Personal convictions are something that must not be judged. I have had a lot of experience in my life with personal convictions. I believe that the Lord places different things on different people’s hearts. Paul discusses how to handle this in Romans chapter 13 and 14. He points out that we must not cause another to stumble. Although his definition is unclear I had some thoughts pertaining to a possible definition. I have always heard that we shouldn’t cause another to sin, which is true. However, I’m not sure that this is the core concept because sin is a choice that man makes for himself. In my own experience I would define this as not performing any deed or speaking any word that would cause a brother or sister in Christ to compromise any conviction that the Lord has laid on their hearts. This means that we must encourage them with scripture, prayer and words of support.
P.S. I commented on Amy's
Thursday, December 9, 2010
What Have the Romans Ever Done for us?
"But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"- Monty Python's The Life of Brian
What HAVE the Romans done for us? During our discussion in class, we mentioned that Paul was a Roman citizen, but more than that, that he knew how to use that citizenship to his advantage. What does this mean exactly? Simply put, the Romans took care of their citizens. Once you were ah...assimilated into Rome, you became a citizen, and you had all of the rights that citizenship entailed. Rome did not just conquer a town and leave it to fend for itself, no. Rome cared for its citizens, and that, in essence, is what made Rome so great.
What have the Romans done for us? They gave us a basis for how to treat those that belong to our nation, and, whats more, the basis of how we should treat each other as Christians. As Christians, we can't just assimilate others into Christianity and then expect them to fend for themselves. We must, like the Romans, offer new Christians 'citizenship'. For, without guidance, we would not be taking care of our 'people'.
Paul knew how to use the fact that Romans took care of their citizens to his advantage, he knew that if he was in trouble he could call on his people and they would be there for him to help him our of whatever mess he had gotten into. Can we, as Christians, say that our 'citizens' could do the same?
P.S.-- I commented on Kelsey's blog a Final Word.
P.P.S--Sorry this is late, I honestly just forgot about the blog.
What HAVE the Romans done for us? During our discussion in class, we mentioned that Paul was a Roman citizen, but more than that, that he knew how to use that citizenship to his advantage. What does this mean exactly? Simply put, the Romans took care of their citizens. Once you were ah...assimilated into Rome, you became a citizen, and you had all of the rights that citizenship entailed. Rome did not just conquer a town and leave it to fend for itself, no. Rome cared for its citizens, and that, in essence, is what made Rome so great.
What have the Romans done for us? They gave us a basis for how to treat those that belong to our nation, and, whats more, the basis of how we should treat each other as Christians. As Christians, we can't just assimilate others into Christianity and then expect them to fend for themselves. We must, like the Romans, offer new Christians 'citizenship'. For, without guidance, we would not be taking care of our 'people'.
Paul knew how to use the fact that Romans took care of their citizens to his advantage, he knew that if he was in trouble he could call on his people and they would be there for him to help him our of whatever mess he had gotten into. Can we, as Christians, say that our 'citizens' could do the same?
P.S.-- I commented on Kelsey's blog a Final Word.
P.P.S--Sorry this is late, I honestly just forgot about the blog.
We as Literary Philosophers...
First off, I would like to commend Jeremy Crews for his excellent work yesterday in explaining the nature of the Honors program and teaching the freshmen how to find sources and start writing a well-constructed paper. A salute to you, Mr. President.
This blog, being the last of the semester, will be my summarization and reflection on the Honors program through part of Tuesday's lecture. My version of a "it's the end of the semester, who cares" blog. :)
When I sat in for the first day of Honors Literature during the fall semester of 2009, I expected a class full of preps with parents who make six figures twice a year -- stuck-up, pompous, arrogant crowdspeople. If you observed any Honors class or system in an institutionalized college, such as the University of Alabama (which I visited before deciding to go to UM), this expectation usually is validated.
But it just wasn't the case with Honors Literature here at UM. The people in Honors were nice, friendly, helpful, etc. -- all the things any high-minded prep can be; but unlike the prep, these people were both real and conscious. That's a big deal with me, having grown up a large portion of my life in a small town consistent mostly of preppy kids who lived off of Aeropostale / Abercrombie & Fitch / Hollister fumes and local gossip. The students within the Honors program were decent people. To this day, I hold the people of Honors in high regard and with a respect that surpasses most others. The UM Honors program is a good place to be.
That said, and somewhat repeating what Jeremy said, the Honors program is designed to deconstruct one's beliefs in order to reinforce those same beliefs, provided they are just and true. This system is mostly applicable to Christian faith, and by attacking certain aspects such as institutionalized religion and God as a true and provable being vs. faith in God, one can use their new knowledge to reinforce their faith and their ability to speak about God with others. Paul was well-versed in certain Greek philosophy, meaning that he learned the thoughts and beliefs of other cultures instead of enclosing himself to Christian / Jewish thoughts and beliefs alone. By doing this, he was able to communicate to non-believers his viewpoint of God and Christ through means that they could understand and relate with. Obtaining knowledge outside of the bounds of Christianity is not a bad thing; rather, it is necessary in order to be able to communicate with society in an educated manner.
We as 'Literary Philosophers', which is what I'm terming us at the moment, need to educate ourselves on all forms of culture, such as the literature, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. that is intertwined with society, so that we can strengthen our core beliefs, trim off the fat of opinions that we may have thought to be knowledge beforehand, and establish an educated foundation in order to socialize with others and communicate our faith. Honors is one place where all of this can happen, so long as you allow yourself to be open to new ideas and viewpoints.
This was not worded the way I wanted it to be, but blame that on hours of paper-writing and studying, haha. I'm done for now.
Later, kidz.
P.S. I commented on Sara Dye's post.
This blog, being the last of the semester, will be my summarization and reflection on the Honors program through part of Tuesday's lecture. My version of a "it's the end of the semester, who cares" blog. :)
When I sat in for the first day of Honors Literature during the fall semester of 2009, I expected a class full of preps with parents who make six figures twice a year -- stuck-up, pompous, arrogant crowdspeople. If you observed any Honors class or system in an institutionalized college, such as the University of Alabama (which I visited before deciding to go to UM), this expectation usually is validated.
But it just wasn't the case with Honors Literature here at UM. The people in Honors were nice, friendly, helpful, etc. -- all the things any high-minded prep can be; but unlike the prep, these people were both real and conscious. That's a big deal with me, having grown up a large portion of my life in a small town consistent mostly of preppy kids who lived off of Aeropostale / Abercrombie & Fitch / Hollister fumes and local gossip. The students within the Honors program were decent people. To this day, I hold the people of Honors in high regard and with a respect that surpasses most others. The UM Honors program is a good place to be.
That said, and somewhat repeating what Jeremy said, the Honors program is designed to deconstruct one's beliefs in order to reinforce those same beliefs, provided they are just and true. This system is mostly applicable to Christian faith, and by attacking certain aspects such as institutionalized religion and God as a true and provable being vs. faith in God, one can use their new knowledge to reinforce their faith and their ability to speak about God with others. Paul was well-versed in certain Greek philosophy, meaning that he learned the thoughts and beliefs of other cultures instead of enclosing himself to Christian / Jewish thoughts and beliefs alone. By doing this, he was able to communicate to non-believers his viewpoint of God and Christ through means that they could understand and relate with. Obtaining knowledge outside of the bounds of Christianity is not a bad thing; rather, it is necessary in order to be able to communicate with society in an educated manner.
We as 'Literary Philosophers', which is what I'm terming us at the moment, need to educate ourselves on all forms of culture, such as the literature, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. that is intertwined with society, so that we can strengthen our core beliefs, trim off the fat of opinions that we may have thought to be knowledge beforehand, and establish an educated foundation in order to socialize with others and communicate our faith. Honors is one place where all of this can happen, so long as you allow yourself to be open to new ideas and viewpoints.
This was not worded the way I wanted it to be, but blame that on hours of paper-writing and studying, haha. I'm done for now.
Later, kidz.
P.S. I commented on Sara Dye's post.
Questions
Hello,
As horribly cliche as this is going to sound...Something stood out for me during our discussion on Tuesday. Dr. Mashburn said that when God declared that everyone must be circumcised, we were supposed to just do it. No questions asked.
That bugs me.
So, we're supposed to do as he says without question...? And if the bible, especially the Old Testament, is anything to go by, he would've probably struck anyone down if you so much as question him. Doesn't that make God some kind of cosmic bully...? Seriously, that's what it sounds like to me. What makes it even STRANGER is that we're ENCOURAGED to ask questions. So, to me, it sounds like "Always ask questions. Oh! Just don't question God!" It sounds...Off to me. I also find it funny how this HUGE divine being capable of creating a WHOLE universe honestly cares SO much about whether or not everything we do is in his glory. Doesn't that make him sound petty or an egomaniac?
Okay, you're all probably going to call "Blasphemy!". But...I don't know, I've hit that point in my life where lately, I've been HEAVILY questioning my beliefs and religion in general.
----I commented on Olivia Yetter's post.
As horribly cliche as this is going to sound...Something stood out for me during our discussion on Tuesday. Dr. Mashburn said that when God declared that everyone must be circumcised, we were supposed to just do it. No questions asked.
That bugs me.
So, we're supposed to do as he says without question...? And if the bible, especially the Old Testament, is anything to go by, he would've probably struck anyone down if you so much as question him. Doesn't that make God some kind of cosmic bully...? Seriously, that's what it sounds like to me. What makes it even STRANGER is that we're ENCOURAGED to ask questions. So, to me, it sounds like "Always ask questions. Oh! Just don't question God!" It sounds...Off to me. I also find it funny how this HUGE divine being capable of creating a WHOLE universe honestly cares SO much about whether or not everything we do is in his glory. Doesn't that make him sound petty or an egomaniac?
Okay, you're all probably going to call "Blasphemy!". But...I don't know, I've hit that point in my life where lately, I've been HEAVILY questioning my beliefs and religion in general.
----I commented on Olivia Yetter's post.
Untitled
First of all i would just like to say this: Only what is won from the darkness will win.
Secondly, I really like how we related the Jew, Circumcision, the Temple, Sacrifice, the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection to us. I especially drew to the crucifixion and Romans 6:6. "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we could no longer be slaves to sin because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." When we become a christian, we deny our old self. We give God complete control of our lives. This also is shown through Galatians 2:20 " For i have been crucified with Christ and I know longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, i live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." When we sin, its the sin in us that lives, but God redeems us and He lives through us.
p.s I commented on Olivia' s post
Secondly, I really like how we related the Jew, Circumcision, the Temple, Sacrifice, the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection to us. I especially drew to the crucifixion and Romans 6:6. "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we could no longer be slaves to sin because anyone who has died has been freed from sin." When we become a christian, we deny our old self. We give God complete control of our lives. This also is shown through Galatians 2:20 " For i have been crucified with Christ and I know longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, i live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." When we sin, its the sin in us that lives, but God redeems us and He lives through us.
p.s I commented on Olivia' s post
Finalement....
Last thursday, Dr. Mitchell asked this question: Why must every action be directed to a goal?
I thought it was an interesting question, so I'm going to try to answer it.
Well why shouldn't every action be directed to a goal? What is the point in doing anything if there is not some ultimate goal that we are trying to reach? For example, why do I pick up my little sister from school? I do this so that I won't get in trouble with my mom and because I'm afraid that she might get beat up or something if I forgot her and she was left there until late. (Those little elementary kids are sooo bad nowadays! They scare me...)
It's kind of a silly question. Why would someone do something if they had no goal that they wanted to reach? Well I don't think anyone would.
I commented on Samantha's.
I thought it was an interesting question, so I'm going to try to answer it.
Well why shouldn't every action be directed to a goal? What is the point in doing anything if there is not some ultimate goal that we are trying to reach? For example, why do I pick up my little sister from school? I do this so that I won't get in trouble with my mom and because I'm afraid that she might get beat up or something if I forgot her and she was left there until late. (Those little elementary kids are sooo bad nowadays! They scare me...)
It's kind of a silly question. Why would someone do something if they had no goal that they wanted to reach? Well I don't think anyone would.
I commented on Samantha's.
A final word
First, I would just like to say that I have absolutely loved being in class with all of you this semester and look forward to semesters to come. This has become one of my favorite classes which shouldn't make any sense because I'm a math person and a music major, but it is. Over Thanksgiving and just a lot lately I've been thinking about how many of you I would probably not know if I hadn't done the Honors program because there would be no other reason for us to ever take classes together. It's almost like God knows what He's doing or something. :) Even though it's been a hard semester because it IS honors, I wouldn't trade a bit of it for anything because it was with you guys.
Now for the blog..
One thing that really stood out to me in class was what Dr. Mitchell talked about in Acts 17. Paul was talking to these people and walking through looking at their idols and objects of worship. He found the alter to "the unknown god". In stead of going immediately into Southern Baptist three point plan to salvation and preaching a "turn or burn" sermon, he meets them where they are and presents it in a way that they would understand. He simply starts telling them about the "unknown god".
I think this is a very important part of sharing our faith that we have forgotten about today. People aren't just going to show up at our doorstep completely on their own and they're also not going to understand our church language. It's important for us to follow Paul's example and not get lazy and forget these key aspects.
Once again I love you guys. You're such a blessing. I hope you all have a good break and happy holidays.
Now for the blog..
One thing that really stood out to me in class was what Dr. Mitchell talked about in Acts 17. Paul was talking to these people and walking through looking at their idols and objects of worship. He found the alter to "the unknown god". In stead of going immediately into Southern Baptist three point plan to salvation and preaching a "turn or burn" sermon, he meets them where they are and presents it in a way that they would understand. He simply starts telling them about the "unknown god".
I think this is a very important part of sharing our faith that we have forgotten about today. People aren't just going to show up at our doorstep completely on their own and they're also not going to understand our church language. It's important for us to follow Paul's example and not get lazy and forget these key aspects.
Once again I love you guys. You're such a blessing. I hope you all have a good break and happy holidays.
Life is Good
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
This means that even when life is down in the dumps and life is going to pot it's going to be okay. Because it is all going to workout according to God's perfect plan that may not make any sense to us. We may not see anything besides that everything that we thought we knew is crashing down around our very feet.
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Christ knew everyone of before we were Christians. When we became Christians, God conformed to the image of his son Jesus Christ. Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice for us but he also came to show us the way to lead other Christians. He was to the role model for all Christians to follow.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
When we have God on our side no one is big enough to stand against us. Even the most towering thing that stands against, obstacles that we don't think that we can get around are but tiny insignificant things in God's eyes. We spend so much time worrying about things that don't mean a hill of beans that we miss the important things that God is trying to show us in our lives.
In class we talked a lot about Paul redefining some of the ancient beliefs of the Jewish people. I feel like in some ways much of the literature we've read this semester has centered around an underlying theme of redefinition. As we created a kosmos, the world was redefined and people's re-examination of the world around them and what it meant to them as Homer set down the believes, morals, and honorable traits that a person should strive for. And as we slowly moved through literature a continual idea of creation arose from the different works as Socrates created a Republic and the Trojans created Rome. And through all that they had to redefine their own thoughts and ideas so to create new ones and make something new stronger than the old thing.
So as Paul redefines this stronger new Jewish sect, what makes it stronger? what makes it different?
The reliance upon grace. The people could never live up to the standards that God set forth in the Old Testament, thats why he provided a way for them to atone for thier sins, but He did this so that His people would depend on Him and continually come back to Him. As Paul writes he takes down a lot of the rules and regulation of the Old Testament but we find he does not destroy all of Jewish history, He redefines, reorganizes and gives Christians the hope we have, the strength in the midst of the fight, and the reason we have for continual seeking after a righteous life. Those intangible qualities are stronger than the tangible breakable laws because we find that God's love never fails, and His hope can bring light to the darkest situation something the law could not do. The law was rigid and dependable. The grace is flexible and fits together with our messy and disordered lives where most of the time nothing happens quite how we plan it.
On a side note sometimes I feel like by all this "free thinking" our teachers are actually causing us to come back around and have similar mindsets about these works and about life. What if...its all apart of their plot to take over the world??....I mean why not start with the smart kids, right? In defiance I have decided to do absolutely nothing with my life and live in a cardboard box to thwart their plan....bahahahahaha
(okay maybe not....maybe its just really late and cold outside)
I commented on Treya's Blog (: & a minute ago I just saw her walk into the dorm (: woah baby.
Bah humbug, titles...
Usually I make an attempt to fluff up my post with some nonsensical remarks, but I am not in the mood, I will just cut to the chase.
Something Dr. Mashburn said in class Tuesday really pricked my ears: "God never says why they should be circumcised, He just said do it." And they did. My question is: why can't we be that simple? Then again, maybe it's just me; so, why can't I be that simple? When He calls me to something, I sit around and debate with myself to the point that eventually I ask Him, "Really? Are You sure?" Yes, He is sure.
Christ sent Paul, and Paul went without question. He never asked, "Are you sure, Lord? I persecuted Your people, are You sure I am the one you should be sending to the Gentiles, their kings, and the people of Israel?" However, Christ sent Ananias to Paul, and he questioned slightly--I suppose I am a lot like Ananias. I want to be simpler, but I suppose it doesn't boil down to being simple, it's about how much I trust Him. I talk about trusting Him, relying on Him, resting in Him, but there is always some question in my mind; I fight for control and question His.
We discussed sacrifice and Romans 12:1; if I am to give myself as I sacrifice, then I, in turn, give up my would-be control. I have given my life over to Him, yet I at times try to maintain my false control. The image reminds me of some of the kids I coach in gymnastics. They attempt some movement I just taught them, fully believing they possess the capability of doing it by themselves: "I don't need your help, Miss Sam. I can do it." They can only go so far until I reach in to help them complete it. Earlier, I watched child after child try to flip themselves over a bar, flailing their legs all over the place in an effort to succeed. They can only do it when I steady their legs and support their back. Each day is something new and unknown in my walk with the Lord, so I could never do it alone; He delivers me for His glory.
Now I ask myself in retrospect, "Does you think an object of sacrifice has control? How far do you really think you can go? How much control do you truly think you have, Samantha? Glorify Him, stop fighting Him."
(Commented Ben's)
Delving back into the cave.
"21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 1: 21-25
As I was reading through Romans this week, something jumped out and grabbed me that I've passed over quite a few times before. In verse 23 Paul says they exchanged the glory of God for images made to look like humans, birds, animals and reptiles. The use of the imagery is reminiscent of Plato's allegory of the cave. Basically, these people were outside of the cave, basking in the light (God's glory) and seeing everything as it truly was, but they exchanged this for the shadow puppets in the bottom of the cave again.
This sounds like a stupid thing to do, right? Well, in all actuality it is a stupid thing to do. Unfortunately it's also a stupid thing that we are all, at one point or another, guilty of. Any time you put something in your life before God, whether it be school, a relationship, work or a hobby, you're exchanging the truth of God's reality for the lies of the world. I don't care if you're Billy Graham, I know for a fact that you have at some point put something before God, and I would venture to say that most of us are there right now. I know it's finals week, and I know you're busy, but remember to keep God before everything this week. Putting him first this week will definitely be uplifting for you, and it will help show how dedicated you are, to God, to yourself and God.
So, what have we learned this semester? Writing blogs is Ben's favorite time of the week? We're all going to miss this class over the break? Plato and Paul can be related? I'm doing this instead of writing my paper? I like to ask too many irrelevant rhetorical questions? All good answers. Tune in next week for another dose of the same nonsensical blogging that you read this week.
P.S. I commented on Treya's blog "Sacrifices"
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 1: 21-25
As I was reading through Romans this week, something jumped out and grabbed me that I've passed over quite a few times before. In verse 23 Paul says they exchanged the glory of God for images made to look like humans, birds, animals and reptiles. The use of the imagery is reminiscent of Plato's allegory of the cave. Basically, these people were outside of the cave, basking in the light (God's glory) and seeing everything as it truly was, but they exchanged this for the shadow puppets in the bottom of the cave again.
This sounds like a stupid thing to do, right? Well, in all actuality it is a stupid thing to do. Unfortunately it's also a stupid thing that we are all, at one point or another, guilty of. Any time you put something in your life before God, whether it be school, a relationship, work or a hobby, you're exchanging the truth of God's reality for the lies of the world. I don't care if you're Billy Graham, I know for a fact that you have at some point put something before God, and I would venture to say that most of us are there right now. I know it's finals week, and I know you're busy, but remember to keep God before everything this week. Putting him first this week will definitely be uplifting for you, and it will help show how dedicated you are, to God, to yourself and God.
So, what have we learned this semester? Writing blogs is Ben's favorite time of the week? We're all going to miss this class over the break? Plato and Paul can be related? I'm doing this instead of writing my paper? I like to ask too many irrelevant rhetorical questions? All good answers. Tune in next week for another dose of the same nonsensical blogging that you read this week.
P.S. I commented on Treya's blog "Sacrifices"
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Sacrifices
Christianity changed drastically after the death of Christ. One of the things that transformed was the giving of sacrifices. I find it interesting how the Jews used to sacrifice animals, as the Greek religion did. The Greeks used sacrifices to appease their gods similarly to how the Jews did. They seemed used their sacrifices more to persuade the gods, but it was not totally different from the meaning of the offerings set before our God. The characters in the Iliad and the Aeneid didn’t have the same concept of sin that the Jews had, however they would offer to the gods to stop the rage of the gods, especially when they made mistakes.
I wonder why these two totally different religions had such a similar practice. In my opinion the use of sacrifices to appease God, is too similar to the Greek religion. Through the teachings of Paul we learned that animal sacrifices are no longer needed to come close to God. Through Jesus our God was further differentiated from the Greek gods. We are now called to use our bodies as living sacrifices, a concept that other religions cannot relate to and don’t understand.
Ps. I commented on Sara Dye’s post
Their blood is on our hands
"But GOD shows His anger from Heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves. For the truth about GOD is known to them instinceively. GOD has put this knowledge in their hearths. From teh time the world was created people have seen the earth adn sky adn all that GOD made. They can clearly see His invisible quealities-His eternal power and divine nature. So that have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing GOD." Romans 1-18-20
Being an Intercultural Studies major, this is certainly a topic that has been on my mind quite a bit throughout my life. What about those who have never heard? Do they just automatically go to Hell? How can GOD really be all loving and merciful as well as just if He sends people who don't know any better to eternal punsishment. Is that any different than children? Paul addresses this problem in Romans in a passage that is often glossed over by teh more "let's jsut feel good" sects of Christianity. Honestly, we have no excuse. Think about it for one moment. Would it really make any sense for those who haven't heard to automatically go to Heaven? If someone was a Christian by default because they had never heard, what would be the worst thing you could do for them? Tell them about JESUS! Then they would have a choice and would no longer have a get out of Hell free card. In that instance, they could live however they wanted but have no consequences. It makes no sense. Paul saw that it would make no sense, but in a different way. When we see a watch, we know there must be a watchmaker. When we see a building we know there must be an architect, builders, contractors, etc. So how can we look at creation and not know there is a creator? We are, as Paul said, without excuse. So we better get going to tell the people who have never heard or the blood from their eternal seperation from GOD is on our hands.
Being an Intercultural Studies major, this is certainly a topic that has been on my mind quite a bit throughout my life. What about those who have never heard? Do they just automatically go to Hell? How can GOD really be all loving and merciful as well as just if He sends people who don't know any better to eternal punsishment. Is that any different than children? Paul addresses this problem in Romans in a passage that is often glossed over by teh more "let's jsut feel good" sects of Christianity. Honestly, we have no excuse. Think about it for one moment. Would it really make any sense for those who haven't heard to automatically go to Heaven? If someone was a Christian by default because they had never heard, what would be the worst thing you could do for them? Tell them about JESUS! Then they would have a choice and would no longer have a get out of Hell free card. In that instance, they could live however they wanted but have no consequences. It makes no sense. Paul saw that it would make no sense, but in a different way. When we see a watch, we know there must be a watchmaker. When we see a building we know there must be an architect, builders, contractors, etc. So how can we look at creation and not know there is a creator? We are, as Paul said, without excuse. So we better get going to tell the people who have never heard or the blood from their eternal seperation from GOD is on our hands.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law!
"Law controls the lesser man...Right conduct controls the greater one."
-Mark Twain
Needless to say, nowadays we, the upstanding chuchgoers that we are, revere Paul, AKA the Pharisee Formerly Known As Saul, as a hero of the faith. I'm so glad we got to read Romans in class today because it is one of my favorite books of the Bible and widely regarded as one of the most important (sorry, Numbers). Indeed, not only is he responsible for breaking down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles & laying down the foundation for Christianity in Rome, which would then spread throughout Western civilization, but also for providing the New Testament with thirteen books. His books constitute almost half of our New Testament as well a major portion of our theology regarding Jesus. His greatness cannot be overstated, and is arguably the single greatest Christian of all time.
Now, throw all of that away and let's look at what he said and taught, and pretend that he has come to tell us Christians that everything we're doing is pointless. He went to the Jews, members of his former religion, and basically said that, because of Jesus, all of their hallowed and sacred institutions, such as physical circumcision and sacrifice, are unnecessary and that all we need to do is worship the Messiah with our hearts and our minds. These are traditions that they had been following since the beginning, laws laid down by Yahweh Himself, and here comes a convert, a heretic, that everything they know and practice is wrong. What if someone were to come to us and tell us that the basics of our theology, set down from the beginning, are wrong? He would show us Biblical truth probably, but he is saying things that contradict everything we understand about our religion. Would we not still be set in our ways and tell him where to shove his?
It's always a scary thing when people claim they know the real will of God as such things can be dangerous and quite possibly cultist (hello, Charles Manson). It can also be unsettling when people start trying to move your beliefs away from theology and into happy-go-lucky feel good ear candy that may have scriptual basis but misses the point of God's real purpose (hello, Joel Osteen). Paul certainly was persecuted, a lot of people definitely didn't buy his teachings, and he was eventually killed for spreading his word. All I can figure is that Paul actually did know what he was talking about because his teachings have endured millenia past his age, he did manage to establish the church, and I believe that God has indeed blessed his letters, for they have brought many to Christ and remain the standard of Western theology. Ultimately, Paul does not deserve any glory for doing what he did, for it is only by the grace of God that he was successful.
Well, this will be my last post for a long time, I have enjoyed blogging and look forward to doing more in the future. As always, feel free to comment on or question anything you have read in this post. I commented on Sara Dye's post, God's Grace: It's Not About You, as well.
Have a blessed Christmas and a joyous New Year, I love you all!
Saturday, December 4, 2010
God's Grace: It's Not About You
What better way to end my blogging semester than by writing on the grace of God, for it is by His grace that we have made it thus far!
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding His Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through Him and for His name's sake, we received grace..." -Romans 1:1-5a
Verse 5 is one of the most powerful verses of Scripture I have read in a long time. We receive God's grace through Christ, by faith, for justification. However we also receive His grace for His name's sake. Think about the implications that this verse has in our individual walks with Christ. We are not recipients of God's grace for our own sake; not for our own salvation, forgiveness, or joy. These things are a part of God's gracious gift to us, however ultimately He bestows His grace on us for HIS own sake, not ours. This leads us to a God-given responsibility...
"... and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to obedience that comes from faith." -Romans 1:5b
For HIS sake we receive grace and apostleship in order to extend His grace to others that, in turn, they may also be recipients and extenders of His grace for His sake. Experience God's grace, extend His glory... that is what we are called to.
Note that nothing in this is about us. At all. It's all about Him; praise His holy name!
I commented on Callie's post.
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding His Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through Him and for His name's sake, we received grace..." -Romans 1:1-5a
Verse 5 is one of the most powerful verses of Scripture I have read in a long time. We receive God's grace through Christ, by faith, for justification. However we also receive His grace for His name's sake. Think about the implications that this verse has in our individual walks with Christ. We are not recipients of God's grace for our own sake; not for our own salvation, forgiveness, or joy. These things are a part of God's gracious gift to us, however ultimately He bestows His grace on us for HIS own sake, not ours. This leads us to a God-given responsibility...
"... and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to obedience that comes from faith." -Romans 1:5b
For HIS sake we receive grace and apostleship in order to extend His grace to others that, in turn, they may also be recipients and extenders of His grace for His sake. Experience God's grace, extend His glory... that is what we are called to.
Note that nothing in this is about us. At all. It's all about Him; praise His holy name!
I commented on Callie's post.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Aeneas, Welcome to Hades
First of all, everyone did a great job on Tuesday, when Schuler journeyed through Hades, good impromptu.
In Book VI, Aeneas journeys through the underworld to see his father one last time. I can relate to his journey, at least when he enters the gate. At the gate there are many beings present, and these represent emotions that he must get past.
"Before the entrance, in the jaws of Orcus,
Grief and the avenging Cares have made their beds,
And pale Diseases and sad Age are there,
And Dread, and Hunger that sways men to crime,
And sordid Want-in shapes to affright the eyes-
And Death and Toil and Death's own brother, Sleep,
And the mind's evil joys; on the door still
Death-bringing War, and iron cubicles
Of the Eumenides, and raving Discord,
Viperish hair bound up in gory bands." (Lines 376-385)
He has to physically face these in order to just get through the gate to the underworld. This is a great challenge, even for a man of his stature. I, myself, have had to face these many times, and it's a challenge every single time; it doesn't get any easier. But when I overcome these challenges, it makes me a better person.
After he gets past the ferryman, and Cerberus (Pluto/Hades's three-headed guard dog), who watches the riverbank where the ferry stops, he goes through an area where lost souls wander. There he see's Dido's shade. He feels great sadness inside of him, because this confirms the rumors of her death. He desperately tries to talk to her, but she wouldn't speak to him, she glared back at him with passionate hatred, and then looked away as he tried to talk to her.
"Aeneas with such pleas tried to placate
The burning soul, savagely glaring back,
And tears came to his eyes. But she had turned
With a gaze fixed on the ground as he spoke on,
Her face no more affected than if she were
Immobile granite or Marpesian stone.
At length she flung away from him and fled,
His enemy still, into a shadowy grove
Where he whose bride she had once been, Sychaeus,
Joined in her sorrows and returned her love.
Aeneas still gazed after her in tears,
Shaken by her fate and pitying her." (lines 628-639)
This was another hardship that he had to endure in the underworld, utter rejection from Dido, whom he cared about very much. This caused him great sorrow, and it hurt him. He continues on though to meet Deiphobus (Paris), his old comrade, who tells him how he died. But the Sibyl keeps him moving on, before Night arrives. He eventually comes to his father Anchises, who tells him about his lineage and the empire that he will eventually build. This is a happy meeting, but when Aeneas tries to hug his father, he can't, because Anchises is a shade now. Three times he tried, three times he failed. But after the reunion he goes back up through the entrance and is reunited with his crew.
This whole journey is a challenge for Aeneas, and in our lives we face similar challenges. But we can learn from him, he overcame the challenges and he did not lose courage or give up, which is exactly what we must do when we face challenges in our own lives, Aeneas is a good example to follow, in this case.
I commented on Will's "Closure"
In Book VI, Aeneas journeys through the underworld to see his father one last time. I can relate to his journey, at least when he enters the gate. At the gate there are many beings present, and these represent emotions that he must get past.
"Before the entrance, in the jaws of Orcus,
Grief and the avenging Cares have made their beds,
And pale Diseases and sad Age are there,
And Dread, and Hunger that sways men to crime,
And sordid Want-in shapes to affright the eyes-
And Death and Toil and Death's own brother, Sleep,
And the mind's evil joys; on the door still
Death-bringing War, and iron cubicles
Of the Eumenides, and raving Discord,
Viperish hair bound up in gory bands." (Lines 376-385)
He has to physically face these in order to just get through the gate to the underworld. This is a great challenge, even for a man of his stature. I, myself, have had to face these many times, and it's a challenge every single time; it doesn't get any easier. But when I overcome these challenges, it makes me a better person.
After he gets past the ferryman, and Cerberus (Pluto/Hades's three-headed guard dog), who watches the riverbank where the ferry stops, he goes through an area where lost souls wander. There he see's Dido's shade. He feels great sadness inside of him, because this confirms the rumors of her death. He desperately tries to talk to her, but she wouldn't speak to him, she glared back at him with passionate hatred, and then looked away as he tried to talk to her.
"Aeneas with such pleas tried to placate
The burning soul, savagely glaring back,
And tears came to his eyes. But she had turned
With a gaze fixed on the ground as he spoke on,
Her face no more affected than if she were
Immobile granite or Marpesian stone.
At length she flung away from him and fled,
His enemy still, into a shadowy grove
Where he whose bride she had once been, Sychaeus,
Joined in her sorrows and returned her love.
Aeneas still gazed after her in tears,
Shaken by her fate and pitying her." (lines 628-639)
This was another hardship that he had to endure in the underworld, utter rejection from Dido, whom he cared about very much. This caused him great sorrow, and it hurt him. He continues on though to meet Deiphobus (Paris), his old comrade, who tells him how he died. But the Sibyl keeps him moving on, before Night arrives. He eventually comes to his father Anchises, who tells him about his lineage and the empire that he will eventually build. This is a happy meeting, but when Aeneas tries to hug his father, he can't, because Anchises is a shade now. Three times he tried, three times he failed. But after the reunion he goes back up through the entrance and is reunited with his crew.
This whole journey is a challenge for Aeneas, and in our lives we face similar challenges. But we can learn from him, he overcame the challenges and he did not lose courage or give up, which is exactly what we must do when we face challenges in our own lives, Aeneas is a good example to follow, in this case.
I commented on Will's "Closure"
Closure
This whole semester has been striving to understand the extremes. The stories of poets and the knowledge of philosophers have bashed heads then helped each other up. It seems now with Aurelius we've almost found a common ground. He seems at times very poetic, others very analytical. He takes the inward observance from Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle and weaves it throughout a heartfelt letting of his own blood and soul.
It makes me wonder what goes on in the minds of our "leaders". They seem extremely caught up in the physical realm and remaining popular with all of their decisions. Granted, this is the role of a politician, to make the choice of the people, but they should not inflate their heads, distort the truth, and brainwash the population into believing lies in order to raise their own ego. I believe that it is actually a greater leader, such as Aurelius, who would take the time to write out what they believe, analyze it, and correct mistakes. It would eliminate great amounts of corruption, ignorance, and blinding pride. Unfortunately, I believe America is turning the corner Rome saw after Aurelius's death.
-Will
12/2/10
Before I read Meditations, I knew that Marcus Aurelius persecuted the Christians. So, maybe I did go into it with a different mindset. And it’s not just because I am a Christian. He could have been persecuting any group of people, and I would still feel like he is contradicting himself. What happened to kindness, gentleness, and modesty?
I commented on Ben's blog.
I commented on Ben's blog.
What if...?
Hello,
Now believe it or not, I actually had this idea for a blog post a week ago, but I decided to wait awhile before I actually posted it.
Now, it has been established that our country was built on or at least has roots in Roman ideas. This also applies to our architecture. But, I always wondered...What if our country, by some weird circumstance, was built on an entirely different set of ideas? Like, suppose this country was built on eastern ideas, then that would mean that this country would be ENTIRELY different than what it is now. Like for instance, we'd all probably be Buddhists or Daoists and our architecture would've carried a distinctive eastern flair.
----I commented on Alanamills' post.
Now believe it or not, I actually had this idea for a blog post a week ago, but I decided to wait awhile before I actually posted it.
Now, it has been established that our country was built on or at least has roots in Roman ideas. This also applies to our architecture. But, I always wondered...What if our country, by some weird circumstance, was built on an entirely different set of ideas? Like, suppose this country was built on eastern ideas, then that would mean that this country would be ENTIRELY different than what it is now. Like for instance, we'd all probably be Buddhists or Daoists and our architecture would've carried a distinctive eastern flair.
----I commented on Alanamills' post.
I can't come up with a title :)
Well everyone is writing about Aeneas and Dido and all I can think about is....Aeneas and Dido. So I'm just going to write about them.
Well I understand why Aeneas had to leave. He had to discover Rome. The great city of Rome. Ok that's totally understandable, but did he really have to leave Dido the way that he did? Could he not be a real man and say it to her face? He acts like what they had was a one night stand and he's just going to slip out while she's asleep so he doesn't have to explain why he has to leave. That's not very nice Aeneas. I'm sure she would have understood if you had sat her down and said:
"This past few days have been the best of my entire life. I wouldn't trade them for anything. You are so beautiful and perhaps the best lover I've ever had. But unfortuantely love I must depart, because it is my destiny to find the great city of Rome. But remember this, I will come visit you as often as I can. And I shall write you all of the time. Oh and remember this darling, it's not you, it's me." hahaha
She might have taken it better if he had said that haha. But he did not, so in the end we get a dead Dido.
I commented on Alexandra's.
Well I understand why Aeneas had to leave. He had to discover Rome. The great city of Rome. Ok that's totally understandable, but did he really have to leave Dido the way that he did? Could he not be a real man and say it to her face? He acts like what they had was a one night stand and he's just going to slip out while she's asleep so he doesn't have to explain why he has to leave. That's not very nice Aeneas. I'm sure she would have understood if you had sat her down and said:
"This past few days have been the best of my entire life. I wouldn't trade them for anything. You are so beautiful and perhaps the best lover I've ever had. But unfortuantely love I must depart, because it is my destiny to find the great city of Rome. But remember this, I will come visit you as often as I can. And I shall write you all of the time. Oh and remember this darling, it's not you, it's me." hahaha
She might have taken it better if he had said that haha. But he did not, so in the end we get a dead Dido.
I commented on Alexandra's.
Reality vs. Fantasy
So, realizing that i have to write a blog, i tried to think of what to write it on, and i keep going back to Dido and Aeneas. After reading and discussing this topic in class, i find it interesting how this "love affair" lasted for a little while and then Aeneas "snaps" back into the reality of going to Italy. This is similar to the idea of "love" even today. I have seen it in other relationships and watched it happen. Basically, we treat love as a fantasy. All the disney movies prove this. Oh, the prince and princess will fall in love and they " Live happily ever after." As if this were really true. Women love by emotions of the heart, our feelings. Men love by sight.... or so it seems. I do believe Aeneas loved Dido, but his Duty was more important than love. As Will mentioned in his blog, Aeneas would never abandon the people or the foundation of Rome for a woman...but the woman would let it dissolve for a selfish love. That is how women are. We live off of emotion. Men do not. I agree with the idea that Men are better rulers in that sense of non-emotional.
I just thought this was interesting. :p
P.s I commented on Will's post
We are Romans
Reading the work of Marcus Aurelius, is showing me just how much we are like the Romans.
In Meditations, Marcus tells of the value of reason and comprehension - both your own reasoning abilities and the willingness to accept the reasoned out laws of the state ("do only whatever the reason of the ruling and legislating faculty of men may suggest..."). It is the same in America. In American schools of higher education we are evaluated on our use of reason in understanding the sciences, in seeking the truth - or questioning what is the "truth" through the use of reason - in theology - as we reason out what might be the truth of deity - and in many other disciplines. Moreover, through the Judicial system and the rule of law and America, we keep reason as the guiding principle of what each person should and should not do. The judges of the supreme court, through a process of reason, decide how our laws should be interpreted and what exactly is considered lawful and what is not.
Moreover, Marcus asserts that "life is opinion." And opinion has a similar importance in American society. In America it is understood that each person has their own opinion and special laws are even made to protect them - for example, religious laws.
I commented on Alexandra's Post
In Meditations, Marcus tells of the value of reason and comprehension - both your own reasoning abilities and the willingness to accept the reasoned out laws of the state ("do only whatever the reason of the ruling and legislating faculty of men may suggest..."). It is the same in America. In American schools of higher education we are evaluated on our use of reason in understanding the sciences, in seeking the truth - or questioning what is the "truth" through the use of reason - in theology - as we reason out what might be the truth of deity - and in many other disciplines. Moreover, through the Judicial system and the rule of law and America, we keep reason as the guiding principle of what each person should and should not do. The judges of the supreme court, through a process of reason, decide how our laws should be interpreted and what exactly is considered lawful and what is not.
Moreover, Marcus asserts that "life is opinion." And opinion has a similar importance in American society. In America it is understood that each person has their own opinion and special laws are even made to protect them - for example, religious laws.
I commented on Alexandra's Post
Play Review From A Tree.
Well, I just thought our little play was the cutest little thing. I was much honored to get chosen to be the Golden Branch, aka: Aeneas’ side kick. The supporting actors were fantastic; Mrs. George playing the Sibyl was simply stunning. The three fellows playing the dog… I really believed they were a dog. Not three dogs, one dog with three heads. Brilliant. Treya, or should I say, Dido, had an incredibly irresistible scowl. Dido’s husband was a fairly new actor, but I believe he stole the stage and he will make it big one day! It’s been a good run… I remember just like it was this past Tuesday that Hunter was gathering up his lines and making the Father into his own character, while still portraying the essence of who he was in the story. Aeneas, we all know, was played by a famed actor. We were all really excited to work with him and, I will proudly say- I got him to sign my Java Latte after shooting. The mysterious ferry woman knew just was to say to get those pesky ghost things off of our star! Her authoritative voice is what makes her simply wonderful at everything she does! OH! I can’t forget the ghost things. The ladies involved took so much time and effort to get their part timed and choreographed just right. The show wouldn’t have been the same without them. The night ended with a very moving song from the crewmen as they sailed off into the moonlit night… This was all made possible by our amazing director Mrs. Sara Dye, who is up for an Emmy for her work in the play. It’s been good guys. I enjoyed working with you- I’m thinking a rendition of the Trojan War next! What does everyone think!?
ps: I commented on FrostedMidnight's
NO TITLE.
As I sat here eating a bowl of Peanut Butter Captain Crunch, trying to decide what I want to talk about, it hit me that I don't have anything to talk about...sure I could go with The Aeneid when he goes to the Underworld, or I could revisit an Aristotle piece, but that's been done and I have nothing more to say about it. So that's what I'm going to talk about - not having anything to talk about.
As humans our individual personalities are different. It's easy to see who, in our class, is talkative about the subject and who is not. Not to say they are bashful, just that they don't have any thoughts on the books we are reading. For me, I can't bring myself to get into it, because the topic doesn't matter to me. I can't find a way that it will influence me or my life.
Others get SUPER into it. It's not that they necessarily read the material, but they do show a little passion for it. Like it's the coolest stuff they've ever read. (not read) Which I can see how it could be, they were interesting fellows with interesting thoughts and stories.
In one sense I can see how these are the best books for us to read, they are the classics - Homer, Socrates, Aristotle, whoever else. But on the other hand, it's not very useful for those of us who don't find it entertaining, which to me is what books are here for.
LAST POST, Hoorah!
I commented on Will's post.
The Fame Mons†er
"About fame: Look at the minds of those who seek fame, observe what they are, and what kind of things they avoid, and what kind of things they pursue. And consider that as the heaps of sand piled on one another hide the former sands, so in life the events which go before are soon covered by those which come after. " Book 7
Fame: A recurring theme in almost all of the literature that we have read this semester and one of my favorite subjects. In the Iliad we talked a ton about 'kleos', but today we're going to talk about straight-up fame. In the quote up above, Aurelius compares fame to sands on a beach. The new grains of sand cover up the old ones for a while, but only until more sand comes along to cover up those grains as well. This is probably the best description of fame I've ever heard.
Think about it for a minute. In today's music industry, everyone is concerned with the newest thing. If you wait too long between releasing singles people won't stick around and wait for you. They'll move right along to the next big thing. For example, a few years back Britney Spears was on the top of the world, but her star power fizzled out, her singles stopped coming and she went off the deep end. Now you rarely hear her music or even hear her name mentioned. People are more concerned with the newer 'grains of sand' that still have new material coming like Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and Ke$ha. In a few short years, the 'fame' of this pop icon has been buried in the sand. This shows us how ludicrous the pursuit of fame is. Even though can be great while you have it, fame won't last forever.
"He who has a vehement desire for posthumous fame does not consider that every one of those who remember him will himself also die very soon; then again also they who have succeeded them, until the whole remembrance shall have been extinguished as it is transmitted through men who foolishly admire and perish. But suppose that those who will remember are even immortal, and that the remembrance will be immortal, what then is this to thee? And I say not what is it to the dead, but what is it to the living? What is praise except indeed so far as it has a certain utility? For thou now rejectest unseasonably the gift of nature, clinging to something else... " Book 4
In some cases, though, fame does last for thousands of years. This 'posthumous' fame, fame that lives on after death, is what the Greeks lived for. Think about Achilles, Agamemnon, Diomedes or any of the other characters from the Iliad. They lived for 'kleos', and they got their wish. Thousands of years later, a college from halfway across the world is writing a blog about them. If that's not true fame, I'm not sure what is. The question is: Does this fame make a difference in the long run? Well, it does make a difference in a lot of people's lives. People all around the world have studied their stories and learned of their deeds. Unfortunately, the pursuit of fame, what these men spent their life on, did not actually benefit them at all. Sure, they were remembered, whoop-de-doo. They're still dead.
Is it really worth it to be one of the most revered heroes in history and not get to enjoy any of it? To this, I have no answer. I've wrestled with this for a while, and the only conclusion I can come to is that it really doesn't matter. All that matters is how your life is lived on earth. Once you die, the repurcussions made by your life won't benefit you, or hurt you, and therefor won't matter. They will affect the world around you, though. So be careful how you're remembered!
So what did we learn today? You can tie together Aurelius and Lady Gaga? Fame in general is perplexing? The phrase "whoop-de-doo" is acceptable in blogs? All good answers. Tune in next week when I'll be writing my blog extremely early so I have more time to worry with my paper. Yay.
Until Next Time,
Benjamin Folse
PS: I commented on Lucas' Blog "Anima Mundi, without the Death"
Fame: A recurring theme in almost all of the literature that we have read this semester and one of my favorite subjects. In the Iliad we talked a ton about 'kleos', but today we're going to talk about straight-up fame. In the quote up above, Aurelius compares fame to sands on a beach. The new grains of sand cover up the old ones for a while, but only until more sand comes along to cover up those grains as well. This is probably the best description of fame I've ever heard.
Think about it for a minute. In today's music industry, everyone is concerned with the newest thing. If you wait too long between releasing singles people won't stick around and wait for you. They'll move right along to the next big thing. For example, a few years back Britney Spears was on the top of the world, but her star power fizzled out, her singles stopped coming and she went off the deep end. Now you rarely hear her music or even hear her name mentioned. People are more concerned with the newer 'grains of sand' that still have new material coming like Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and Ke$ha. In a few short years, the 'fame' of this pop icon has been buried in the sand. This shows us how ludicrous the pursuit of fame is. Even though can be great while you have it, fame won't last forever.
"He who has a vehement desire for posthumous fame does not consider that every one of those who remember him will himself also die very soon; then again also they who have succeeded them, until the whole remembrance shall have been extinguished as it is transmitted through men who foolishly admire and perish. But suppose that those who will remember are even immortal, and that the remembrance will be immortal, what then is this to thee? And I say not what is it to the dead, but what is it to the living? What is praise except indeed so far as it has a certain utility? For thou now rejectest unseasonably the gift of nature, clinging to something else... " Book 4
In some cases, though, fame does last for thousands of years. This 'posthumous' fame, fame that lives on after death, is what the Greeks lived for. Think about Achilles, Agamemnon, Diomedes or any of the other characters from the Iliad. They lived for 'kleos', and they got their wish. Thousands of years later, a college from halfway across the world is writing a blog about them. If that's not true fame, I'm not sure what is. The question is: Does this fame make a difference in the long run? Well, it does make a difference in a lot of people's lives. People all around the world have studied their stories and learned of their deeds. Unfortunately, the pursuit of fame, what these men spent their life on, did not actually benefit them at all. Sure, they were remembered, whoop-de-doo. They're still dead.
Is it really worth it to be one of the most revered heroes in history and not get to enjoy any of it? To this, I have no answer. I've wrestled with this for a while, and the only conclusion I can come to is that it really doesn't matter. All that matters is how your life is lived on earth. Once you die, the repurcussions made by your life won't benefit you, or hurt you, and therefor won't matter. They will affect the world around you, though. So be careful how you're remembered!
So what did we learn today? You can tie together Aurelius and Lady Gaga? Fame in general is perplexing? The phrase "whoop-de-doo" is acceptable in blogs? All good answers. Tune in next week when I'll be writing my blog extremely early so I have more time to worry with my paper. Yay.
Until Next Time,
Benjamin Folse
PS: I commented on Lucas' Blog "Anima Mundi, without the Death"
Women are so silly
Ok, I know that Dido was under the influence of Eros, but I still cannot bring myself to see her as heroic. One would think that since she's been ruling the kingdom herself, that she'd have a better handle on her emotions than most women would. So, I'm inclined to feel less than sympathetic towards her situation following her reckless behavior with Aeneas. I'm sorry, but I would lose all respect for my Queen if I found out that she was involved in such a scandal. Of course, I've been accused of being of the more "heartless" nature, so I'm less inclined to show sympathy towards this highschool-like relationship.
The point is, Dido was silly silly silly. Not only did she make a complete fool of herself, but she also committed the selfish act of suicide to top it all off. Ya, that'll make things better, Dido. No, it's ok to leave your kingdom in an attempt to somehow be seen as a twisted heroine that deserves redemption. I hardly think so. But that's just me. Who am I? What do I know?
The point is, Dido was silly silly silly. Not only did she make a complete fool of herself, but she also committed the selfish act of suicide to top it all off. Ya, that'll make things better, Dido. No, it's ok to leave your kingdom in an attempt to somehow be seen as a twisted heroine that deserves redemption. I hardly think so. But that's just me. Who am I? What do I know?
The Underworld (or something)
First I'd like to say, I think I almost die laughing every time Dr. Mitchell talks about his great idea to have a lingerie store called The Underworld. Just saying.
We talked in class about it being instinctual for the souls to want to go to the underworld. I think that we are born with a need to believe in something greater. Humans want to have hope. We want to believe there is something greater than our current situation. This need causes faith, religion, idols, and countless other things.
Could this be the reason that the Greeks and Romans [and everyone else for that matter] were always coming up with crazy things to believe? In all these stories we've read, there have been thoughts of higher powers and an afterlife.
Everyone ultimately believes in something because of this hunger, lots just have the misfortune of believing the wrong things.
I know this isn't very long, but I wanted to get your opinions on this. What do you think?
I commented on FrostedMidnight's post
We talked in class about it being instinctual for the souls to want to go to the underworld. I think that we are born with a need to believe in something greater. Humans want to have hope. We want to believe there is something greater than our current situation. This need causes faith, religion, idols, and countless other things.
Could this be the reason that the Greeks and Romans [and everyone else for that matter] were always coming up with crazy things to believe? In all these stories we've read, there have been thoughts of higher powers and an afterlife.
Everyone ultimately believes in something because of this hunger, lots just have the misfortune of believing the wrong things.
I know this isn't very long, but I wanted to get your opinions on this. What do you think?
I commented on FrostedMidnight's post
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The Skin of My Teeth
Please no hate mail. Just scrapping for a point.
I find an odd question returning to me as I think about how the queen wants to abandon her kingdom and be with a man. Is this why the man is the ruler of the house normally? Is it why we've only had male presidents? Males seem suited to rule because of a near lack of emotion. The kingdom is greater than the self. Aeneas would never abandon the people or the foundation of Rome for a woman...but the woman would let it dissolve for a selfish love. It seems very selfish, yes. This must be why Rome was such a strong empire while Carthage fell.
-Will. COmmented on Jeremy's
We Forgot to go to Disney World
I'm seriously having a difficult time moving on from Aristotle. It's just so good. I seriously could go on for days. But I'm gonna try to get over it.
So let's talk about Aeneas. I was just reading through Book VI and I realized how easy this guy has it. He runs into the Sibyl and everything is a breeze from then on. She tells him up front exactly what he needs to know. Then he stands before this giant forest wondering which way to go and SHAZAM two little birdies appear to guide him along. Of course the golden branch comes of quite easily for him, meaning that he's supposed to go to see his dad in the underworld. This is not like Harry Potter trying to find the horcruxes. Aeneas knows exactly what he's looking for, why he's looking for it, where to find it and what to do with it when he finds it. It's more like Disney World than the underworld. There are little messengers everywhere telling him where to go and what to do. If only my life was that easy, my path that clear.
P.S. i commented on frostedmidnight's blog....whoever that is??? who are you?!?! because i agree with you!!! :)
P.P.S. explaining the title: when i was a little girl all my friends would come back to school after vacation and talk about how they went to Disney World. so I told my parents (who had no intention of doing so) that we should go to Disney World some time. Every day after that when we would get home from school/church/errands I would matter-of-factly state "Hey! We forgot to go to Disney World!"
So let's talk about Aeneas. I was just reading through Book VI and I realized how easy this guy has it. He runs into the Sibyl and everything is a breeze from then on. She tells him up front exactly what he needs to know. Then he stands before this giant forest wondering which way to go and SHAZAM two little birdies appear to guide him along. Of course the golden branch comes of quite easily for him, meaning that he's supposed to go to see his dad in the underworld. This is not like Harry Potter trying to find the horcruxes. Aeneas knows exactly what he's looking for, why he's looking for it, where to find it and what to do with it when he finds it. It's more like Disney World than the underworld. There are little messengers everywhere telling him where to go and what to do. If only my life was that easy, my path that clear.
P.S. i commented on frostedmidnight's blog....whoever that is??? who are you?!?! because i agree with you!!! :)
P.P.S. explaining the title: when i was a little girl all my friends would come back to school after vacation and talk about how they went to Disney World. so I told my parents (who had no intention of doing so) that we should go to Disney World some time. Every day after that when we would get home from school/church/errands I would matter-of-factly state "Hey! We forgot to go to Disney World!"
Rome/Greece vs. Hinduism
So, Malory will appreciate this one, because she is in Philosophy of World Religions with me.
Hinduism is thought to be the oldest religion. It is VERY widely beleived that it was at least around during the period that we are currently studying in Honors.
In Hiduism (and Buddhism, for the matter), life is not seen as linear, like we see it now. It is circular. It is a system of birth, life, death and rebirth(called Samsara). The goal of Hinduism and Buddhism is to escape this cycle, and move on to become one with nature(or God). The better you are at what you are, the closer you come to Nirvanna(escaping the cycle). THIS IS THE GOAL.
Now, in direct contrast to this, we see Rome. In the Aeneid, book 6. We see the underworld, which gives us the belief of afterlife. Here is also a view of reincarnation(this is also seen in Plato). Yet here, when you are the best at what you are, or the best to Rome, you WANT to be Reincarnated. This is the goal.
I find the differences in these interesting, and I think I'm going to study it further.
Hinduism is thought to be the oldest religion. It is VERY widely beleived that it was at least around during the period that we are currently studying in Honors.
In Hiduism (and Buddhism, for the matter), life is not seen as linear, like we see it now. It is circular. It is a system of birth, life, death and rebirth(called Samsara). The goal of Hinduism and Buddhism is to escape this cycle, and move on to become one with nature(or God). The better you are at what you are, the closer you come to Nirvanna(escaping the cycle). THIS IS THE GOAL.
Now, in direct contrast to this, we see Rome. In the Aeneid, book 6. We see the underworld, which gives us the belief of afterlife. Here is also a view of reincarnation(this is also seen in Plato). Yet here, when you are the best at what you are, or the best to Rome, you WANT to be Reincarnated. This is the goal.
I find the differences in these interesting, and I think I'm going to study it further.
In Short...I Hope You Die. A Love Song by Dido.
"My love affair with you It’s over, it’s through. We loved and then we lost and though we came at quite a cost we’ve both had the chance to grow. I’ve collected my thoughts and once before I go there’s just one thing I want you to know…
I wanna punch you in the face. Stab you with a sword.I hope you lose all your hair, get eaten by a bear, strangle yourself with a telephone cord.
Lean out a window a little too far, don’t look both was and get hit by a car. Choke on a Now And Later, get your shoelaces caught in an escalator:
In short
I hope you die" (In Short from Edges)
I know this quote is a bit long, but I thought it summed up the relationship between Dido and Aeneas perfectly. They had a very brief love affair and then Aeneas drops the "It's not you, its the gods" bomb on her and gets out of town as fast as he is capable of getting.
Dido in essence says, In short, I hope you die, only her limerick sings more like: I hope your boat crashes while your out at sea, and while you are drowning your thinking of me. I built a great town and saw its great walls, I was happy until you loved and left without just cause. If I cannot have you then I wish bad omens to fall; in short, I hope you die.
Dido, after singing her little diddy, proceeds to off herself in the most dramatic way possible. It was debated in class weather or not this was a just and honor redeeming death, but in the end Dido was a consenting individual, and even though her kingdom might have been lost to her, if death was the only honorable option left to her was she really doing much ruling at the time in the first place?
Dido over all seemed like a rather selfish character to me. After she (kind of) gets her wish and Aeneas finds her in the underworld, she proceeds to ignore him. Why? Perhaps it is like the song says: "Maybe it’s wrong to wish death on someone you had so much love for. But since we shared so much, it makes me want to kill you more." But if it was merely love motivating her, why would she ignore him in the underworld? In short...Dido is a rather contrary witch. She loves a man for a week, kills herself over his loss, and then refuses to acknowledge his presence when he finds her in the underworld? Most of the class seems to feel sympathy for her...but I just can't see it.
Dido wishes death on Aeneas claiming she was dieing unavenged. But in the end, she killed herself..and I cannot see any reason for vengeance to be invoked for suicide.
P.S.-I posted on Sara Dye's blog Carpe Diem
I wanna punch you in the face. Stab you with a sword.I hope you lose all your hair, get eaten by a bear, strangle yourself with a telephone cord.
Lean out a window a little too far, don’t look both was and get hit by a car. Choke on a Now And Later, get your shoelaces caught in an escalator:
In short
I hope you die" (In Short from Edges)
I know this quote is a bit long, but I thought it summed up the relationship between Dido and Aeneas perfectly. They had a very brief love affair and then Aeneas drops the "It's not you, its the gods" bomb on her and gets out of town as fast as he is capable of getting.
Dido in essence says, In short, I hope you die, only her limerick sings more like: I hope your boat crashes while your out at sea, and while you are drowning your thinking of me. I built a great town and saw its great walls, I was happy until you loved and left without just cause. If I cannot have you then I wish bad omens to fall; in short, I hope you die.
Dido, after singing her little diddy, proceeds to off herself in the most dramatic way possible. It was debated in class weather or not this was a just and honor redeeming death, but in the end Dido was a consenting individual, and even though her kingdom might have been lost to her, if death was the only honorable option left to her was she really doing much ruling at the time in the first place?
Dido over all seemed like a rather selfish character to me. After she (kind of) gets her wish and Aeneas finds her in the underworld, she proceeds to ignore him. Why? Perhaps it is like the song says: "Maybe it’s wrong to wish death on someone you had so much love for. But since we shared so much, it makes me want to kill you more." But if it was merely love motivating her, why would she ignore him in the underworld? In short...Dido is a rather contrary witch. She loves a man for a week, kills herself over his loss, and then refuses to acknowledge his presence when he finds her in the underworld? Most of the class seems to feel sympathy for her...but I just can't see it.
Dido wishes death on Aeneas claiming she was dieing unavenged. But in the end, she killed herself..and I cannot see any reason for vengeance to be invoked for suicide.
P.S.-I posted on Sara Dye's blog Carpe Diem
Our Journey to Justice through the Semester
Because of sickness I have missed the last couple of classes. So I’m not sure about the accuracy of my discussion, in reference to The Aenied. However I will make an attempt at this blog. I have an observation to discuss today. I noticed a key word in Book 6 of The Aeneid. Through the past semester we have been discussing many philosophy topics within Ancient Literature, but one of the topics we have discussed most heavily is justice. J- U-S-T-I-C-E. How I have enjoyed these discussions and debates about justice!
Justice has probably been one of my favorite topics. You can imagine, now, why I practically jumped when I saw the word in our most recent assignment. I took note. I am unsure what Aeneid contains on justice other than the books I’ve read so far, however I found the following very interesting: “Phlegyas in his misery teaches all souls His lesson, thundering out amid the gloom: ‘Be warned and study justice, not to scorn the immortal gods.” (Bk. 6, Ln 827-830) The Sibyl is telling Aeneas about the punishment of the immortals that committed terrible crimes or didn’t sacrifice to the gods. Though the lines are such a small reference, it highlights that justice has become important. This glimpse has little influence on the storyline but apparently justice was pretty important. After all, Phlegyas was being punished for not having it. “…teaches all souls his lesson” He had to, “learn a lesson,” as the cliché goes. I’m not sure where he went wrong. To the gods justice was so important they appointed him to teach and instill it through his deathly horrors. This makes me realize that we have come to a point, in the epic, where justice is now important and worth mentioning to the author.
Now let’s look back. In Iliad, we can all agree that there was very, very little Justice in the work. As we go through the writings of Aeschylus we see more and more justice showing through. Finally in The Eumenides we see Athena set up a trial-by-jury court system in Greece. Now in Virgil’s writing, Justice and standards are clearly established and important. Look at the progress! That is surprisingly exciting to me even though it’s just books! We have journeyed from the Iliad with no Justice, to Athena and the establishment of the court in The Eumenides, to The Aeneid, and later, The Roman justice system. Not to mention the discussion of justice from Socrates and Plato. How justice has grown!
P.S. I commented on Callie's post.
Justice has probably been one of my favorite topics. You can imagine, now, why I practically jumped when I saw the word in our most recent assignment. I took note. I am unsure what Aeneid contains on justice other than the books I’ve read so far, however I found the following very interesting: “Phlegyas in his misery teaches all souls His lesson, thundering out amid the gloom: ‘Be warned and study justice, not to scorn the immortal gods.” (Bk. 6, Ln 827-830) The Sibyl is telling Aeneas about the punishment of the immortals that committed terrible crimes or didn’t sacrifice to the gods. Though the lines are such a small reference, it highlights that justice has become important. This glimpse has little influence on the storyline but apparently justice was pretty important. After all, Phlegyas was being punished for not having it. “…teaches all souls his lesson” He had to, “learn a lesson,” as the cliché goes. I’m not sure where he went wrong. To the gods justice was so important they appointed him to teach and instill it through his deathly horrors. This makes me realize that we have come to a point, in the epic, where justice is now important and worth mentioning to the author.
Now let’s look back. In Iliad, we can all agree that there was very, very little Justice in the work. As we go through the writings of Aeschylus we see more and more justice showing through. Finally in The Eumenides we see Athena set up a trial-by-jury court system in Greece. Now in Virgil’s writing, Justice and standards are clearly established and important. Look at the progress! That is surprisingly exciting to me even though it’s just books! We have journeyed from the Iliad with no Justice, to Athena and the establishment of the court in The Eumenides, to The Aeneid, and later, The Roman justice system. Not to mention the discussion of justice from Socrates and Plato. How justice has grown!
P.S. I commented on Callie's post.
Carpe Diem
Carpe Diem- seize the day!
To seize the day is to make the most of the opportunities presented and the chances given. This is exactly what we are encouraged to do by Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations...
"Waste not the remainder of your life in thoughts about others, except when you are concerned with some unselfish purpose." -3.4
Aurelius is not condemning the practice of selfless love or of self-sacrifice. He is instead urging people to live unconcerned with what others think of them. Likewise, Aurelius also insists that man should live in the present, not concerned with the past or the future, as both are beyond the control of the individual. "Every man lives only in the present, which is an indivisible point, and that all the rest of his life is either past or uncertain. Short then is the time which any man lives" 3.10. In light of this fact, this shortness of our time on earth, Aurelius encourages us to carpe diem, to seize the opportunities that present themselves before us.
"No longer wander at random. You shall not live to read your own memoirs, or the acts of the ancient Romans and Greeks, or the selections from the books which you were reserving for your old age. Hasten then to the goal which you have before you. Throw away vain hopes and come to your own aid, while yet you may, if you care at all for yourself." -3.14
Aurelius is making the point that we can only live in the time we are allotted at the present moment. We have no guarantee of being around in the future, and we cannot live in the past. So, we must fix our eyes on the goals at present and "hasten" to those goals. We must eagerly seek to achieve them. We can hope in nothing and no one else to accomplish our goals for us. Whether the goal is surviving finals week or becoming a brain surgeon, the responsibility for the time we have and the goals we seek to accomplish lies solely in our hands.
With that in mind: Carpe Diem!
I commented on Treya's post.
To seize the day is to make the most of the opportunities presented and the chances given. This is exactly what we are encouraged to do by Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations...
"Waste not the remainder of your life in thoughts about others, except when you are concerned with some unselfish purpose." -3.4
Aurelius is not condemning the practice of selfless love or of self-sacrifice. He is instead urging people to live unconcerned with what others think of them. Likewise, Aurelius also insists that man should live in the present, not concerned with the past or the future, as both are beyond the control of the individual. "Every man lives only in the present, which is an indivisible point, and that all the rest of his life is either past or uncertain. Short then is the time which any man lives" 3.10. In light of this fact, this shortness of our time on earth, Aurelius encourages us to carpe diem, to seize the opportunities that present themselves before us.
"No longer wander at random. You shall not live to read your own memoirs, or the acts of the ancient Romans and Greeks, or the selections from the books which you were reserving for your old age. Hasten then to the goal which you have before you. Throw away vain hopes and come to your own aid, while yet you may, if you care at all for yourself." -3.14
Aurelius is making the point that we can only live in the time we are allotted at the present moment. We have no guarantee of being around in the future, and we cannot live in the past. So, we must fix our eyes on the goals at present and "hasten" to those goals. We must eagerly seek to achieve them. We can hope in nothing and no one else to accomplish our goals for us. Whether the goal is surviving finals week or becoming a brain surgeon, the responsibility for the time we have and the goals we seek to accomplish lies solely in our hands.
With that in mind: Carpe Diem!
I commented on Treya's post.
Anima Mundi, without the Death
The body is heavy. The spirit is free. The spirit resides within the body until death, weighing it down until then and establishing the motto, "head rules the belly with the aid of the chest."
Then there's the Internet.
Alright, so, in the digital realm and virtual reality, we can't do anything and everything imagineable. We can only simulate things, and to limited extents; until someone develops nerve synapses that can be implanted to give you chills when skiing down icy slopes, the smell of burning gunpowder on a battlefield, or the taste of... well, whatever you might choose to virtually eat (which would be a little odd)... we're left with only visual and audible simulation, fulfilling only two out of the five standard human senses.
Nonetheless, the Internet is a completely separate realm from the physical world, albeit manifested in physical terms through computers, electricity, etc. We interact with the Internet through physical devices, but we interact with each other and with material (software) within the realm that is the Internet. Over the last 15 years, we've developed a global social network through various means (e.g. email, IM, P2P, SMS, SNS, etc.) and are now able to connect with anyone willing to converse. Now, given the means to fulfill all 5 of the human senses through physical devices, you would probably start to see many people permamently 'connecting', both to the Internet and to whatever group of people someone might choose, and begin to abandon the real world. Where much physical action is necessary in the real world to complete a task, the Internet can provide instant gratification (depending on the nature of the desired act) with no physical effort necessary in any situation. So, delete the need for physical devices to delve into the Internet -- save an implant or two -- and you have created another dimension altogether, existant within the hum of computers and wires around the world. People could sit down in a chair, lie down in a bed, whatever is most relaxing to them in the real world; then connect to the Internet in their mind and live the rest of their life within the digital realm, letting their body sit in the real world until they either remember to come back to eat, sleep, whatever else necesary, or they forget altogether and rot away.
*big sigh from crowd* Okay, connection with anima mundi now, plz?
We are on the way to creating a realm where the 'World Soul' can be simulated without death: in the Internet. Mind you, that's certainly not 'anima mundi' since that speaks specifically of existence after death and complete freedom from the body; but with the right means available to us, we could satisfy the energy and unity of the spirit, save the immortality due to the continued need of our bodies to interact with the Internet, and sight since... well, if anything, one becomes more stupid when on the Internet. :P
It's a stretch of an observation (and hopefully that won't be the understatement of the month), but I can really see how 'anima mundi' can be related to the Internet, provided we had a means to interact with and through it and the ability to trigger all five standard human senses. There would still be so much missing, such as the immortality and sight as previously mentioned; but more still that's currently accessible to us, such as the emotional and physical bond that can be shared between a couple, friends, or parents and their children. We would miss out on all of nature and the pleasures it can give to the body and soul. Of course, these and broader points could probably be argued if software could simulate these things, but nothing artificial will ever be as satisfying as 'the real thing'.
I was just pondering some of this stuff when 'anima mundi' was brought up (yes, I ponder a lot. XP ). Comment away if you've got anything to say.
Then there's the Internet.
Alright, so, in the digital realm and virtual reality, we can't do anything and everything imagineable. We can only simulate things, and to limited extents; until someone develops nerve synapses that can be implanted to give you chills when skiing down icy slopes, the smell of burning gunpowder on a battlefield, or the taste of... well, whatever you might choose to virtually eat (which would be a little odd)... we're left with only visual and audible simulation, fulfilling only two out of the five standard human senses.
Nonetheless, the Internet is a completely separate realm from the physical world, albeit manifested in physical terms through computers, electricity, etc. We interact with the Internet through physical devices, but we interact with each other and with material (software) within the realm that is the Internet. Over the last 15 years, we've developed a global social network through various means (e.g. email, IM, P2P, SMS, SNS, etc.) and are now able to connect with anyone willing to converse. Now, given the means to fulfill all 5 of the human senses through physical devices, you would probably start to see many people permamently 'connecting', both to the Internet and to whatever group of people someone might choose, and begin to abandon the real world. Where much physical action is necessary in the real world to complete a task, the Internet can provide instant gratification (depending on the nature of the desired act) with no physical effort necessary in any situation. So, delete the need for physical devices to delve into the Internet -- save an implant or two -- and you have created another dimension altogether, existant within the hum of computers and wires around the world. People could sit down in a chair, lie down in a bed, whatever is most relaxing to them in the real world; then connect to the Internet in their mind and live the rest of their life within the digital realm, letting their body sit in the real world until they either remember to come back to eat, sleep, whatever else necesary, or they forget altogether and rot away.
*big sigh from crowd* Okay, connection with anima mundi now, plz?
We are on the way to creating a realm where the 'World Soul' can be simulated without death: in the Internet. Mind you, that's certainly not 'anima mundi' since that speaks specifically of existence after death and complete freedom from the body; but with the right means available to us, we could satisfy the energy and unity of the spirit, save the immortality due to the continued need of our bodies to interact with the Internet, and sight since... well, if anything, one becomes more stupid when on the Internet. :P
It's a stretch of an observation (and hopefully that won't be the understatement of the month), but I can really see how 'anima mundi' can be related to the Internet, provided we had a means to interact with and through it and the ability to trigger all five standard human senses. There would still be so much missing, such as the immortality and sight as previously mentioned; but more still that's currently accessible to us, such as the emotional and physical bond that can be shared between a couple, friends, or parents and their children. We would miss out on all of nature and the pleasures it can give to the body and soul. Of course, these and broader points could probably be argued if software could simulate these things, but nothing artificial will ever be as satisfying as 'the real thing'.
I was just pondering some of this stuff when 'anima mundi' was brought up (yes, I ponder a lot. XP ). Comment away if you've got anything to say.
"and returned her love"
"Her face no more affected than if she were immobile granite or marpesian stone. At length she flung away from him and fled, his enemy still, into the shadowy grove where he whose bride she had once been, Sychaeus, joined in her sorrows and returned her love. Aeneas still gazed after her in tears, shaken by her ill fate and pitying her.'' p.176
This is such a heartbreaking picture. Now, everyone has different opinions of Dido and how she could have handled their parting but we see here how truly ravaged her heart is over it all. She did nothing but ignore him, I would think because it just hurt too much to look at him. She went to Sychaeus, a former love, and basically settled for the man that would love her. Don't women do that? Not all, of course, but too many women simply settle for the man that will love them. Dido loves Aeneas but her heart is so torn that she feels she needs another to hold it together. My question though, is what is it that Aeneas is pitying? Is it his role in her heartbreak or just the fact that she is hurting? Is it the fact that she is settling with a man she does not love simply because she has no one else? Personally, I think it's a little of all three. He regrets his role, though he makes you just want to punch him, but also pities her situation and heartbreak. She must now live with an old flame, one who could join in her heartbreak...one who could love her. All this, despite the fact she did not love him back.
This is such a heartbreaking picture. Now, everyone has different opinions of Dido and how she could have handled their parting but we see here how truly ravaged her heart is over it all. She did nothing but ignore him, I would think because it just hurt too much to look at him. She went to Sychaeus, a former love, and basically settled for the man that would love her. Don't women do that? Not all, of course, but too many women simply settle for the man that will love them. Dido loves Aeneas but her heart is so torn that she feels she needs another to hold it together. My question though, is what is it that Aeneas is pitying? Is it his role in her heartbreak or just the fact that she is hurting? Is it the fact that she is settling with a man she does not love simply because she has no one else? Personally, I think it's a little of all three. He regrets his role, though he makes you just want to punch him, but also pities her situation and heartbreak. She must now live with an old flame, one who could join in her heartbreak...one who could love her. All this, despite the fact she did not love him back.
Ironic
Aeneas and Dido’s love is the most interesting part of the book to me. I find it ironic how they both end up begging each other for more time. Of course Dido’s hurt way surpasses what Aeneas goes through, but he feels the pain from their relationship as well. Dido was truly humbled by love. She fell in love so passionately and desperately that she believed there was no way for her to recover from it. She gave up her reputation for him, making the surrounding nations hate her. On top of that she did what is hardest for a woman scorned to do, she begged. At first she got mad at him, but this soon turned into a humble plead. She has her sister tell him “Time is all I beg, Mere time, a respite and a breathing space for madness to subside in, while my fortune teaches me how to take defeat and grieve.” She was so utterly defeated that she told him he could leave, just help her be strong first. Now that is a desperate and humbling thing to ask. She also decides to “leave nothing untried, not to die needlessly.” I think this shows that she did value her life, however, she truly believed that she couldn’t live having been devastatingly heartbroken twice.
On Aeneas’s side, he remained unmoving through all of Dido’s please, but the book says that his calling by the gods is what lead him on. “shaken still with love for her, yet took the course heaven gave him and went back to the fleet.” You also see how much he still loveed Dido when he meets her in the underworld. Ironically he begged her for the very thing that he would not grant her. He says “wait a little. Do not leave my sight. Am I someone to flee from?” As he fled from her so she now does to him in return. He wanted just another moment with her, to ready his broken heart to deal with loosing her, but he cannot get this. She ran from him back to her old love, just as he ran from her to the love of his country.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be
"Each of us bears his own Hell."
-Virgil
Virgil's description of Hell really surprised me. Then again, the concept of Heaven and Hell is a subject that has always captivated, both for religious and literary reasons. Christianity has always defined the two possible afterlife destinations as completely and totally opposite, as different as day and night. Good go Heaven, baddies go to Hell, go to church on Sunday and stay out of the whorehouse and you'll be alright. This is the classic mantra of organized religion, a "carrot and stick" means of enforcing morality that still holds sway to this day (thanks in no small part to Dante's Inferno). For those that do not necessarily believe in afterlife, you have the karmic cycle, the righteousness of dharma, and the uber-spiritual effort to escape reincarnation and become godlike.
What's funny about the Roman perception of the afterlife is that, before these religions even existed or held worldwide prominance, they sort of mixed these all together to create something seemingly inspired by all ideals of spirituality, something Rome would become famous for doing. Their afterlife consists of just one zone rather than two, but is divided in to three areas. After crossing the river you enter the city of Dis, comparable to Purgatory or Limbo in that those who are neither righteous or wicked simply wander around seeking answers. It's not great or terrible, it's just kinda lukewarm (no wonder Aeneas went around it).
To the left (sinister) is Tartarus, the Roman equivalent of Hell, containing appropriate justice for the wicked and is just as frightening as you can imagine. Here are the god-defiers, greedy, violent, and the liars. To the right (dexter) are the Elysian Fields, and this is where things get tricky. Yes, it's the Roman equivalent of Heaven, but what surprised me is that for some there is the option of reincarnation, where the soul is purified of the stench of the body still left on the soul so it can be re-released into the world. You see, reflections of Hinduism. In this zone are the priests, artists, warriors, and yes, poets (suck on that Plato)! Notice that those who were totally submissive to the gods are in paradise, similar to the core value of Islam.
I guess when it comes to the Romans who it is they're worshipping isn't as important as actually believeing there's more to life than just this. It makes sense, then, that other religions are echoed in their idea of the afterlife, as it is not the theology that's important to the Romans but the spirituality. Well, there you go, please feel free to comment with questions or criticism. BTW, I commented on Treya's post, Wisdom wins.
Have a nice afterlife! 8D
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Jumping Back
So, I have been quite forgetful in regard to my blogs. For this I apologize. Since I'm so late and have been sick I'm gonna jump back to Aristotle. Something that really jumped out at me was his explanation that it is most excellent to pursue a median of actions and emotions. It is unhealthy to have either a deficiency or an excess of any given emotion or action. He briefly mentioned something that I had to go into deeper thought about. He said that this median is not the same for everyone. My entire life I have felt like my sister and I have been forced into a box by the public school system. I was never allowed to skip ahead and she, because of the "no child left behind" policy, was pushed through without having learned the material. Expecting everyone to have the same median does no one any good. In order to really help children learn, things have to get personal. Aristotle states that certain goals should be made based on each person's abilities. That is how education should be carried out.
Wisdom wins
I have to say the part about the Trojan Horse was the most aggravating part of the book so far. It was one of those parts where you want to scream at the characters in the book because they are causing their own death. They had so many chances to discover the truth about the horse, but something always stopped them. When they were bringing it up from the beach Capys and a few others mentioned the actual chance of there being warriors hiding inside of the hollowed belly, yet they don’t convince the mass of Trojans to check. Also the Priest Laocoon and the Prophetess Cassandra warn against the horse, but it seems other forces are at work. Athena finally gets her revenge on Troy by helping the trick of the Greeks succeed. The Trojans might not have brought the Trojan Horse in without the sign of the snakes devouring Laocoon and his children. As Aeneas finds out later it really was by the choice of the gods that Troy fell. Athena and Hera’s wicked plan finally played out, they sacked the city of Troy.
ps. I commented on Anna's blog
Epic Beginnings
I find it interesting that almost every epic beginns with the same kind of circumstances. Normally there is very strong emotions involved, a god hs been upset, there is war afoot, the poet lets the story be told by a Muse, and there is a life-changing journey that is about to take place by the protagonist. In the Aeneid, Juno is ticked off straight from the beginning, and she is angry at Aneas because he is a Trojan. There is the negative emotion. Like in the Illiad, Achilleus gets ticked off immediately because Agammemnon takes his wife from him. Juno is the angry god in the Aeneid, and in the Illiad Apollo is prayed to, and then he gets angry at the Achaians at the request of the temple priest who had his daughter stolen from him. Troy is at war in both the Aenied and the Illiad. The Greeks are attacking it in the Aeneid, and the Achaians attack it eventually in the Illiad. So fighting is a key element in both of those epics. Homer set the standard for all epics to be written, so it makes sense that all of the epics that follow his Illiad and Odyssey are similar to his works in some way. His epic was primary though, the original epis, whereas all the others that follow tend to be secondary epics. Once a standars is set, people tend to follow it.
I commented on Anna's blog.
I commented on Anna's blog.
Revenge
Juno and her unquenchable thirst revenge tend to irritate me. First, she has a problem with Troy because Paris didn't think she was more divinely beautiful than Venus. Second, she has a problem with Aeneas because he is fated to destroy her favorite city. Tear, tear, tear...
The antics of revenge are selfish and juvenile. Juno acts like a five year old--although, I coach gymnastics for five year olds who are better behaved. Regardless, I think you see the point. In my mind, I really want to send Juno to a timeout in the corner.
What is it inside of us that entices us to revenge? Why is "an eye for an eye" our immediate approach to someone wronging us? I understand Juno is supposed to be a goddess and there is apparently this "big" difference between the mythological deities and humans, but I am failing to see the line that divides the two in this situation. Revenge seems like a way of forcing others to feel our hurt by cutting them down to match the pain we feel; it seems to assume the other party has never felt pain before. The party performing the revenge views it as justice, the party receiving revenge views it as injustice. Are not the gods supposed to be just? Wherein lies Juno's justice in her revenge? I see no justice in revenge, so how could she truly be a goddess?
P.S. Commented on Olivia's
P.P.S. Sorry this is late.
Lust in Ancient Literature
It’s interesting to me how Greek mythology continually uses the power of beauty and the power of lust throughout its stories. First we see it in The Iliad. Helen’s beauty caused a war. One man’s lust killed resulted in the death of hundreds of men. It seems to me in Ancient literature, lust is often a turning point in Ancient literature plot-lines. In the Aeneid the plot is significantly affected by the power of lust.
"What I propose is to ensnare the queen
by guile beforehand, pin her down in passion
so that she cannot be changed by any power,
but will be kept on my side by profound
love for Aeneas.”
So, let’s back up. Aeneas lands in Agenor, in a land ruled by a queen named Dido. When Aeneas and his fleet land there they have nothing. According to a prophecy, Aeneas will be the downfall to Dido’s kingdom. Aphrodite’s mission was to make Dido completely unaware of this, so that she could pave the way for Aeneas. Aphrodite decides to send her son Desire (also known as cupid) to take over Dido.
What I find most interesting is the part that says, “Pin her down in passion so that she cannot be changed by any power.” Whoa! That has to be some kind of power, if Aphrodite thinks that it cannot be changed by any other power. In Greek literature we see gods going back and forth using their powers to out-do, or undo something another god has done.
Why do we see the influence of lust so often playing a key role in Ancient Literature? Was it because that was only a part of their culture? Is there something more. I think there is a certain amount of truth to be learned from this observation. Maybe our culture does not realize how powerful lust and beauty are. It’s to be respected just like a snake that can poison you.
"What I propose is to ensnare the queen
by guile beforehand, pin her down in passion
so that she cannot be changed by any power,
but will be kept on my side by profound
love for Aeneas.”
So, let’s back up. Aeneas lands in Agenor, in a land ruled by a queen named Dido. When Aeneas and his fleet land there they have nothing. According to a prophecy, Aeneas will be the downfall to Dido’s kingdom. Aphrodite’s mission was to make Dido completely unaware of this, so that she could pave the way for Aeneas. Aphrodite decides to send her son Desire (also known as cupid) to take over Dido.
What I find most interesting is the part that says, “Pin her down in passion so that she cannot be changed by any power.” Whoa! That has to be some kind of power, if Aphrodite thinks that it cannot be changed by any other power. In Greek literature we see gods going back and forth using their powers to out-do, or undo something another god has done.
Why do we see the influence of lust so often playing a key role in Ancient Literature? Was it because that was only a part of their culture? Is there something more. I think there is a certain amount of truth to be learned from this observation. Maybe our culture does not realize how powerful lust and beauty are. It’s to be respected just like a snake that can poison you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)