Rhetoric 3302 Questions

I agree with the fact that the Kabbalists believe that the meaning of God can not be adequatly conveyed by human language. I believe that this means us humans can not say what God means because we do not know him personally and have never met him so we can't say what God means in human language. I like the fact that the Jews stayed well with there faith because of Luria's cinception of God!! The Jews did not lose there faith like they probably would have if it wasn't for Luria's conception of God. My question is why is it that in order to have the love and grace of God in order to understand t he Scriptures? Another question I have is, does the fact that you can read the Scriptures and Bible by heart that you have to have the love and grace of God? Not everybody's heart got penitrated by God. Everyone has there own opinion whether God has done something for them or not!! So people should not force other people to believe in a God if they don't want to!! Nicholes believed that science and God could be explained together in some ways they were the same and had the same views together so that they could work together just nobody wants to because they are so set in there ways. Why did people all of a sudden believe that people were whitches because they had visions or dreams of them doing things out of the ordinary? Why did people believe that Satan was in mists of this when they hav never actually seen what Satan can do? How can God provide everything we need for justification when hes not here in person with us? Atheism at the time of the 1600's was not a good thing to be proud of. A lot of people at the time were discredeiting atheists because they believed that all atheists did not believe that God excisted. But believe it or not some atheists believed in God but did not believe that he did everything that everybody says he did. Where is heaven is it in the sky? Where is hell is it in the middle of the earth? Some people believe that heaven is in the sky and hell is in the middle of the earth. How do they know this? At this point in history it turned around to people believeing in God to people thinking whether or not he really is real and really is there!! People started making industries and agriculture all by themselves without the help of God and nature. At this time also people started to believe in science and its natural wonders instead of thinking about god and his plan for the Earth people started making there own inventions to help make there economy grow. At this time of the history of God people started to research to see if God was real because they were discovering chemistry and astronomy so they wanted to figure out if God really excists so they started reaserching for information about God. In this part of the chapter it seems that there is more then one God that there are many God's in our universe that are very different in beliefs. At this point everybody like the scientists all had there own views about God and whether he was real or just a figment of our imagination. There are so many questions that are posed in this reading that they are very hard to answer. But in turn people started to test and really look into whether God was real or not!! Well thats all I could really depict from this reading so this will be the end of my post!!

I thought the beginning of the article provided a good overview of how (as Pascal put it) "The belief in God can only be a matter of personal choice." As society started to change and become more open to new ideas and new technologies, the "affirmed" views of religion began to change as well. ( It just goes to prove that religion is largely based off of what culture you are surrounded by, or whatlifestyle you live. Each person is going to have a different perception of what God is, but their views are shaped by what goes on around them.) As mentioned in the reading, during the beginning of humanity, 'religion helped people realte to the world' and to 'find a focus in a terrifying universe.' After thinking about this statement for a while, I would have to agree. Having faith in God allows us to feel comfort that there is a higher being looking out for us. Because of God, we don't feel so alone in the world, for we know that there is someone (or something) watching over us and giving our lives meaning. But during the reading there was a lot of discussion and question of "How do we know that God really exists?" Although, of course, there is no proof of God, there are countless unexplained phenomenons that occur within the world within a daily basis. There are some things that cannot be explained, and therefore, can be seen as acts of God. As Newton describes: "Gravity may put ye planets into motion, but without ye devine power, it could never put them into such circulating motion." Many functions within the universe could only occur because they were done at a precise time and place. And the chances of these events simply occuring by themselves are nearly impossible without the interference of a higher force.

In "A God for Reformers" by Karen Armstrong, it made me see all the different point of views on God and how they intertwined within the cultures. Many people lost sight in God, and turned to everything except God for belief. The French theologian, Jean de Gerson, I thought made a good point when he said, "hold primarily to the love of God without lofty enquiry, rather than to seek through reasons based on the true faith, to understand the nature of God"..and he went on to say, "If you knew the whole Bible by heart, and all the teachings of the philosophers, how would this help you without the grace and love of God?" I think Gerson makes a good point. Of course you can read the Bible and try to pretend to be a "holy roller", but thats not the point when you say you believe in your faith. I think the point is that you need to have belief and faith through the trust and love of God. Right? Just because you go to church every Sunday, doesn't make you someone who truly believes in God. You need to really put your faith into it. Further on in the article, another part that caught my eye was when they described the imitation of Christ. I have never analyzed or thought about this before. It really struck me out of the ordinary. Another interesting philosopher that was talked about was Nicholas of Cusa. He tried to comprehend the Trinity through science and mathematics. Once again, we were using science to understand religion. But at the end, his conclusion had almost nothing to do with religion. The Koran religion made me realize how different some cultures are with religion. The article mentioned that the Koran believe that Satan will be forgiven on the Last Day. It then goes on to explain why. Whoa, are you serious?! In the religion I believe in, we know Satan is bad, and we should never attempt to sin toward him. This really made me realize the different beliefs out there in the world. Through the rest of the article, it concentrates on Protestants and Catholics in the Reformation. Even though I knew very little about this topic, it was interesting to read some of Luthers' quotes. Lastly, atheism aroused back then, which I could see why. If people didn't know what to believe in or just gave up believing, what else could they turn to, except to become an atheist. John Wingfield describes what an Antheist is in all different forms, which makes atheism look and sound bad. But back then, that was the purpose, because they believed the term "atheist" was an insult. Overall, this was a good article to see the different beliefs in God, their opinions about God, and how some didn't believe in him at all.

The question I came up with is simple, what is it with scientists and miracles? Armstrong points out how both Descartes and Newton both sought to take the mystery out of religion. This compulsion continues even today, the History Channel spends a great deal of air time trying to “prove” one part of the Bible or another. Why does it matter at all how things like the Feeding of the Multitudes, to take a Cartesian example, happened? God doesn't deal with the how; will is act, and so you either believe that it happened and move on to asking why, or you don't and the whole question becomes somewhat moot. Why would a Jewish person, or an atheist care at all about a Christian miracle?

But since both Descartes and Newton are ostensibly Christian I go back to my first rhetorical question, what is it with scientists and miracles that they have to “explain” them? I know that acceptance without explanation is the antitheses of Scientific Thought, but science does it all the time with processes it can't understand. Even today there is the mystery of protein folding, and of consciousness itself. I suppose it comes down to the idea that trying to explain how God works makes it easier to understand God.

Armstrong discusses pivotal events and individuals throughout religious history. She wrote about Martin Luther of early the 16th century, who claimed that you do not need information, knowledge, or certainty to have faith. This seems like a simple minded assumption. If this were the case, that means you simply have faith and do not need to learn anything to possess it. I think it would be interesting to raise a child without ever teaching it the concepts of religion, God, or spirituality. After all, if I’d never been introduced to these concepts until today, I would find them completely absurd.
The Enlightenment: There was some discussion on how new advances were eliminating the need for knowledge between disciplines. People begin to take on more specific roles as time progresses. The massive influx of information began changing the world around this time. It seems like technological advancement impacts a lot of complexities in our culture—religion is no exception.

After reading the first half or so of the chapter, I was struck by the fact that back then, God was scary. Literally, scary. I can understand how atheism is one response to the pressures put on a person due to the church and/or God. You've got a society scared to death of sin and it's almost logical that at some point, someone is going to be tired of being scared all the time. From the reading, you could see that while Martin Luther was I guess the best monk ever, he was still so afraid of sin and the wrath of God. Why? If you answer, well, that's just the way God is, you're going to have people who essentially don’t want to believe in God anymore. While I don't believe this frame of thought is the reason why atheists exist, it does provide a reason to look into scientific explanations of the world.

In the second half of the reading, I can see how the rise of new technology and how that influenced society can change the need of God. I mean, it that period of time, humans were moving forward intellectually, technologically, etc. that it essentially gave the human race an ego boost. If this ego boost gives you enough confidence in yourself, then the need for an all-powerful God to essentially do everything for you (as God is active and humans are passive as established earlier in the reading) is diminished.

I really like the view of this chapter. I thought it was very informative about the other religions and what they viewed to be important. I really liked the point were they compared God in math terms, which is like explaining god in science. I also liked the view of satin in the eastern countries; it is much different than what they teach in western religion. I really like that while we learned how the different religious movement came about; we learned that there was a movement because people were starting to not believe in God. Then a group of people who still wanted to learn started this religious movement. I also liked how they mentioned that this movement was not as violent as many western religions had tended to be in the past, although they were very much in favoring only God, and not any other religious figures. I also thought it was interesting that although atheist was thought of, it was considered a disgrace to be an atheist. Even with that being the case, many religions started to create views that caused God to have a minor role. This is also caused by the different breakthroughs in science that make people believe that they don’t need to God to understand the workings of the world. This is what I think the 2nd chapter was getting at.

I was surprised just how vehemently many of the Christian reformers lashed out against anything they perceived as a challenge to their beliefs. Armstrong mentions Luther bashing on theologians and "human cleverness", etc. Clearly, this reaction is based in fear. People fear what they cannot understand, and it seems to me that anger is simply a confusion of that fear. These individuals did not know how to feel, to act, in the face of a problem with their beliefs. Anger is one option, because it allows you to maintain your stance and shift the blame. And on that note, when the leaders are so ravingly afraid, and belting out anger and suspicion, it is little wonder that the laity was scared out of their minds. They had one ANGRY God on their hands, and wow but they had to do something angry too, in a bizarre show of fear. That's about when the 30 Years War started. Concluding this point, Luther was a very angry little man. I always thought Christianity was about "love they neighbor" and the forgiveness of Jesus. Oops, apparently I'm mistaken.
I have read before about the extreme focus on the suffering and pain of Jesus, but wow. It almost seems rather... sick to me. I can understand why many of the natives of Latin America had few problems converting--both religions seem rather obsessed with death and human sacrifice. It is all a bit too bloody for me. And that goes doubly for "The Passion". I agree with Stan-- I want my $8 back please Mr. Gibson.

Christianity is a establishment built on fear, whcih has contributed greatly on its major influence over the west. This chapter by Armstrong illustrates this tactic well. The fear component of christianity can be seen all over. The idea one is judged after death and after the world ends and if you are faithful you go one way and if you are sinnful then you go the other. This is a s scary thought, if God is watching all the time and if you don't be a good follower you are eternally punished. Christianity's scare tactic can also be seen in the architectural style of churches. Churches were the largest buildings in Europe for over a thousand years. They are scary looking and seem to send a message that one needs to conform.

it's strange to read about the protestant revolution and realize how disturbed of a person that luther was. you start to think after a while that his ideas that helped perpetuate the reformation were not one's of changing christianity for the better, but out of his own fear of god. when the reading gives quotes from luther about how he feels that he was the most strict monk that anyone could be, but at the same time he still felt he was a sinner. to me, this statement proves that luther was a man that was very troubled by his relationship with god and that this fact propelled him in to starting the reformation. it's also interesting that he believed in witchcraft and had such a generally cynical outlook out the human race. When you first read about the protestant revolution, or when i did at least, you sort of assume that it began out of desire for something better, although after reading this, i started to think it was solely because of a disturbed man's own personal struggles with god.

The Armstrong article touched on many faith based religions, some which I have never fully understood. I did not get why the Jews believed that God needed people to perform good deeds so he could be satisfied. I thought the Kabbalist philosophies were very interesting because they knew that people could not understand God with their normal mind-frame. The Calvinism idea that our lives were preordained by destiny also was intriguing. I believe that we have a destiny but that destiny can be changed through the reforming of our actions and habits. There is not much in common with all these religions we are reading about other than the disciples directing their devotion towards God. I find it interesting to learn about other religions and God viewpoints because it expands my thinking to consider how other people worship.

Luther made some interesting comments on God in this article. I wasnt quite sure if I could agree with either Luria, "God could only be found in joy and tranquility", or Luther, "God can only be found in suffering and the Cross". I believe that both are true. God cannot be found in only one of those. I also agree that there is no need to try and prove the existence of God to anyone.
His quote, "Faith was a leap in the dark toward a reality that had to be taken on trust" hit me hard. To believe, a person needs to trust in God. It's like any relationship, trust needs to be present for it to be a strong relationship.
However, I wasnt quite sure about his comment about if people discovered the power, wisdom and justice of God, it could intimidate convicted sinners. We are all guilty of sin, so we shouldnt be afraid of God because we have done wrong. Knowing and making it better is what counts. There is no need to fear God.

Since I seem to be unable to compose an opinionated post tonight, here are some questions which struck me when reading the article:

1. Under what conditions is religious belief more likely to lead to violence, fear and unhappiness?
2. Is arguing for God on rational grounds or claiming that God cannot be understood by humans logical standards the more effective approach to defending the existence of God?
3. What were the advantages to the church in intentionally adopting a literalist approach to interpreting scripture?
4. Are “good” actions good because God decides they are good, or does God order them because they are inherently good?
5. Is belief in the Christian God possible without equal belief in Satan?

A God For Reformers

I was surprised when reading this how the general population of the time was so severely afraid of God’s wrath at a time in which they were struggling to understand God. I suppose this uncertainty in their minds about what kinds of logic God uses for salvation (blind faith versus fact-based belief, faith versus fear, faith versus good works, which version of religion most reasonably leads to salvation, etc.) created a religious climate in which people could no longer feel secure in their beliefs. The argument that it is more important to “feel contrition than to define it” is a very relevant point, even today. I think the very act of “defining contrition” defeats the point of religion—seeking to truly eliminate religious ambiguity removes the faith aspect from religion, rendering it a hollow exercise devoid of meaning.

I found the description for “The Imitation of Christ” book to be interesting, but I found myself wondering, why would people be so interested in understanding Jesus in such a violent and mortal way? I completely missed the similarities between the distribution of such a book and the production of the movie “The Passion of the Christ” (as I believe others mentioned)! I guess people want to get their fix of violence, and maybe it helps them relate to God to see the violent controversy even he (as Jesus) could be caused to endure. I have to admit I found the movie to be particularly engaging. Not in a wow-look-at-that-I’m-glad-I’m-not-him sort of way, but not in a profoundly religious sort of way, either. It just… somehow made Christian belief a more tangible, understandable thing.

I was surprised by how people during this period in history generally seemed to struggle with their fears, uncertainties, and changing religious climates. Even Martin Luther was filled with internal agony over his understanding of salvation. He seemed to settle on and preach the notions most reassuring to him, personally. Essentially, it seems like people wanted to choose their religious views based on what would ease their fears the most (which is certainly understandable, even today)! The manner in which the portrayal of Satan was changed throughout his “history” within religion is pretty interesting and relevant to this discussion, too. With changing views of Satan, society seemed to have evolved a greater fear for him, coinciding with the rising fears of witches and demons present on earth.

Calvin seems to have presented a pretty practical version of Christianity, in which even people who don’t believe in God can be part of a larger group unified by a belief in God or a sort of “chosen status”. He seems to have been more concerned about how religion affected interactions within the groups of society, and this seems to me to be a very mathematical, almost scientific approach to analyzing religion.

I thought the article "A God for Reformers" was interesting. I thought there was an interesting statement about Jews and Christians saying that "as long as the divine sparks are separated and lost in matter, God is incomplete." I think it means that everyone who believes in God technically should have the same beliefs since they involve the same being. The Western world throughout time has delt with doubts and lost interest in God, but the majority always seem to rediscover him. A quote I think that kind of explains why people usually come back to God, "Christianity is not a body of doctrines but an experience." I liked how this article mentioned a wide variety religions and disscussed how they are similar and different. I guess I never really knew much about other religions besides christianity.

Majority info here.
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
buy biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy biagra[/url]

Here is your life...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]