I figure since we're dealing with highly concentrated theological texts, that it would be fun to entertain ideas about both the text and the nature of god/religion in general. The discussions can range from a myriad of topics, but it would be nice if we could keep in context to spiritual themes, e.g. god vs the devil, prophecies, angels, polytheism, etc.
If I could invent my own special topics class, I would start a God Theory class, where we study and attempt to understand the mind of god. Milton and Dante barely scratched the surface, hence the use of the ancients as muses. Anyone want to share their own conception of god or the lack thereof? Or comment on Milton and Dante?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Before I begin my post, I want to state clearly that the atheists who argue against the existence of god based on the histories of religious destruction are absolutely just as ignorant as those whom they seek to debate, namely the theists. People have sold enough books under the guise of mindless regurgitation; yeah we get it, religion has been destructive, get over it and enjoy your cult-ship Dawkins!
ReplyDeleteThat said, let me begin by discussing my undying lust for "faith" and how I got there. After picking up a cheap copy of Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, I became captured by his poetic expression of Abraham’s trial, the binding of Isaac. For Kierkegaard, faith is absurd. Just imagine Abraham’s thought process, even allegorically, as he believes that god wants him to sacrifice his son Isaac, biblically considered to have been a miraculous birth since Sarah, his mother, was supposedly sterile. Now imagine again, Abraham standing before his son, ready to strike him. Just imagine the sheer undying faith he must’ve had in god, to even walk the path leading to the mount. As the story goes, god eventually intervenes with the manifestation of an angel grabbing Abraham’s hand as he’s about to strike. There are some amazing depictions on this matter, most famously Rembrandt's portrayal. Kierkegaard, being the father of existentialism, uses Abraham’s trial to argue his case for individuality, explaining how Abraham alone was the most individualistic character of history, “The Knight of Faith.”
Imagine being delusional enough to follow a dream in which god gave you a task of a similar magnitude. How would you respond? Who would you tell, if anybody? Abraham kept his mouth shut, for how could he share his task without “fear and trembling.” To connect to Milton, Satan tempts Isaac by telling him of his fate, how his father was actually taking him to the mount to sacrifice him, to which Isaac refuses to believe and begins to throw rocks at Satan. Why is it that Satan has such omniscience? How could he know of Abraham’s task? These are questions I’m hoping Milton will attempt to discover, as he sits upon the mind of Satan.
Perhaps Milton intended for Satan to be omniscient, just as G-d is. Since G-d and Satan are character foils in Paradise Lost, perhaps they have many of the same traits.
ReplyDeleteThe argument has often been made that "faith is to the mind what celibacy is to marriage." Faith is indeed complicated because it causes the mind to stop its questions. However, there needs to be a point when the mind stops questioning. For example, will you take the word of Satan over the word of your father? Isaac exemplifies the fifth commandment of "honor thy father and mother" by having faith in his father. In the end, he is saved.
These lines of thinking are indeed worth questioning and investigating further.
ReplyDeleteI think that the question regarding Satan's omniscience can be answered by considering another: Why does God (who is Good) allow Satan (who is Evil) to escape hell and begin his quest to corrupt mankind? Indeed, to answer this question is Milton's task, for he so famously states that his poem will "justify the ways of God to men" (1.26).
This assumes two things: (i) that God's ways require justification, or, in other words, humanity cannot comprehend God's Divine Plan and thus an intermediary to make such complexity palatable is needed; (ii) Milton is that intermediary, and the best suited individual for the task.
Kastan states in the Introduction that Paradise Lost does not trap us [the reader] in its orthodoxies but releases us to our questions" (xxvi). To draw upon Lilly and Raju's points further, while the 'hardest' questions are indeed posed (or re-presented) by this text, we as readers are not left stuck in the tar pits of a mental Malebolge, if you will accept the Dantean relation. Rather, we are "released" to our questions, a necessary portion of one's faith, one's existence, and one's grapplings with reality.
Kastan anticipates Lilly's argument that "there needs to be a point when the mind stops questions" when he claims Milton not only "show[s] us that our questions are inappropriate but unavoidable" (xxvi).
I claim that questions are an essential portion of the development of one's body, mind, and soul... especially those that involve one's involvement and dealings with God and faith. Indeed, questions lead to answers, but they also lead to more questions. Some may be resolved, yet others may never be until that fateful day when we depart unto the next phase of life, should such an ethereal dimension (and I hope one does) actually exist.
This is all really intense, and a lot to take in at once. I agree with Kastan's point that "questions are inappropriate but unavoidable," and find that I cannot shake off that feeling of cynicism while reading it. This cynicism is reminiscent of Satan's tongue and how he communicates his messages. Cynicism ties into falsehood because it is a mask on the true emotions that lie beneath the true essence of Nature. Since Satan is the embodiment of falsehood, his cynical tongue goes against the true essence of Nature, for he is the epitome of all that is false.
ReplyDeleteGreat points guys. I love Lilly's statement about Isaac exemplifying the fifth commandment, which made me think about that Fight Club scene (movie or book) where Tyler does the chemical burn on Norton's hand, "Our father's were our models for god." Obviously Chuck Palahniuk is far too cynical to be optimistic about faith, but eh.
ReplyDeleteProf D- the beauty of faith, regardless of my own commitment, is that the questions can't always be solved. We have this arrogance of humanism, to borrow a quote, regarding science and it's role in our lives. It seems as though every answer offered by science and similar disciplines refuses or fails to answer the key question regarding life, what is the meaning of life?
Lilly- what is the true essence of nature?
I believe that nature embodies all that exists, and evil and/or cynicism is merely a part and parcel of that.
Satan, for me, embodies a sort of hero for god-complex-ed people like myself. If such a "divine plan" does exist, then WTF, why not share it. All religions, to paraphrase from Joan of Arcadia (amazing show), try to find that connection with god, that universal/objective/eternal truth about the nature of...well nature, which is god. I want to know dammit!
I believe that the true essence of Nature is one's true emotions. When one is cynical, his/her true emotions are hidden. Satan is cynical; therefore Satan's language is false, and falsehood is a sin according to the monotheistic religions. This is how I interpret Satan's tongue, of course I am aware that there are many ways of looking at it and this is just one. The question that I'd like to have answered to me is what is Satan's true essence? and what are his true emotions (if he has any).
ReplyDelete