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.

Hart

Why does God let bad things happen? I believe that is the big unanswerable question. A God so big and powerful, yet we have things like life taking tsunamis? The Indian Ocean earth quake and tsunami that this book is about took over 250,000 lives. All these people questioned-where was God? Where was God when their homes were being ripped apart and their loved ones dying? God could have stopped the storm. He is that powerful. But he did not. Why? No matter this book and its stance, that is the unanswerable question.

I commented on Nate's.

On the Unanswered and Unanswerable

Elie Wiesel's Night goes very well with Endo's Silence. His questioning of God's silence during persecution goes hand in hand with that of Rodrigues. One thing that Wiesel brought out in the article provided was the questioning of the difference between God enabling and allowing Auschwitz. It is a question that has been asked for years, yet Wiesel admits that he, though not truly over the traumatic past, is now willing and in fact desires to return to a fellowship with God. He wants to move on from the unanswerable questions. That is what we was humans must do sometimes. Though we must ask the hardest questions in order to provoke thought, the questions are not always answered. That is a fact of life. Perhaps if Rodrigues had thought of this, the outcome of Silence could have been different. On the other hand, it could have remained the same. Either way, Wiesel's questioning of suffering and the assignment written by David Bentley Hart both point to one of the many unanswered, and I dare say, unanswerable questions in the realm of human thought.


P.S. I commented on Abbey Griffin's post.

Hart

Hart seems to be trying to understand God through nature; what he sees around him. This approach has its merits, as we can see what God has created in the world, and judge its majesty. However, I cannot agree with this approach.This way of thinking suggests that we, as humans, are capable of understanding the ways of God, which is not possible to do, as with the name and designation of 'God' He is a being beyond humans, therefore, He is something that we cannot and can never truly understand. As humans, we believe all things can be understood in some way, a lot of the time, through our science and technology. This is what Hart believes. But this is simply not the case, for if God is truly beyond human comprehension, then we will never truly understand Him, even through studying all that He has created. Does the creation tell about the creator? Yes. Can we truly understand the creator through his creations? Some would say yes. But can we answer to the purpose of the creations if the creator is greater than humanity? I am not so sure.

I commented on Jeremy's post.

Hart

The starkest statement, and the one with the most profound implications, if it is true: "It [natural theology] has far more room in its arguments for the economy of life and death (in all its brutality) than it has for 'paradise.'"  I don't believe it to be true, however.  It is paralleled with the question, Does the world contain more good or bad?  This can't be quantified necessarily, but just generally, Does more good happen, or bad?  I suggest good.  In my view, those who suggest bad, or suffering, fail to recognize general goodness and submit to painful experiences (because pain is a more quantifiable emotion and it easily overshadows good experiences).

The classic Christian trope finds its origin here: that it is easy (or perhaps insignificant) to worship God in times of ease, or even personal flourishing, but it becomes far more immediate and/or difficult during suffering.

Sierra

not a tame lion

While reading Ellie Wiesel's prayer for the days of advent, this particular sentence stood out to me: "Auschwitz must and will forever remain a question mark only: it can be conceived neither with God nor without God." Wiesel admits that he has absolutely no conception of how God and Auschwitz can exist within the same plane of being. But having said this, he still seeks reconciliation with God. In class the other day we talked about how we can't fully understand God. That fully understanding Him would completely undermine who He is. It seems that sometimes the best thing we can do is allow certain things to remain question marks, and reconcile our relationship with God rather than mandate that we have to understand Him. Sometimes we have to rely on the knowledge that He's not a tame lion, but He is good.