I am slightly unclear on Dante's depiction of the Church and it's future in the Purgatorio. Canto 31 represents the Four Cardinal Virtues as present in the best of men to prepare the way for the triumph of the Church. These virtues can be achieved within men and work to drive them to the Church, through which they can know the Divine Love of Christ (the Second Vision). Led by the Four Cardinal Virtues, Dante sees the reflection of the Griffin through the eyes of Beatrice and achieves his first revelation. The notes explain that Beatrice is a representation of the Church here, indicating that it is through the Church that one is able to achieve the first fruits of Faith by seeing as much of the nature of God as is perceivable in the first life. But in Canto 32, Dante witnesses and discusses the corruption of the Church through wealth in an extended allegory, in which a chariot (the Church), is attacked by an eagle (the Roman Empire), a fox (heresy), and a dragon (Satan). The chariot then converts into a monstrous beast covered in feathers (riches), and is ridden by a harlot (the corrupted papacy), and attended by a giant (the French Monarchy). Dante presents the evils of the rich and arrogant Church and the sins that have taken root within it. In Canto 33 Beatrice states that "man's ways, even at his best, are far from God's" (575), but the notes explain an earlier line in Latin from Beatrice to mean that "the pure in heart shall rise above the corruption of the Church to see Christ again in Heaven. More likely, Dante meant that the Church shall be purged until Christ is once more truly visible in its workings" (577). It is clear that Dante believes in the purification and reworking of the Church so that it is no longer corrupt and instead reflects Christ, but does what he has written express belief that this is possible, since men fall short in all ways? Does he believe that he stands above the Church as one who was endowed with special virtues and was capable of achieving a vision of Christ's Divine Love without the Church? But wasn't he also one who was so lost in his ways himself that the Divine powers interfered to save his soul? I'm just slightly confused on all of  the depictions of the Church and their meanings. Anyone understand this better and have any thoughts?

Paradiso

All of the souls left in the inferno are left there for all of eternity to regret the sins they made in their lives and hate themselves for being in the position that they are in while the souls that are put in paradise live and are content with where they are even if their situation isn't the best.  We see this when Dante meets up with Piccarda.  She says that she is perfectly fine with the sphere she is in because she has love for God.  This shows that Dante is writing saying that people should follow God blindly even if you aren't given the best situation.  Though she is in heaven, she isn't at the best sphere, but she trusts God enough.  This is a good sentiment, having faith that God will guide you right, but it seems like like blind faith.  It's a lot like in the book of Job in the old testament.  God hit Job with terrible tragedies, but Job kept his faith the whole time.  Job would certainly be put in a good sphere of paradise, but it is encouraging people to follow the bible strictly literally and put all of your faith in something that you can't be sure of.  If you lived in this time, and could remember your time in paradise when you returned to earth, would you choose the "right path" that Dante was trying to inspire in us, or would continue living your life as you had?

Repentance In Hell

So far in the Cantos we have focused on, the punishments have seemed to have given a whole new meaning to the phrase "poetic justice." With the lovers being thrown about in the storm of their passions, and with the avaricious and the hoarders pushing at each other for all eternity...these people's punishment seems to me to be the state of their souls. You might add that hell is an exaggerated condition of these people's souls, but I'm not too sure Dante would agree; if you think back to the way in which Aristotle believes that wrongdoing warps the soul into a twisted shadow of its former self, it's plausible that maybe, if given a physical representation, an unrepentant sinner's soul might look like one in the circles of hell. That is also something Dante mentions a lot - those guilty of sins of the flesh refuse to repent. Dido herself said that the Love which condemned her to the Second Circle "has not left [her] yet" (I.105). If a sinner were to repent, would they be released from hell? Is the whole point of hell that these sinners will never repent? What do you guys rhink?

Cantos 12-19

It seems to me that Dante's relationship with his guide, Virgil, has grown increasingly more affectionate and loving, and there are some interesting interactions between the two in these Cantos. Dante refers to Virgil as his "Guide," "Lord," and "Master," and recognizes that Virgil has overcome "every dread [they] have encountered" (114), increasing his regard of, and trust in, Virgil as his guide. Virgil is his "stay…comfort…and courage in other perils" (136), and when Dante displays fear, as he does with the beast in Canto 17, Virgil gathers and embraces him. Dante also observes the ways Virgil berates the souls as they go deeper into Hell, and begins to emulate him. When Dante condemns the sinner in Canto 19 he notes that it pleases his Guide, and the two then share an affectionate moment as Virgil "approached, and with both arms lifted [him]…and gathered [him] against his breast," carrying him up an arch where he then "tenderly set down the heavy burden he had been pleased to carry up that ledge" (153). I think the relationship that Dante shares with Virgil could be a representation of the growing strength of his own reason, and his growing trust in it. He is becoming more devoted to the improvement and use of his reason, and it is in turn rewarding him. Any other ideas on the loving relationship between Dante and his guide displayed in these Cantos?

In Cantos 1-11, I found Dante's reactions to the suffering souls interesting. In the second circle, he meets the lovers Paolo and Francesca and says to Francesca, "What you suffer here melts me to tears of pity and of pain"(50), and their story and displays of grief cause him to faint. When he meets Ciacco in the third circle of gluttons he expresses the same compassion, saying, "Your agony weighs on my heart and calls my soul to tears"(56). But in the fifth circle of the wrathful, Dante sees Filippo Argenti and wishes to "see the wretch scrubbed down into the swill"(69), praising God for his torment. He then witnesses a group of wraiths attack Filippo. This is one of the most disturbing sufferings that Dante has seen thus far, but instead of showing the same remorse that he was so moved by previously, he is pleased by Filippo's punishment. The notes for the chapter explain that Filippo was one of Dante's political enemies, but even so, it's striking to me that even on his journey away from wordily affairs that plague men's souls and towards a more enlightened state guided by Reason and the Divine, he still denies his enemies any compassion and pleasures in their pain.

Realistic vs. Idealistic

​​​In Question 96, Thomas Aquinas discusses the purpose and power of human law. He claims that the law isn't aimed for the benefit of the individual, but for that of the common good. This seems similar to the opinion of other philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle. However, I found it interesting that Aquinas does not believe that human law has the ability, or even the right, to suppress all human vice. His philosophical predecessors banked heavily on human law to purge vice from our species; in Plato's Republic, Socrates debated which laws were necessary to create a city full of virtuous people. Aquinas, according to Article 2, appears to disagree with Plato and the others here; he says that "human law is framed for a number of human beings," all at varying levels of virtue, and that a vicious person should not be held to the same standard as a virtuous person. Here we see in Aquinas a level of realism not often appreciated by philosophers: he accepts that the law cannot condemn every immoral behavior. You can do something wrong without breaking the law - and Aquinas does not believe that this makes the law deficient. It's a very modern notion. For someone who is both a philosopher and a member of the Church, Aquinas might deserve respect purely on the grounds that he understands how human law plays out in practice. What do you think? Is Aquinas being realistic here, or is he maybe just being lazy, letting people wallow in their sin?

Individuality

While reading the second part of St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics I noticed a trend, which is that he focuses a lot of the individual. He discusses whether "a Private Person Can Kill a Criminal" (69), if "It is Permissible to Kill in Self-Defense" (70), he rules of suicide, etc. It is logical that he denied the individual power over so many things and condemned the acts of suicide and taking justice into one's own hands, due to his position in the church. He lived during a time when Holy Roman Empire was still in existence and the sense of unity that was felt by the Romans must have been incredible. This is why he emphasizes that many decisions should be left to a higher power, like the Emperor or God, because the average individual is just a piece of the community and therefor should not make decisions for it.

It is interesting how although he gives the individual so little power, our founding fathers set up a nation based on the principles of individual rights and liberties. His work was groundbreaking in the 13th century and was very influential in the Western world, given he did die five hundred years prior to the founding of the United States and almost all works lose some of their influence over time, it is still odd. His work continues to lose traction in the United States as everyday individuals gain more and more power. My question to the class is whether you think that our world today would be better off if we followed St. Thomas Aquinas' rules or if we continues to live by the rules that govern society as it is now?

The Summa of Theology

On page 30, St. Thomas Aquinas makes the following statement: "Therefore if there were a God, evil would not exist." I disagree with this statement. According most theological texts, namely The Bible and The Qur'an, it was human beings that were responsible for creating sin. I am most familiar with Christian theology, and God distinctly told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, yet Eve did anyway. She then told Adam to try the fruit, leading the God of the Old Testament to force them out of the paradise of Eden. God did not intend for sin to occur; it was the notion of free will that led to sin. St. Thomas Aquinas then continues on to list 5 reasons that God does exist. In your opinion, do you think God and the idea evil can exist together, and that man was responsible for the entrance of evil into society? If so, why or why not.

True Happiness

On page 42 of St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics, Qu. 3 and Qu. 5 talk about happiness and how happiness can be achieved. In Qu. 3 this is said, "First, man is not perfectly happy as long as something more remains to be desired or sought." He is saying that no one can be perfectly happy if there is something else they want to achieve. In Qu. 5, this is said, "Some partial happiness can be achieved in this life, but true perfect happiness cannot." So what is true perfect happiness? This question is also answered in Qu. 5, "Full and sufficient happiness excludes every evil and fulfills every desire." Based on this, is anyone truly happy? I believe this is being taken a little too far because someone can be truly happy without everything he wants. Everyone has a different idea of what true happiness is. What do you guys think?

letter 6

In letter 6, I was struck by the inconsistency and borderline hypocrisy of Abelard's remarks to Heloise. He asks her to "write no more"(pg.86) to him, and entreats her to remove him from her heart and focus on her own salvation. He recognizes that she is still "enslaved to human love"(pg.88), and speaks to her of temptation and suffering. But Abelard shows signs throughout the letter that he still struggles too in turning his heart from her to Christ, and his plea for the cessation of her letters reads to be as much for his sake as for hers. He writes,

"Think not, Heloise, that I here enjoy a perfect peace; I will for the last time open my heart to you; I am not yet disengaged from you, and though I fight against my excessive tenderness for you, in spite of all my endeavors I remain but too sensible of your sorrows and long to share in them. Your letters have indeed moved me; I could not read with indifference characters written by that dear hand! I sigh and weep, and all my reason is scarce sufficient to conceal my weakness from my pupils. This, unhappy Heloise, is the miserable condition of Abelard. The world, which is generally wrong in its notions, thinks I am at peace, and imagining that I loved you only for the gratification of the senses, have now forgot you. What a mistake is this! People indeed were not wrong in saying that when we separated it was shame and grief that made me abandon the world. It was not, as you know, a sincere repentance for having offended God which inspired me with a design for retiring" (pg.87).

He not only admits his continued love for her, but admits to having retired to be a monk out of shame and grief for losing her and the events that transpired, rather than out of a desire to repent. To me, Abelard seems almost unfair in his letter in the way he expresses himself to her, in one moment even dwelling in the idea of making his home at the Paraclete and watching over her and the other sisters, and then instructing her to forget him and focus on religious perfection. Anyone else agree that Abelard seems inconsistent in what he gives Heloise to think about and what he tells her to think about?

Dear Fellow Classmates,

I would like to draw your attention today to a quote from Abelard's reply to Heloise's Letter 6, "Although women are the weaker sex, their virtue is more pleasing to God and more perfect" (pg 118).

In this quote, Abelard is responding to Heloise's blatant sexism towards her own gender, "the weaker sex" in the previous letter. The reason my attention was drawn to this quote was in part because I was surprised by Heloise's attitude towards women but I was even more surprised that Abelard felt the need to clarify and praise women...in a backhanded sort of way. I feel as though his justification of women being born into paradise and therefore it being their native land and native way to be almost insulting. I may be reading too far into it, but I feel like he is insinuating that men are innately going to be harder to control so they should have a different Rule than women. Though he does go into and cover a bunch of successful women in his letter I feel as though he still rejects the idea of equality. Other than their use of the term, "the weaker sex", there are tones and comparisons the two writers use that ultimately show the common idea of the day of women being inferior. I am wondering if you all agree on the attitude I am picking up? Or, perhaps you feel these letters expressed rather progressive ideas and thoughts on sexism?

The Letters of Abelard and Heloise Chapters 2-5

"It was the first woman in the beginning who lured man from Paradise, and she who had been created by the Lord as his helpmate became the instrument of his total downfall" (67)

 In Letter 4, Heloise really places emphasis on the obvious and deeply engrained sexism of the time. She asks Abelard why he would write her name in front of his on his letter to her and backs her argument that women are the lesser beings of the two sexes with multiple examples, such as the one above. I always find it interesting to hear different interpretations of the fall of mankind. The author of this text takes the stance that is was Eve's fault that man was kicked out of the Garden of Eden, however, I have read several other texts, including Paradise Lost, that suggest otherwise. Milton's Paradise Lost, had tremendous amounts of influence on how people perceived the fall of man (both Adam and Eve share the blame equally) and it was also written half of a century before The Letters of Abelard and Heloise was published. I do not know enough about the history of the religious and literary worlds in France to understand why the author of The Letters chose one interpretation while many others chose another or if it was purely a result of the social norm of sexism at the time. Does anyone have background knowledge of France and can answer why the author chose this interpretation? Also, what side do you take in this argument over who is to blame for the fall of man and why?

Letters 2-5

Many times in both of my semesters of Search and in my first year writing seminar people have questioned why we don't read more stories written by women.  Now we finally have something from a woman's perspective, but I don't know if it's the best representation of women during this time.  Heloise was a nun, but is remembered more for her affair with Abelard instead of what she did with her life beyond her love life.  I don't feel that Heloise was necessarily depicted in a bad light, of course she did a lot of good, but in a class based on the search for values in western culture, there should be more literature with a stronger female lead.  How do you think Heloise was depicted in these letters and do you think this is a good choice for this class?

Averroes

My Fellow Classmates,

Averroes states on page 165 that "the law has rendered obligatory the study of beings by intellect, and reflection on them, and since reflection is nothing more than inference and drawing out of the unknown, and since this is reasoning or at any rate done by reasoning, therefore we are under an obligation to carry out our study of beings by intellectual reasoning."

Although the purpose of this, which is meant to promote  "knowledge of God", is fairly noble and logical in theory, it also contradicts what God told Adam and Eve to not do when they awoke in the Garden of Eden. God commanded that they not go near the tree of knowledge and to at all costs avoid the temptation of feasting on its fruit. Satan was able to persuade Eve do do just the opposite of that with the argument that eating the fruit would provide Eve with incredible knowledge, which would raise her status to that of God. Therefore, the law that Averroes' speaks of in the passage above defies God's law, because it argues that the pursuit of all unknown knowledge is good. Although the Qur'an "[urges] the study of totality of beings", modern day Turkey and Iran, the two most largest Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East, are not very scientifically or technologically advanced. One would assume that if the Qur'an was taken literally then most Muslims would attempt to pursue the sciences and therefore Turkey and Iran would be more modernized nations, but they are not.

Do you think that this law conflicts with what God commanded of Adam and Eve and if so if this is significant? Also, if acquiring knowledge is labeled as important in the Qur'an, then why are nations like Turkey and Iran still deemed 'third world countries'?

Sura 85: The Towering Constellations

"Their only grievance against them was their faith in God, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy, to whom all control over the heavens and earth belongs: God is witness over all things." (The Towering Constellations 85.8-85.9)


Sura eighty-five really highlights the all-powerfulness of Allah.  Likewise, it also shows Allah's dedication to protecting his believers.  This particular Sura stood out to me, amongst the rest because it wasn't like anything we've read before in search up until this point.  The Allah portrayed in this Sura seems more removed from the actions of mortals yet very stern in deciding an individual's experience in the afterlife.  In a sense Allah is portrayed in a paternal light looking out for his followers in the long run.  Although not providing immediate condolences or punishment for the persecutors of his followers, the Quran states, " For those who persecute believing men and women, and do not repent afterwards, there will be the torment of Hell and burning, (The Towering Constellations 85.11)"  My question for you, my fellow classmates is how would the Quran's description of Allah, their God/divine authority, compare to the other portrayals of "God" we've read about this year?

The Jinn- Sura 72

"Places of worship are for God alone-- so do not pray to anyone other than God" (Jinn 72.18)
The Jinn was a religious group of the time that overheard the Qur'an and immediately realized its truth and became Muslim. This chapter explains how God can never be escaped, and that those who submit to him should fear no "loss or injustice". This similarly relates to Christian teaching, as Christians believe that through Jesus, they too should fear no loss or injustice as the Lord will protect them. The above quote remind me of one of the Ten Commandments of Christianity: "Thou shall not worship idols." This is one of the worst sins an individual can commit in both religions. From my reading thus far, I have been finding many similarities between The Qur'an and The Bible. My question for the class is as follows. Has anyone else found these similarities? If so, do you think these two religions were influenced by each other through their creation?

Sura 4: Women

"Concerning your children, God commands that a son should have the equivalent share of two daughters"(Women 4:11).

This quote exemplifies gender inequality in the Qur'an, a problem that continues to occur in Muslim society today. Many of the most notable religious texts, including the Bible, contain passages that seen to demean women. Men were seen as the dominant and superior gender of the time these ancient texts were written, and it is often difficult to transfer over these texts to resound with women of religion today. This chapter of the Qur'an ends with the following quote: "a man is titled to twice the sharing of the female" (Women 4:176). This reiterates the fact that men were believed to have more value than women. My question for the class is as follows, keeping in mind that I am not familiar with Islam. Does the Qur'an demean women more than other religious texts, or are these passages simply a product of the time in which they were written, similar to other philosophical works from this time period? 

Livestock Qur'an

“If you find rejection by the disbelievers so hard to bear, then seek a tunnel into the ground or a ladder into the sky, if you can, and bring them a sign: God could bring them all to guidance if it were His will, so do not join the ignorant” (Livestock 6:28)

            This quote seems to be arguing that God has control of those who believe and him and those that do not. This is reinforced later in this book: “God leaves whoever He will to stray, and sets whoever He will on a straight path” (Livestock 6:28). I believe that this is included to provide comfort to Muslims who are exposed to people who argue that Islam is a myth. By telling Muslims that they are selected by God himself to be his follower, followers of Islam will be less inclined to listen to others that are opposed to Islam. This is also a unifying force for followers of Islam, the belief that God chose you and your fellow Muslims specifically provides a sense of community and security. This is similar to Yahweh choosing the Israelites as his people in the Old Testament; it was the unity that Judaism provided the Israelites that inspired them to leave Egypt.

            I do not have a lot of prior knowledge about the history of Islam so I would love to hear from others who do.Was there any event that occurs in Islamic history that was similar to the unification of the Israelites and their escape from Egypt?

Augustine's Praise

Uploaded late due to blog problems.

In book IX Augustine’s mother dies and Augustine tells a story from her teenage years.  Augustine’s mother would sneak wine from her parent’s cellar all the time and she got in a fight with one of their servants over it.  In the fight the servant basically called her an alcoholic and that really hit home for her.  She realized that what she had been doing was wrong and this led to her change in faith and why she keeps pushing for Augustine to convert.  Though Augustine’s mother came to this point by herself and the help of her parents, Augustine still thanks God entirely.  “Through one unwholesome soul you brought wholesomeness to another” (170, book 8 section 18).

            With Augustine’s sinful past it might make him feel safer knowing that there is a figure guiding all that he does, so he doesn’t slip up and go back down that lustful path.  Why do you think he is so adamant about thanking God for everything?

The Rule of Saint Benedict

"Place your hope in God alone.  If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be retain that the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge." (Ch. 4 Pg.13)

This quote from the Rule of Saint Benedict reminds me a lot of something Augustine would say in his Confessions.  This quote accredits God with the good within an individual, and places the responsibility of sin and evil not with the nature of God, but with the free will of humans.  Both place significance on taking responsibility for one's own evil.  Both suggest God cannot be held accountable for one's own wrongdoing and sin as God is inherently good.    However my question to you, my fellow classmates is: what do you think Augustine would have to say about the guidelines St. Benedict is writing for religious communities to live by?  Would he promote the same values?  What would he criticize?    

The Differences Between The Rule of Saint Benedict and Confessions

While reading the prologue to The Rule of Saint Benedict, I noticed a few differences between this book and the book we just read, Confessions. The first difference is between good and evil.  In Confessions, Augustine is trying to find the origin of evil and he is frantically searching for the answer. He ends up deciding that "all that [God] created is good" and that for God "evil does not exist" (Augustine 148). However, in The Rule of Saint Benedict, Saint Benedict is talking about God and he says "In his goodness, he has already counted us as his sons, and therefore we should never grieve him by our evil actions" (Saint Benedict 3). Saint Benedict believes our actions can be evil. While both Augustine and Saint Benedict agree on God's goodness, they disagree on evil. Another difference I noticed is when Saint Benedict is talking about believing in God "With his good gifts which are in us, we must obey him at all times that he may never become the angry father who disinherits his sons, nor the dread lord, enraged by our sins, who punishes us forever as worthless servants for refusing to follow him to glory" (Saint Benedict 3). Saint Benedict is saying that if we do not obey and believe in God, then God will punish us. All throughout Confessions, Augustine is writing about how he has defied God throughout his lifetime and does not believe in him and yet, God still loves him and is leading Augustine to him. Both of these outlooks on God are very different. Which one do you believe to be true?

Augustine's Conversion

"I went on talking like this and weeping in the intense bitterness of my broken heart. Suddenly I heard a voice from a from nearby--perhaps a voice of some boy or girl, I do not know--singing over and over agian, 'Pick it up and read, pick it up and read.' ... No sooner had I reached the end of the verse than the light of certainty flooded my heart and all dark shades of doubt fled away." (pg 156,  Book 8, section 29)

The story of Augustine's conversion is an incredible event. He hears voices, reads a passage, and is suddenly convinced. It is reminiscent of Paul's conversion from the new testament, with voices telling him what to do, and a sudden moment of clarity. This moment is certainly the climax in the storyline of Augustine's faith journey. It is surprising that two of the biggest superstars of the church at their various times had such sensational conversions. It prompts one to wonder if this amazing vision and conversion actually happened to Augustine, or if this is sensationalized in order to keep reader's interest and gain credibility. It would be quite a let down to this story of his long journey to hear that he just keeps working on it, and it is a slow but rewarding process. As Augustine is an important figure in the church, it would seem more fitting for him to have an incredible and dramatic conversion story. However, a slow and difficult conversion would seem to resonate more with readers of the day, who may not have been able to devote their entire life to this process, but would like to find God anyways. I think that part of Augustine's narcissism that is shown throughout the book that he must have a fantastic conversion story, because he is not a normal person and does not deserve a normal conversion. Do you think that this conversion story was real, or greatly enhanced for readers' interest and Augustine's image?

The Confessions: Books 4-6

My Fellow Searchers,

In Books 1-3 the narrator argues that God is all-encompassing and perfect, and even claims that babies sin despite their lack of self-awareness. This is contradicted in Book 5, section 10, when he states that "It still seemed... that it is not we who sin, but some other nature within us that is responsible". How can it be that it is not the person who sins, but something inside of the person, even though God is supposedly in everything? It seems to me that the narrator is arguing that either God is responsible for our sins or that everyone inherently has evil within themselves, which contradicts the claim that everything that God creates is perfect and good. Such a bold claim shows just how much the narrator had changed from the point in his life when he made this claim and when he wrote The Confessions, because he goes from having essentially unchristian views to being a very righteous and religiously proper Bishop. Now that you know my thoughts on this quotation I would like to ask what each of you what your reactions were?

The Confessions: Books 1-3

Dear Class,

 

"Who is there to remind me of the sin of my infancy (for there was: no one is free from sin in your sight, not even an infant whose span of earthly life is but a single day); who can remind me of it?" (7,11.)

In book one of Confessions, Augustine makes the claim that all human, even at birth, have the capacity for sin.  He argues this claim with examples of greed for a mother's milk, an infant's tantrums, and jealous glares of "livid fury."  It is hard to believe that humans during infancy can be held to the same level of responsibility for their sins as adults.  Infants do not have the same sort of moral compass or conscience developed as adults, adolescences, and even children. Thus, how is it that Augustine justifies that infants can be held to the same level of responsibility for their sins as those who are more mature?  Sin in my opinion require some sort of awareness of one's surrounding and some sort knowledge of what is perceived as "right or wrong."  If one is lacking such awareness how can they be held to the responsibility of their sins?  I think making the accusation Augustine is trying to make is a bit far fetched.  Sinning without knowledge of what sin even is...  My question to you my fellow classmates is if you agree with Augustine's assertion that no one is free from sin, even from the moment in which you are born?  

Augustine's View on Sin

My fellow classmate,
Augustine, in his Confessions, makes an interesting argument that, despite going to Catholic school my whole life, I have not heard. In book 2, he, in essence, is saying that sin is people's attempts to emulate God. People sin and commit crimes to keep or gain status and in this way, it is an attempt to become more powerful. The other way sin is a way of copying God is that Augustine says that God is the ultimate good of each form of a sin. For example, on page 40, in section 13 of book 2,  he says "Envy is contentious over rank accorded to another, but what ranks higher than you?" He does this with many of the sins we commonly hear about and attributes God as the ultimate master of them. In this way, he claims, sinning is nothing but trying to copy God by doing as much as we can, but not being good enough to reach the ideal that God set. He then explains that these all are just trying to get something, whether it be physical, or just pleasure, but then says as long as we turn to God, we don't have to sin as we have no worry of losing things and needing to gain more.
I did a fair amount of paraphrasing in this, and please feel free to correct me if you think I misunderstood something. I feel like this view of sin is almost opposite to the way we see sin now. Sin is presented as the thing that drives us farther away from God. Augustine claims, rather paradoxically, that it does this because sin is attempting to become more like God. I do not really grasp how God can be seen as the master of each sin and that be good. Emulating God, living life in a way that would be worth of God is undoubtedly a good thing, but in this passage, I read it as Augustine saying the way to do this is through sin. Please tell me what you think about this. Did I simply take a passage and isolate it, giving it different meaning? Or is this a legitimate paradox and contradiction to the common way of viewing sin? What do you think?

Sinning in childhood

Dear Class, 

I would like to point out the quote in book one, section 19: "Is this boyhood innocence? No, Lord, it is not; hear me, dear God, it is not. These same sins grow worse as we grow older...it was only the small stature of a child that you mentioned with approval as a symbol of humility..." In this quote, Augustine asserts that children must hold responsibility for their crimes in the same way adults do. He clarifies that adult punishments are only larger because their crimes are typically more severe after all children aren't capable of real crime in most cases. I struggle with this idea because I am convinced one can't "sin," or commit a crime without knowing what they are doing is actually wrong. My evidence of this is that in a court of law people are tried differently based on their age. Augustine, throughout the three books, holds himself fully accountable for everything he ever did, said or thought but my question is, though this may seem responsible, is it fair? 

The Confessions: Books 1-3

"The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from inncocent" (20).
St. Augustine begins The Confessions with his life as a child and infancy in general. He describes infancy as a miserable period in which humans are unable to properly express emotion and thought, and have little to no physical power. It is hard to determine sinful nature in babies as they are incapable of much expression, yet the Bible teaches that sin occurs even when an infant cries or demands attention. He continues on to explain how most of childhood revolves sinful nature; boys even indulge in sinful nature while in school. It was common practice during this time to wait to be baptized until one was older, as youth was seen overall as the most sinful stage of life. In my opinion, it is impossible to judge babies based on their nature after birth. They need time to mature before they can be judged as sinful creatures. My question for the class is as follows: Do you not believe adulthood to be just as sinful, if not more so, than that of youth? What is your opinion on the judgement of infants as sinful even before they can form logical thought?

Antony vs. The Average Joe

"...How great Antony, the man of God was.  Who from his youth to so great an age preserved a uniform zeal for the discipline, and neither through old age was subdued by the desire of costly food, nor through the infirmity of his body changed the fashion of his clothing, nor washed even his feet with water, and yet remained entirely free from harm,"(93).  

The life of Antony was one one of seclusion and characterized by strict discipline.  It was very different in comparison to the lives of those who lived at the same time period. The quote above shows the discipline of Antony throughout his life, and the result it had in the end.  Because of his devotion to living his life in accordance to God, his life is often regarded as prosperous and virtuous.  The life of Antony is "a sufficient pattern of discipline." My question to you my fellow classmates is, how might this recount of the life of Antony who lived a life of very strict discipline, appeal to the masses about who did not live by such a strict adherence to a life of simplicity, moderation and devotion to God?

What made monastic life appealing?

The reading guide encouraged us to think about "what might make the monastic life appealing?" Most people would not enjoy a life of such intense seclusion so what makes it appealing to those who devote their life to monastic religious practices? "...but to keep all his desire and energy for perfecting his discipline." I believe that this short piece of "Life of Antony" best answers why some people are drawn to monastic life. The people that devote their life to secluded discipline of a religion are already very serious about their religion and perfecting their discipline. This means that the opportunity to devote "all their desire and energy to perfecting the discipline" would be very attractive for such a person. What other reasons do you think could possibly attract people to monastic life?

The Martyrdom of Sts Perpetua and Felicitas

"Next she asked for a pin to fasten her untidy hair: for it was not right that a martyr should die with her hair in disorder, lest she might seem to be mourning in her hour of triumph." (paragraph 20)
I find it very interesting that martyrdom is such a thing of pride in this era. I was under the impression that after their death people admired the martyrs, along the lines that they did not die in vain, but rather for their faith. But throughout this piece, the people seem to be relishing their condemnation and death, and see it as their "hour of triumph." Rome turns it into a spectacle through the use of wild beasts and gladiators, but the martyrs accept this show and go along with it, putting their hair up and giving birth prematurely so that they can all die together. This honor of death is due in part to the honor that came with Jesus's death, and also partially the Stoic idea of an honorable death, according to the reading guide. These people seem to me to be dying to gain glory, rather than for their beliefs in Jesus. When a death becomes this much of a spectacle, is it really out of faith, or is for the honor that came along with being a martyr? 

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

"I have used the following procedure: I asked them whether they were Christians. Those who admitted it I asked a second and a third time, menacingly. The persistent, I ordered to be led away (for execution)." I found it interesting that Pliny gave those on trial a second and even third chance to deny that they were Christian and to be let free with no more questions asked. It seems to be that they did not want the Christians to have martyrs because it actually strengthened instead of weakening their movement as intended. Jewish martyrs "adopted the ideal of martyrdom as a witness that imitated the suffering and death of Jesus." Being a martyr for Christianity was considered to be a great and noble act for followers of Christianity. It served to strengthen their movement as well. What speaks more highly of a movement than followers who are willing to die for their beliefs? It is because of this that those persecuting Christians did not want more martyrs. "They are not to be sought out," Trajan says to Pliny. They did not wanted to aid the Christian movement by creating more symbols for possible followers to look up to. I would like to hear other opinions on this subject. Do you agree or do you think there is another possible reason for why the persecutors seem hesitant to create more martyrs?

John 18

"After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered" (NRSV John 18:1). Each of the other gospel authors recount Jesus' time in the Garden of Gethsemane with detail. Mark, Matthew, and Luke each include a verse where Jesus prays to God and asks him to allow Jesus to avoid crucifixion if there was any other option. This is not seen in the Gospel of John. I believe that the author of John is trying to portray Jesus as a stronger figure that does not show fear or hesitancy in such a trying time. I believe he does this to make Jesus a more attractive figure to want to follow and commit to the teachings of because it is natural for people to want a strong and fearless leader. I'm interested to hear other thoughts on why the recount of the Garden of Gethsemane is so skimpy in the Gospel of John.

The Gospel of John

"And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14). When I was looking at the chart you gave us that compared and contrasted the four gospels, I noticed that the idea of Jesus as the eternal Word and the Word made "flesh" was only depicted in the gospel of John. This is made me wonder why John found it necessary to include something like that. Rather than beginning with a genealogy, he begin with tracing Jesus back to God as the "word" becoming "flesh," or Jesus coming as God's only son coming down to earth in the flesh. So why might John have included this striking passage? Maybe he is trying to relate Jesus back to the beginning of creation, when, according to the bible, God used his "word" to create everything. Saying that Jesus is the "word made flesh" could mean that God used the same rationality and power in creating his son that he did in creating the world. It could also help identify Jesus as being a part of God because if God is the word, and Jesus is the word made flesh, then that would make Jesus a part of God. By saying that Jesus was the "word made flesh" John might also be emphasizing Jesus's human qualities. Although Jesus is God, he is also a human and he is portrayed to be imperfect, possibly as a way for people to relate with him. Jesus suffers from temptation, anger, and eventual death, which are all very humanistic characteristics. We saw an example of this in Aeneas, describing him as a very 'human' hero. Attributing these characteristics to Jesus shows that even though he was one with God, he was also very human in his struggles, giving the people hope that they could be forgiven for their human sins. What do you think the significance of this passage is? Why do you think that John was the only Gospel writer to introduce this idea?  

The Gospel According to Luke

My fellow classmates,
The Bible, both the New Testament, as well as the Hebrew Bible, are viewed differently than many other texts since it is a holy text. Given that, one thing that does not sit well with many readers is the idea that there are inconstancies in the Bible, leading to confusion in what message to follow. In the middle of Luke, chapter 12 to be precise, in the midst of a parable, " He (Jesus) said to his disciples 'Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear' "( Luke 12.22). While this can be seen as Jesus saying to just not worry about earthly life and your body here, that in and of itself contradicts the teachings and philosophy of Paul. Paul, a believer that the end of the world would be coming in his lifetime and that the body would be made immortal, was preaching for people to take utmost care of their bodies. He even said if you are a virgin, don't get married. This message is quite contrasting to the explanation Jesus gave in Luke. I think that the differences in message is entirely based on the time, and the corresponding belief about the return of the Messiah. Luke, writing later perhaps now believes the return is not imminent and will put these words into Jesus' mouth telling people not to worry about life on earth. Paul, with his belief about the com in and end of the world happening soon, stresses taking utmost care of the body. What do you think? Is there anything else that could influence this change in idea? Would having these two sources confuse early Christians?
Andrew DaRosa

Gospel of Matthew

“Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at Jordan, to be baptized by him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3.13-15, NRSV)

It struck me as very odd that Jesus, who is sinless and the Son of God, sought out his own baptism. I considered the possible messages that this baptism could imply for Christianity and one conclusion that I drew was this baptism helped to humanize Jesus.  While Jesus was sinless and thus had no need to be baptized, others could look at his baptism as a sign of humility. It might have been comforting to worship someone who does not consider himself above the common man. By being baptized, all Christians can identify with Jesus. Perhaps this was a way to make Christianity more appealing for its followers?

However, at the same time I don’t believe that it is common to want to worship someone who is relatable or human. It is easier to worship someone who is divine and infallible because it provides comfort in knowing that a higher power has a plan.

Another possible explanation for Jesus’s baptism is that it helps legitimize John the Baptist. If even Jesus is willing to be baptized by John then clearly John should be a respected religious authority. This explanation still seems to be an insufficient justification for the baptism in my opinion though. Does anyone else have any ideas as to what the appeal or benefit may be for John the Baptist baptizing Jesus?

The Gospel of Mark

My fellow classmates,
The role of the Pharisees in Mark's gospel is basically how Catholics have been conditioned to see the Pharisees. In chapter 3, verses 2-6, Mark states "They(Pharisees) watched him(Jesus) to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they may accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand 'Come forward'. Then he said to them, 'Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or kill?' But they were silent. He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man 'Stretch out your hand.' He stretched it out and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. (Mark 3:2-6) This plays right into the rude, strict, uncaring way people see them nowadays. However, at the plenary on emerging Christianity, Dr. Ullucci talked about how those were misunderstandings and that was not how things were. Taking his historical view as accurate, this would lead me to believe that Mark was manipulating the view the Christians reading his gospel would have of the Pharisees. I believe that Mark was attempting to make sure there was a clear delineation between the Jewish faith as practiced at Jesus' time, and the, in his opinion, better Christian faith that developed from Jesus. The Pharisees and Jewish elite were unjustly, according to Dr. Ullucci, portrayed, and this reason, I think, is to give Christians reading the gospel a more independent identity. What do you think the purpose of Mark's descriptions of the Pharisees is? Do you think the description is completely accurate?

The Gospel of Mark

In Chapter 4, Jesus compares the kingdom of God to a mustard seed, saying, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade," (Mark 4:30-32). In this parable, Jesus is saying that although this religion is starting small, one day it will grow to be great, and will become the refuge of many. Jesus used many parables such as this to explain things in ways that all kinds of people could understand them. In this way, he could relate the truths of God in familiar settings and languages that were common to the people at the time. Using these stories, he was able to gain the attention of large crowds. Since these stories were easy to remember and filled with symbolism, they were also easily spread to other people. Parables also often provided an open-ended metaphor that allowed followers to interpret them for themselves. This made them think and reflect on their faith and on what Jesus was saying. Using parables, Jesus was able to take on a new approach to teaching and was also able to attract a lot more people to the faith. What do you think about Jesus's use of parables as a means of teaching? Do you think they were effective? Or were they just confusing?

Corinthians 12

In this chapter, we see lines such as "Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but many (1 Corinthians 12.14, NRSV)" and "But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there be no dissension within the body (1 Corinthians 12.24-25, NRSV)." These lines represent part of Paul's metaphor of the human body. In this metaphor, Paul gives greater credence to the perceived inferior parts of the body rather than the apparent greater parts. He uses this metaphor to represent the societal paradigm in which he lived. Doing this, he opens up his parish to the greater part of the population; he opens it up to the lower classes, which is the most populous class. He also, though, insults the upper class calling them "the same (1 Corinthians 12.25, NRSV)" as the lower class. He does this for the only reason that could make sense. He does this to increase the attractiveness to the most populous class of society, while making his religion about equality; in doing this, Paul is making a statement about other religions and his own. He is differentiating his religion as one of equality no matter what: including socio-economic class. He is promoting the lower classes by stating, "giving the greater honor to the inferior member (1 Corinthians 12.24, NRSV)", but my question is: is Paul being passive-aggressive here? Is he insulting the perceived level of the higher classes, while at the same time making his religion more attractive to the lower class? If he is doing this, Paul is extremely cunning and manipulative in the way he uses his propaganda techniques.

Corinthians 7

"'It is well for a man not to touch a woman.' But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Corinthians 7.1-4, NRSV).
When I read this statement, I openly laughed aloud. First, Paul is stating that it is not okay for a man to touch a woman unless it is for purely for reproductive means. He is denying the right of touch in the name of Christianity. How insane is this? We give up our right to touch one another for the right to go to heaven? Then, he goes on to give man's conjugal rights and his own body to his wife, and in turn, give the women's conjugal rights and her own body to the husband. How does this even make sense? We give up a right we're not even supposed to use unless for reproduction to our husband/wife. In the twenty-first century, we can easily see this as taboo, but I wonder if this was taboo in Paul's time. Was sexual behavior seen as immoral? Diogenes had sex in the middle of a town with his wife to challenge taboos, so how can touching a woman in this time period, 400 years after Paul, be seen as immoral?

1 Corinthians

"...women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church," (1 Corinthians, 14:34-35). In this chapter, Paul is talking about what should be done when people gather together for church. He says that two or three prophets should speak and that everything should be done for the purpose of building up the church. He then makes sure to explicitly mention that women should not be a part of this tradition. Paul also addresses women in Chapter 11 saying that women must wear a veil as a "symbol of authority" over their head when they pray so as to not disgrace it.  I've obviously observed this oppression of women in most of the Bible, with the exception of a few key figures. I also am aware that the idea that women were subordinate to their husbands (and men in general) was the norm in the time period that this was written. However, sometimes I feel like Paul contradicts himself when putting women in this position. In Chapter 12, he uses the human body as a metaphor for the church of Christ. He writes that "the body does not consist of one member, but many members" (1 Corinthians 12:14)  and argues that no member is more important or less important than another, they are all essential. He says, "God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member," (1 Corinthians 12:24). If this is the case, then why is the so-called "weaker sex" not given a greater role of authority within the church. It seems that the women are thought to be no where near as essential to the church as the males, and as the "inferior member," that they are not given any honor that could compare with the "superior member." What do you guys think about what Paul writes in his letter? Do you feel like he contradicts himself in saying these things?

Acts 9

"But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."" (Acts 9:15-16, NRSV).
I may be grasping at straws here, but reading this text, and this excerpt in particular, I thought I noticed some similarities between the god of Stoic belief described by Seneca, and the behavior of god in this passage. God takes a fatherly role over Saul as he chooses him to be his vehicle to spread his teachings. The Stoics believed that gods held a fatherly relationship with men, meaning that they wanted to better the men through adversity. The Stoics also embraced and welcomed adversity and suffering. Saul is going to face great suffering but it will be for a greater good according to the text.
"Saul, like the prophets, was chosen for a special purpose" (Acts 9:15, Annotations). The Stoics believed that the gods only subjected certain men to suffering because those men were the ones who were worthy of it because they had great potential. Here, god has hand chosen Saul for a great task, that will surely entail suffering, because he is worthy of such a task.
I will open this for discussion now. What are your thoughts?

Friday 13th Post - Acts 2

"Peter said to him, 'Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed!'(Acts 9.34, NRSV)." "He turned to the body and said, 'Tabitha, get up.' Then she opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up (Acts 9.40, NRSV)."

I know this might sound critical, but would these lines not go against the Christian definition of faith?Webster defines faith as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Would proof not such as an actual god bestowing gifts upon people diminish the faith that people have in the Christian belief system. Let me elaborate because this can come across as a confusing train of thought. People believe in a god so as to come to terms around the origin of the universe, but one important fact behind this belief is that there is no concrete proof to his/her existence. This is why we call it faith. It is the faith in a god that gives religion its essence, and giving it credence to concrete ideals implodes the nonexistent structure. I accept that if God came down from heaven and healed my aunt or some random person on the street I would inherently have to believe that he was a god and that it would be logical to worship him, but does this not implode the values that religion holds dear? Is not faith the foundation of religion: to believe blindly and follow religion into the abyss of death? And my final question is: Does this quote make Christianity false? Not to be hyperbolic but if today a man healed a dead person in the name of a god, would not everyone follow this one god? Would we not all follow not blindly but with open eyes this new god that has rightfully proven himself?