Final Review Questions

Please post your questions for the final review in the comments section.

Dorothy Day

Dorothy Day's work with the poor and homeless is connected to her pacifism, because dealing with problems peacefully and caring for the less fortunate are both part of a Christian's calling in his or her imitation of Christ. Christ was peaceful even during the torture He endured leading up to His death, and He had special love for the poor. Day quotes Christ when she says, "You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of Man came not to destroy souls but to save" ("Dorothy Day on the Atom" 1-2). The Christian spirit is one of peace and charity. When considered simply, standing for peace is really the same as standing for love and care of others.

Sara K. Smith

Just War

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Just War Theory, states looking to become involved in a war must first look at the complete picture—from their motivations for entering the war, to their conduct during the proposed war, & to the lasting results of the war after its end. The article also asserts that a truly “just” war exists only when a state acts solely in the interest of self-preservation against an aggressor, so that its own people can continue to live & maintain their rights. For this reason, the offensive side of any given war shouldn’t be considered just, because the aggressor state in this case has violated its duty to respect the legitimacy of the state it attacked.

However, this leads to the question of whether a state is right to act pre-emptively against a soon-to-be aggressor, & whether this in turn makes the first state the actual aggressor. I think that the only ethical thing for the defensive state to do in this case is to wait to act until the other state formally engages in warfare. While this may potentially give the aggressor state the upper hand, this course of action should result in fewer wars in the long run. Certainly it's far preferable to have a cold war, where neither state ever takes action against the other, than it is to rush into a war without fully thinking through the motivations and results for doing so. As a Catholic, I still struggle with whether we can ever justify the killing of another human being in the name of any cause, no matter how important—but, as today’s readings point out, there are wars that significantly more just than others because of their principles and conduct.

Kat Hermanson

The International groups that control armed combat give their own set of rules that explain what they constitute as a just war, known as the “Just War Theory” (Stanford). It is broken down into three parts: “jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice resorting to war in the first place, jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun, and jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war” (Stanford). Within each part of the “Just War Theory,” there are multiple subcategories that place strict regulations on the international community that theoretically give every aspect of war as justified reasoning and actions as it possibly can (Stanford).

While the international community agrees on these set of laws to insure justice during modern war time, the church feels differently. Cardinal Ratzinger’s Q&A on the Abridged Version of Catechism shows Christians that while the Catholic Church does not impose their “positions as a doctrine of the Church,” they do make a clear statement on modern-day wars: they are unjust to mankind (Ratzinger). With advances in modern warfare, the Church feels that any type of modern-day warfare, such as the weaponry used in “the war against Iraq,” is simply “unjust” and goes far beyond what normal troops possibilities while engaging in war (Ratzinger). The church, therefore, urges the international to think all types of war and ask ourselves if any type of war can be justified.

-Jay Garrick


Christians and the Just War Theory
The Fifth Commandment of the Ten Commandments simply states “Thou shall not kill”. However, even in Christianity, there are exceptions to this. The Just War Theory is the system used in determining whether or not one group should go to war with another. Despite the fact that war is allowed if necessary by the Catholic Church, they still strongly disapprove of war. They believe (as stated in the Just War Theory) that all other options should be tried first. This includes having meetings involving negotiation etc. If all else fails however war is permissible by the church. Aside from the technicalities of the Just War Theory, the question is “Should Christians engage in warfare?” Most people with a strong understanding of the church and its morals would have to say that Christians should not engage in warfare but I strongly disagree with this. If you do not engage in war when it is needed, you are just allowing more and more evil to happen because you don’t want to engage in these evil actions yourself. Many people also argue that it is not right to go to war unless an action is committed against you first. From the reading “Vitoria said you must wait, since it would be absurd to “punish someone for an offense they have yet to commit.”” However this may sound correct, I do not agree with this under certain circumstances. If there are clear indications or threats from an enemy, then I strongly believe in going at them first to prevent evil from happening to those in your nation. You are better off being safe than sorry.

Nicholas Darin

Lumen Gentium

Lumen Gentium attempts to personify the Church and its relationship with Christ. It first retells the story of Christ’s salvation of man through his death and resurrection. The Holy Spirit is given the role as a mediator, a connection, between the risen Christ and mankind. Several comparisons are made to describe the Church’s foundation on and unity with Christ. Each of these reveals our dependency upon a faith in Christ and unification with him. With Christ as a perfect example, mankind is to model his actions after Him in order to fulfill the Kingdom of God. At the same time, with Christ as its head, the Church is to unify itself as the body of Christ as a community. Each of us individually, and as a community, is to act as Christ to the world.

This unique body has an intrinsic universal call to holiness. This holiness is not dependent on any other worldly status. Each of us is equally called and capable of sharing in Christ’s love. Lumen Gentium explores various sanctions in life and dictates in what ways individuals of each status can answer the call to a holy life. We are all called to show God’s love to the world through our daily actions without allowing the things of this world to side track us from a deeper connection with God. I think that this is the most important part of the selections that we read. No matter who we are or where we have come from, each and every one of us is called to holiness in our own way. By responding to this call, we respond to Christ’s love and manifest it to those around us.

Kristen Gotlund

Gaudium et Spes

According to the text of Gaudium et Spes, the most pressing problem of the modern world is that it is rapidly changing and we can not always succeed in subjecting it to our own welfare. Man continues to gain power through intelligence and it is imperative that we use this power to respect things and people when act. The human race has an abundance of wealth, however it is not equally distributed. A major portion of the world endure poverty and are hungry. This is one of the prominent problems in the modern world. The distribution of power is unequal in the aspects of political, social, economic, racial, and ideological disputes. Several people suffer from illiteracy which means that the tools of education are not being taught everywhere in the world. There is a vast gap of wealth in the modern world. Technology is transforming the way the human race acts and thinks. Advances in technology have given scientists opportunities to improve tremendously with medicine and ways to help people in the world. Christianity should respond to this by acting like "all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown." The Vatican Council II according to Gaudium et Spes explains that the freedom of man can direct himself toward goodness. This means that we need to be mindful of what we have and try to share our assets. There is enough food on the earth for everyone to eat, however the wealthier in power have and excess amount of food and those in poverty have none. We need to seriously think about our wealth and sharing it with the less fortunate and consider using technology to benefit the world and dealing with the pressing problems of the modern world.

Thank you,
Katelyn Bockin

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer presents us with the idea/question on what we have learned in life, and what is truly important. He states,” Time lost is time in which we have failed to live a full human life, gain experience, learn, create, enjoy, and suffer; it I time that has not been filled up, but left empty”. This describes the importance of using our time wisely and being active. He presents us with passages on what we learned, should learn, or should have learned on virtue, confidence, humanity and more. Because he was so against the Nazi influence in the church, he stood his ground and encouraged others to do the same, even if standing up or against the Nazis meant establishing another church. I believe that Bonhoeffer’s ideals and beliefs were and still are important. Standing up for what is right, and protecting your ideals is always the right thing to do. To rectify such injustice was his goal, and made it a point that it was not right.

Kate Shannon

The Theological Declaration of Barmen

No one signed up for this day, so please post your comments below as you normally would.

Martin Luther

Martin Luther was a German priest and theologian who started the Protestant Reformation in the early 16th century. He strongly disproved of the temporal power and wealth which the Catholic Church regarded greatly. He opposed ideas such as the "paid indulgences," whereby one could supposedly remove God's punishment of sin by paying the Church in temporal wealth. Martin Luther famously wrote the ninety-five theses that included all the errors of the Church at the time. When he refused to retract his statements, he was excommunicated by Pope Leo X.
In the required reading, Luther gives an account of arguments and counter-arguments regarding Church authority. He states that there are "three walls of the Romanists" which they use to protect themselves from reformation. The first wall is that "if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the contrary, that the spiritual power is above the temporal." Luther's response to this is that the whole Church is made up of members of the Body of Christ, and therefore he states that we are all one body of priests. He believes there is no consecration needed to enter the priesthood. The second wall is "if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scripture, they objected that no one may interpret the Scripture but the Pope." Luther counters this by claiming that the Pope can indeed make errors in matters of faith, and that when Christ gave St Peter the keys of authority, he gave them in fact to the whole Church. The third wall is stated as "if they are threatened with a council, they pretend that no one may call a council but the Pope." Luther points out to his audience that if the Pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, the Church members are dutifully bound to admonish and enlighten the erring Pope. Luther also quotes the Acts of the Apostles to show that not only did St. Peter call councils, but the other apostles and elders of the time.
Luther's arguments are clearly stated and supported by logic and by Scripture. He was a very learned and spiritual man, who followed his conscience and spoke out to the leaders of his time about matters which gravely contradicted his conscience. What were his true motives, however, of publicly proclaiming the errs of the Church at the time? Did go too far with his accusations? Why did he think it was necessary to not only reform the Church, but also to create a schism amongst the Christians of the 16th century?

Risa

Martin Luther is considered to be the start of the Protestant Reformation with his 95 Theses in 1517. Luther argued against the church for multiple reasons which are known as the "Three Walls": that the priests should not control worship, that the scriptures should be accessible to all and that councils should not just be called by the pope. In short, Luther wanted Catholicism to be more accessible to the general public. Luther believed that everything came from the Scriptures and that every person had faith, which would make them eligible to be a priest. Luther hated the practice of selling indulgences and argues against it in his letter to the German nobles stating that sin would always exist. He sent his letter to the nobles because he knew that they had the most power after the church and would most likely be the ones to establish the Protestant religion. The Diet of Worms in 1521 would be the nobles reaction when he is accused of hearsey. For me, reading Luther's letter to the nobles was revolutionary and I can't help but see the letter through a history lens as suppose to a theological one. AP European History probably is the cause of that. Luther, in both the history world and the theological world, was a major cornerstone to the results of what was to come in later years.

Tara

St. Francis of Assisi

St. Francis started out at a young age with not much structure in his life. He indulged himself in unnecessary pleasures. He believed in the poor and wanted to give to the needy. One time he turned away a poor man, but in his hear the realized that was wrong so he turned around and did the right thing. “He would not refuse those who begged from him for the love of God”. One day he met “a knight who was of noble birth” but was in a bad condition, so Francis took off his own clothes and clothed the man. He did not realize there was a divine plan for him. “One day he heard the Lord speaking to him during the night in a familiar way”. From that day on “he begged that the divine kindness show him what to do”. One day he had an encounter with a leper, “from then on he clothed himself with a spirit of poverty, a sense of humility and an eagerness for intimate piety”. Francis is known for fixing three churches. Throughout this process he had to come over a lot of obstacles. No what he still faced the harshness and “declared he would gladly suffer anything for the name of Christ”. Francis did everything to “obey the divine command” At one point he touched a mans sore and it vanished. He was very much devoted, “he even used to declare that a conversation with a woman was unnecessary except only for confession or very brief instruction”. “Therefore his soul melted for the poor and the infirm; to those to whom he could not extend a hand he extended his affection.

Lindsey Ritter

Thomas Merton

Thomas Merton, in “Firewatch July 4, 1952”, starts out by describing to us a scene that is a watchman sitting in the darkness on a night in July. He then continues on to give us details that lead us to believe that it is the author’s turn in the responsibility of “watchman” in a monastery on this particular night. By 8:15 that night, the other Fathers are already in bed and the watchman is left to sit in darkness in silence. Whether the main character is currently a part of the monastery, we do not know. It is suggested that the watchman and the monk are two entirely different things by his stating that, “Some of the monks complained about the different colored walls, but a watchman has no opinions.” This suggests that the watchman’s duty is nothing like that of a monk’s. Here, the watchman is to pray in silence, while monks, during the time that they are not watchmen, usually focus on community prayer. We find out that the duty of the watchman is to experience the “fire watch.” The fire watch is, “an examination of conscience in which your task – as watchman suddenly appear in its true light: a pretext devised by God to isolate you, and to search your soul with lamps and questions, in the heart of darkness.”
Clearly, living in community is an important part of living in a monastery. But, in this passage, it is evident that lone prayer and meditation is necessary as well, do you think that personal prayer is just as important is communal prayer? Why or why not?
Side note (I thought this was interesting): In this excerpt, Thomas Merton makes an interesting claim, “… and the night was never made to hide sin, but only to open infinite distances to charity and send our souls to play beyond the stars.”
Katie McQuinn



Merton’s description of monastic life differs from Benedict’s description in many ways. To begin with, the literary form of Merton’s description was extremely different than the form of Benedict’s. Merton’s description was given in the form of story. Merton was describing the monastic life while he traveled through the monastery and remembered the events that would/have taken place in the rooms. Merton’s description of monastic life was as if we (the reader) were also taking his rounds around the monastery with him. He included the audience in his work and shared how monastic life has bettered him and challenged him throughout his many years there. He shared questions and concerns that he has been struggling with. Merton allowed us to also feel the passion he so strongly feels towards his life and gave us insight on why he and so many others devoted themselves to the monastic life. Benedict’s description of monastic life was a more structured form that was broken into different sections of rules and guidelines that monks and monasteries are to follow. The description of monastic life provided by Benedict was more like a handbook of what monks are to do and what they are not supposed to do which would lead to punishment. It was a more rigid description that did not leave room for the reader (who is not a monk) to sympathize and understand more clearly why so many choose to live a monastic life. Although the two descriptions provided by Merton and Benedict has many differences, they also share similarities between them. Both descriptions showed how monks actually live in a monastery. They describe a quiet and often silent type of living with no personal possessions. Both descriptions also describe the monastic life as an extremely simplistic one where they completely devote themselves to God and deepening their faiths.

- Nicole Dillon

The Rule of St. Benedict

In The Rule of Saint Benedict, the Prologue involved numerous ideas of never being in an idle state of always regretting our disobediences/evil actions. Instead, we're to move forward and make up for those actions. An example of this idea is when his says that "the labor of our obedience will bring you back to him from whom you had drifted through the sloth of disobediences," meaning that actually doing something about drifting away from God and severing our relationship with God is what's most important. The worst thing is to be stuck, regretting the things we've done wrong and to not improve. There are many ways to improve our relationship with God like going to Church, simply praying, participating in service projects, etc... In this reading, I feel like a Monk's daily life schedule is an extreme example. It's extreme because it seems like a Monk's attempt to connect with God is central in his daily life. Their daily schedule is so rigorous it seems they barely have free time, and if they do, it's used to read. They have minimal personal belongings and they share everything they own. This especially is important because it's a reminder that the things on earth are practically worthless since what matters most is our relationship with God.. It's a huge reminder of mortality and how unimportant "things" are.
-Katie Lamb

Cyril of Jerusalem

Before reading St Cyril's "Baptism as a Symbol of Christ's Passion and Resurrection" and "The Anointing with the Holy Spirit: Chrism, the Oil of Gladness" I had a different view on the purposes of sacraments, and specifically Baptism. I believed that sacraments were merely rites of passage in which believers participate in the religion. I realize that there is a certain deeper meaning for each sacrament, but this is my general notion. Specifically, I believed Baptism to be important because it purifies, and makes one a member of Christianity. I did not understand the deeper meaning of Baptism aside from cleansing of original sin before this reading.

St. Cyril's readings explain how Baptism is symbolic of Christ's suffering. He also claims that we symbolically share in Jesus' death and resurrection. By entering the Baptismal font three times, it is equivalent to the three days that Christ spent in the tomb. "Your first rising from the water represented the first day and your first immersion represented the first night. At night a man cannot see, but in the day he walks in the light." (Pg 45) How excellent is this religion that allows us to share in Christ's agonizing death and resurrection without enduring any literal pain or suffering?

In addition to Baptism, St. Cyril also gives accounts on Communion and Confirmation. He speaks about how these sacraments bring one closer to the Trinity. Through Baptism, in general, one is recognized as in the likeness of God. Through Communion, one gains likeness, and closeness to Christ. And with Confirmation, one is anointed with the Holy Spirit. He states that we are to remember that the chrism we are anointed with "becomes the instrument through which we receive the Holy Spirit." (pg 48)

Liz O'Toole

St. Athanasius: On the Incarnation

The Incarnation of Jesus Christ was a time in history when God’s word entered into the life of humans. The Incarnation brought with it multiple effects that were meant to rebuild the connection between God and his people. At the time of creation and original sin, there was a link between humans and God that was damaged; Jesus Christ was the patch for this link as he brought with him the knowledge of God and his divine message. Jesus Christ was “the impress of His own Image, a share of the reasonable being of the very Word Himself” meant to guide humans back toward the right path (33). As Athanasius says, “it was our sorry case that caused the Word to come down,” and it was done for our salvation (34). Jesus Christ’s Incarnation was what saved humans from the punishment of death that was received at the time of original sin; Jesus Christ “made a new beginning of life for us, by giving us the hope of resurrection” (59). I found it interesting to look at the Incarnation as God “uniting” with a body instead of God creating a person in his divine likeness to be our savior; Jesus Christ was the body in which God’s Word lived, and his Incarnation was forever important to our rebuilding a connection with God.

-Tori McAllister

The Letter to the Romans

I believe people write letters because they wish to communicate with a person or a group of people who is too far away to visit. Letters are often friendly and engaging and are usually between people who are friends or family. Another reason people write letters is to document what he or she may say in order to refer back to it later or for solidification of what he or she is stating in the letter. Whatever the reason may be, letters are written usually as a personal message of goodwill and have some sort of important purpose; if it wasn't important than why write the letter?

Paul wrote his letter to the Romans because he wishes to spread the Christian faith to the Romans since Jesus called for the spreading of faith amongst the Gentiles which is basically those who are non-Israelite tribes or nations and most Romans were under this Gentile category. Paul teaches the Romans right from wrong in his letters and further explains the faith and the fact that everyone passes through judgement and that even the Romans are not exempt from said judgement. Paul answers objections and provides examples of support as to how this new faith is the right one. He repeatedly makes sure that the Romans know the benefits of being a Christian such as heaven and the glory that comes with being there. He teaches the Romans the ways in which they can get to heaven and that is by suffering in this earthly life so they may be happy in the next heavenly life. His letter's purpose is to educate, to convert and to maintain the faith the Romans may establish. Paul wants the Romans to become Christians to put it as bluntly as possible and makes the guidelines on how to do so in print for all the Romans to see and use.

Emma Leary


Traditionally, people write letters in order to offer an encouragement of spirit, advice on problematic matters, or other information regarding news from your location. Letters can then be preserved over the years and shown to those who can not be convinced orally.

Paul begins his letter by reminding the Romans of whom they believe in and blessing "all the beloved of God in Rome." (Rom 1:7) Then Paul thanks God for allowing the Romans to bear witness to Jesus Christ and expresses how he wishes he himself were also in Rome. Paul warns the Romans to be humble in their belief of God least "they become vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds are darkened." (Rom 1:21) Also, he cautions them to acknowledge God and control their passions, or they shall be worthy of death. Paul reminds the Romans not to judge one another, for only "the judgment of God on those who do such things is true" (Rom 2:2); but rather to uphold their law, whether it be Interior or Mosaic. Paul then goes on to say that "there is no distinction [amongst those who believe in Jesus Christ]...all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." (Rom 3:22-23) "We have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 5:1) Next, Paul encourages us to "live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit" (Rom 8:5) so that we may have life and peace. Near the end of Chapter 15 Paul begs the Romans for prayers in his mission as the Apostle to the Gentiles and concludes with another blessing.

I believe my summary of Paul's letter to the Romans is to remain steadfast in our faith. We must remember that we are all God's children, despite being Jewish or Gentile, and must not judge the other believers. Rather we must have faith and live according to the spirit, not the appetites and passions of our flesh. If we succeed in following the laws of God, we "may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom 15:6) "Each of us shall give an account of himself [to God]" (Rom 14:12) and it is our actions which shall determine whether we are worthy of life and peace.

~Caitlin Gorecki

Prologue to The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John 1:1-18 did not give me a different understanding of Jesus Christ because of the way I was brought up. I was taught that Jesus Christ was the all powerful, and loving son of God. The passage in the Gospel of John writes about the people who excepted Jesus Christ as God's son. The Gospel goes further into stating Jesus was full of grace and truth. This also does not give me a different understanding of Jesus Christ because I think of him as the epitome of power, grace, love, and truth.

Elise

The Gospel of Mark, part 2

The endings of Mark's Gospel reminds me the of the epilogue to some great narrative or epic. I feel that the author, after reaching the climax of this work (the Passion), has now decided to tie up any loose ends left. In a way, it really helps readers come to understand and realize the transformation of our faith from the teachings from the Son of God, to a universally practiced religion. If this Gospel had merely ended right after Jesus was crucified, readers would have been left wondering to themselves whether or not he rose from the dead and what his disciples did in the aftermath. The multiple endings serve to bridge that gap. The disciples do go on to preach Christ's message and heal those in need. Jesus does ascend into Heaven to be reunited with God the Father. It's like one of those moments when you sit back and think to yourself aha, now I understand. So this is were we go from here.

Sophia

The Gospel of Mark, part 1

I believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Jesus was sent in human form in order to help us understand his father and to also showing us the value of salvation. Jesus improved our lives by showing us that if we are faithful miracles will be performed in our lives.

In Mark's Gospel Jesus is depicted as a hero and a prophetic messiah. In the beginning John the baptists says " the beginning of the good news about Jesus the messiah, son of God " which reinforces the fact that Jesus, even before he was born was already seen as a holy gift that would impact there society. Throughout the story Jesus has proven himself to be a holy messenger of God . Jesus lived a life of purity an he never turned his back on those who doubted him, healed the sick, commanded nature and also fed the hungry. ultimately Jesus is a hero of humanity, he has proved that through many of his actions that he is wise and can forgive the sins of people as long as they seek redemption.

Jewel

Isaiah and Handel

Isaiah 6 - 12, 55 - 62


Chapters 6 - 12 deal with two distinct ideas that provide a basic history of the time period. The first is the call and establishment of Isaiah as a prophet of the Lord. A coal is touched to his lips by a Seraphim and he is cleansed of his doubt and filled with the fire of the word of God. The rest of this section discusses the fall and rise of several different leaders and their lineages through the conquering of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians. God seems to take a very active role in what is going on at the time as He gives direct instructions to many people Isaiah mentions. Chapters 55 - 62 focus more on teachings and warnings for the people of that time. These chapters address the welcoming arms of the Lord for those who do not know his word, and the construction of their faith. They also address how many have become faithless, from this it continues on to discuss the processes men must go through for redemption in the eyes of the Lord. While the first section of Isaiah definitely felt like a history lesson, the second section that we read seems much more like teaching the way to the Lord.


Handel's Messiah contains a great deal of Isaiah throughout the composition. This is probably because Isaiah was the first messianic prophet. Most of his writings foretell of the coming of a messiah and because this was the first anyone had heard of the coming of the messiah, they are probably the strongest and most moving in that message.


~Nicholas Shields


The first section of Isaiah that we read (Isaiah 6-12) outlines the call of the Lord that Isaiah decided to accept (in the story of the ember that cleansed the lips of Isaiah). It goes on to talk about Isaiah’s dedication God and how he “wait” for the Lord because of all that God had given him (himself and all his children). Throughout the first section, leaders are called to stay true to the Lord in faith, but instead the Assyrian’s took over Judah, and then Jerusalem.

The second section we read illustrates the call to all the people from the Lord. Promises are made to the people by God, so long as the people hold true to God’s commands and His covenant. Also, those who do not keep to the instructions of God are warned of their fate that will come from disobedience.

In these readings Isaiah is taken from being a sinner to being one of the most important prophets in the Bible. Also, the foretelling of the coming of Christ is laid out by Isaiah, which is also told in Handle’s music. The journey of the coming of Christ is represented both in Isaiah’s writing’s and in the music as well.


Thank you,


Tom Berry

The Abraham Narratives

The assigned reading is composed of excerpts from the story of Abraham. On one level, these passages are a narrative history of actual events, but they also help characterize God.
In this reading, Abraham’s interactions with God are described; God’s promise of a great nation, the births of Ishmael and Isaac, and the testing of Abraham. For the most part, these stories are historical. That is, Abraham was indeed a real person. However, it seems that this history was probably written down sometime after it occurred (For example, the mention of anachronisms in the side notes suggests that it was written around the time of the Patriarchs). So, while not perfectly accurate, as a history, this story explains the origin of both Judaism and Islam.
More important, however, is how God is described. In these passages, God is someone who often speaks to humans, which is a rare occurrence nowadays. The God of Abraham is also one that demands animal sacrifice. Yet, even stranger things are attributed to God; e.g., when he tells Hagar to go back to Sarai to submit to her abuse (16:9), or when God tests Abraham (22) though God is omniscient. Now, from these events, we could suppose that the God of Abraham is one that supports slavery, or even that the God of Abraham is not the same God as the one in the New Testament. However, considering the culture of the time and the fact that these stories were written well after the events occurred, we could reach the more likely conclusion that ancient Jewish culture plays a major role in the personification of God. Ancient ethics do not correspond to modern concepts of equality, so the actions of God in the lives of Abraham and of Sarah would not seem incongruous with the culture of the time; rather, the audience probably understood God’s actions.
Sincerely,
Caleb Capozella

Genesis 1-3: Creation Stories

When reading the Bible it seems we are faced with choices. We can believe it as truth or choose not to. We can read the passages and ask ourselves did God intend this to be taken literally or is the meaning symbolic? What we choose to believe depends on what we as individuals bring to the readings. In The Book of Genesis the first half presents the Creation of Heaven and Earth, the second half presents the Creation and fall of man. This six-day account of creation raises its own set of questions for us to think about. We may wonder if the idea of a day is equal to our twenty-four hour day or was it a longer? We may also question how to accept the Bible's account with the scientific knowledge we have been exposed to. For me it doesn't matter whether the days are literal days equaling twenty-four hours. What matters most is that I acknowledge God as the Creator who recognized his creations as good.

Carolyn Spero

I understand the creation stories to be true insofar as they portray God as the master and creator of the universe and show the order he put into his work. Literally, I think it’s really impossible to take them as true. Given current cosmological, paleontological, and evolutionary data it seems impossible to adhere to the creation stories down to the very letter. Rather, it seems the creation stories are true by what they really tell God’s people not by what they particularly say. For instance, they show God as the source of all reality. They also set a standard for a day of rest, the Sabbath. Further, they establish the idea of human dignity; humans are God’s last and greatest creation. They give humans authority over creation as stewards of God’s wonderful work. They establish the concept of male and female in God’s eyes. Finally, they show humans who they are and what they come from. We are imbued with the Breath, of Spirit, of God and we are crafted in His image. All of these things I just listed are undeniably true and revealed to us by the creation stories. In that sense, the creation stories are fundamentally and entirely true. However, this truth does not dictate that birds must have existed before cattle or some minute tidbit from the story. Rather it speaks of deeper chords of truth that transcend time and context.

Nathaniel

Dei Verbum and Karen Armstrong's Introduction to A Case for God

Do you think the Bible (or parts of it) is true? If not, why not? If so, why? Is all truth the same?

Alright well after doing the two readings my opinion is still relatively the same. I personally believe that only parts of the Bible are true. The reasoning behind my belief is that even through it is stated multiple times that the Bible is influenced by the Holy Spirit and God, it was written by human hands and humans are notoriously flawed and corrupt. Also, a lot of the language written within the Bible is up to interpretation and should not be taken at the literal meaning. Finally, the last reason I believe this is that I believe the Bible(like many other religious texts) was written primarily as a set of written morals. This pattern is repeated in the majority of the world’s religions and mythology; a story is constructed in order to teach people morals.

            As for the second question, there has to be one ultimate truth. However, the majority of the time, what we consider to be truth is usually relative to a specific point of view, with the possible exception of science.

I look forward to checking out everybody’s own view on these questions!

Charlie Clunk


The ways people regard the Bible are very different. Some consider it the absolute divine word; the total authority over how one should live his life. He takes it very seriously, following the exact wording. Some other people look at the Bible as more like a book of suggested guidelines, stories, and curious explanations for why Christians believe what they believe. Ultimately, though, the Bible is a written work meant not only to explain the Christian faith, but also to amuse, inspire, and at times guide Christians through their lives.

That being said, the Bible was not written by God. It was inspired by God, but written by man, who (as Karen Armstrong says) is not perfect, and subjected to inherent flaws. Therefore, Christians cannot look at the Bible as the most perfect word. Instead, as Dei Verbum explains, individuals are supposed to interpret the Bible in a way that helps explain God’s message to them. Understanding is possible, but a translation of the Word is necessary for that understanding to happen.

I would have to agree with this view, mostly because religion has become more about individual’s interpretation now days. Not all Christians believe the exact same thing, down to the most minute of details; this is because each Christian, while accepting Christ as their Savior and God as their Father, also has their own opinion of what kind of life they are supposed to live. That comes from individual interpretation of the Bible, and accepting that those interpretations might be inaccurate or different on occasion. These differences should be celebrated, however, because the entire nature of the Bible is human and unique in each story.

Alexa

Darwin's God

In light of our class discussion today on the relationship between science and theology, I thought you might be interested in this article, which appeared a few years ago in the New York Times Magazine. Enjoy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html

Thomas Aquinas and Sacred Doctrine

The main points I took away from the article were:

1) It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22)."  upon first reading that statement I completely disagreed. We, as humans, all strive to learn more about not only our faith, but things outside of our faith. We need all forms of knowledge, not strictly just one. We are curious, born curious, and it is in our nature to want to learn more and constantly ask questions.

2) That sacred doctrines are in fact a science. His explanation as to why in objection 2, and his reply to objection 2 fully support his claim as to why sacred doctrines are a science or "sacred science"

In response to the question on the syllabus ( I couldn't remember if you said we had to respond to that or not, my apologies!) Is that, yes, it is very important to study theology. Why? As we said in class, and these are my thoughts as well, is that we need to grow in our faith so we can understand more about life and our faith.

Kate Shannon

1. Aquinas quotes Scripture saying that all Scripture is profitable to teach, reprove, correct, instruct in justice. He then goes on to say that philosophy doesn't deal with Scripture. Therefore, he reasons because Scripture is too useful to just leave out of our study altogether, we should have another science that deals with it. From my perspective, it seems like he should have explained WHY Scripture was so useful - all we have here is a statement without backing, which is sort of leaving me confused. While I agree that it's true, it doesn't give me a good grasp of the argument as a whole if I have to project my own interpretation of what he's telling me onto what I'm reading. But... that aside...

2. Revealed knowledge necessary for salvation. It makes sense that certain things would be above our intellect, since our intellects are finite and God's is infinite, and, chances are, one of the things we need to know for our salvation (which is a complex subject) is something we may not be able to arrive at on our own.

a. God is men's end, and surpasses human reason. Humans need to have some knowledge of this end to reach it (and therefore reach heaven), so it was necessary for God to reveal some things. Even those things which we could figure out on our own God revealed, because if not, only a few would know them after a very long time, and they would be intermingled with many errors. This all seems reasoned out well - we discussed in philosophy last semester that these doctrines are so complex that it would take a while to reach them, during which time we might error.

3. St. Thomas also discusses that,  although we are not permitted to seek what is above reason on our own (he doesn't explain why beyond explaining that the objection is based in Scripture), we are obligated to believe certain doctrines once they are revealed by God. This isn't really essential to his central argument, so I'm not going to comment... he seems to be responding to an objection that may have been an issue at the time he was writing.

4. Finally, he discusses that there is no reason why things revealed by philosophy should not also have the study of theology to look into them. Fairly self-explanatory - why not?

Chelsey Sterling

A Cre@tion Story for Naomi

As I mentioned in class, here is information on the play that you may attend for extra-credit. Once you have gone to the play write a one-two page (double-spaced) reflection and submit it to me by February 1.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=127193590676509&index=1

Anslem's Proslogion

St. Anselm coins the phrase "faith seeking understanding." In order to begin thinking about his text, how do you answer these questions: Is there a relationship between faith and understanding? If so, how do you understand this relationship? If not, why not?