Beowulf's Battle and the Christian's Battle

Beowulf has many undertones in it that could symbolize and represent many things. The greatest one is the clear tension between good and evil, and the need for good to overcome evil. Throughout the story, we come upon multiple battle scenes, filled with gore and blood, as well as pointed descriptions that are meant to display the terror evil brings, and strength and light goodness brings. I move to say this directly affects Christians even today! Comparing Beowulf to the concept of a Christian's spiritual life and the spiritual battle that he encounters, I think would be an exceptional symbolism. It brings the spiritual battle alive and makes it more realistic, where many times Christians can unconsciously discount such a thing in their spiritual lives.

I commented on Sierra and Jessica's!

Beowulf: God's Triumph Over Evil

In my opinion, Beowulf is the story of how only with the power of God can good triumph over evil.  No man could defeat the evil demon Grendel, as he has cursed every blade so none could cut through him. However, Beowulf had God on his side, and with God's strength with him, he was able to kill Grendel and save the land. It is a testament to how God's strength can fall even the mightiest of demons, because he is almighty.

I have commented on Wendy's and Noah's posts.

Heros aren't prideful

Beowulf is strong, bold, courageous, and seemingly faithful. He goes into battle "trusting in the Lord's favour" and while the definition of a tragic hero is one who has some tragic flaw which in the end is his downfall, I struggle to give Beowulf the title of hero at all. His obvious flaw is his pride and though he saves many peoples lives by killing Grendel, is it really heroic if he only did it for himself and for his own glory? I find it interesting how He speaks more of God before he goes to fight but after he has won, there is little mention of how God is the reason he could defeat the evil. If nothing else, a sure sign to me of how shallow his faith is is how he requests to be buried with the treasure he wins when he slays that dragon. Does he think that that gold will make his after life more luxurious or is he just too greedy to allow someone else to reap the benefits of his hard work?

In my opinion, a hero is not just someone mighty, powerful, successful, and/or bold. A hero is one who sacrifices for the life of others regardless of the praise they might receive. Self preservation nor pride are admirable qualities. One is purely instinctual and both revolve entirely around one person getting all of the praise for their own accomplishments. If I am inside a burning house by myself and manage to escape and then put the fire out I am not a hero, I merely aimed to save myself and my stuff. Beowulf reminds me of a professional athlete, wanting and ready to fight the next opponent, but that athlete isn't a hero, they are looking to prove that they are the best so that they will receive praise from other people. To me, pride is a tragic flaw not because it eventually brings down a hero but because it keeps a mighty person from being heroic. 

I commented on Wendy's and Sierra's!

Beowulf's Pride

Beowulf through this work is a very prideful man. His name, Beowulf, is usually translated as man-wolf. Beowulf straddles the line of being man and being the thing he is fighting. Beowulf takes on these violent creatures by fighting them with violence. Throughout this entire work Beowulf becomes more prideful after each victory he has and this leads to him becoming the very thing he is fighting. I think this is a great reminder of the importance of staying humble and maintaining self-control.

I commented on Wendy's and Sierra's post.

Faith

One thing that Beowulf has is faith. Beginning in line 669, one can see that he had trust in the Lord to not even rely on the armor he was wearing. The poem says, "And the Geat placed complete trust in his strength of limb and the Lord's favour". The passage goes on to explain how Beowulf sheds off his armor and even gives up his sword. He does not even want to keep a weapon. Who in their right mind would want to fight a demon without a weapon. Beowulf opts to fight with nothing. He has faith that his strength is as great as Grendel. This reminds me of David and Goliath in a sense. Oh, what faith can do. As long as we have God on our side with the faith to trust in him, physical limits are non-existent. Beowulf believed in this, and I wish I had faith as great as that.

I commented on Nate and Sierra's.

Where does this fit??

I remember this story from reading it years ago. Granted it wasn't the full version and i am truly enjoying taking the entirety it in. I do have questions that I want to pose in class, such as, "How is this a showing of the early church?" I see ties to mysticism and Christianity in here so I wonder if we are dealing with some kind of Pagan sect. From what we have read, I am remembering it pretty well. Beowulf being a real mighty hero for the people. He seems to have an ambition to gain true glory for his name. I think this is an ambition we can learn from if our hearts align with God through it. Your s the power and the glory and the honor, Amen.

Role of Grendel

It is striking to me to see the resemblance between Grendel and Satan. Grendel is described as a “powerful demon” who “[prowls] through the dark” and is distressed at the sound of praises of God the Creator (line 86). Not to mention that Grendel is “condemned as [an] outcast,” just like how Satan is casted out of Heaven when he rejected God (line 117). His role in this story is to cause pain, distress, and destruction.  I am curious as to why the author chooses to write so much detail on Grendel in the beginning. Is his role that important, that we should take such notice? Or is it necessary for us to understand his character and motives before we can understand the rest of the story? How is the audience supposed to react to him? With empathy or simply a hatred? Personally, I react with a sense of hatred and anger; and I think that is where the author intends the audience to end up as well. 

While I mainly took notice in Grendel’s description, I also appreciate the fact that God remains stronger and can “easily halt these raids” by the evil Grendel (line 479). It reminds us that although there is an enemy that is waiting to attack and devour us, we can stand firm on the fact that we have a God who is mightier. This allows hope, paralleling to how Beowulf defeats Grendel. Having this evil being also serves as contrast, and reminds of the goodness of the Lord.

I commented on Darby’s and Noah’s!

How did the author know?

It is intriguing to me that the writer of this poem had a knowledge of parts of scripture. It makes me wonder who brought the Bible, or at least some of its accounts, to this region by the tenth century. I do not understand the combination of this with all of the mythology. It seems that they believed that God is a heavenly father along with some other correct doctrines, but they did not let go of their traditional religion. This is true in the case of many cultures. We cannot seem to separate ourselves from what we hold close. This shows that we do not like change, but we must let go of the things of the world and follow Christ alone. Our calling is to be in the world and not of it.

I commented on Hannah and Nate's posts.

I am a Woman and I am Beuwolf

Beuwolf screams masculintity! It tells of Scandanavian warriors going to fight monsters and of a brotherhood that is formed through this. Beuwolf is the ultimate macho man who has the strenght, boldness, and bravery. So how do I apply this a woman? I am no where near masculine and am not fit to be a solider non the less to this extreme. Beuwolf depicts bravery in a beautiful way as these men fight for their home land and for what they love. We see women ( not radical femensit) everyday fighting for equal rights all around this world from the monsters we have such as human trafficking, prostitution, slavery, drug cartel, etc. I have had the priveldge to fight for against these monsters and to ban with other women who have the same love for those desperate and in need. Beuwolf also showcases motivating speeches and boldness through that speech. In this world women still do not have a full say when it comes to changes in society. I have seen numerous times women who are capable of the same job get turned down because a man was qualified as well. I learned in my sociology class last year that women will always be the first ones to look down when in the presence of a man. All this to say women can learn how to speak for themselves and speak well. We can learn the boldness that these dialougues possess and put them to practice in our own lives. Beuwolf is applicable for not only men but for women as well.

I commented on Hannah and Darby's post.

Outliving Death

"I have often honoured smaller achievements, recognized warriors not nearly as worthy, lavished rewards on the less deserving. But you have made yourself immortal by your glorious action. May the God of Ages continue to keep and requite you well." (63)

Beowulf achieved immortality by his actions. The honor that follows his accomplishment will continue after he is dead and gone. Even if he dies a physical death, he remains in legacy. This is a theme is often found in epics such as the Odyssey. A hero always longs to make a great enough impact that their honor outlives them. I think this is a desire almost all humans have. We long for a legacy, for our lives to have meaning and significance. We hope that our actions have a positive impact on those that outlive us. That is why authors of great literature often include the theme of outliving death. We all hope to achieve that standard and can relate to it heavily. 

I commented on Natalie and Noah's posts.

Look at me, I'm Grendel, and I'm a whiny child!

To be fair, the movie still lingers in my mind about Beowulf.

Grendel is a small child, and I know what you're thinking: "But Noah, it says he's a monster that ravished the land and the people of Hrothgar! How can he be a child?" I agree completely, he's a disgusting, "God-cursed brute" who relishes in the act of killing others (line 121). Now I ask to look at Grendel in a broad, over-generalized situation. To me it seems that Grendel was deprived, and being that he lived with his mother in the moors with nothing but the skin on his back, I say he might have felt the sense of "it isn't fair for the people of Hrothgar to have all of that food and money and I get nothing" mentality. Granted, I'm probably stretching it on this one, but don't we see kids act this way as well? Sure we don't see two year old's lashing out at each other attempting to take their life as penance for having a Thomas the Tank Engine train that they want; however, we do see when kids feel like they want a toy, they instinctively try to take it and will fight for that toy. Grendel may be killing the men that possessed the food and gold he coveted, sure, but it's a parallel act to children wanting toys.

At least I think so, but hey, what do I know? I'm calling Grendel a child and I still cut the crust off of sandwiches.

 I commented on Darby and Daniel's posts.

Thoughts

From the beginning of the epic, it sounds as if the Lord's goodness is on some, but not on others. It was for Hrothgar that his city was in the wrong place at the wrong time because Grendel just happened upon it. But Hrothgar has true belief under extreme and terrible circumstances that God will heal all things.

On another note, Beowulf kind of reminds me of David. He was chosen for battle and is confident in his abilities as well as in God (line 670). He is described as a "prince of goodness" (676).
He just reminds me of King David because he is described to be like no other man, just as David was.  Beowulf is strong and an admirable leader.

Lines 754-756
These lines just exemplify how the devil creeps away from fear. Grendel always thought he was the strongest creature, but then he met his match and that frightened him. All he wanted to do was run and hide with his other demonic buddies. I think this just goes to show that when we fight the devil with Jesus on our side, like Beowulf does because he believes that God has a divine plan over this, that we can conquer anything.

I commented on Nate's and Daniel's!!!

Grendel and Beowulf as Symbols of Blood to Cover Sin

Perhaps I am overreaching in my analysis, but the events leading up to Grendel's destruction remind me of Old Testament sacrifices. Grendel, in this thought, represents sin, a viscous, unbending monster that kills and consumes all it encounters. The Danes have been tormented by Grendel, by sin, for a very long time, and attracted the attention of Beowulf, whom sailed to their aid and ultimately defeated the creature. However, there was no bloodless victory. In fact, Beowulf allowed the Grendel to kill some of his men in order to catch it by surprise. In the Old Testament, sin was not forgiven without blood spilled, as God commanded the sacrifice of sheep, rams, and other creatures as payment for the people's sins, which led to the ultimate sacrifice in Jesus Christ. In the instance of Beowulf against Grendel, the blood of his own soldiers had to be paid in order to ultimately defeat the vicious Grendel. Just as sin must be paid with the sacrifice of Jesus, Grendel was to be beaten by the sacrifice of Beowulf's own men. Again, I could be overreaching, but that is a parallel I drew on reading this.

I commented on Nathanael and Natalie's post.

Defenders of the Defenseless

     "Beowulf" is the story of a hero who travels the seas to take out several monsters and save a kingdom. It is pretty much the basic premise of every science fiction action movie around. However, I would like to pose a few questions: what if Beowulf wouldn't have travelled and stood up to the monsters? What if he would have let the people continue to waste away at the hands of a beast they could not control or stop? It has already been pointed out that we as humans are similar to Grendel (which I am not disagreeing with), but we also have the potential to be like Beowulf. We are all faced with situations throughout life where we are forced to take a stand, but what about when we are faced with situations where we could very well sit back and let someone else handle it? More often than we care to admit, we sit back and make excuses as to why we can't help--no time, no money, no ability, etc--and these situations aren't even life or death.
     We as Christians are called to love well and to love fully, and are we really loving well and fully if we refuse to help those--Christian or not--around us? Knowing the situation and the possible outcomes, Beowulf still chose to travel and fight for the sake of the people and for the glory (for us, it would be to bring God glory). If he would have refused to go, more likely than not, someone else would have stepped in and taken out the monsters. But he didn't. He didn't make excuses. What if we didn't hesitate to help those around us even if the odds look scary or we might be inconvenienced?
     Okay, I'm getting off of my stereotypical soap box now.

I commented on Wendy and Ethan's.

Grendel-The Epitome of the Sinful Soul

    So often I have read Beowulf (more often than I ever thought I would, honestly) and absolutely hated the monster Grendel, displayed to the audience in the first few pages of the epic. Grendel's escapades and deeds are absolutely gruesome and evil. Grendel is "malignant by nature, [showing] no remorse." In reading that line (137), I wonder, "How often is man similar to Grendel?"
    I know personally I can attest that I have, even recently, done or said something, knowing it was wrong but still feeling no guilt whatsoever over the act. Granted, my faith eventually convicts me, but there are moments of complete and utter desire for evil. I think Grendel is a morbid and devastating picture of what man would be with no conscience--taking from another, malevolent, truly evil. If the glimpses of being Grendel I have felt in my life are not unique to me, I think man is closer to being Grendel than we would like to believe. We may even perhaps, be closer to the monster of this story than to the hero.

I commented on Dallas and Wendy's posts.

To Accept the Paradox with Faith

Book V was hefty when it comes to comprehending and wrestling with the reconciliation of God's foreknowledge and man's free will. Frankly I personally don't know if I think there was much for Boethius to argue against because of his choice in words. The foreknowledge of God is different than the act of God predestining or electing someone/thing.
On another note, a passage I did enjoy is found in Prose II stating, "For when the mind turns its eyes from the light of truth on high to lower darkness, soon they are dimmed by the clouds of ignorance, and become turbid through ruinous passions; by yielding to these passions and consenting to them, men increase the slavery which they have brought upon themselves, and their true liberty is lost in captivity." This passage at its core represents the free will God gives humanity by allowing us to make our own choices, even if that means they are bad for us and limits us on our own accord. But He also shows his love and care for us by always presenting Truth, and allowing us the opportunity to seek wisdom and the intelligible. And so any limit or slavery put on humanity is done by human self, and though God foreknows, limit is only inflicted by self- God has already made a clearer way to freedom, we just have to choose it!


I commented on Briana and Noah's!

Eternal God - Temporal Humans

When I discuss the topic of free will, I typically have a pretty immediate and confident response of yes, we do have free will. When I discuss God, time and eternity it wasn't until recently that I saw the issue with God being all knowing and humans having free will. When this was first proposed to me I was of course, very confused. I knew both of these things to be true- that we have free will and that God is all knowing, but I was thrown for a loop as I tried to reconcile these two things. I tried to make sense of these two concepts and tried to figure out how these things that seem contradictory work together. As I delved into this topic for the first time I was initially overwhelmed. There was no simple explanation or easy understanding of this. However, it was a statement similar to this that helped me to understand:

"Yet how absurd it is that we should say that the result of temporal affairs is the cause of eternal foreknowledge" (pg. 63). Not that this explains how God transcends the past, present, and future or defines eternity but I love when philosophers, authors, or whoever in the midst of their attempts to understand God seem to get hit with the realization that God is so outside of our realm of understanding. That's when statements using the words absurd or ridiculous, etc. are used and that's when I tend to feel like the playing field become more level between these brilliant philosophers and myself. One of my favorite things about God is that regardless of ones level of education, critical thinking ability, or time spent trying to figure Him out we always come up short. I love getting into the discussions and thought processes of how God works and I think it's healthy, good, and beneficial to allow ourselves to dive into these matters but the part that always makes me laugh is what both the intro to philosophy student and the renowned philosophers have in common: at some point on the journey, they have to stop and realize it is simply beyond their reach. In that moment I think we are all in the same boat of confusion and awe of our God.

I commented on Brax's and Sierra's!

Will you Will?

The interesting thing I want to note on is Boethius gives predestination a heavy human element. The farmer cultivating his crops aligns himself with the will of the man burying treasure to create what we call Providence. This might be hinting at the notion that our provision comes from the historic actions of other men. Does Boethius try to toe the line between faith and reason, reconcile them, or reject them?

I  commented on Sierra's and Natalie's

God's Omnipresence

During, the third prose Boethius tries to reconcile God’s foreknowledge in accordance to humankind’s free will. This topic is at the forefront of theological debates. It is important to note that I am speaking about foreknowledge, not election, and by no means is this meant to delve into the Calvinist-Armenian debate. I think the biggest obstacle in reconciling this problem, is the way we look at time. As humans, it is inconceivable to see time as anything but, linear. God is omnipresent, which means that he does not perceive time like humans do. Time means nothing to God and it is not simply a linear idea.

I commented on Dallas's and Hannah's posts.

Pre-Destination and Time

I'll just say this upfront, I can barely understand what Boethius and Philosophy are saying.

Aside from that, in Prose II, Boethius is attempting to reason out the existence of both free will and the omnipotence of God. Boethius first tries to reason out God's all-knowing ability by stating that if humans had free will and could determine their own fate, how could God still have the all-knowing capability while still holding true to every man lives his own life? Though in Prose II Boethius never says the term, he is knocking on the door of the theory of predestination. It makes sense to some, with God knowing the final outcome of everything in the universe, there's no rhyme or reason to believe that we can determine our own destiny when God has decided for us: thus, ruling out free will in humans. What Boethius seems to forget, or what he doesn't understand, is that God stands outside of time. I personally like to view this as God over looking "time" in front of Him; "time" looks to almost better the size of a meter stick, and God has access over every event in history; therefore, God is able to "view" the first second of time, the "present", and the world's final moments after the 2nd coming of Christ. "Time" is relative, meaning only we are affected by it, and our minds can only think in terms of "time." In this case, Boethius can only think that God has determined our ending because he himself is thinking that if God is all knowing and knows our end, we should not have free will. However, if we were to use the "meter stick of time" image, then we can say that we have free will and we exercise it, and that's from our perspective as we can choose for ourselves whether or not to buy the HoneyBun at the gas station or not and it is truly our choice because we think in terms of time. However from God's perspective, our choice of buying that HoneyBun was predetermined because a meter stick is a meter stick no matter what you say, and in this case, the course of time. God views all events as current while Boethius can view still view his life as determined by himself due to the fact of being bounded by time.

I like this topic, it turns into a paradox. :)

I commented on Daniel's and Natalie's posts.

Chance and Fortune

In prose one of Book V, the discussion of chance quickly caught my attention. The fact that nothing can come from nothing and that God is in control of everything is mentioned by Lady Philosophy. She says that nothing can happen by chance. Then, Boethius and she get into a discussion about fortune. Lady Philosophy seems to talk about fortune as if it is real, but it made me ask a few questions. If God is in control and chance does not exist, then does fortune exist? If God is in control, then nothing can happen without him planning it. Since this is true, coincidence does not exist because God allows all things to happen for his glory.

I commented on Hannah and Ethan's posts.

Freedom of the Human Spirit

Okay, not gonna lie. I read the whole thing, I swear! I just didn't understand it. I got the whole we're arguing about free-will thing but that's about it. Some that I did find interesting in all of this was a level of free-will that comes early on in Book V. It is in Prose II, Philosophy Asserts the Existence of Free Will. Philosophy says that we do have free will but only on certain levels. We deny ourselves this freedom when we concern ourselves with matters too minuscule for us. Her first or highest level is when the Human Spirit is Free while contemplating the mind of God. This, she says, is when we are at our highest level of free-will that we will ever attain. Now, taking a stair step down, Lady Philosophy says that when our souls sink into our human bodies we lose free will. I suppose this is when we are born? Which kinda makes me think of I believe Aristotle and something about when we die we come back as someone else and we never really learn anything we just recollect it? I'm sorry, I probably butchered that. Anyway, they next step down is when we become bound by earthly members. I really have nothing to say on this, simply because I don't know what she means. Finally, we have our lowest level of free will, which Lady Philosophy equates to slavery. This is when the Spirit is given over to vices and has fallen away from possession of its reason. So like, alcoholism, drugs, sex, to an extent, even a love of learning.

I commented on Sierra and Darby

Understanding God

Boethius makes it clear that he believes that God has foreknowledge and is in control because "He alone can see all things" and "with one glance of His intelligence He sees all" (62). Philosophy says it well when she argues that, "the working of human reason cannot approach the directness of divine foreknowledge." Humans cannot fully understand or grasp the capabilities of God. While I find this frustrating and utterly complicated, much alike to Boethius, it also draws me in to a deeper respect for God. It is reassuring, however, that "human spirits must be more free" when contemplating on the matter of God and His character (62). So it is not hopeless when we try and understand God but cannot fully.

I commented on Daniel and Wendy's!

Chance.

I agree with Lady Philosophy in chapter V when she says, “If chance is defined as an outcome of random influence, produced by no sequence of causes, I am sure there is no such thing as chance.” I believe that everything is not by chance, but by fate. That what happens in the future is set and will come to pass. Every event follows its set course because it is predetermined from the start. The future is not randomized but has an order of steps in line. One event follows another because that is its turn. When they were talking about foreseeing, possibly foreseeing the future causes one to act upon it to make the true future event occur. For example, a man sees himself with a great amount of wealth in the future, he takes every opportunity to make money. However in doing so, he works himself to death. There was death in his future, but for that to occur he had to see himself in a different position in life so he would work towards it. There was never going to be a moment of great wealth in his life. But by seeing it he caused his true future event to occur. It wasn’t by chance that he died, it was his future.

I commented on Darby's and Daniel's.

Prayer brings Hope

" What means shall we have to join ourselves to the Lord of all, or how can we cling to Him?"

 On page 64, Boethius brings up the purpose of prayer and what does it actual serve if God is all-knowing and outcomes cannot change. God knows whats going happen in the present and future tense. That's a power that man can never truly grasp and never comprehend. So whats the point of prayer if man cannot sway God's plans? In the Bible there are many accounts of people praying to God for certain things to take place or be given to them and He provides. Was it because He felt compassionate and changed everything or was it that He knew they would need His help in that time that was already planned when the world began? Of course we will never know.... I believe that prayer is of course a intimate conversation between one and God and is a sacred thing. Prayer is not a persuasion speech that will make God give you what you want. I believe God wants us to pray so that we can see how much we truly need Him and to have that relationship with Him.Without it we would feel lost and anxious about each day.  It brings about a sense of hope not only for our lives on earth but once we arrive to Heaven.

I commented on Natalie and Darby's post.

Foreknowledge and Freedom

   Foreknowledge v. Freedom... An age old debate. Be it in a college classroom, a pulpit, or a council meeting of church leaders, this topic has been discussed in the realm of Christian doctrine for centuries.
      Personally, I've never seen the reason for the dichotomy between the two. I have never truly been able to put my thoughts into words, and due to that, have been unable to justify my vague opinions. Boethius, centuries ago, already put it into words, as his Lady Philosophy so eloquently states, "Just as foreknowledge of present things brings no necessity to bear upon them as they come to pass, so also foreknowledge of future things brings no necessity to bear upon things which are to come."
    Basically, this post is not one of a ridiculously complicated nature. The main point I would like to make is that sometimes, we as post-moderns and millennial, try to create something new, to spend on our minds and opinions to come up with the next world-shaking discovery. We think we have so much figured out, and we think we are the first ones to do so, yet we neglect millennia of knowledge that is right there for the taking. My advice--let us take and eat of this feast of wisdom, laid out for us by the authors and orators of the past.

P.S. I commented on Wendy and Sierra's posts.

Arbitrary

Surprise, surprise, the math major is able to find math even in Boethius.

     But seriously, Book V is riddled with mathematical examples. In fact, Book V in totality is set up like a math proof: "If _____, then ______." Boethius starts off by asking whether or not chance is real. Lady Philosophy replies: "If chance is defined as an event produced by random motion without any causal nexus, I would say that there is no such thing as chance, and that apart from signifying the subject matter of our discussion it is a completely meaningless word." Lady Philosophy gives this answer in reference to the spiritual realm (i.e., God), but it is also applicable on the day-to-day human bases (plural of basis. Thank you Nate Carroll for questioning my spelling) as well. Humans cannot be arbitrary; we are biased to certain things even if we aren't consciously aware of them. For example, it's why we rely on computers to shuffle songs on playlists, or we draw Scrabble tiles based on the feel. Even when we don't mean to, we find an order or preference in everything--nothing is truly left up to "chance."
     This idea is elaborated on in section II. From here, Lady Philosophy takes the math proof format and uses its train of logic to explain the balance between free-will and fate. I love how she explains that our inability to be arbitrary is a good thing since it is based on our judgement and ultimately on our desire to seek God. If we try to be arbitrary and leave things up to "chance" on our own accord, we are actually enslaving ourselves.

I commented on Wendy and Ethan's posts.

What is the purpose of random-ness?

Even though my blog comes from the fourth paragraph of the work, I promise I read all of Book V. (:
Anyways, something that really stuck out to me in Book V was the fact that as she was talking to Boethius, Philosophy said something really eye opening that sparked the rest of the conversation in this book. She asked Boethius, "For what place can be left for anything happening at random, so long as God controls everything in order?"
This just hit me because we all question this everyday. If God can control everything, then why do random things happen? Not even that, why do bad things happen? Why do babies die? I think if God controlled everything just as they were supposed to be, then we would be free of sin and would probably still be living in the Garden. I think God allows random things to happen so that we can focus on Him if what is random is good or bad. It allows our hearts to be opened to what He is doing in our lives right where we are and what we are going through. I think it is all apart of God's grand design that weird, crazy, random things occur.

I commented on Wendy's and Daniel's!!!

Free Will

I enjoyed reading Book Five better than One, because the subject of free will is often debated today as well. To believe that God is all-knowing from beginning of time to end, yet allows us to make our own choices is hard to grasp. Philosophy gives a good argument of how human reason cannot comprehend things as God can because He has an eternal mind, while humans only know of the temporal. Philosophy says, "eternity is the simultaneous and the complete possession of infinite life". I like the way Philosophy explains herself, and basically says that because you are human, you are not going to be able to comprehend it. Knowing that God is all-knowing, yet still allows us to make our own choices is something that can be true because God does not see things as past, present, and future. God knows the decision we will make 10 minutes from now, but He does not see it as a "future" event as we do.

I commented on Darby and Nate's.

The Quesiton of Free Will and God's Foreknowledge

The part that grabbed me most was in Prose III, where Boethius is questioning how there can be free will if God knows everything that is going to happen for each individual person. I have found myself wondering the same thing before. If God knows all that is to come in my life, then how is it I have the free will to choose in my life, if the consequences of any choice I make, either good or bad, is already decided? How is it that is free will? Now, I can see where Philosophy is coming from when she speaks on how we cannot try and think like God, as we are temporary, finite beings whereas He is an eternal, infinite being, but my confusion, like Boethius, remains. I will admit I became lost in all the words and rereading sections over again did not help, so I probably missed something that could make it clearer. However, as it stands now, I remain lost on the distinction, and I believe Boethius is as well.

I commented on Hannah and Ethan's posts.

Thinking Higher Thoughts

“Thy glance is upward, and thou dost carry high the head, and thus thy search is heavenward: then lead thy soul too upward, lest while the body is higher raised, the mind sink lower to the earth.” (pg.68)

               This illustration is intriguing to me. Animals generally keep their heads low to the earth. Their head is situated to face downwards whereas humans naturally glance upward. In the same way, we are capable of higher thought than animals. As human beings, we are not created to keep our thoughts on the level of the ground but to think beyond the worldly things that surround us. This reminds me of Philippians 4:8 where Paul says “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things”. God did not create us to think only on the passing things of this world, so He gave us the ability to think on things that are higher and more virtuous. This cannot be mistaken, however, with the idea that we can attain the height of God’s thoughts. He reminds us in Isaiah 55:8-9, that His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are higher than our ways. This is an amazing truth. Not only are we created with the ability to think deeply, but our Creator still holds mystery and wonder for us that we will never be able to fully understand. Our God has revealed Himself to us, yet retains His incomprehensible mystery and glory.

I commented on Wendy and Ethan's post.

Man's struggle to comprehend

From the reading of Boethius' writing this week, I found myself focusing mostly on Prose IV. The way Philosophy described God's divine intelligence and where it rested above our earthly knowledge was a truly humbling reminder. A reminder of how we, trapped within the confines of time and our sin, cannot even begin to comprehend what God not only knows, but He himself created and set into motion. Aristotle's quote of the universe and where it sits as not being a part of eternity, but being only within the present moments it can grasp was such an interesting concept. I feel as though we must remember that our foresight and our viewing of the past, present, and future is so limited and will not rival God in his sovereignty and foreknowledge. We can have hope in knowing that the One who holds all in His hands is loving, caring, kind, and watching out of run all so we don't have to worry nearly as much as we do sometimes. A very interesting read and I will no doubt be pursuing the rest of this writing on my own time.


P.S. I commented on Hannah's and Nate's posts