Final

My Final Project Can be seen using this link. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1igYr_wBo0nTnNabWdneVRlVmc/view?usp=sharing

    My project as 3 parts. Aristotle and the mountain, Plato and the cave, and Boethius. 

    Aristotle and the mountain is showing the line of thought where he is trying to get to the supreme good in the world. Other people we talked about this semester were also Aristotelian in thought, including Moses, Paul, Augustine, and Benedict. Benedict was a monk who wanted to live a very strict lifestyle to become the best person he could, striving for the greater good, or God. Augustine in his confessions is saying that he needs to do better, and string for the same thing Boethius is, just in a different way. 

     Plato is talking about how we need to step outside of our "cave" and find the greater truth. People who are more Platonic in thought include Holmes, Dewey, and Basil. Basil discusses how we should be reading everything we can, including secular sources, to find the truth about God. He wants us to have a whole understanding of things. Holmes is similar in his argument for a liberal arts education. He wants people to have a wide range of understanding to be able to find the greater truth. 

     Boethius synthesizes the two. He would say that the supreme good is God, and we should strive to learn about him and get to know him in a multitude of ways. In his conversation with Philosophy the point is made that God is the supreme good, and that only through learning about him can we reach it, however we choose to learn about him. So he is in the middle of the two, as a bridge Christianize both of them and pointing everything to God.

ht

tps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1igYr_wBo0nTnNabWdneVRlVmc/view?usp=sharing

Boethius

Boethius in his books brings up a ton of interesting points. From thought about supreme good, to being moral, happiness, and how to get there, there is a lot of different things. Now the thing that is remarkably missing is Christ. As Philosophy is talking to Boethius about how to gain happiness, and what to do, and to in some ways suck it up and what supreme good is, Christ is never mentioned. I think this is because philosophy, in this conversation, was completely focused on Boethius’s perspective, and how things affected him. She guides him from the things he does to be happy, from wealth to fame to plenty of other things. In this Philosophy is revealing things wrong with Boethius and his perspective. Obviously here there is no need for Christ, because he doesn’t have a bad perspective. Boethius needs to know the ways he is approaching happiness wrong, so that’s the focus. She goes through one thing after another proving that Boethius is working towards the wrong things in life, that he must change. She then goes on to take this a step further. Not only are these the wrong things to be going for, but they are harmful to go after. I agree. From fame, to money, to power it’s bad to chase after that in your life. The only way that can bring true happiness is God, as Philosophy describes as supreme good. God being something that is completely and satisfactorily good. Philosophy makes a good point here, but I feel as though Jesus added in here would enhance her argument. By pointing to someone who chased the right things Philosophy could help boethius do the same. The things he has been chasing must be replaced, and Philosophy’s argument is weak there. Every time in my life, when I change a bad habit, I must fill it with something-hopefully Jesus. By not even mentioning him, Philosophy misses that step. Taking this a step further, by chasing Jesus, or God, you can be truly happy, because he is the supreme good, and that is what makes you happy.

There is another point that I really liked about Philosophy. She didn't describe it in much detail, but suggested that we are all striving to be the supreme good, to be like God. This fits in perfectly with the Bible where we are striving to be like Christ lived. I love the picture of us all chasing Jesus, trying to emulate him, falling short, but following nonetheless. It's a beautiful picture of how our relationship with Christ ought to be, and I really love it. I think also that adding Christ here would allow Philosophy to take her whole argument to the next level, not just changing Boethius’s thinking, but changing him as well.

So I think Christ should have been added. I understand why it wasn't because Philosophy was so focused on Boethius, but I believe adding Christ into it would have enhanced the piece as a whole. I really enjoyed the piece, and saw connections to the bible throughout. I think applying this in my life would be really helpful, making sure I chase the right things, not just temporary happiness.

Saint Augustine

St. Augustine in these confessions talks about the sins he committed over his life. In book 2 he describes how his heart was, and how he was seeking fleeting pleasures. He describes how he was when he was 16, and consumed by lust. As he was venturing into the world, going through puberty and exploring his body, his Dad just encouraged him to do whatever “ he was as pleased as if I had already made him a grandfather” pg 34. Although Augustine cites this, he does not use it as an excuse as to his sins. He takes full responsibility for his actions, when we could have just blamed his Dad. I find this remarkable, and is a true glimpse of his character. The fact that he knows where he is at and takes full responsibility is astounding. That isn’t something you find often. I love the fact that Augustine is humbly confessing here, giving us a seemingly accurate representation of what’s going on in his life, especially around puberty.

But then he takes an interesting turn. Showing remarkable hindsight and discernment, Augustine goes on to explain that he didn’t sin for a purpose, except that it was sin. He committed crimes for the sake of committing crimes. I believe this is the most accurate description of the main reason we sin. Why do we speed? For the adrenaline rush. Now, I don’t mean when you’re running late and you go 15-20 over to get to your destination, but that 5-7 mph over we always go. We do it simply because we shouldn’t be allowed to but are. Pg 36 of his confessions, when Augustine is talking about stealing fruit “we did so only for the pleasure we had in tasting forbidden fruit”. Augustine shows great wisdom is saying this. He did those things simply because he wasn’t allowed to, for no other reason.

Augustine then goes on to talk about how he is searching for fulfillment, and how it can only be found in Jesus. He shows great insight into sin, and our drives towards sin. I love the way he talks about it. Sin for us is just looking to fill a hole in our hearts. We don’t always sin for a purpose, just for the pleasure to see if it becomes filled. It becomes this inner battle.

Augustine also talks about what happens in his heart after he starts following Jesus. It reminds me of Paul, doing what you do not want to do. This concept is great. I find in my life, oftentimes I look back at decisions i’ve made in confusion, unsure of why I did. Augustine touches on this and i’m glad he does. He presents a clear understanding of our hearts, and shows remarkable self-reflection in his own to do this.

So, I liked Saint Augustine. He presents wisdom, understanding, and insight into what  he is saying. He humbly admits his mistakes, and discusses what went on in him.

Saint Benedict

The Rule of Saint Benedict was a fascinating read. I loved hearing about the way he wanted the monastery to run, and seeing the why behind it. One of the biggest things I loved was the focus on humility. All throughout the rule Benedict emphasized being humble, and getting rid of yourself to completely live for Christ. He wrote about a reverence for God that showed in the way he did things. From keeping your prayers quick, to the 12 degrees of humility, it was written everywhere. Personally, I feel as though the modern church has lost it’s reverence for God, and because of that we have a skewed picture of our faith. We see God as more our best friend, then as the creator of the universe, the King of kings, Lord of lords. Yes, God wants a personal relationship with him, but when people such as isaiah had visions about heaven they were trembling, scared because of the glory of God. Modern Christians would walk in as though they owned the place. This is saddening to me, because in a way it is limiting God. Yes, I want God to be personal to me, but I also want a God I serve to be so powerful I am trembling in his presence. Where I am afraid to look on his face because he is so pure and I am so sinful. By losing this picture of God, we have lost a humility that is seen throughout the Bible. If, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore” -Hebrews 31:8, then we should be just as humbled when God speaks to us as the heroes of the faith were. We shouldn’t take it lightly that God comes down to be with us when we worship, that he goes with us everywhere.  In my CHED class we talked about how diving deep into Jesus starts with a fear of him. Obedience, Love, everything comes from that. As you read proverbs you can attest to how many times it starts with the fear of the Lord. It is important we remember who our Savior is, and I love how Saint Benedict knew, and made it vital.

The other big thing that stuck out to me was his thoughts and rules on dealing with sin. His big point? Take someone aside and deal with it personally. Remove them from everyone else, and separate them from the rest of the monks. I love this idea. Benedict is saying that there isn’t a need to call someone out publicly, when you could respect them and deal with it privately. “Do not embarrass each other, let things be dealt with in secret if they can “If, however, the cause of the offense is secret, let him disclose it to the Abbot alone, or to his spiritual Superiors, who know how to heal their own wounds, and not expose and make public those of others.” pg. 53”. Paul also says this. Work things out one on one. Oftentimes we can be so quick to judge, when we really could make it personal and try and work things out. Pages 30-33 outline how to deal with someone when they are sinning, or not following the rules. I like that Benedict went into such detail, he knew there had to be a plan. It starts with Grace, but ultimately removes a monk not obeying so the rest of them can continue. The way Saint Benedict approaches this is filled with love.

Some people will disagree with a lot of what Saint Benedict says, and that’s okay, but don’t be quick to judge someone who is a Saint of the Catholic Church. I only touched on a couple things, but I could write about issue after issue he brings up, and I would love to dive deeper into him. There is just one thought I have. In all of this Saint Benedict is trying to disassociate himself and live completely for Jesus, but it seems that by doing this he is becoming completely self-focused and losing his potential impact. Now this cannot be the case, and I would have loved to be able to find out the difference, and dive a little more into it. It was just something I noticed.

The Quran

I really appreciated reading the Quran this week. All of my life I have been curious as to the differences, knowing it came out of the same place as Judaism, so it was nice to see some of that, and be able to learn some of it myself.

But as I was reading something huge stuck out to me. The Quran, and how God and following him is described, reminds me of a rewards system. It sounds like a “Do this and you will get that” type of deal. Surah 57 finished with the argument of saying, is this was done for you why wouldn’t you believe? Now with Christianity I know that is my thought, but it is a place of going “Jesus did all this, how can I walk away?”, whereas the Quran sounds more like a payment owed. It reminds me of what I am learning in my CHED class, about the different moral levels. There are 6 stages of moral development, and the one described in the Quran is a level 2. It’s the reward system. Now the ages for this stage is childhood, and although having a childlike faith is good, I would propose it’s best to move beyond this. I believe this is an important difference for us following Jesus. The rewards system is very self-centered, and Jesus calls us to live for him, not us. This would be a major disagreement between the two religions, and it’s a fundamental shift in the way we do things. I want to live my life for Jesus, pouring it out, not because I have to or should, but because I want to live that way.

Another big shift is how we approach our enemies. Jesus preaches to love them, pray for them, be with them. The Quran takes a radically different approach, and says you can’t even associate with them at all. That although you can pray for them, that they are not believers and thus lost forever. This is another way the Quran is different, and it speaks to the deeper levels of the belief of it. The Quran sounds more like a return for your efforts, in any way. It also speaks to the idea that God will do to you what you do to others. This may be a bad return, but it is still a return. It is all about me, and what I get out of it.

I disagree with the way this is presented. Now I am not bashing the religion or the book, I just disagree with basing everything off of your actions. By doing it like this you leave no room for your heart, and who you truly are. Anybody can fake it. Anyone can be good, avoid unbelievers, and pray. But for something like this to advance you must look beyond their actions, at the heart. For heaven, and our kingdom under Jesus, it advances because of people radically transformed by his love. It is a kingdom with grace, reaching the lost, doing whatever it takes to help people know Jesus personally. Although I respect the Quran, and the religion is Islam, I just don’t believe it is the right way to go. The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob doesn’t sound like the god of the Quran, and that is what sticks out to me. If everything is based off of a return for your efforts, a reward system, then it is completely self-focused. You aren’t living for something more, just for yourself and what you will gain, or how you won’t get punished. This is why reading the Quran sat uneasy with me, as much as I appreciated the perspective. There are lots  of good insights, and some good things to take away, but for the way their salvation is presented, I just disagree, respectively.

Saint Basil

Saint Basil in this reading raises some very intriguing points. The first one I would like to discuss is the fact that we should not be ignoring secular readings: “Perhaps it is sufficiently demonstrated that such heathen learning is not unprofitable for the soul” (Basil 3). Unpacking this, it makes sense. Basil goes on to emphasize when authors or poets or songwriters approach virtue, and how that’s a good thing for us to take from them. But that’s not all. In my CHED class we are learning how to best educate people form a Christian viewpoint. A major part of this is knowing how people learn. This involves knowing Psychology and how people develop. Now this may be considered a secular thing, but ultimately it helps us advance the spiritual lives of people. This is why I agree with Basil. Sometimes by adding in things that aren't from a Christian perspective we can gain a more whole understand of what it is, and that can helps us complete our understanding with a Christian perspective. Basil said that when writers extol virtue that we should listen. This is just one example of where adding in that other perspective can be very helpful. I believe that we can gain a more full understanding of who we are by looking at things from all perspectives. God will show up in every part of creation, we can just explore and find it.

Another thing Basil brings up is training.  I love what he says about this. He talks about how a musician wouldn’t train with the way wrestlers do, how that a musician would need to train in the ways they need to, by practicing their instrument. If we are to fight this world, we need to train against it. Against the enemy that is controlling this world right now. This involves us getting out into it, exploring it, learning about it. We must know what we face, and how the world acts. By exploring things outside a Christian viewpoint we are better prepared to not only fight the bad, but also learn how to best help this world see Jesus. It’s very important to do this. If we don’t know what influences our world, we can’t effectively proclaim the gospel. We can be in the world but not of it. We can use technology to reach people, without spreading the hate and judgement that gets spread through it a lot.

The last thing that stuck out to me was his focus on spiritual growth. He says we need to keep our bodies healthy, but only for our spiritual growth. We should be focused on growing our spiritual selves in every aspect. I agree with this. It is okay, and even good, to stay healthy physically, but we need to be focused spiritually. This is really important because, although we live in this world, we are not of this world. We cannot spend all of our time and energy focused on the physical part. Money, health, etc. We must be concerned with our spiritual selves. It is vital to growing as Christians.

Overall, I highly enjoyed the reading. I would love to dive more into Basil’s writings as a whole.

Faith Without Deeds is Dead

“Faith without deeds is dead” -James 2:26b. Oftentimes the church gets this mixed up. We push living a lifestyle modeled after Jesus, while missing the point of this verse. While yes, living out the faith you have is important, it is not the only thing. Paul in Romans discusses this from many different angles. Paul states that only through faith can you be saved, but that your faith is proved by your deeds-by what you do. It isn’t enough to just say it, you must live it out. I love this point, even though in the church this gets twisted so much. At my old church the leaders wanted everyone to serve-to the point where it seemed like you weren’t a Christian if you didn’t serve all the time. That was the church twisting something good into something bad. What you do does not determine your salvation-but it does serve as proof of it. At another point in Romans (10:14-15), Paul goes on to say that unless we tell people about Jesus, unless they hear about him, they cannot be saved. One of the biggest ways we ‘tell” people, is by how we live our lives. This makes our deeds infinitely more important, because, if you haven’t heard the line before- “Our lives may be the only Bible some people read”. How we live our lives is a direct glimpse into who we are. As it suggests in revelation- when we feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, and so on, we are doing the same for Jesus. In Romans Paul states that living like that is worshiping God.

Now that statement can be true in many ways. Take the fact that we are made in Gods image(Genesis 1:27). If every single human being you meet is made in the likeness of God, how you treat them is a likeness of how you treat God. Better yet, it’s how you treat his creation. Remember he pronounced creation good, so by defaming it, cursing it, attacking it, and killing it, you are dishonoring the thing God himself proclaimed was good. If God made creation to be good and perfect, then how we treat it is a picture of how we will treat God. Who are we to say something is bad when God himself said it is good? So, how we live our lives as an example to those around us is worshiping God, it is honoring his creation.

But this isn’t all. Paul also teaches the truth that we are no longer slaves to sin. Romans 6:14-“For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” This truth is the only thing that allows us to live the life filled with faith. We must be free from sin, because, even Paul stated that “I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it”. He knows what he wants, but he can’t do it. Paul is trying to get across that only through Jesus can we truly live the life we are called to.

So what does it mean to be human to Paul? It means to live with God in you, striving for him daily. Contrary to Moses, who focused on the law, Paul focuses on the heart, and how you live that out. Where Aristotle and Plato believe there is “superior man”, Paul would say as long as you follow God anyone can be that person, but that it is only through God. He brings a new perspective on what it means to be human that I hope we all appreciate.

Confucius

Confucius has many good, interesting points. From how we approach people around us, to how we approach the people within us, to how we lead well, Confucius hits on many areas that can be really important.

In previous weeks Plato and Aristotle talked about “the perfect man” Describing certain qualities within him, they supposed that this man was fit to lead. From a focus on Philosophy, to being athletic, smart, and well learned in math and astronomy, they both had somewhat different views, but the same goal. Confucius on the other hand doesn’t go that route. He may be talking about a good leader, or emperor, but not in the same way. Confucius focuses on the inner self of a person. How they approach other people, themselves, and god. He stressed the importance of learning, and always striving to go deeper.

He does this but talking about introspection, the ability to self analyze yourself, to find out if things need to be changed.  He talks about how an emperor must always be honest with themselves, and must strive to be the best character they can be.  big part of this is how an emperor treats the people around them. Confucius says that they must honor and recognize honest people, and people with good intentions. That if you don't honor those people it sets a bad precedent. This is something American culture has missed. By celebrating wealth and fame, no matter the character of the person, we have set dangerous precedents for who can lead our country, and who can help define the culture of our country. Whereas Aristotle and Plato discuss the perfect person to lead, Confucius would say that it can be anyone as long as what's inside is good. This concept has to do with divine right, and the fact that without it the emperor will fall.   

Confucius then talks about the way an emperor approaches the world around them, and how that's the same way heaven will approach them. Whether giving them this divine right, or withholding it since they are not worthy. Again, it's all focused inwards.

This is similar to how we as christians believe. It doesn't matter who you are on the outside. Doesn't matter what gifts, talents, or looks you have. All that matters is the righteousness of your heart, and how Jesus changes that.  This is an interesting connection since the two were developed completely apart from one another.

This focus inward is what sets Confucius apart, and why I liked him better than Aristotle and Plato. Where Plato and Aristotle would present a single type of person to lead, Confucius suggests that anyone can lead as long as their heart is pure.

One of the last things Confucius mentions is exploring new things. Confucius puts forth that an emperor should never stop discussing new problems, should always come at things from new angles. This connects really well with the introspection part, because it keeps the ruler active. The emperor is never complacent, and never believes he/she has solved every problem. In the same way we should be doing the same, especially with our spiritual lives. I had a teacher i high school who changed the way he taught his class every single year, always striving to be better. This is what Confucius i saying. Have the honest introspection to learn, and have the determination to do better, never settling for less. Do this, and you shall lead a long life as a leader, never failing, always lifting people up, beloved by "your people". For Confucius, being human is to look inside oneself, and to strive to greater things.

Aristotle Ethics

Aristotle Ethics was a very interesting read. From talking about learning, to happiness, to finding a safe middle in life, Aristotle brings up some really good points. The biggest takeaway I got out of it was the idea that humans are trying to satisfy themselves. To Aristotle this looked like happiness. He proposes that happiness is the goal of humanity, and that everything we do is to be happy.

But it went deeper then that. He talked about how happiness must be external and internal. This reminded me of our spiritual lives. We want to be happy, or in this case joyful-we seek to be fulfilled. Now whereas we find this in Jesus, there is still a external and internal part. We want our souls to be content, and sometimes that looks like physical contentedness. It is what we strive for. In my psychology class we are talking about something similar for children, and why they act the way they do. Aristotle proposes people act  to fulfill oneself, to be happy. Sigmund Freud believes something similar. A child cries to get something to fulfill itself, such as food, a diaper change, or just rocking.

Aristotle also says that money is not happiness, but a means to be happy. This is an important distinction that true happiness must be not only physical, but on a deeper level as well. Going a different direction he says that a just person will act justly, a temperate person will act temperately, and so on. You become what you do. Or, in terms of the bible, Faith without deeds is dead, it’s the same concept. Aristotle believed that external things helped bring internal happiness, and that you will become what you do. The spiritual and physical parts of us are interconnected, they use each other. I happen to agree. In our lives we have our physical being, and our soulful being. I believe that God made both of those parts for a reason, and that only through both of those can we really grow close to God and be fully human living in full contentedness with him.

Aristotle then goes a different direction in his book and explains the idea of a mean state.  A place that’s not excess, or deficient in your life. Aristotle says that in every walk of life there are “mean states” where we all strive to be at. Not too much, not too little. He defines Virtue as that middle state, and virtue as being the happiness we all strive for. I love how he connects all of this together, and each part adds on to the previous ones.

The things Aristotle mentions have some interesting implications in our life. From what we strive for, to what gets us there, to what we do when we get there, Aristotle brings up some really good points. Now although I disagree on the specifics of the idea of happiness being our goal, I can see how this applies to becoming fully human in relationship with God being the same thing.

In this call we are answering the question of what it means to be human. I believe Aristotle would say that to be fully human is to strive for a mean state of happiness, both physical and spiritual, and that defines us apart from the animals, or beasts, around us. That is what it means to be fully human to Aristotle.

The Republic $ Timaeus

The Republic and Timaeus had some very interesting ideas to convey. From how the body is formed, to how it interacts with the soul, to running a city, and living in an intellectual stimulation environment, and letting philosophy guide you.

First of all, in the Timaeus, and somewhat in the Republic the concept of the body and soul working in concert is shown. Plato, when talking to Glaucon, talks about how the soul fulfills duties that the body cannot, and because of the soul intellectual conversation and thought is able to happen. The body works physically, but anything beyond that is the soul’s job. This ties into the concept that everything is from heaven, or rather from the craftsman mentioned. Plato suggests that you cannot talk about a human without talking about both body and soul.

I believe this is very accurate. In my life I can see where my soul, and connection with Jesus, completes me as a human. In this piece the question of what does it mean to be human, is answered by Plato bringing in the soul. He also talks about how everything is based off of a perfect model, that everything is trying to reach. Paul in one of his letters explains how he is constantly reaching perfection, but always falling short. If we take Plato’s concepts, and instead of a craftsman put in God, and Jesus, they start to make sense.

In the Republic, Plato also mentions the cave analogy, and how a leader of a city must be the man standing outside of the cave, wondering what is going on and realizing it’s all an illusion. This is an interesting concept, yet makes a lot of sense. Plato is driving home the point that the leader of anything must be able to look farther ahead, and have the foresight to see what is coming. If this leader is someone in the cave gainst the wall for example, they cannot do that and therefore cannot be an effective leader. This is understandable in almost any walk of our modern life. From business leaders, to country heads, they are always looking forward, to see what is coming. Apple does this with their new technology. They look ahead, change the game, and come out with a “new and improved” technology designed to keep moving. They work to make sure they are the person outside the cave so to speak. It’s exactly what Plato is trying to explain.

Plato also explains how a leader must study Philosophy. Now if you take his theory that philosophy is key to understand what being a human is, that makes sense. To Plato Philosophy was how you “interacted” per say, to the craftsman he mentioned. It became key to attempting to reach the perfection he mentions. Now if we change Philosophy to theology, and the craftsman to God, this applies perfectly to us right now. We use theology to better understand God, and to grow closer to him, and, as Paul said, reach perfection in Jesus.

Plato may be discussing Philosophy, a craftsman, and how to best lead, but his concepts can be applied to our lives, he is still very relevant. Enjoyed reflecting on this.

The Iliad

This week’s reading emphasizes human nature. As we talked about in class there were these assumed stigmas on human nature, and god nature. The first we see of this is Hector. All throughout the 6th book is Hector being the quintessential hero. He is getting the wives and children back into the city, encouraging the men to fight, and going to get Paris up and fighting. This is a very human thing to do, especially a hero. Hector is portrayed in a very favorable light, even more so in the way he finds his family, then sends them to safety while he goes back to fight. Page 8 of book 6 is Hector’s reasoning for leaving his wife and kids and going back into the fight. He would rather die fighting, than live a coward. He is shown as very heroic.

This is contrasted from Achilles, when he shows up mainly in the 18th book. The first we read of him for our reading, he is grieving. Now this may be a human trait, but how the grief develops puts Achilles into the more god-like stigma. He is filled with rage, and uncaring about anyone or anything, except getting revenge. He vows to kill Hector, but first we goes to his mom. Grieving over Hector, his mom is a factor in his change to revenge from grief. Then, his mom makes him armor, because he has lost his. Now the Iliad goes very detailed in the making of the armor, and I think this is because the scenes on the armor were meant to be scenes from Achilles life, and meant to guide him in battle. There is a lot of battle scenes, with some idyllic ones spread throughout. But it describes life in many forms, from many different angles. It could remind Achilles of what he is fighting for, and how to fight. Like a lion, where even the pack of dogs attacking are scared and run in fear. As Smith makes the armor he wants it to be more than just regular armor. It needs to protect him physically, but also help him remember what he is fighting for.

But in the 24th book we see a drastic change happen. First of all Priam comes into the Greek camp, seeking favor from Achilles. Achilles has just recently killed Hector, and priam wants to give him a proper burial. Now, as Achilles see’s Priam in a great amount of grief, it brings back his own, and he comes crashing back into being “human” again. They connect over the grief for fallen family members, comrades, and warriors. Overcome, they cannot speak for a length of time. This grief is what makes Achilles human again. We see this evidenced more as he decides to wait 12 days to continue fighting, as the city of Troy grieve and bury Hector. Achilles becomes human again.

The Iliad emphasizes this change as it finishes the book. It shows Achilles and Priam gaining respect for one another, admiring the courage, warrior spirit, and brokenness of grief in one another. It says that Achilles and his aides served the meal, which marks a drastic change in the uncontrolled rage Achilles had earlier in the Iliad.

This book, and especially the readings from it, emphasize the contrast between Hector, Achilles, and the change in Achilles. In the theme of our program of, “What Does it Mean to be Human”, this is showing the contrast between human and god in early western culture. Achilles, in this story, becomes human through grief. Comparing it to the Exodus reading last week, Moses was human in the way he questioned God, but then followed and obeyed. This represents western culture and their view of god and human, and how that relationship exists in the Bible, and how God is portrayed interacting with humans. For Moses, being human meant following God, and doing his will. For Dewey and Holmes, it was the ability to think, to imagine. For Achilles, it meant having grief, and feeling emotion, and connecting to other humans. So, as we continue this semester, I look forward to seeing the different views of people on what makes us human, and what it means to be human.

Week2 Exodus 1-23

“Blessed be the lord who has delivered you from the hand of Egypt”(18:10). Provision is emphasized in Exodus. From the Israelites escaping slavery, water from rocks,  manna from heaven, and the laws he has them follow, God is always providing. But there are some interesting things with what happens until he does.

First of all God continually hardens Pharaoh's heart so that it takes all 10 plagues to get the Israelites out of Egypt. Over and over again he says to Moses that he will harden Pharaoh’s  heart so that it takes another plague. God brings them into an impossible situation, then miraculously shows them the way out. It isn’t easy, it isn’t impossible, it’s just enough for them to survive and follow him. This shows up as he leads them in a cloud by day and fire by night. All they must do is trust him to follow. Again as he gives them water from a rock, and manna from heaven, God gives them just enough to fulfill their daily needs. But even through that, they don’t get away. He lets the Egyptians catch up to them. The question becomes why.

Why is God continually allowing the situation to deteriorate so much? Why do the plagues hit all aspects of life, but only a handful are specifically excluding the Israelites. Does that mean that the plague of blood affected them too? God seemingly protects them from random plagues, and yet let’s others affect them just as they affect the Egyptians. Or as God leads them onto the shores of an uncrossable sea, the Egyptians right behind them. God is constantly allowing the enemy, or the hunger, or thirst, or bad thing behind them to catch up. The Israelites are never ahead. Yet in all this you still see God’s provision. He gives them just enough manna for that day. Just enough water to drink. Just enough time to get them across the sea until it comes crashing back over the Egyptians.

The thing we know is that God is a jealous God(Exodus 20:5).  If the Israelites had left Egypt on the first plague, it could have been attributed to Pharaoh’s inability to keep them there. If they had escaped from the desert without the Egyptians coming after them it could have been to Moses’s excellent leadership, or Pharaoh's laziness. I believe God wanted to prove it was only through him that they escaped. He wanted them to look back on those days and remember that “I Am” was the God that provided for everything they needed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Or maybe God knew that only through a complete dependence on him would they listen to the laws he put forth. Only by relying on him would they really learn to seek his will, and take the promised land later. Maybe this was a time of preparation for the future. For the Israelites to be able to make a covenant with God at Mount Sinai, they had to trust him, and fear him as the Lord of all creation. By saving them in this way, God proved that. Everything he did taught, built, or created something in the Israelites they desperately needed.

The bible never says why. It never explains why God lead them into a sea, or let the Egyptians catch up. It never says why he waited for the Israelites to grumble about the lack of water until he provided, or why he didn’t just make the manna preservable so they didn’t need to collect it each day. But I believe the last part of the reading is in some ways the most important, for it provides a promise. Exodus 23:20 starts a section where God sends his angel to prepare the way before the Israelites. He promises to fight before them, and be with them every step of the way. This is a continuation of the promise to Abraham. He is reminding them of this, after 400 years of slavery. The Israelites may have forgotten that he would, and through this he reminds them. You can read Exodus a lot of ways, from a lot of different perspectives, but provision is written on the pages. It flows from every part, and through every trouble God always provides. Maybe he just wanted to prove that he would.

To be human is to think. Holmes and Dewey in these passages make some very interesting points about thought, the processes behind it, the result, and the reason for it. From adaptive learning to reflective thought, Holmes and Dewey help us get a more clear understanding of what a liberal arts education is, and how to best use that to learn.

With the starting point of what they said, let’s take Dewey’s principles of thoughts and add them to Holmes definition of Liberal Arts. I propose we can base our thoughts off of what God says to us. Dewey references when Jesus instructs us to become like children. Children have a healthy sense of doubt, yet will believe what they’re told through curiosity, and experimentation. Looking at Dewey’s principles, we can apply them here. From curiosity to experimentation, all the while driving towards a solution, we can use these principles to be more intentional with our thoughts. If we take Jesus’s commands, and take note of Dewey's warnings of fallacies of thought, we can fully achieve the liberal arts education Holmes talks about, but from spiritual standpoint. Jesus, in everything he teaches, wants us to learn it for ourselves. He prompts our curiosity, our doubt,which are Dewey’s starting points for our thoughts. He activates our thought processes, to draw us to him. If Holmes is right in saying that through liberal arts learning we can be more fully human in the image of God, we need to be going for that. We can directly apply what they are talking about. Jesus prompts us to think and rationally believe, but to make those beliefs, and thoughts based off a solid foundation of him. By fully trusting in him, yet testing him on it in healthy ways to make our belief stand the test, we are fulfilling both God’s intent for us, and the true meaning of the liberal arts education. God wants us to trust in him, but he also invites us to test him. Dewey in his piece paints a big picture of a solid foundation, yet one that has withstood time and trials of testing. I believe we can apply that to the way we approach God, and truly be able to have a relationship with him, becoming more fully human as Holmes suggests.

But that’s not all. For students to get this liberal arts education, we must be taught well. Dewey brings up very good points about teaching and training, and how we can apply that to our thoughts. He spends a whole chapter on training our thoughts, and how we can properly do that to our advantage, and also to our detriment. Quoting John Stuart Mill “To draw inferences, is said to be the great business of life”. Dewey warns against drawing incorrect inferences, and that only through testing can you have solid belief. As a teacher of a liberal arts university or college, this needs to be clarified. Instead of starting with base inferences or assumptions, test, examine, and learn the answer as Dewey suggests. Dewey states that you can form habits to reflectively think based off of proof, or to automatically experiment to find some. Without this, we get incorrect inferences, biased opinions, and students that are fragmented in what they know, instead of prepared to learn and master anything they may wish. In this course we have an opportunity to truly learn, and be a student of the liberal arts in the way Dewey and Holmes both point to. Only by learning, reflecting,  and taking heed of the warnings can we get there. As Holmes said, rational inquiry only happens with people, only together can we truly learn.

Introduction

Hello! My name is Hunter Mantor and this is my blog. I am a children's Ministry/biblical studies major, with a minor in biblical languages. I love to read, and one of my passions is to learn the context, and reasoning behind the bible. We miss so much as we read, and so I would love to dive down into it. Also, I love kids, and feel very called to serve in a ministerial position towards them. God has really transformed my heart this past year, and really brought out giftings towards kids. I am very excited to be in this program, and cannot wait to see what this year holds. Thanks so much for reading(even though you have to)!