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.