Omeros

I was hard to keep up in Omeros. I thought Philoctete was interesting. He has this never healing wound that he sees as a blessing. He got it from a rusted anchor, but sees it as much more. How odd. He is almost in despair but due to it reminding him of his enslaved ancestors. This wound brings him great suffering and even contemplates cutting it off. Does he still see it as a blessing?

I commented on Ray's.

The Language

"Gunpowder and stores were shipped to St. Eustatius
from these innocent, moonlit harbors, in support
of French aid to the colonies; with slow paces,

the sea-chest, he walked the edge of the port
as the moonlight amazed him, its milk-white brilliance
pouring from dark pewter clouds..."

This is only an excerpt and a small example of what we've all been experiencing in reading this work. The language, while slightly confusing at times, is so poetic yet at the same time continuing the telling of a story.

As I read I feel like the story is happening to me. I don't necessarily feel like I am on the outside looking in and analyzing a narrative, I feel like I am experiencing it with the speaker. The phrasing and changing of voices provides this affect.

P.S. Commented on Ray's.

Omeros

I've actually really enjoyed reading this confusing piece of literature. All of the connections between The Iliad and The Odyssey are fun to connect. The different narrators have made it a little confusing to follow but the further in I got the harder it was to put down. I can't help but think that this is what the Homer classics would have looked like if placed in the 20th century.

Little Gidding

This poem has me really confused.  I did, however, find it interesting when it talked of the death of the elements.  When reading it, I did get lost, but got a sense of the death of life itself perhaps?  My reasoning behind this is that the elements provide us with life, and the death of elements would possibly equate to the end of life itself.

~Commented on Daniel's post

Uh. Yeah.

So I got so thrown off when the random Logos got thrown in. So I immediately starting thinking on the nature of Christ. As members of his, do we connect with that essence of being all and in all? I really connected some things when he discussed it in terms of music. But what I really liked was that this poetry was written as a long conversation. Like. It's people just discussing things. It doesn't necessarily feel like it needs a resolution. Because it's building a relationship between two entities through all the rambling. Answers don't matter. Time doesn't matter. It's a conversation. An ebb and flow of space and fill.

I commented on Francesca's.

Eliot's Quartets

While reading the last two quartets running on three hours of sleep, I am not sure it quite makes sense. In “The Dry Salvages”, I can see more of how nature is abandoned and ignored. One can see this at the very beginning when he speaks of the river and how now “Then only a problem confronting the builder of bridges”. We try to push the natural world away, but it is always with us. He later uses imagery of the sea I think to show struggle/suffering. Where is the end to it all? Our futures have “no destination” apparently.

            In “Little Gidding”, I found the second section to be interesting. He says, “dead water and dead sand/ contending for the upper hand./ The parched eviscerate soil/ Gapes at the vanity of toil/ laughs without mirth/ this is the death of earth”. This reminded me of the Wasteland with all the negative imagery. Eliot is talking about something deeper though, and I think he is referring to the meaning to life. The “vanity of toil” sticks out because everything one tries to do is pointless. 

I commented on Frankie's post. 

Every Poem is an Epitaph

In Part V of the "Little Gidding," Eliot says, "The end is where we start from. And every phrase / And sentence that is right... / Every phrase and every sentence is an end and a beginning, / Every poem is an epitaph." This section made me think about the general ebb and flow of life. Everyone goes through beginnings and endings in life. Every phrase and sentence we make reflects that. Oftentimes, poets will write about those beginnings and endings to help them get through those times or to reflect on those times in their lives. Thus, "every poem is an epitaph." They are reminders of what has been experienced and declarations of what has been learned through those experiences.

I commented on Briana Batdorf's post.

Phoenix

When reading Elliot's passage on being redeemed from fire by fire, I was strangely reminded of Kierkegaard (perhaps due to Tinsley's thesis). Kierkegaard discusses that the only way to truly escape despair is by first recognizing the experience of despair. It is feeling that very despair that one actually recognizes and sloths off despair. Perhaps this is a stretch, but perhaps it's only when we are consumed by the purging fire that we can, in love, burn. Either way, humanity wears a shirt of flame, so shall we be consumed by fire or fire? Shall be burn and be as the chaff of burnt roses on the man's sleeve? Or shall we be ever consumed, a crowned knot of flame and rose?

On Jeremy's

Little Gidding

"These things have served their purpose: let them be.
  So with your own, and pray they be forgiven
  By others, as I pray you to forgive
  Both bad and good. Last season's fruit is eaten
  And the fullfed beast shall kick the empty pail."

As I read little Gidding I definitely got lost sometimes but there were a few parts that really stuck out and made sense to me. This excerpt come from part II. It stuck out to me because I think it speaks to letting go of the past as well as realizing that everything has it's time and place in God's plan. Sometimes when something was very influential or effective, we want to stick with it and sometimes overuse and rely too heavily on it. Other times we just hold on to past situations, both good and bad too long. I think this excerpt does a good job of telling us to let the things of last season stay in last season and embrace the things God has in store for this season.

If you came this way. . .

Part I of Little Gidding particularly spoke to me about the unexpectedness of life. Eliot seems to be saying that no matter what you do or no matter how much you plan things will always go awry. Nothing is ever what you expect it to be. This passage specifically also gave me vague recollections of Yeats' Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, and how Prufrock said, "I have measured out my life with coffee spoons". I am terrible at expressing my thoughts so I can't say just why this passage brings Prufrock to mind but the best I can say is that it rings a bell with loneliness and perhaps the prodigal son when Eliot refers to the Pigsty and then the redundancy of planning one's life out even though you know it's going to get messed up somehow.

"If you came at night like a broken king,
If you came by day not knowing what you came for,
It would be the same, when you leave the rough road
and turn behind the pig-sty to the dull facade
and the tombstone. And what you thought you came for
is only a shell, a husk of meaning,
from which the purpose breaks only when it is fulfilled
if at all. Either you had no purpose
or the purpose is beyond the end you figured
and is altered in fulfilment."
                                 - T. S. Eliot

I commented on Daniel Stephens'   

The End is just a Beginning

"What we call the beginning is often the end
And to make and end is to make a beginning.
The end is where we start from. And every phrase
And sentence that is right (where every word is at home,
Taking its place to support the others,
The word neither diffident nor ostentatious,
An easy commerce of the old and the new,
The common word exact without vulgarity,
The formal word precise but not pedantic,
The complete consort dancing together)
Every phrase and every sentence is an end and a beginning, ' 

 Eliot makes a point that brought goosebumps to me when I read this. There is never a true ending or beginning to our own personal story." The end is where we start from" means that just because we think its over theres nothing that can get better or worse in our life there is anoter beginning starting in that moment. I have always thought there was a definte end and beginnging yet Eliot descibes it as though it is always continously flowing with each word and punctuation. Our different memories collide together like a dance and make up who we are. This gives another perspective of how unique and beautiful each person is and the beginning and ends that formed them.  

I commented on Darby's.

Little Gidding

At the end of the Four Quartets, there is a brief notes section one each of Eliot's poems. Under these notes, it is explained that Little Gidding was a religious community in 1626 when it was founded. In his poem, Eliot writes, "prayer is more than an order of words, the conscious occupation of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying." This stood out starkly for me as I was reading. It explains that prayer is so much more than what we think it is. It is the fire for which we speak with God. Eliot explains this in the next couple lines saying that "the communication of the dead is tongued with fire beyond the language of the living." Like Abbie mentioned in her post the fire of God can either burn someone up or warm him softly- this all depends on how we absorb God's fire. So, all in all prayer is the fire from God, it is our communication with him. We should not waste this preciousness on useless words. Like my pastor said on Sunday, "if God answered my prayers with yes from the past 7 days, would anything in the world be changed?" It makes one think about what she/he has been praying for.

I posted on Nate's!

Death of the Elements

Throughout the Four Quartets, Eliot mentions the four elements frequently. Though in the Little Gidding in part II, Eliot speaks of the death of all of these elements. The death of air, earth, water, and fire. Why do all of these elements die? The story ends with the dust in the air. The parched eviscerate soil without water. The marred foundations, rotted by fire and wind, forgotten. Eliot seems to lose hope. As part II continues, the poet gains the burdens of knowledge given to him by a stranger. Is this burden of knowledge what leads Eliot to believe that the elements are dead. The first three quartets he writes of the life of the elements but as he grows in wisdom does he come to the conclusion that the elements are actually dead? That hope is dead?

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

Pre vs. Post Conversion Eliot

Schuler opined that The Four Quartets is Eliot's greatest post-conversion poem.  In comparing it to the Wasteland (which he wrote before his conversion, and is arguable his best pre-conversion poem), I found commonality in the discussion of cleansing.  In Wasteland, it is death, or purging, by water.  In 4Q, he considers fire along with water as a something that cleanses.  The poem considers many paradoxes, but this one (along with the beginning/end) may be most profound because of its religious implications.  I best understand "water and fire" as something that purges or wears away any lasting impurities from whatever was before unburned/uncleaned, to show it true essence (not to being Heidegger in): "of all that you have done, and been; the shame of motives late revealed..."  The result is realization or self understanding, which is salvation.

AG's

The End to the Beginning

"What we call the beginning is often the end

And to make and end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from."

This stanza caught me as I read because of the time of year it is. How we are all looking forward to the beginning of summer and the end of school. There is so much truth behind something have to end for there to be a beginning. Christ Himself is a great example of this as He had to end His life for us to be able to begin a new one with Him. Following this, we as Christians are to rid of our old selves and put on a new, an end to a new beginning. 

P.S. I commented on Abbie's

Death of Life

I must admit that I quickly became lost and confused within this poem but what stuck out to me was the very beginning, when the poem talks of the death of air, earth, fire, and water. From the paragraphs that describe the deaths of the elements, I think it is discussing the end of life itself. The air is what keeps life going and it is choked by the dust of all that clouds the soul. The earth is the foundations upon which a life is built, and it become malleable and washes away with the tides of time. Fire and water are what that life has accomplished and how they will flicker and fade away along with life. It is a rather bitter truth of the world that a life must come to an end and all that life was will eventually fade into nothingness. I wonder if there is a peace in that.

I commented on Nathaniel's post.

Pain and Love

"Who then devised the torment? Love.
Love is the unfamiliar Name
Behind the hands that wove
The intolerable shirt of flame
Which human power cannot remove.
     We only live, only suspire
     Consumed by either fire or fire."

Love-- it can be painful, yet obviously we view it as a generally good thing. Human power cannot remove this "intolerable shirt of flame" (which I read as a possible reference to judgment), yet Love wove that shirt. This idea of love causing judgment points me to an interesting question: Is it out of love that God allows us to suffer? I don't even know how or if that makes sense at all, but that is the question I think about. The reason I see this is that the last two lines state we only live and breathe consumed by fire or fire... Love can save; love can punish. Anyone with kids will most likely attest to that. Perhaps God's love is what allows both His wrath and His grace to exist in union. The fifth section of "Little Gidding" definitely vies for them going hand in hand-- "Into the crowned knot of fire
                                                                                          And the fire and the rose are one."

That's an interesting thought. I think Eliot does a great job of portraying the idea of human temporality and God's love/wrath's connection throughout this poem. All in all, this is a beautifully worded piece of literature, and I cannot wait until we unpack it tomorrow.


P.S. I commented on Abbie George's post.

Fire or Fire

"Who then devised the torment? Love.
Love is the unfamiliar Name
Behind the hands that wove
The intolerable shirt of flame
Which human power cannot remove
We only live, only suspire
Consumed by either fire or fire."

In reading IV of Little Gidding, I was immediately reminded of a concept introduced to me at the Greek Orthodox Church of Mobile. I recently visited and took a tour of the church for another class and during the course of the tour, our guide explained the significance of candles. She elaborated upon the rich meaning of the candle for a Christian. The fire is the the light of the world, Christ, which melts the cold wax, man's cold heart.

However, as the tour continued she referred back to this idea, the fire of God. She made a distinction in that the fire of God either painfully burns a man or comfortingly warms him. It all depends on how the man chooses to respond to God's fire. I think this is what Elliot is speaking of here, "consumed by either fire or fire."

Just thoughts.

P. S. I commented on Nate's.

Court Case

This court case really opened my eyes to some things.  As Daniel had pointed out earlier, the judges acted like children with their judgment.  However, had Aaron not come to speak to us, I would've just gone about my day, believing that their reasoning and judgment was true.

~Commented on Daniel's post

Higher

Thursdays discussion with Aaron was one that defiantly opened a new perspective to a very touchy subject in our culture. If he had not pointed out the fallacies in this court case I would have taken these judges word and would have seen a reason ( one I do not agree with) as to why they decided for it. This brings up what is the essence of higher learning which is to challenege and push. Even though this ruling is set,  we still can gather and argue and discuss why it was wrong and how idiotic the judges really are. Aaron could have said " oh well, a loss is a loss." yet the foundation of questioning, critical thinking, and being pushed to achieve more lead to his achieved position and the interanlization to find the unseen flaws in this text. We have been given the same oppurtunity and are being taught these same tools that won't just stay in the classroom but to go out into the world. We are Honors, we are the higher learners and thinkers,  we must challenge!

I commented on Daniel Stephens.

Aaron McCloud

One point from the court case that stuck out to me was when one of the judges asserted that this 2015 court know more and knows better than the rest of humans. This panel of judges was given a lot of credit for coming to a decision for which they wouldn't even own up to the real stance which they portrayed. He also said that the constitution has been wrong and led us all astray. For him to assert such things is bold to say that least. I think the constitution, having lasted over 200 years, has surely been a reliable and stable source of government for this country and for this judge to assume that all Americans have been wrong in being in agreement with the constitution is a bit presumptuous. I believe the constitution was and still is the foundation for this country and it frightens me to think of too many changes being made to it. I also disagree with the idea that this panel of judges has more knowledge than everyone else currently or previously alive in the US. Statements such as that are alarming to me because they tell me that these people who are in power, think white highly of themselves and that tends to lead to an abuse of power an/or a lack of regard for the people and their needs/desires.

Aaron's discussion

I was unable to make it to this class due to having the flu (yuck). But from looking over the reading, and reading everyone's blog, I can tell that it was definitely an interesting discussion. It is always refreshing to look at a controversial problem from a different point. The mass majority look at homosexuality as a sin and that's that, but from my understanding Aaron looked at it from the political side. I think that is a wonderful idea. The bible says to "Give Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's". In my understanding, that means to keep the church and state separate and I believe that was Aaron's main goal.

I commented on Briana's

Priori or Posteriori?

   The Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, as we discussed in class last Thursday, is full of flaws in the area of intellectual ethics. Aaron Mcleod discussed many different examples of this idea and covered different rules of intellectual ethics that were broken. The main point he discussed in class was that the Supreme Court did not own up to what they were actually doing. Instead, they put up a facade of beautiful words and tried to cover up their actual decision and how it was reached. This is what he claimed to be so devastatingly wrong with the opinion of the court.
   In my mind, this is very true. If the court is going to make a decision, they should own up to why they made the decision. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the court made the decision based on their beliefs as opposed to what they stated-- that it was supported by other means. The saddest part of this case, though I do not agree with the decision at all, is not the decision. I am not even as saddened by the fact that the court did not own up to their decision's roots. The part that saddens me  is that as members of the highest court in the United States, these justices would make a choice a priori instead of a posteriori. They made their decision, then tried to find reasons to back it up. Is it not the judicial system that is supposed to examine evidence and come up with a conclusion based on the evidence? To reverse that system is to jeopardize every future court case, regardless of its content.
   This is the epitome of a failure in the judicial world-- to put personal opinion in the place of evidence and to justify the reasoning with selective evidence. Not only is this true in the court system, it also applies to ethics in general. The decision must be made after examining the facts, not before lest the decision become tainted with bias.




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

Aaron's Lecture

Aaron brought up many interesting points in his lecture on Thursday. The point I am struggling to reason with the most is how same sex couples that adopt are not able to both legally adopt a child but only one spouse can legally adopt the child. This makes it so that if the spouse that legally owns the child dies then the other parent in the relationship does not have legal rights of the child therefore making the child owned by the state. As much as I don not agree with same sex marriage and it going against my beliefs I know that just because I do not believe in it isn't going to make it to where it doesn't happen. When it does happen I believe both partners should be able to have legal custody of the child. I believe it would be harder on the child to lose one parent to death and the other by force of law then to have lost one parent to death and be able to stay with the other parent. Whether right or wrong I believe this is a tough situation and it has been interesting to hear Aaron explain from a legal and theological view.

P.S. I commented on Wendy Bagwell's Post.

Know Support, or No Support

I really enjoyed Aaron's talk last Thursday. It was a very mature and reasonable approach to a very heated and debated topic. One thing that stuck out to me was when Aaron pointed out that the biggest argument for homosexual marriage is that everyone has the right to liberty. Liberty, however, is the freedom from government, thus making those in favor arguing that they have the right to the freedom of government granted benefits as well. It was eye opening in a way that wasn't related to my opinion on homosexual marriage. It made me realize the importance of knowing what I choose to use as support for my argument, and to know the true meaning of that support, in order for it to accurately reinforce my standpoint. I don't want to manipulate the meaning of sources in order to prove my point, because then I would be placing my argument in a weak, twisted argument that has no true foundation. Know your support, or you'll have no support.

I commented on Sierra's.

Obergrfell vs Hodges court case

An interesting point that Aaron touched on was that the problem boiled down to same-sex couples asking to be allowed equality of benefits and entitlements from the government. At no point have these couples been denied the right to have relations with each other, so it proves that they were seeking financial benefits from the government that they have been excluded from. They have not been fighting for liberty in this particular case, it has been focused on government entitlement and equality in that sense. It is reaching the point, if it has not already, that negative liberty (the freedom to do whatever you please) has become the main focus. People in this case have sought after equality, but at the expense of morality.

I commented on Delaney's!

Aaron's Lecture

I found Aaron's lecture Thursday to be intriguing. He pointed out that Kennedy said, "And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment". Aaron made a valid point when he said that this statement has no basis whatsoever. One cannot make a statement like that and label it a fact. He does not give any credit to any authority. Where is the truth in this? There is none. This is an opinion and since when do those actually matter for anything?

I commented on Delaney's post.

Where does it stop?

One thing that struck a chord with me dealt with the interpretation of the 14^th amendment. If the majority so wanted their decision to be remembered so well, one would think they would have built a solid argument, while addressing dissenting opinions. Instead, they just interpreted the amendment in such a way to get their desired outcome. This is what worries me. If they made an amendment suit their argument for one thing, what stops someone else from using it to legalize other things? What precedent does this set for the future interpretation of any amendment? It reminds me of the saying, “Give people an inch, and they’ll take it a mile."
I commented on Abbey Griffin's post!

Aaron's Lecture

I greatly enjoyed Aaron's lecture and I was glad that he took the stance that he did. I wasn't expecting that at all. As someone whose best friend is bisexual it was a unique and somewhat weightless experience to be in a room where homosexual marriage was being discussed not as a matter of immorality or sin but from a court rooms standpoint. People weren't screaming and yelling at each other and making immature, uneducated comments or arguments. It was a well rounded discussion, with a strong yet carefully unbiased position.
The only problem I had with his argument was when he claimed that homosexuals needed proof that their nature is "immutable". Do we need proof that we are heterosexual? How do we know that we are heterosexual? We were born that way. How do we know we were born that way and we weren't just conditioned that way? These are just a few of the ridiculous questions that we place upon homosexuals and the LGBT community that we would never impose upon ourselves because it's simply ludicrous.

I commented on Caleb's.  

Supreme Ruling Rulers

When Aaron came and spoke to us, and spoke about the fallacies of the Supreme Court's logic, and their presupposition that they know what is best because the majority says they do stuck with me. The majority of the Supreme Court said not only that they know what is best because they say so. While times do change and we must make changes along with the times, for the majority of the Supreme Court to say that they know better simply because they say they know better is astounding to me.  It sounds to me like they are children arguing with other children, as children don't nessecarily understand the need for evidence to back up their claims. They simply say they are right because they think they are. Yet, here are grown adults who have a huge amount of power in this nation, claiming that they know what is right and, like children, they are right because they say they are. Only in this case, there's no one who can dispute them.

I commented on Abbie's post.

Aaron Homosexuality

I enjoyed the fact that Aaron didn't come to discuss the nature of homosexuality, but to discuss the nature of the sociopolitical situation surrounding it. From my own personal experiences, homosexuality is, much like a lot of things, a completely individual issue. It manifests differently in each person. And each of these people hold different convictions regarding it because it's so different for everyone. There are some who have a saving faith in Christ who struggle their whole lives fighting it as a sin issue. (The crowd I agree with.) Some lose hope in Christ's power to overcome it and they succumb to it. Others make a choice to follow the lifestyle out of spite, etc. but regardless. To follow the lifestyle, one does actually make a choice. The struggle itself. No. That's not a choice. But temptation in general is not a choice. We have to deal with temptation as long as we're human. But again. To make or not make that choice is completely limited by your spiritual ethics. So. After rambling like this. Yeah. I was glad that Aaron's discussion didn't do like everybody else's and get itself stuck in the human condition. It stuck with objective facts. Whatever your choice. Whatever your decision. Either be bold and put it out there. Or support it well. Don't mask it over with something convoluted. 

I commented on Abbie George's post. 

Intellectual Ethics Talk

I found the talk Thursday to be very intriguing. While I understand that what was being argued was good moral ethics rather than whether or not gay marriage is ethically correct, I found the assumption of Justice Kennedy to be worth blogging on.

The assumption, found on page 15, was that those gay couples being examined contained an "immutable nature" which "dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment." As I am not eligible to speak to the science behind same-sex attraction, I thought Aaron McLeod presented a great point on the authority of nature/

He said that if nature is what Justice Kennedy and others consider to be the authority regarding same-sex couples, then they obviously do not account for the fact that this same nature does not allow for homosexuals to procreate.

I think it is an interesting point and worth considering in this very controversial topic.

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

The ledge of obscurity

One thing I found particularly interesting about Aaron's talk Thursday was the discussion of academic integrity. I immediately started thinking about research papers. I find that often when writing them (such as the one looming on the horizon), it is very tempting to force academic sources to say what I want them to. It is so easy to pick that one misconstrued aside or that vague reference to support the main bulk of the argument. But it is called a research paper for a reason. It seems that one ought not just pick a topic and then find evidence to support it (the ends/means research Aaron referenced), but instead come to a conclusion based off of the research that has been done. Sounds pretty obvious, right? But somehow, I always seem to find myself tipping of the ledge of obscure references so support what I think works. Just something to ponder here as I'm looking for sources for the final paper...

Commented on Abbie George's

Hart

I was fascinated by Hart's description of how we view nature. Hart said, "Nature for us is a single, internally consistent thing, an event, lovely and enticing. then terrible and pitiless, abundant and destructive at once, but moved neither by will nor by intelligence; it is sheer fact. I feel as though we have a love hate relationship with nature. We admire it's beauty, but then when something destructive happens it turns our whole view around. We cannot outsmart nature, or outwill it, so we in turn feel helpless against it and rely on God to deliver us from its destruction.

I commented on Sierra's post.

Wiesel

To me, it seemed like Wiesel was using Auschwitz to question the existence of God.  However, we know that as false, because we know that God is omnipotent, and omnipresent.

~Commented on Travis' post

Elie Wiesel

Godly sorrow leads to repentance.  I think of Elie Wiesel as a modern day Job.  Certainly he does not line up to every criterion.  But here he is return to his own court scene with Yahweh.  And I do not see God putting any blame on Wiesel.  I see him being brought into a fuller conversation with the Lord.  He knows two things: God is real, and Auschwitz happened.  That's it. It isn't about an answer anymore.  You can't explain it with or without God.  Elie Wiesel has found God. In about as close to his fullness as this creation can perceive.  I hate Elie, I envy Elie, yet I will never wish to be Elie. Bravi to the Elie's and Job's of the world.  The have known righteousness.  They have truly conversed with the Divine.

p.s. I commented on Hannah's post.

God's Omnipresence

Elie Wiesel experienced events and persecution beyond my fathomability, and questions the presence of God. While he has a more experienced approach to the question of why the Jewish persecution happened in God's presence (we know that God is omnipresent due to Proverbs 15:3, "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, Watching the evil and the good," which is a shared book of Judaism and Christianity), Wiesel states that God was absent, which is not the case. God did not necessarily cause the persecution to happen, but He did not intervene prior to allied invasion. I am unable to fully understand God, but it is perhaps possible that He manipulated evil to do His will, such as igniting the faith of a Christian because of the persecution of Jews for their faith. Perhaps God used the Holocaust to deliver Wiesel from death by him not being captured, such as by bombing, or car wreck before his preconceived time. Wiesel states that God was absent during his persecution, but this simply is not the case. God was, is, and always will be present.

P.S. I commented on Hannah's.

Every Moment is Grace

I love the way Elie Wiesel writes. Every word he uses has purpose and conveys deep feelings. For example, at the beginning he says, “Many things, good and less good, have since happened to those who have survived.” He said “good and less good” instead of “good and bad.” Words have a lot of power over how we think about things. Wiesel probably used this phrase because he realizes that “every moment is grace.” There is not one group of people who could understand that better than those who lived through Auschwitz. All is grace.

I commented on Hannah Senteney's post.

Hart

I am fascinated, and slightly confused, at the part where Hart is describing the world and how it "is not alive for us" in the way that it "cannot speak to us or hear us." Hart is describing how nature is indifferent towards humans, and kind of does its own thing. It truly acts on its own, separate from humans. I am kind of confused at his logic in saying that nature simply dwells with us and we "summon it, rather than the reverse" until we reach the point of a natural disaster, death, etc. How are we able to summon it, and where exactly is he going with that part of his argument?

I commented on Darby's!

Hart

I love how hart describes nature.  On page 47 he says "Nature for us is a single, internally consistent thing, an event, lovely and inciting, then terrible and pitiless, abundant and destructive at once, but moved neither by will nor by intelligence; it is sheer fact." I think this is so cool because of how much power it gives nature. When nature is described in such terms, however, it's not really nature itself which I perceive to hold the power, but the one who created the nature. Our "creative and redemptive" God who is so powerful and awesome that he created such a nature that in it's own sense holds tremendous power, independent of humans. Regardless of what we do, nature will always do it's own thing, reminding us just how small we really are.


I commented on Darby's.

Which is worse, Sience or Abandonment?

Elie Wiesel questions what hurt him more, Gods silence or Gods absence. It is hard to understand how God could let such a terrible thing like Auschwitz happen. Wiesel seems to lean more toward abandonment. He feels like God has left him and keeps asking why God would do such a thing. God is the unknown no one knows what his will is or why he doesn't get more involved of the lives of his creation. Wiesel questions all of this and concludes that it is never going to be known. God is the unknown. Auschwitz will forever remain a question.

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

A Prayer for the Days of Awe

" Where were you, God of kindness, in Auschwitz? What was going on in heaven, at the celestial tribunal, while your children were marked for humiliation, isolation and death only because they were Jewish? " 

Eli Wiesel is hands down one of my favorite authors of all time. After reading Night several times this exerpt is a great enlighteing as to how Wiesel felt currently in the aftermath.  I believe his emotions and doubts are normal and should be expected. As he questions God or the Master of the Universe, the emotions can be felt through each word. He basically has the same take as Rodriguez does in Silence whenever they are seeing all the suffering from the people who are supposedly God's "chosen" people. Wiesel wants to renounce his faith yet cannot make himself do it because of tradition and his childhood faith.  He also defends God by saying there was no way of stopping a place like Auschwitz because of it being man-made and seeking to not only perscut the people but God as well. His response to just leave a question mark I feel is appropriate since even though he was given the answers of its in God's plan and we cannot question him a tragedy such as that brings about tremondous doubt. 

Hart

Hart's passage about nature is very convicting in my opinion. He talks a lot about Christianity and how Christians should view nature and the world around them. He writes that "the Christian should see two realities at once, one world (as it were) within another..." I think that is astounding. He is asking us as Christians to seek the bigger picture in the world we live in- to see the beauty, but to also see the terror. He says that "to see in this way is to rejoice and mourn at once". We should see the world in its beauty, but then we also need to mourn for the world that we live in because without the terrible there is no need for the beauty. It is like if we know everything about the world, and can defeat our sin, then there is no need for Jesus's death on the cross. But because of our sin, our terribleness, something beautiful came from that, and that is our Savior.

I commented on Brannen's!

Nature

I love the beginning of this work. The way the author describes how the views of nature has changed throughout time. I have never really sat down and compared my modern view of nature to that of a true pagan. I mean, when I see nature I see God's amazing works, but I don't think there are "numinous powers" in the realms of the vegetal and animal life. When I pick a flower or throw an acorn at my brother, I am not worried about a vengeful god or goddess. I do not see the world as disenchanted; however, I am one of the few. Today, I read C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man. In the last chapter Lewis describes how man has lost the ability to see the whole because he is so focused in analyzing and learning it in order to conquer nature. The author of The Doors of the Sea is describing man's view of nature because man has lost the ability to see the whole picture. He is too focused on how he has mastered nature. That is until a humble event occurs like disease, tornado, earthquakes, etc. Nature is beautiful, but it cannot be controlled. I enjoyed finding the connection between Abolition of Man and The Doors of the Sea.

Hart, God, and Nature

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Hart but I don't quite understand what he is driving at. I was particularly entertained by his story of the vine choking out the tree in order to live and how life is fed by death. He was saying that it's easy to love and worship and find beauty in God when all you see if a field of flowers but what did those flowers have to choke out in order to survive? How can God will evil?

I commented on Daniel Stephen's.

Hart

The statement, "nature for us is a single, internally consistent thing, an event,lovely and enticing, then terrible and pitiless, abundant and destructive at once, but moved neither by will nor by intelligence; it is sheer fact" really made me stop and think about the true nature of man, the flesh. Everything the flesh desires can be seen as lovely and enticing, however it can end in destruction and pitiless. It is constant, but I believe the consistency is a battle. The battle we face as Christian against the worldly temptations we are so easily drawn to. That human nature is not will, we do not ask for what we suffer, although we might have chosen it, and it also does not take intelligence to fall into it. It is a sheer fact that nature is both inviting and deceitful as Hart assumes.

Two

There are two realities that exist within life. It is the reality of the goodness that exists within the world and the reality of the evil that exists within the world. Of course, evil is the reality that we tend to be more concerned with. If it were not so there would be no need for writers like Hart to expound upon the problem of evil, the topic of theodicy. This idea of two realities surfaces throughout Hart's discussion from several different angles.

There is a reality of life and a reality of death. The two go hand in hand as seen in vines that "climb toward the light of the sun by choking the life from the trees around which they grow" which makes way for "copious flowers that one might forget what had to perish to make such a triumph of beauty possible."

There is the "cosmic dualism" of the reality of a sovereign God and yet somehow still a reality of "powers and principalities." This is represented within the very meaning of "cosmos" as the "object of redemptive care" yet at the same time the "present order" that "enslaves creation" and "strives against God."

There is a reality of a physical, tangible, factual nature that is merciless and random, and another reality of spiritual creation. Yet "how can one look for paradise in such a world as this?" Hart asserts that it "requires the cultivation of charity, of an eye rendered limpid by love."

One is only able to recognize the reality that one speaks to. The reality that is practiced is the reality that becomes authentic. It is important not to abandon one reality and ignore it's existence. One must embrace and acknowledge both, while making friends with the reality of that brings "joy." If not, purpose is lost along with paradise.

P.S. Commented on Jeremy's.