What is Jefferson???

I can honestly say that I've never read the Jefferson Bible before today and that my preconceptions of him being a Godly founding father are starting to fade away. Was he afraid of the truth? Is that why he didn't talk about angels, prophecies, or miracles that much if at all? I did a little background research on Jefferson and there's a lot of controversy about him. Of course, there is his famous quote, "I am a sect by myself, as far as I know." He was a deist, meaning he didn't believe in the trinity, and consequently believed Jesus was not God but a moral teacher. Why else would he exclude prophetic passages and miraculous signs from his "Bible"? Honestly, I'm looking forward to our class discussion tomorrow and hopefully some of my questions will be answered. Jefferson may not have done this intentionally, but people who take important sections out of a text just because they don't agree with them are, in my opinion, cowardly. Maybe its like what Plato wanted, the lessons of the epics without the blood and gore.

Feeling a little confused and disappointed...

Governmental Affairs

After being gone with RamKids all week for their college tour and missing class, I can’t believe I remembered to blog!!

Anyway, I found the reading about government pretty awesome. I was one of those people who definitely didn’t realize all of those things about the kings not having all the power. I was under the assumption -- I know, don’t assume… -- that kings could pretty much have their way in doing whatever they want. Just that short reading makes me want to go do some studying on that stuff. It’s kind of cool that even though one man was in charge, the people still had enough power to keep him from doing things they didn’t agree with. This reminds me of the Gettysburg Address section that says “…a government of the people, by the people, for the people…” The government is there to represent the people, and help maintain order amongst those people. Unfortunately, that gets lost in other things sometimes.

Rebellions and Whatnot

If I'm perfectly honest, I really don't know much about Milton other than what we've read for class, so I'm going to try and not interpolate much. One thing that struck me however, was how Milton talked about the people having the right to overthrow the king or magistrate essentially at will. Like I said, I don't really know how this fits with Milton's ideology as a whole, but in this text it was very interesting.  "Since the King or Magistrate holds his authority of the people, both originally and naturally for their good in the first place, and not his own, then may the people as oft as they shall judge it best, either choose him or reject him... merely by liberty and right of freeborn Men." He goes on to talk about several instances in scripture where he thinks this precedent is set. This is the point I don't really agree with Milton on. If I understand this correctly, he understands that because rulers are appointed by God, then when they stray from what is right, the people then assume the right to overthrow that authority. If that is true, then David had every right to kill Saul, yet he didn't. Hopefully this will become clearer as we study more Milton, but I really am not sure about all this rightful rebellion nonsense.

P.S. I commented on Preston Smith's "Milton is my Favorite"

John Milton is my favorite.

John Milton is my favorite, and i'm so happy we are going to be reading excerpts from Paradise Lost! I knew very little of his political dealings (though that consisted of his primary works).  One thing I enjoyed from the work we read in class today was his opinion on the multitude.  We were asked to compare Machiavelli's ideas of how to control the public compared to Milton's.  Milton believed that the multitude was certainly hard to manage, but that the people had the ability to learn and outgrow the historical Monarchy that they followed for so long.  I commend Milton for having so much faith in the people although they were so stuck in their ways.  I can't wait for Paradise Lost and discovering the parallel ideas from his political ideas to his theological. Very cool stuff. Congratulations to the new honors council!

P.S. I commented on Megan Johnston's in defense of Cordelia."

That seems about right...

Honestly, I believe that any sort of government, whether it be a democracy, tyranny, or monarchy, can be the best for any country as long as it is run correctly. Once again, it all falls down to what the people want though. A democracy of the people seems the most reasonable to me, but even then everyone has their own opinion. Some might wish to have one individual rule over them. There will be skepticism about anything and everything, so Milton's view is nothing out of the blue. To overthrow the king and establish a new government would probably appeal to me if I was under that ruling, however not everyone feels that way. Some feel the most secure in that sort of ruling, and that is what matters most. As long as the majority of the people are content with their rulers, then no sort of change needs to occur.

P.S. I commented on Meghan Johnston's "In Defense of Cordelia"

Much Ado About...well, whatever.

Welcome to modern civilization, where government has become the "bad guys" that don't really do what we tell them to do.  Yeah...they give us nice things sometimes, but why exactly do we vote them in each year?  I recall the faint memory of tax breaks, political issues, moral issues, and a little hogwash mixed in there somewhere.  So I kid about the government, but search your feelings!  You may find that there's a lot of truth lingering about.

Where are we at with government these days?  Lincoln said that a government should be "of the people, by the people, for the people," but what does that even mean?  I certainly haven't heard of Brutus around town these days, practicing his tyrannicidal tendencies for the "good of the country."  Do we have a pompous Caesar on the throne, or has our King decided to fly solo and rule by his own authority?  Perhaps neither of these relate to our current predicament, and we have progressed to a superior form of....something.  Or nothing.

In all seriousness, if government is to be "of the people, by the people, for the people," then one would assume that the PEOPLE are a pretty big deal for the system.  It was the people who chose Saul as a physical king instead of God, and this process has continued for millennia.  The people have been picking and choosing rulers for quite some time now, and I think it's time they started making educated decisions based on the good of the system as a whole.  Government is FOR the people, and if there are no people, then there can be no government.

P.S. I commented on Susan Berner's "Long Live the King"

God Save the Queen

As I read the last 3 acts of King Lear, I thought about the differing perspectives of how the king should be treated from King Lear's England to current day England. In King Lear, his daughters treat him terribly, throwing him out in the rain and driving him insane. As opposed to today where the Queen of England is treated with the upmost respect. Can you imagine someone throwing Queen Elizabeth in the rain? But also, the English people seem to almost idolize the Queen. And then things got really interesting when we talked about Julius Caesar and Charles I. Now I know why the English view the queen like they do. First, Shakespeare shows how a monarchy can go awry in King Lear. Then,today we talked about how the English monarchy actually went awry. People weren't ready for Charles I to go. Even Oliver Cromwell and John Milton couldn't brainwash the people to be something they didn't want to be - a republic. Hopefully, we don't get so complacent with the way things are that we refuse change and make people seem completely different than they are as people did with Charles I. From killing Charles I to the rebirth of the English monarchy, England has an interesting history. P.S. Commented on Meghan's

Point of Grace

In Shakespeare's King Lear, Edmund at the end chooses to do something good with his life and hints to the impending massacre of Cordelia and Lear. I thought it was very human of somebody who has not been recognized as a legitimate son to be jealous and wonder why not him, and somewhere along those contemplations he grew tired of being ignored that just wanted his life to mean something or prove self-worth. Granted that he was caught as a conspirator, Edmund found no worth in his endeavors and at the end he chose to do something good. Maybe I'm interpolating too much but Edmund was human and even though he was bad but he had reasons; however in the end, he chose to do something good when he could have simply died with his damaged pride.

P.s. I commented on Susan's

In Defense of Cordelia

So, once again I will talk about Cordelia. I still don’t agree with Abernathy. Cordelia wasn’t stupid when she refused to say anything to her father. Her father came up with the competition and forced his daughters to come up with answers on the spot. She was placed in a position where she had to come up with a private answer in an embarrassing situation. But, of all three of the girls, her answer was the most honest. If you love someone enough, you can’t express it.

Congratulations to our new Honors Council, Tinsley, Brian, Molly, Rebekah, and Gary, you guys deserve it and I am incredibly proud of all of you!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit

Meghan

PS I commented on Skylar's "The Wise Fool"

PPS My title is a play on Morris' "The Defense of Guinevere" and is in honor of my wonderful friend Bethany who talked about Arthur tonight!!

Long Live the King

While I know that many people believe that it is terrible to have a monarchy, or some form of government where one person rule, I for one do not think that it would be such a bad thing.  This is why I disagree with the writings of Milton to turn people against the king, and Brutus to turn people against Caesar.  I also believe that if citizens of a nation want something bad enough, they will fight as long as they have to until they get it.  In England, the commoners wanted to have a king, even though they were told that democracy would be better.  In Rome, Brutus and the Senate tried to keep the old government when the people wanted to change. I think that if people want a monarchy, it is not so bad to give it to them.

p.s. I commented on Mallory's

-Susan

The Wise Fool

         I must say one of the parts that truly intrigued me, when discussing King Lear the other day in class, was the prophecy of the Fool in Act III scene two. His prophecy is about when the kingdom of England will come to ruin and he lists different things that will occur. I was able to sort the things that will happen into three categories.
         At a first they all seem like things that will never happen but probably should such as whores building churches, no one slandering, the thief  not stealing, or the nobleman teaching his tailor how to sew. Secondly, they seem to describe things that are already happening but probably shouldn't such as when the  priests are not practicing what they preach, when brewers dilute their beer with water, or when moneylenders count their money out in the open. Thirdly, in my opinion he is almost saying that whenever everyone is true to themselves or their stereotypes whether they are good or bad, for example if your a gentleman you shouldn't be in debt or if your a lawyer your should judge every case fairly, then the kingdom will fall. While some of the things he mentions can fit into two or more categories there are some that only fit into one
         So what exactly the Fool is saying I'm not sure, but it is slightly ironic to me that though he is characterized as the Fool he seems more wise than others in the play.  In a way I think the Fool is simply pointing out that the ruin of the kingdom of England might already be occurring and that the characters need to be very careful with their next actions.


p.s. commented on Mallory Searcy's I love Lear

I love lear.

For anyone wondering where in the world I've been, I have mono:(. however, i've been keeping up with all the honors reading and it was probably the worst thing I could have done. Taking cold medicine and reading King Lear was extremely upsetting. King Lear is so TRAGIC. I love him. I don't know why I love king lear but I do.
I've thought a lot about shakespeare's life and if he put any of himself into lear. he wrote it ten years before he died and it is one of his later plays. I was really fascinated by the fact that it is Lear's old age that gets him mistreated. I thought of so many people who are cast aside because of their age. It seems a terribly consistent part of human nature. I wonder if our modern Love story blocks us from writing and creating great stories about different aspects of life. The genius of this is that it isn't Romeo and Juliet. Yet it is equally part of the human experience.

Kent

One of the characters I admired for their loyalty was Kent. He is one honest man who has the best interest of the king at hand. I think it is interesting that the portion that we have so far read it seems Kent has been betrayed by his good honest nature. The reason the king banished him and the reason he was punished was because of his inability to tolerate dishonest people and it seems that these strength is as well his weakness.

P.s. I commented on becca's

What a Guy

While reading King Lear, one character who really stood out to me was Kent. As the story went on I really began to admire him for his loyalty and honesty. Even though it gets him into trouble, Kent remains an honest and outspoken character while remaining extremely loyal to King Lear the whole time. One of the most amazing things to me was how he disguised himself after being banished by King Lear so that he could go on serving him. This made me think of Psalm 84:10- "Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked." Although not quite the same, Kent's mindset was something like this. That is what I found to be so admirable about him, that he was so loyal to King Lear that he would rather be a servant to him than go on living anywhere else.

PS I commented on Molly's "Bad Rulers"

Know Your Audience

Since class of Tuesday, I have thought a lot about Julius Caesar.  It never once occurred to me before that the tragedy was actually the fall of Rome, and this intrigued me. I can't help but relate this to the modern world.  With the rapid improvements in technology in the past few decades, information an ideas spread more quickly than ever.  This is not the world our parents grew up it, and many of the  views on morality, justice, and truth are significantly different from what we were taught, especially those of us who grew up in Christian homes.  The world is changing.  The question is, are we still speaking like Brutus spoke to the Romans?  Do we really know our audience, or do we just think we do?

PS, Commented on Molly's "Bad Rullers" 

We should all just stab Caesar!

Brutus is a really impressive guy. He is great friends with Caesar yet a dedicated Roman citizen. He cared so much for his country that he voluntarily gave up his friendship and his friend for the sake of his country. Brutus’s ability to compartmentalize is so impressive. The fact that he can put down his own interests for the sake of his country is a quality most leaders lack. He is a far better leader than Caesar who seems to only be in it for his own personal power gain.  

I commented on Jasmine's

Friends, Romans, Honors bloggers.....

I thoroughly enjoy the play Julius Caesar, and the way that Shakespeare makes all of the characters real to people.  When the Brutus and Antony speak at the funeral, I believe that it shows a huge part of Roman society.  The main way to gain power in Rome was through oratory, and that is the one thing that sways the crowd throughout this play.  It's almost disgusting how fickle the common people of Rome are, as they are constantly swayed by one speech after another.  Throughout the speeches of Antony and Brutus we see this most strikingly, but before that we see the fickleness from the fight and win over Pompey, the convincing of Brutus, and every other scene involving the commoners.

P.S. Commented on Danielle's

Tragic Hero?

In class it was suggested by Dr. Abernathy, I believe, that Brutus is not the tragic hero in Julius Caesar, but that the true tragic hero is the whole society of Rome.  We blamed the people for first raising up Caesar who they thought would take care of them, but them choosing the Senate who promised freedom.  Personally, I do not think it is right to blame the Roman citizens.  They are only interested in what will help them the most in life, almost like Americans today.  Personally, if a monarchy was the government that promised the most for myself and other citizens, I would be all for it!  Plato him says that the best government possible is one with one perfect leader who rules over everyone.  I believe that the biggest problem in Julius Caesar is that it is government is fighting within itself.  The people are ready to go for whatever will be best, but the people in charge can't stop killing each other.

I commented on Jannah's post.

-Susan Berner

Frustration

Class was fun today, and it was interesting reading some classic Shakespeare.  To be completely honest, i've never read Shakespeare before, so this was very new to me.  He has some incredible skill in detailing speech within a text.  Briefly we spoke upon a certain speech that Edmund spoke during the story.  The speech was fueled by his frustration of being a "bastard" son. The speech is thought provoking and complex in emotion. Edmund states in scene two,

 "Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land: Our father's love is to the bastard Edmund As to the legitimate: fine word,--legitimate! Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed, And my invention thrive, Edmund the base Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper: Now, gods, stand up for bastards!"

This blog for me is simply a question, what does Edmund really want. Out of the two acts we read this was a driving question for me.  It seems that he simply wants revenge for some kind, or is he trying to make some kind of point. In class we spoke of the various characters, who, would hide themselves under false persona's for the possible reason that they could not show their true selves. Is Edmund speaking against the facade that these characters put up?  Is there a major secret of these royal characters that we do not know about? I know my question is very simple, but it is left unanswered because it seems that we did not reach a legitimate conclusion in class. Tell me what you think!

P.S. I commented on Jasmine's "Why not Cordelia?"

King Lear's Fatal Flaw...

I still am not sure what to think about King Lear. I believe that in Act 1 Scene 1 he acted rashly, in reaction to a hurt plan or pride. This makes the the situation in Act 2 with his two older daughters even worse--for not only does he lack the previous authority he held, but they already have grounds to call him senile and dismiss him. His greatest mistake was the rash dismissal of the two most honest people in his life: Cordelia and Kent. After that, I think it causes him to become confused, for not only is there so much deception going on around him (from the supposedly honest people as well as from the two older manipulative daughters), but he is unable to gain authority to correct his wrongs. He perhaps hasn't realized what he has done wrong yet, but perhaps later he will.



I commented on Jasmine's.

Why not Cordelia?

I really do not understand why the king sent Cordelia away. She was his favorite daughter and the better of the three. I do not understand why he could not have just given the other two sister the far portions of England and still have given Cordelia the middle. The love test was not even necessary or even logical because he knows the oldest two sisters do not genuinely love him, but Cordelia does. The whole situation just does not make any sense to me.


Ps I commented in katelyn ewings blog

The Love Test

Today we spent time talking about why King Lear put his children through a test to prove their love. One response was, just like Knights have to prove their loyalty to the King, Lear wanted his daughters to prove their loyalty by flattering and praising him. While this may have acted as a formality, I do not think any daughter should have to prove her love to her father. I know it was mentioned that Cordelia's response was a pretty stupid one, but I think I would have responded the same way if I was in her situation. Love is not proved through words it is proved by obedience which is what Cordelia points out: 

"You have begot me, bred me, loved me. I 

Return those duties back as are right fit—

Obey you, love you, and most honor you."

Cordelia has proved her love to her father her whole life, unlike her sisters, which is more important than words spoken just to get the biggest portion of the kingdom. Cordelia is also telling her father the truth while her older sisters are clearly lying which is also what Cordelia points out:

"Why have my sisters husbands if they say
They love you all? Haply when I shall wed
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty.
Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters,
To love my father all."

Cordelia points out that if her sisters truly love their father as much as they say, then they do not actually love their own husbands. While King Lear disowns Cordelia, I think I would have given her the bigger portion for what she says. She speaks truthfully and obviously loves her father more than her sisters, which he know. Unfortunately, he let's his pride get in the way and winds up going completely insane when his supposed most loving daughters will not let him live with either one of them.

p.s. commented on Dylan Copeland's Mr. King do you mind?

Bad Rulers..

In class we discussed whether or not Caesar was a bad ruler, and came to the conclusion that he was not a bad ruler, just a bad Roman ruler.  But speaking as a citizen of any state, a ruler that does not fit the specifications of the office that they hold is a bad ruler. So in general Caesar may have been perfectly fit to rule, minus his obvious love of power, just not Rome. It would be similar to trying to force the United States into a sense of monarchy; those dedicated to the old system would reject it. John Locke wrote on the role of government, and his theory is that the government exists at the consent of the people with the purpose to protect the rights of the people that it represents. This is what truly caused the problem in Rome; the people were split in what they wanted. Rome was caught up in between the old republic and the new dictatorship of sorts.

We're Going Dowwwwwwnnnnnn!

So I was pretty much intrigued by Shakespeare's use of The People in Julius Caesar.  He let a seemingly insignificant group of people represent a very important thematic element, which was not a revolutionarily "new" idea, but the subtlety with which he did so was clever.  In the midst of these two men who are delivering very memorable speeches, Shakespeare discreetly unveils the true tragedy: the corrupt hearts of The People.  This tragedy would seem to pale in comparison to the loss of the great Julius Caesar, but as we learned in class, further examination revealed how The People were the driving force of the entire plot. Interesting...

P.S. I commented on Gary Hamner's "BRUTUS!!"

Brutus and Portia

    So what can I say, I'm a sucker for the romance scenes. However, the scene in Julius Caesar wear we are introduced to Portia, is my absolute favorite. Portia and Brutus share a strong bond and he deeply cares for her.  As does Portia for him. I think, really, this was another reason why Brutus was driven to continue in the plot to assassinate Caesar.  He wanted to fight for freedom of Roman citizens, Caesar was a monarch not a Senator, he was bringing an end to the Republic.  Now I have kinda jumped of the track. My point was suppose to be Portia was something Brutus was fighting for he wanted his family to live in safety and freedom from a tyrant's reign. You can see that this is true, because after the assassination, Brutus' revolt starts decaying after he hears that Portia is dead. With her, dies his hopes and dreams for future where Roman citizens could survive and live in freedom of a Republic.  Brutus is the last true Roman, and died so, never conquered by Monarchy or Tyranny. He controlled his fate.

P.S. commented on Gary's post.

A Certain Fool...

The Fool had to have been called that for a reason - someone saw him as being foolish. But, we find that he thought the king should not have sent away Cordelia - something I think we all agree with! King Lear, on the other hand, had given his kingdom to mean daughters, banished one of his best supporters, and disinherited the only daughter that really cared about him. The Fool saw something in Cordelia that the king did not. It seems like the real fool in this story is our dear title character - King Lear himself.

P.S. I commented on Dylan Copeland's post.

I Will Sing the Praises of the Bard

Cordelia is my absolute favorite character in King Lear. She truly does love her father. Her sisters give fake vows of love while Cordelia’s is honest. When her father banishes her by marrying her off to France, she accepts, even though she obviously wishes to stay with her father. However, my favorite actions of her come later on, but since we only read Acts 1&2 for today, more on Cordelia next week!

King Lear may be my favorite one of Shakespeare’s tragedies. All the characters are magnificently written and every one of them is magnificently human. They all have flaws, some which constitute as tragic flaws. The fool is brilliant and wise, ironically enough. Though most of Shakespeare’s fools were that way!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,

Meghan

PS: Please pray for my family right now. My father’s brother has a brain tumor and has been given six months. My mother’s father has lung cancer which has spread to other parts of his body and he is in the ICU right with pneumonia and breathing problems.

PPS: I commented on Dylan’s post “Mr. King, do you mind?”

Mr. King, do you mind?

This is probably one of my least favorite Shakespeare plays that I have read so far. Although it is entertaining at some points, it nonetheless irritated me that King Lear was foolish enough to make the decisions that he did. Of course, in most Shakespeare plays, there is always those people (or protagonists as we might call them) that can cause me to love and then hate them within a matter of seconds. In this story, I never really became interested in the King Lear's character. I cannot comprehend how you do not understand your own daughters. I realize that he was the king, who probably never associated with his children much, but how dreadful it seems to me to not even know the true character of your own children!

Like we said in class, maybe King Lear was insane. If so, then he needed to be killed for the sake of the country. If he lived, then maybe the country would suffer more.

P.S. I commented on Gary Hamner's "BRUTUS!!"

BRUTUS!!

     Julius Caesar was the first Shakespeare play I have read and it was very interesting. The whole aspect of Brutus being more devoted to his country than his friend is something that grabbed my interest instantly. I imagine that is the case because I am going to be serving our country in not to long, I consider myself to be a very patriotic person so I can relate to Brutus really easily and if I was put in the same position as Brutus I probably would have done the same thing. I believe it takes a very dedicated person to do what Brutus did, but I don't think that means he didn't love Caesar as a friend, it just means that he loved his country, and even more the ideals that his country was based upon.  

Poor Judgement

A main theme of King Lear that we disgusted in class today was the idea of the King's poor judgement. I happen to think this is a really important matter. I believe that knowing someone's true character is really necessary for having a healthy relationship with them. The idea that King Lear might not have even really known his daughters very well is really sad to me. I think there is something to be said for fathers who actually take the time to know their kids. I think King Lear's biggest downfall could've been the fact that he was too trusting. If you trust people too much, you will start to let your guard down, and then they can deceive you easier. It is really important not to be paranoid and distant from everyone, but at the same time, you should never be blinded to the truth of someone's character, especially when they are close to you.

I haven't commented on anyone's post yet because my computer says no one else has posted this week yet... :)

Differences in Worship

I thought it was very interesting the way the catholics worship in such a way that they would emphasize the phrases considered important and it was very beautiful. While the protestants encouraged participation from their church members. There are very different forms of worship and the way that the  protestants stripped apart all those elements that seemed distracting to them, in order to worship, and worshipped together kind of makes me think of the community of christ where everyone comes together no matter how different they are but they worship together. It is very hard to go choose which one is better though because the catholics might not encourage participation but they do worship with the help of all the things that God has created and the outcome is spiritual and beautiful. It just goes to show how many people can have different worship styles but in the end they get the same outcome.

P.s. I commented on Becca's post

Actions

Today in class I posed the question of whether or not simply changing the word 'choose' to 'accept' in Calvin's question of if faith is something you choose. Changing the word to 'accept' takes the assertive action to a passive action, and while Dr. Brekke countered the question by stating that it was still an action, I would like to take that though a step further. It's like recieving a present; you cannot choose what you are given, just whether or not you will accept it. Accepting God's grace has to be a passive action becasue in order to acknowlede it you have to be willing to humble yourself. While you cannot choose the gift that is grace, you can take down the figurative wall between allowing yourself to accept it.

Happy Medium

I recently started studying the idea of predestination on my own. I asked myself many of the same questions Dr. Brekke brought up in class today that opposed Calvinism, and I struggled with the answers I got. God is a just God, so why would he choose people to be damned to Hell for all eternity while other people are chosen to live life abundant in Heaven. Christ died for the sins of all not only the elect. I can see that Calvin is coming from the point of view that faith is appointed to mankind and we can’t rely on self to be our own “co-savior,” but I believe he may have explored the polar opposite option which is that of predestination and no free will.

I commented on Jamie’s

Calvinism

Well I wasn’t in class today, but I heard that we talked about Calvinism. So I did a little research on that topic for my blog. By definition, Calvinism is “the Protestant theological system of John Calvin, which emphasizes the irresistibility of grace and the doctrine of predestination.” A branch of Western Christianity, Calvinism was founded sometime in the 1500s by John Calvin. There are five points to Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Each point means something specific. Calvinists believe in predestination. In other words, they believe that God pre-picked certain people to go to Heaven and to be a believer.

I commented on Jasmines.

Worship

I actually enjoyed the Catholic worship better than the Reformed. the Catholic worship kept my attention better and it was more relaxing. it seems like protastant worship music is almost a mix between both types of worship. it was interesting to hear the different types of worship, especially when it was taking place in the same era. i really enjoy music and it is fun to get to hear music from other cultures and time periods.

ps. i commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's

A Tough Pill

I think Christians in our day can all agree that Calvinism and the doctrine of predestination are quite the tough pill to swallow. As for myself, I am not quite sure that I believe one side or the other of the debate is completely true. However, there are certain doctrinal ideas in Calvinism that I definitely agree with. We claim that it would be unjust of God to create people with the foreknowledge that they would go to Hell after dying. Now please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that I agree with Calvin on this point, but this particular example helps to talk about a certain concept. This concept is the fact that God is just in whatever He does. This is a scriptural fact. He is perfection, thus having a wholly perfect will. Still, I have no idea whether or not God creates people simply to send them to Hell. The point is, that if He did, how could we possibly stand to judge His action from our incredibly limited standard? How can the pot question the potter?

An interesting thing I heard from a friend of mine this summer was this, that God has a righteous duty unto Himself, to glorify Himself. This blew my mind, yet it is so true. God, being utter perfection, is the highest possible good that exists. If He were to allow us to pursue any other objective in life but Him, it would really be a disservice to us. I am nowhere near smart or biblically literate enough to understand Calvinism or Arminianism very well, but like I said, whether we like it or not, God is infinitely above and beyond reproach. He is perfection and what He does He does perfectly.

P.S. I commented on Susan Berner's "Calvinism"

Worship Euphoria

Worship Euphoria

Today as we discussed the different types of worship in honors today,and as we listened to both types of worship,I was struck by a thought: Worship can be dangerous to one's soul.  I realized why a person would prefer a simple type of worship over a complex hymn sung in multiple parts. As I listened,I started to become lost in the beauty of it, and focused less and less on the words and meaning behind them. This can be dangerous because if one loses focus on truly worshiping, they begin to either glorify themselves (enjoying the sound of your voice) or they begin to praise the performer, not The Creator. The music played was beautiful,it truly was. But too much of a good thing can be harmful. Now, do not misunderstand me. I believe you can worship in all that you do, all types of music, and even without music. Music does bring people together though, and there is nothing like the sound of devoted Christians lifting a song of praise to their Creator. So yes, we should enjoy beautiful music, but we should never let ourselves be overtaken by the beauty of it. I believe that you must find a form of worship that you truly can worship through. For some, hymns and psalms allow them to truly embrace worship. For others, a contemporary worship service accomplishes the same effect. To each his own,as they say.

P.S. commented here

Modern Reformed

I have the unique position of growing up with my dad as the worship pastor at a VERY Calvinistic, Reformed Presbyterian Church- while none of my family is Calvinist. 

So I have learned a lot about Calvinism. A lot.

But one thing that is so interesting is the pervasiveness of the reformed tradition in music. It's been interesting that there really is still a sense of the value of simplicity. I once had a friend in highschool tell me that simple and old hymns were better than new songs because older songs have more meaning. Which doesn't actually make any sense. 

The sanctuary to our church actually looks exactly like all those pictures we saw in class. Whitewashed and clean with no decorations. 

Interesting isn't it? How old habits die hard.

Ramblings on Calvin

One of the problems I had with Calvin on Predestination is the line, "You can see how he gives as cause for both salvation and damnation the mere pleasure of God" (page 4). This line made me pause and think... so the pleasure of God is to damn some people to hell? Surely not. The verse that immediately popped into my head was 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." He wants everyone to come to repentance- to join him in eternal life in heaven- so how does that line up with Calvin's theology of predestination? God can harden or soften hearts, and we are unable to love Him without the love that He first put within us, and He knows who will choose Him, but that doesn't mean that we have nothing to do with the choice. Just a thought...

P.S. commented on Skylar's "Music During the Reformation..."

Calvinism

                While Calvin's beliefs on predestination are easily understood, they are difficult for me to accept.  Calvinism is very systematic and comes to a simple conclusion through a precise explanation.  Unfortunately, while it claims to give God all the glory for saving sinners from Hell, it is completely devoid of emotion.  If there were truly elect people who could go to heaven and those who are chosen to go to Hell, there is no reason for a Christian to try at all in life.  This idea claims to give God all of the glory, but what for?  For deciding that one man is better or more deserving than another, or because God just likes him more?  No, this is not the God that I have come to love throughout my life.  Calvin uses the example of a banker giving loans to explain his beliefs.  He says that a banker gives out loans as he sees fit, allowing one man to have money but not the other.  However, there is a system behind this.  The banker does not just chose who he does because he feels like it.  The banker giving a loan looks at credit, decides who is more likely to pay the money back, and what will be done with the money. Also, a person must ask for a loan before a banker can either give them the money or deny it to them.  I think in some ways it is the same with salvation.    

I commented on Rebekah Dye's blog

-Susan Berner

Palestrina and His Venues

In class, we listened to a little Palestrina. Let me start by saying that I love his works. I have performed many of his pieces in numerous cathedrals, and they never get old.

I know Calvin had a bone to pick with musical works like this, namely because they were emotionally charged songs being sung in church. However, there's something else about Palestrina that I cannot put my finger on that makes his works an element of worship on a completely different level than any other musical piece.

As a performer of such works, I find that when singing them, the acoustics in many cathedrals reflect the sound to appear as if the music is coming from all different directions. To the performer, they begin to feel as if the song is not originating from themselves. The performer simply becomes the channel for praise that comes from nature itself. The song comes from all creatures on the earth, and the performer merely manifests it in a physical form.

Also, this is my favorite Palestrina piece to listen to, as well as sing along with. I hope this counts as a quote.

~~Cody Martin

ps- I commented here

Predestination. Yes, I brought it up :)

"By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man.  All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or the other of these purposes, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death. …" 

If I had five dollars for every time this statement has brought contention in a discussion, I think I would be the richest person on earth.  I'd never read the actual works of Calvin before, although I've discussed predestination vs. free will way too many times with fellow believers, and his wording truly surprised me.  He addresses arguments and what he considers truth in blunt, forceful arguments, making statements most Calvinists would quail before.  However, while I do have a very strong opinion on this subject, as I'm sure most people in this class do, my opinion does not matter.  However, the salvation of others does, and that's what is a major concern with this belief.  To never have certainty in the faith, to forever have that chance that God had condemned you to Hell before your birth... it's really too awful to think about.  I've personally seen this kind of thinking turn in a very negative direction, where people refuse to have anything to do with the church or believers as they say that no matter what they do, it doesn't matter.  They're already stuck going to one place or the other.

While Calvin's logic is incredible, as a believer, I see many practical flaws.  In concept, it makes sense.  In the real world, does it?  I don't believe so.

Commented on Jamie's "Oooo... Shiny..."