this will be my primary thought while we are outside thinking today. What is the transparent eyeball? What does it mean to become one with the transparent eyeball? I look forward to our time today to contemplate these and other ideas.

I commented on Allie's blog

Being Alive

In class on Tuesday, we discussed what it means to be alive. I was inspirede to write this poem.

Life. What is life? This endless monotony that we call living. Can one live without ever being truly alive? Is life the act of living? Or is life acting while alive?vOne who goes about their days in an unfeeling haze is physically living, but are they alive? Life is not defined by a pulse or a heartbeat. Rather, life is defined by the lives you touch, the chances you take, and the love you make. Living each day just to live is like waiting to die. Living every day as a lie leaves one dying inside. Only in living each day to the fullest can one truly be ALIVE!

New.

I wandered out into the woods, leaving everything behind...all of my thoughts, all of my dreams, all of my beliefs, all that I knew. I sat there in the midst of nature. And there I met myself. Fallen, sinful, utterly depraved. It didn't matter what I believed about who I was, and it didn't matter from where I'd come. I didn't know where I was going, and I didn't know what to do. In the beauty around me, I saw my filthiness. I knew from gazing at creation that there was a standard of Truth and Goodness infused into my world by the Creator, and it was so high above me and so far from what I was or ever could be. I was undone.

Then He came to me - Truth Himself. In all of His glory and in all of His righteousness, He came to me in the form I knew. He dwelled within a body so that I would no longer be separated from His perfection. I could never reach Him on my own...but He came to me. The Supernatural entered the natural so that I could have hope. I met Truth there that day...and I will never be the same. That day I was indwelled by the Creator of all nature. No longer do I have to wander into the woods to search for Truth. He lives in me.

I am a "New Man."

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." ~2 Corinthians 5:17

Challenge

In today's class we are hoping to go out an be the "invisible eyeballs" Emerson suggested. As we do this, I have a few questions. Where are these eyeballs looking? What are they seeing? My answers to those is: 1. They are looking at the beauty of something sublime. The seemingly transcendent life of creation that was hand-crafted by God before time. How Amazing!!! Yet I find myself at times unappreciative and uninterested. My challenge for today is soak up as much Beauty as Possible and to develop a new appreciation for what we see through our "invisible eyeballs" today.



I commented on Daniel's blog "nature's healing"

Childhood: Fast Forwarded

In the past few classes we've been discussing the sublime but more importantly seeing the sublime through the eyes of a child. Authors such as Wordsworth and Coleridge, reflect back to their favorite memories and places as children. They then use those memories as the source of influence for their works. In discussing these works of poetry, many of the students voiced some of their favorite childhood memories, while I'm sure the rest of the class quietly reflected on their memories as well. While the nostalgic reflection was entertaining and maybe even a little inspiring; I could help but to view childhood as bittersweet. I, myself, had a "normal" childhood filled with the pleasant memories usually experienced by a child. While it wasn't perfect and I experienced some less than pleasant or perfect circumstances, my overall contemplation of my personal childhood is a positive one. As good as that seems, I can't help but to think about children today.
Too often children are being forced to grow up too fast. Whether the reasons are physical, emotional, or even economical, the end result is the same. Children are not given the opportunity to be carefree children. So much stress is put on them to look and act a certain way. With so much expectation comes limitation on the child's ability to grow and develop into the person God intended them to be. The problem of human interference has always proven to be destructive. Adults, parents in particular, believe they are shaping children into the best they can be; however, the truth is they are unintentionally breaking children apart piece by piece. Adults don't realize the children will never have a normal pleasant childhood. The reason being their interference. The childhood process is being put into fast forward so often that the end result is a scratched DVD per say. This constant fast forwarding leaves the child confused and believing that he or she is useless and unable to experience the sublime or even enjoy life in general. Is achieving the image of the "perfect child" worth the damage caused to the child? I think NOT! Childhood is pure, innocent, and beautiful;the ideal way to see the world. How can we expect people to see through the eyes of a child if they have no sense of what childhood is? The answer...we can't. It's impossible.


I commented on Sara Dye's Conformity and Consistency.

Oh, Emerson...

As we discussed Emerson's writings on Thursday, several disagreements ensued. Some supported Emerson; some did not. I have some areas where I agree with the gist of what Emerson says. For example, I understand the need for a personal search to really know what you believe. I also believe that God can be experience through nature. I believe that God's creation is one of the ways He speaks to us apart from Scripture. So, I have found some common ground with Emerson.

However, I have found more areas of disagreement with Emerson. His idea that nature is untainted is incredibly false in my mind. Nature just like every other aspect of human life has been marred by the fall. Original sin (yes, it does affect your reading of Emerson) has brought nature into a sinful state, in need of redemption. I don't mean to say that God cannot use nature, in the same way that He uses sinful humans. I just want to point out that nature is not perfect and therefore, anything we experience there must be tested by God's truth found in the Bible. Also, I have a problem with the whole idea of self-reliance. In my understanding based on a Christian worldview, we are to be reliant on God not self-reliant. To think that we can survive on our own wisdom and morals is a dangerously prideful idea. It elevates us to the place of God and as flawed human beings that is a place we should never assume to take.

In Honors Lit, Nature Contemplates You!

Bon matin, mes petits chums and chum-ettes of Honors Lit! haha I know I'm cutting this week's blog post a little close but I kinda forgot, you know.

Today we're going to becomes the transparent eyeball and sit in the woods to contemplate Emerson's "Nature" and nature itself. So let me say this first and foremost...

I can't sit still for longer than a few minutes. [I know, shocking right?] But that's not the point.

My point is: I was discussing this with my friends at a bible study I go to on Monday nights and we got into the discussion of Emerson and the Trancendentalist movement and one of my very godly friends told me I shouldn't go out into Nature and contemplate her beauty because it was "against my religious beliefs".

How so? I wonder. Is is wrong to go out and meditate on the glory and beauty that God has provided for us on this Earth? If He made it all, should we not praise it's celestial sublime-ness that shows the awesome might and power of our Lord?

I've discovered that a lot of people, when told about this assignment for today, said variations of the same thing, saying that it wasn't right for Christians to contemplate Nature as Nature, like Emerson intended it to be...

I don't know, I think I'll go do it and see what happens :-)

Until later then, my darlings!



oh! commented on Kimberly G's blog

nature's healing

i know its been a bit since we read Keats, but theres been one writing of his that really impacted me, his Ode On Melancholy. It took me a few times reading it before it really sank in and i could understand it. In the first Stanza, Keats is explaining what not to do in times of sorrow or sadness...not to be overwhelmed with his sadness, or commit suicide, and yet not to forget it either.
But in the second stanza he really hits home i think. Rather than dwell on and sulk in our own misfortune, Keats suggests we overwhelm ourselves with natural beauty...with nature..with all the gorgeous life around us that God created.
He couldnt be more correct. It makes such a difference for me when i have a bad day to just go sit outside alone, listen to the birds, watch the leaves in the trees blow in the wind, the grass blades bending back and forth. If you have never tried it i reccomend it.
What an incredible testimony to our God and creator! Just sitting in the presence of His beauty, which we can see in nature, we can be healed and comforted. Think about it. It goes unappeciated too often.

oh that urn.

I agree with the many people who posted about "Ode on a Grecian Urn", saying that it was one of their favorites. When I first read the poem, I thought it was silly...but, as we dissected it, i began to see the beauty described. The beauty described throughout the poem is not just of the beauty of the literal urn, but also of the beauty of the moment that was captured as a story on the urn. As the poem described, the picture on the urn enticed the senses through the perfect picture of spring and the pinnacle of the anticipation of the love between a couple. I think the poem describes that "perfect moment" that everyone waits for. As I said before, I was not able to capture the beauty of the poem, the urn, and the picture the first time I read through this poem...I mean, really...a poem titled "Ode to a Grecian Urn" doesn't spark much interest in my book...I guess it's just another one of those "can't judge a book by it's cover" things...

Original Thoughts... Anyone???

I know we didn’t talk much about “Self Reliance” by Emerson in class, but I really enjoyed reading it this week. The fact that he told us we need to become less dependent on other people’s education, and get an education for ourselves really got to me. We spend too much time reading other famous scholar’s works that we don’t really come up with our own unique ideas. They are all dependent on the scholars that have come and gone before us. This reminded me of lyrics from a Newsboys song “Your Love is Better than Life.”

“I dunno if I ever had an original thought, maybe not, maybe so, maybe later, I dunno.”

After I heard that song I started asking myself whether or not I’ve ever had a completely original thought. The idea is rather humbling. Then I read Emerson and he’s telling us that we need to go out and completely isolate ourselves from other people so that we have the freedom to think for ourselves. Then when we come up with our own ideas we shouldn’t conform to the ideas of the people surrounding us. He even says, “but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.” This is something that’s easily said, not at all easy to do. We, or I, tend to adapt to the ideas of the people that I’m around, which I know isn’t good but it’s so easy to do. We need to become so confident in our own ideas that we aren’t afraid to stand up for them. We need to be that great man or woman that can be surrounded by a crowd of people, but can maintain his or her original thought.

Don't Lie To Me

Everyone is doing their free blog posts this week and I am very tempted to do mine as well, but I think I will do my blog post.

I know everyone is starting to get lazy because we're at the middle of the semester and we feel like we've done so well already that we can afford to slack off a little. Well, i'm trying really hard not to do that. So here goes...

In class last week, we discussed that actions speak louder than words. I never really thought about that, but they do. For example, my ex boyfriend told me he loved me all the time, but he never showed it. He was just going through the motions of being a "good" boyfriend. Well, my current boyfriend tells me he loves me too, but I know he's telling the truth because of the way he looks at me, the little things he does for me, the way he treats me, and the way he never seems to talk to me enough:) The eyes really are the window to the soul because you can see when a person is being honest with you and when they aren't. Even though love is difficult to describe, you can see it in someone's eyes.

Compliments are very similar. Someone can tell you that you are beautiful, but when you look in their eyes you can see what they really feel. If the person giving the compliment is lying, it can be very hurtful. I know for me, I wouldn't be so upset that someone called me beautiful but really thought I was ugly. I would be more upset that the person lied to me. Lying is definitely one of my pet peeves and hurts me more than anything.

This may be different with some people because not everyone is gifted in discerning different aspects of daily life. This is just my take on things:)

Freeee at last!

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee blog post!

A Grecian Urn.

I loved, loved, loved this poem.

Mainly because I know what those moments are that you want to capture forever, and I really wish I could just bottle them up. But I know that that is impossible, and if you could do that, that would be the death of the immortal moment. I think Keats wrote this poem when he was really trying to, I don't think he was on opium and just happened to make something that is so logically written. I do think he might have started that story so he could make some more money, because people are more likely to buy something that they think has a story like that behind it, but I don't think he was really high on opium. My favorite line was the second stanza when he was talking about being able to say something, without saying words at all. If you can tell your girlfriend she is beautiful by just looking at her, that is the most meaningful thing every. I think this poem is beautifully written, definately not opium inspired. Overall, this was my favorite piece we have read so far.






I posted on Kyle's blog.

Talk Is Cheap

One of the things we decided Keats was trying to say in "Ode On A Grecian Urn" is that 1) words alone cannot describe the beauty of the urn, and 2) words don't speak as loud as actions do.

Having watched the movie "Fireproof" a good 3 times in the last 2 days, I can't help but think of this movie when I think about the second point. If you haven't seen this movie, the main point is that the 2 main characters, Caleb and Katherine, are struggling in their marriage and are considering divorce. Deep down Caleb realizes that he still loves Katherine and wants to win her back. In order to do this, he goes through a process from a book called "The Love Dare." Basically, everyday Caleb does something for his wife to show that he loves her. When he finally finishes the dare, he has still yet to win his wife back. She still wants time to think. However, at the end of the movie, he makes a sacrifice and does something for her that she never would have expected him to do. Because of this, she forgives him and, as the story always ends, they lived happily ever after.

The point is, actions really do speak louder than words. Actions prove that you didn't just plagiarize something someone else said. Actions prove that you've taken the time to think about it. Actions prove that words aren't good enough.

free blog :)

Post

Free blog post.

Conformity and Consistency

"I hope in these days we have heard the last of conformity and consistency." -Self Reliance

Jesus commands us, as believers, to refuse to confrom to the standards of this world. We are to be above reproach in all that we do, and in order to do that we must look different than the rest of the world. I think that too often people confuse adaptability and conformity. While we are not to be OF this world, we are IN this world. We must adapt to working and living IN this world, while at the same time refusing to confrom TO the world's standards. This is a hard thing to do and we will spend our entire Christian lives learning to balance life here on earth while our citizenship is in Heaven.

Consistency on the other hand is not a bad thing. Would you hire someone for a job if their behavior was inconsistent from day to day? One day they come to work with determination and focus, the next day they come to work goofing off, the next day they come angry and hard to get along with, etc... It's the same in the Christian life. Our behavior must be consistent. Granted, we will slip up and fall from time to time, but our lives must show a consistency. Is my character on Monday consistent with my character on Sunday at church? Do I consistently avoid conforming to the world's standards, or do I only avoid it when people are watching? We should ask the Lord to search our hearts and help us to live consistently, passionate, godly lives!

We must be consistent nonconformists!



I commented on Sarah Becky's blog.

Our Own Urns

Each one of us has our own Grecian urns. Can you guess what they are? They are our very own lives. When we die, our lives will "be on an Urn." That is, there will be people who remembered us for the things that we did in this life. If we spend our lives in selfishness and extravagence, then people will remember us as that kind of a person. But if we do lots of things for our communities and other people, then lots of people will remember us, and they will tell others about us and the good things that we did in our lives.
What kind of a Legacy do you want to leave? Me, personally, I want to be remembered as a good Godly person who did lots of good things for my community and family. But that's just me. We each have to do things in our lives, what you do with your own lives is entirely up to each person. I really want to make a good impression on this planet before I leave it for heaven. I want to be remembered, I don't want to be forgotten. And that can only happen if I do things for others and God instead of myself,
What will be on your Urn? The acts that you did while you were alive will be on it. Will people want to look at your Urn, or will they turn their heads away from it because there is nothing interesting on it. So we must use our time we have very wisley. Each person determines what will be on their Urn, just remember that.

I commented on Kyle Bedwell's blog.

The Priesthood of Creativity

Imagination is a curious thing. When used properly, it can take us up into a world beyond our mortal state of time and affairs. The external expression of imagination is creativity, of bringing something into being that has not been before. This is precisely what got Mr. Keats all excited about an urn: the creative expression engraved upon it.

Keats carries on a simultaneous celebration and lament over the art on the urn. Though he rejoices in the depicted expression, he ponders that perhaps the “melodies ... unheard are sweeter.” Though the art celebrates a moment, Keats knows that it can never change. It is stagnant with no further potential to obtain. In a way, he is right - but only if your imagination interprets it that way.

Art - used in this sense as any form or expression of creativity - comes alive only through interpretation. Just as the Grecian Urn sat still, its art could’ve gone unnoticed. Thus, the poem itself would have remained so as well. Creativity builds a bridge to sublimity which we must continuously cross if we wish to truly live ...

Keats described it himself:
“O mysterious priest, lead’st thou ...”

Though I have no way of knowing what Keats truly meant by this phrase, I am free to make it come alive through my own creative interpretation. A priest is a guide, a mediator between this realm and the spiritual realm. I submit that so is creativity.

Creativity unveils a deeper side of things which we cannot see without imagination. Though the urn is nothing grand, it was blessed with a dose of creativity. Just as an urn is a reminder of the connection between our physical realm and the realm after death, creativity is a priest that guides us to things beyond us within the things among us.

But the priesthood of faith is even greater. For there is a High Priest who created it all to call our imaginations back to the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were” (Rom. 4:17).

There’s a source that satisfies, a source that my soul incessantly pursues ...

Soli Deo Gloria.