Oh, that's right. I have a blog due tonight.

Creation was not so vast a work as redemption; for it is written of man and
of all things that were made, ‘He spake the word, and they were made’ (Ps. 148.5). But to redeem that creation which sprang into being at His word, how much He spake, what wonders He wrought, what hardships He endured, what shames He suffered! Therefore what reward shall I give unto the Lord for all the benefits which He hath done unto me? In the first creation He gave me myself; but in His new creation He gave me Himself, and by that gift restored to me the self that I had lost.

That last sentence really go to me when I read this yesterday. In my analytical mindset,  I had always thought that the greater thing was creation. Possibly because I find it a much greater thing to build a car rather than to fix it. But upon reading this, I was really struck by the reasoning behind this. For God to create the universe, all he had to say was "Be" and it existed. However, in order to bring that creation back to Him, He had to sacrifice Himself so that we can live. Just something I noticed though.

~~Cody Martin~~

PS. I commented Here

Thread of Love

The theme of both “The Cloud of Unknowing” and “On Loving God” is to love selflessly. Chapter three in “The Cloud of Unknowing” tells the reader to lift up your heart to God in humble love. It follows to say love God for himself and not what you can get out of him. It says that we should think only of God and let nothing else enter our minds. As follows, chapter IX of “On Loving God” also talks about this absolutely selfless love that we should have for God. It says that we should be lost in him, completely absorbed in his love. “As a drop of water poured into wine loses itself, and takes the color and savor of wine: or as a bar of iron, heated red-hot. Becomes like fire itself, forgetting its own nature; or as the air radiant with sunbeams, seems not so much to be illuminated as to be light itself.” This is what we as Christians should strive be like in Christ.

I commented on Molly’s.

Losing my senses?

"Whenever you are prompted by grace and mean to follow up on your 'blind seeing, make sure that with firm, wise, and earnest sorrow you put away your physical senses (hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch), your spiritual senses (by which you understand things), and all that is known through these two channels"

     I don't know about you guys, but this passage really bothers me! How can one put away their physical and spiritual senses and still be able to do anything? I understand that the author is stressing the reader to remove and put away anything not of God, but didn't God create the senses? He gave us both physical and spiritual senses to be able to know His presence. Wouldn't a person be a coma like state if they removed both of these things? Or is the author suggesting a state of prayer like this? If the author is, how can one really pray in this state. It seems impossible to me! When I pray I need my thoughts, just as I need my voice in a conversation.  

     Then it goes on to say, "Take care that none of those foolish people who live by their senses hear of these matters. 'Foolish' is my word for those who are attached to knowledge and who love things that can be known and have beginnings."  What those this mean exactly? I am foolish for trusting in my senses? Or is it that I rely to heavily upon them? Maybe I do.  But I have this is in way is really weird to me, how can one completely detach themselves from their senses and have a connection with God? Although, I'm not saying one cannot, Jesus never taught his disciples to sit all day, somewhere seculsive and pray by detaching themselves from their bodily senses and their spiritual senses. Did Jesus teach to pray in solitude? Most definitely! But not where it consumed all our time, our days.  If we as Christians were designed to seek God this way, we would not have the Great Commission. 

   I know this blog is late and its a rant, but this stuff was running wild in my mind! Maybe someone can help me make sense of this!

P.S. commented on Jamie's post

Unknown

As I sit here in my dorm room, I see things and "know" them.  They have recognizable shapes, measurable in three dimensions.  Their functions are predictable because of the design, and even if they were to malfunction, they would do so in ways that I or someone else could explain using human logic or reason based upon the way our world works.  Take my microwave, for example.  I can recognize it, based on its physical characteristics.  If I were to put a piece of metal inside it and turn it on, I would expect it to malfunction in a predictable way (Sparks and fire, it wouldn't turn into a vacuum cleaner).  Ultimately, the function of my microwave is not beyond my grasp.  If I decide that I want to know anything and everything about how a microwave works, I can learn.  I am limited only by time and personal dedication.

Then, there are other people.  They too are easily recognizable, in both form and function.  From a purely biological standpoint, I can learn how the human body functions because I have full access to it. Even if all the processes aren't fully understood, we have the ability to study them because we have full access to them.  The mind is a bit tricker, but still not incomprehensible.  Through psychology and sociology, we can understand how people tend to function.  Sure, no two people are the same, but they are still limited by this three-dimensional world, by life one moment at a time.  Even if we can't predict what choices will be made by each individual, we can understand human function, both socially and biologically.  Furthermore, even though we may not know another persons thoughts or predict their exact actions, we can connect with other people on an emotional level.

God can't be classified or analyzed in this way.  It is so hard to describe God apart from his creation because he is beyond the realm of our understanding.  We can't fully comprehend things outside of the limitations of our world.  We understand physical things in three dimensions, and we understand time as a constant continuation of moments.  We understand good and bad based on how we feel, and justice based on what we know.  To think that we, as limited and minuscule as we are, could even begin to really understand the almighty power, the intelligence, the magnitude of God, is laughable.  He has shown Himself to us in ways that we can understand, though His Creation and His Word.  He has allowed us to have relationships with Him.  And we should grow closer to God in every way possible.  God should be our only desire.  But humanity will get in the way.  We do have to eat, we have to breath, etc.  We are limited.  To say that we could even come close to understanding or praising God just for who he is outside of what he has done for us really doesn't make sense to me.  Because outside of His creation and the things we have experienced personally, we simply cannot as humans begin to comprehend who God is.


Commented on Meghan's "knowing the Creator"

Where is He.

Let me level with you here; this weeks reading has certainly been the toughest for me to follow along with. I respect the Mystics in the sense that they have given away their lives to constant study and veneration of God. However, it is hard to follow their ideals because I see no experience in the field. One truth is that the Mystics commission believers to love the creation of God, whether tree or human. On the other hand, it seems that their lifestyle is empty of this action, other than those closest to them. There are other things that bothered me, so I will harp on them for a small portion. 

We briefly reviewed page 61 of our reading today, and I struggled to find the point within the portion of the text. The author starts out by stating that if one removes the selfish conditions of the heart, particularly those that are relevant to God, then it is he who will find God and pure experience. I do not believe in this, considering there are numerous passages of Scripture where God intentionally wishes man to hold on to the gifts that He bestows. Paul states in Romans that "For the gifts and calling of God is irrevocable"  and I believe even the selfish relations with God are important. God grants us Spiritual Gifts which vary in dozens of ways, and if one were to remove them and their purpose in their experience, I think that would be detrimental to the concept of God's grace. God meant for us to know Him by provider, and I though i'm no expert, I believe the Mystic's missed the mark in that sense. 

P.S. I commented on Tinsley Griffin's "Tomorrow is fresh, with no mistakes in it."

Cloud of Unknowing

I thought that The Cloud of Unknowing reading was really interesting. Kind of weird and probably more applicable in theory than in reality but definitely interesting. The idea of loving God solely for who He is I can absolutely get on board with, but I don’t know if it’s possible for me to truly get out of my own experience or environment to get to that point that the author is talking about. I don’t know if anyone can truly get to this place where personal experience and relationship with Christ isn’t intertwined. And this whole idea of ridding the self of everything that is known in order to know anything is so strange, was kind of cool. It reminded me a little bit of Socrates’ concept of wisdom.  Socrates said that by admitting he knows nothing he is actually wiser than the men who think they know everything, or think that they are wise. It’s essentially the same idea that in surrendering everything we know we can reach a place of understanding with God. But with this I still don’t think it’s very realistic either. 

Commented on Emily's "really knowing"

God is always on the Lookout

I do not agree with the fact that in the "cloud of the unknowing," the author said that God will not work in someone's life unless he/she has given God "sole charge." I believe that God is in everything and through the good and the bad he is there to teach us something. God does not punish those that don't follow him but he encourages them to look for him in good and bad situations. God is a jealous God but he is also a loving, graceful God that forgives those that ask for it and does not quit blessing somebody on the account that they have not given a part of their life up to him; however, God does show that by not giving up everything to him people as a whole are missing on awesome blessings.

P.S. I posted on "Really Knowing" by Emily

Where is God?

     Today in class we disscussed where God is found, and I brought up the philisophical matter of whether or not God is found in every part of His creation. I believe, that God reveals pieces of himself through His creation; weather it be His creativity, His ingenious, or His sheer power. It is stated in the Bible that God is omnipitant; "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" Ephesians 4:6. But does this mean that God Himslef is indded in evrerything? Or that He is infact, an inate part of every part of creation, or simply that His presence is within everything like a thumbprint left behind after He created it?  But to quote the great and powerful Mashburn, this is a question posed from "just an intro philosopher".

ps- I commented on Emily LaForce's post

Knowing God?

"Try to forget all created things that he ever made, and the purpose behind them, so that your thought and longing do not turn or reach out to them either in general or in particular. Let them go, and pay no attention to them. It is the work of the soul that pleases God most" (The Cloud of Unknowing and other works p. 61). This passage seems to say that we should focus on God, ignoring everything and everyone else. But the idea of sitting in some room meditating on God seems to be opposed to God's plan for our lives. In the King James Version, Matthew 28:19-20 says, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." These verses command believers to lead other people to God. Jesus did not spend all day meditating - He went into the world on a mission. I don't think God wants us to stay in continual meditation on earth; He has given us a mission. I'm not sure that the author of this really knew the God of the Bible.

P.S. I commented on Emily LaForce's post.

The Automatic First Degree

The Automatic First Degree

         When we are first brought into this world, we are loved and nurtured by our parents, or at least that is how my life began. We are nestled in a safe cocoon of love and affection, with our parents trying to shield us from outside harm. They provide for us, and protect us. And because they do this, our first response is to love them. We show love by what they have done for us so far, which by our standards at the time, is pretty great. If we are raised as a Christian, one of the first things we notice is that we pray before each meal, and before we go to bed every night. Or, once again, that's how my life was. (Still is) But, we are taught to thank God for our food, families, and friends. Personally, one of the most distinct memories for me is praying before each meal and thanking God for providing for us. This went on for some time before I even questioned who this "God" was. This is the first degree of love, loving God because of what He has provided us with. I think this a healthy beginning for all Christians, this is the way I learned to pray, and to ultimately find out just who God was. From a young age, we are instilled with the desire and tradition of thanking God before meals, and it subtly begins to change our view of God. He becomes provider, our comfort, and our shelter. And we begin to thank Him, which in turn allows us to harbor feelings of love towards Him, which then progresses to the next degree of love and matures within us. This is the automatic first degree.

P.S. Also commented on Gary Hamner's post. 

Free Will and Predestination

"God is ready when you are, and is waiting for you." I could not help but stop and stare and this quote upon reading it. The only thing that I could only think about was my life, and the road I am following. I realize that God transforms us as we conform to the ways of a Christian life; I understand that that He chooses us to be one of his "specials" but I hit me like a ton of bricks when I scanned this verse. I knew that we as people are to run to him whenever we stray away, but never have I quite grasped the fact that God never moves. He is the unmoved mover and no matter what corrupt action we can preform, it will never void the grace he has given us.

I just felt like that was necessary to share since I received a whole new perspective on it, but it also kinda relates to my second point. When I read "The Cloud of Unknowing" I sensed a hint of predestination being fed into it. At one point it is said that God "has chosen you out of his flock to be one of his 'specials.'" This is definitely not the most relevant point here, but I just cannot help but relate the fact that predestination and and free will are mentioned together. I might be interpreting this whole passage wrong, but does it seem kind of contradicting that these two are mentioned together? Or is a matter of us humans coming to God when we put away other secular treasures, and God, all-knowing and powerful, just happened to choose us because He knew that we would convert to Him? That seems like the most reasonable approach to me.

I commented on Josh Goldman's "Trying to tell time with Dali's clocks"

The Fourth Kind of Love

     In class today I didn't think that my group got a whole bunch of time to adequately describe the Fourth kind of Love, so this is what I thought about it. In the beginning of chapter ten St. Bernard starts off by saying blessed is the person who reaches the fourth degree of love, which I thought was funny in a sarcastic way because later on he says that it is impossible for anybody to fully experience the fourth degree of love until they die and receive their spiritual and immortal bodies. St. Bernard also said that the only people who have experienced the fourth degree of love where martyrs and then they only partially experienced it.

Ps: I commented on Jasmine's post pray without ceasing.

Pray without ceasing

I have been thinking about what praying without ceasing means. It does not mean to just pray 24/7 and never do anything else. What it actually means is to pray consistently and persistently or like to never go a day without praying. I feel that we are still called to do other things to spread the love of God. One thing about the Mystics and Monks is that they try to do everything perfectly and figure out what exactly being perfect is. This is not what we are called to do. We are called to seek God and spread His word not to focus on the guidelines but the actual relationship. As a Christian I don't have all the answers, and I know I won't find all of them. It just puzzles me how someone can live a life of prayer and nothing but that. I just feel there is more to be done than that. It is important but so is going and sharing Gods word. As I said I am still trying to figure it out myself. Ps I commented on Rebekah Dyes post

The Deception of Perception

In a world of material things, our perception really is everything.  The human brain uses a plethora of processes in order to "understand" our surroundings.  Unfortunately, emotions tend to be a little more heavily weighted than other processes, and we tend to develop half-truths about the situations we experience.  These thought processes lead to the development of opinions, and opinions generally lead to disagreements.  As a result, our perception of the world is usually quite different than that of our friends and family.  Our perception even changes as we grow older and more mature.  The situations that we endured a decade ago are viewed from a completely different perspective now than when we were experiencing them.  So....if perception is constantly changing, then does this mean that our perception of God is constantly changing? As we encounter Him in altogether new and different ways, do our opinions of Him change? Can this be considered as a form of spiritual growth?  And is this what "The Cloud of Unknowing" is explaining when it asks us to look to God alone and not what we mean to get from Him? If this is so, then that can only mean that our perception is deceiving unless we look at life through God's eyes.

I commented on Tinsley's "Tomorrow is fresh, with no mistakes in it :)"

Loving My Creator

In chapter 5 of On Loving God, the questions “Why should not the creature love his Creator, who gave him the power to love?” and “Why should he not love Him with all his being, since it is by His gift alone that he can do anything that is good?” were asked. This reading as a whole is pretty deep. I have to reread some lines multiple times in order to comprehend what it actually means. When I read these questions in chapter 5, I was just astonished. I mean seriously, how can someone not love the Lord? He is so mighty and so awesome and full of mercy and grace! How can one live without loving him? The questions itself states why we should love God. He has given us this ability and allowed us to do good things. The Lord is the one who gives us this life to live and supplies us with more than we need and far more than what we deserve. I cannot fathom the thought of living a life not loving my Savior, my rock and my shield. I’m not exactly sure of what I am trying to say because my mind is still trying to grasp this reading as a whole. It’s so deep and definitely caused me to think!

Commented on Meghan's post

Knowing the Creator

“For the knowledge of the creation leads to the cognizance of the Creator, through the knowledge of the created. The more perfect becomes the knowledge of creation, the more perfect becomes the knowledge of the Creator” (Ibn Rushd On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy). This quote stuck out to me when I was reading for Tuesday. The idea that intimately knowing that which was created will lead to an intimate knowledge of the one who created. It makes perfect sense to me. When someone creates something in the contemporary sense of the word, they put a part of themselves into that work. When I write something, a part of me is transferred into that which I’ve written. It’s the same with creation. When you look at nature that has been untouched by human hands, you can see the creator’s, God’s, design. Until next time,

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,

~Meghan

Commented on Mallory’s post

Trying to tell time with Dali's clocks.

So, I couldn't help but think we were a little over our heads today in conversation. Notice, I did not say that "I" was in over "my" head. We were trying to grasp the characteristics of God. The only time I think humanity could grasp the characteristics of God would be in the Garden of Eden. In class, we were told to think of three words to describe God. If it were a test, I probably would have failed. I only came up with one: indescribable. Since humanity is fallen, we have a skewed view of God compared to life before The Fall. The only two ways to decipher the true character of God is through Scripture and through revelations. Even through revelation, discernment needs to be made for whether or not God is truly revealing something or not. For example, if someone is being told "by God" to do something that directly goes against Scripture, they probably aren't being given revelation by God. Unless one of two of these is happening, then it is impossible to determine the characteristics of God. It is like trying to tell time with the clocks in the Salvador Dali painting I posted above. We have a distorted view of God, and it is not because God changes, but instead because our perspective is from a sinful state.

Commented on Tinsley's "Tommorow is fresh"

Tomorrow is fresh, with no mistakes in it :)

Today in honors, we briefly touched on what is actually possible to do in the Christian Faith, and what is impossible for us to do in this life, as we cannot gain perfection.  We specifically talked about this in regards to praying constantly, and this is a tricky subject for me.  After all, the Bible doesn't state this as a suggestion, it says to pray constantly.  In the same way, it says, "Be perfect, as I am perfect."  My human brain wants to obey the Lord; I want to be perfect, and I want to pray constantly.  Is it unfair for the Lord to set us a standard that we can't follow?  Or... can Christians actually be perfect?  Can we actually pray constantly?

I suppose I started thinking about this when I realized how often I make excuses, saying that God will work in me "If it's His will to do it."  I'm excusing my imperfections and inaction by giving myself the out of "God's will.".  It is God's will for us to be perfect. As Christians, we have been freed from the bondage of sin, and can therefore, apparently, pray constantly and be perfect.

However, whether or not we can actually be perfect and pray constantly is extremely debatable.  I'm just saying that because we've been freed from the bondage of sin, we have a choice. It might not be an impossibility.  Jesus gave us commands, and these are tough.  However, perhaps more than doing these exact things, these are the standards we're supposed to hold ourselves to, as they are the standards God holds us to.  He expects us to be perfect, as He is perfect.

I know I'm rambling about this, but I hope y'all can follow my thought train.  I guess the quote from Anne of Green Gables kind of sums it up: "Tomorrow is fresh, with no mistakes in it."  It has potential for perfection, can we "Go, and do likewise?"  At any rate, that's the standard we're being held to.

P.S. Commented on Rebekah Dye's :)

Perfectly Possible

The Cloud Author mentions another spiritual hierarchy similar to St. Bernard’s degrees of love and the Medieval Meditative Ascent to the Intangible, only his uses simpler terms that are relatable to modern Christians. The Common and Special stages both allow room for both a passionate pursuit of our Maker while living in the world without living like the world. The Solitary and Perfection stages require removal of all earthly evidence in our lives. Unlike Bernard, the Cloud Author firmly believes that Perfection can be achieved but that it is rare to reach this level of perfection and unity with God. The main difference between Bernard and the Cloud Author is that while Bernard maintains that this feat is humanly impossible, the Cloud Author recognizes that it will only be possible through God. It can only be achieved as long as we desire it with our entire being. Once our desire is evident, God steps in and guides us toward Him. Not because man has any divine authority or because we have the ability to live a pious, sinless life, but because God can take that tainted sinner and make him whole again and draw him  as close to his Creator as he can get while trapped in an earthly body. It’s not that this is impossible (because in God all things are possible) but that no person has ever achieved this. Monks have tried; Elijah and Enoch probably came closer than anyone if they didn't achieve it.

“Your whole life now must be one of longing, if you are to achieve perfection. And

this longing must be in the depths of your will, put there by God, with your consent.

But a word of warning: He is a jealous lover, and will brook no rival; He will not work

in your will if He has not sole charge; He does not ask for help, He asks for you.”

The trick is to surrender every aspect of your life to Him. Does this mean sell your iPhone, sleep in a cave, and starve yourself? No, it means allow God to enter into your life. Like your best friend, take Him with you wherever you go, consult Him before making decisions, and spend every spare second with Him. This is my take on “praying without ceasing”: to lift your thoughts toward Heaven at all times.  I heard it said this way: Don’t ever say Amen as an ending to your prayers. You can say it but don’t let that be the end of your prayer. Keep the lines of communication open all day. I think the reason I’ve always thought of it that way is because you and God are the only ones who will ever hear your unspoken thoughts, and what’s more intimate than that? Remembering that God hears every single thought helps keep me focused on Him when I’m discouraged. 

What does love for God look like?

Today in Honors there were some very serious questions proposed. They were extremely thought provoking and had my head spinning at times. The one that stuck out to me the most was the question of loving God, and why and how we do that.

Is it possible to love God? Although this seems like a silly question, one to which we would immediately say 'yes, of course' to, it can get a little deeper. In order to truly love, you must put aside yourself and think of others. As creatures of selfish nature, that is almost impossible to do. Especially in the case of loving Christ. How often do we only go to the Lord in bad times? The times when we need Him to do something big and miraculous for us?

If you go into a relationship thinking, 'what can I get from this person?' instead of, 'what can I GIVE to this person?' you have entered the relationship all wrong. It's not about getting anything from them, it's about giving back to them. Christ has already done the ultimate thing for us. We must now live everyday trying to give back. It should never be about getting things from Him, but we can do for Him now that He has DIED for us.

Can we reach that place? Can we get to the place where our love for God is completely selfless? Oh how much easier life would be, if we could.

I commented on Emily Laforce's blog, "Really Knowing"

Really knowing

The cloud of knowing was really thought provoking for me because it made me question what was right and wrong. Should we sit alone and think about how sinful we are and let ourselves be overwhelmed with sorrow? What is the purpose of this? is it to help you realize how much you need God or is it something the writer feels you have to do to get closer to God? I suppose everyone needs to come to the end of themselves but should one really punish oneself like that? When I first read the cloud of unknowing I wondered if making yourself miserable about your sin was selfish because it was saying that you have to do something for God to accept and love you. However, I'm not exactly sure what to think but I guess that's Honor's for you. I thought it was interesting that you have to put away all your senses and outside distractions to focus on God. Its a lot like meditation, but on God instead of yourself or an object or emotion. I really enjoyed this reading because it made my head hurt cause I thought about it so much. Those are the things that really change you. (P.s. commented on jamie's)

Poetry in theology

So much of the Medieval Christian writers seem to speak poetically. I think post- enlightenment we often think that the empirical search for knowable truth can't involve poetry. How beautiful that here it does! It appeals to truth which is deeper than mere ratio. Ratio with the arts, with beauty.

"you are wisdom, uncreated and eternal
the supreme First Cause, above all being,
sovereign Godhead, sovereign goodness,
watching unseen the God-inspired wisdom of Christian
People."


It's beauty, it's art. I love it. I wish I could get inside the minds of these Medieval theologians and try to understand how they connected Christ to art and beauty and truth. Any thoughts on this? Does anyone have any books/authors they can recommend on this holistic approach?

I commented on Rebekah Dye's Post

The Wise Turk

"I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian." These words are popularly attributed to Martin Luther, but he did not actually say them. The quote is (perhaps erroneously) thought to be a loose paraphrase of what he said in his "Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation":

It is said that there is no better temporal rule anywhere than among the Turks, who have neither civil nor temporal law, but only their Koran; and we must confess that there is no more shameful rule among us, with our spiritual and temporal law, so that there is no estate which lives according to the law of nature, still less according to Holy Scripture. (1)

That is not to say Luther wanted Turkish rule--he certainly did not! (2) In context he was not praising the Turks but mocking the Roman papacy in his day. Even so, the apocryphal quote gives us food for thought. Who is more fit to rule: the wise Turk or the foolish Christian? The idolator with strong political acumen, or the saint with no skill in statesmanship?

In the Middle Ages, which would have been preferable: to be a Christian under Muslim conquerors who brought a primitive form of religious toleration, or a Muslim under Christians crusaders who scarcely tolerated their own? Even with the numerous restrictions and withholding of 1st, 2nd and 3rd amendment rights, it is arguable that Muslims afforded Christians better civil protection than Christians granted them in turn.

(1) Qtd. from Veith's Luther's "wise Turk" quote that he didn't say.
(2) In the same letter, Luther writes, "But as the pope is Antichrist, so the Turk is the very devil. The prayer of Christendom is against them both."

EDIT: Reworded post to sound better.