QUOTE:
“Therefore, let everyone that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come” (Edwards 436).
SUMMARY:
Toward the end of his sermon, Edwards changes his tone from completely negative and depressing, to having some hope. He explains that people do have the chance to be “born again” and to experience God’s mercy.
RESPONSE:
By this point in Edwards’ sermon, were people too distracted with peeing their pants to notice his glimmer of hope? I’m kidding, but it is hard to catch anything positive in his twelve-page speech (and those pages being in the tiny computer font of The Norton Anthology, so we’re talking at least thirty pages) of “fire and brimstone.” Even if he did in fact give this speech in the most calm and monotone voice, nobody wants to hear about how they are doomed for eternity.
Of course, it was really just too little too late. If Edwards made the main focus of his speech the possibility for eternal happiness, I bet he would have kept his position in the church much longer. People love hearing about how easy happiness can be attained. Why else would there be “get-rich-quick schemes” and “minute weight-loss plans” sold every second of the day? If this were the script for “The Jonathan Edwards Infomercial,” the phones would be silent.
It seems, however, that many people look past the later sermons like the way most people look at other people who “fell off” with their fame or power. I mean like many of our U.S. presidents, Michael Jackson, or even Britney Spears. Well, maybe not Britney because that’s still going on, and maybe not George W. Bush, but enough time has passed so that people can find the good in sermons given by Jonathan Edwards.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Journal #7 Jonathan Edwards: Original Sin? Whatever.
QUOTE:
“Natural men’s prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them, do not secure them a moment” (Edwards 428).
SUMMARY:
Edwards is basically saying that anyone who isn’t “saved” is going to hell, no matter how they live their lives. This is his most extreme type of sermon, so it is easy to say that Edwards took his position as Reverend too far after he tried to bring his congregation back to “the old days.”
RESPONSE:
My main problem with Edwards claiming that anyone who isn’t “saved,” or anyone who is “natural,” will go to hell is that it can be confused with “nature” being something bad or evil. I know now, from our class discussion, that this is referring to the “original sin” that all Christians believe people are born into, but it makes no sense to me. Since our class isn’t a theology course, I’ll try not to focus too much on how ridiculous the concept of “original sin” is to me, and focus more on his sermon failing to motivate his congregation.
First of all, Edwards breaks his sermon down with his ten points. Every point is negative and is describing most likely the greatest fears these people have. I’ve learned with teaching young children to adults (in dance classes), that trying to browbeat people into doing anything will either discourage them so horribly that they quit, or will make them angry at whoever is trying to direct them.
I do know what it’s like to have that type of rank over people, and have had my moments of “me against them” (only with my kids and teenagers though, the adults have never given me trouble), but I guess it’s different because I’m not telling them they are “bad” children or that they will go to hell. I think I’d lose my job if I did that! (I guess that happened to Edwards!)
“Natural men’s prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them, do not secure them a moment” (Edwards 428).
SUMMARY:
Edwards is basically saying that anyone who isn’t “saved” is going to hell, no matter how they live their lives. This is his most extreme type of sermon, so it is easy to say that Edwards took his position as Reverend too far after he tried to bring his congregation back to “the old days.”
RESPONSE:
My main problem with Edwards claiming that anyone who isn’t “saved,” or anyone who is “natural,” will go to hell is that it can be confused with “nature” being something bad or evil. I know now, from our class discussion, that this is referring to the “original sin” that all Christians believe people are born into, but it makes no sense to me. Since our class isn’t a theology course, I’ll try not to focus too much on how ridiculous the concept of “original sin” is to me, and focus more on his sermon failing to motivate his congregation.
First of all, Edwards breaks his sermon down with his ten points. Every point is negative and is describing most likely the greatest fears these people have. I’ve learned with teaching young children to adults (in dance classes), that trying to browbeat people into doing anything will either discourage them so horribly that they quit, or will make them angry at whoever is trying to direct them.
I do know what it’s like to have that type of rank over people, and have had my moments of “me against them” (only with my kids and teenagers though, the adults have never given me trouble), but I guess it’s different because I’m not telling them they are “bad” children or that they will go to hell. I think I’d lose my job if I did that! (I guess that happened to Edwards!)
Journal #6 Anne Bradstreet: A Conflicted Mind
QUOTE:
“Many times hath Satan troubled me concerning the verity of the Scriptures, many times by atheism how I could know whether there was a God; I never saw any miracles” (Bradstreet 216).
SUMMARY:
Bradstreet writes this letter that she wants to be read by her children when she is either on her deathbed or has already passed. It is many of her thoughts from her whole life written down so her children may understand her better.
RESPONSE:
I find the struggle Bradstreet goes through very interesting because I feel like I go through this same struggle often. She is troubled by her atheist thoughts because believing in God is so much easier. How else can she explain her recovery from sickness? How else can she explain anything? She also can believe that once she does perish, she will not suffer from the “Powers of Hell” since she has “committed to His charge” (Bradstreet 217). However, this “sorting out” of her conflicted thoughts may also just be for the sake of her children; so they don’t have to suffer from simultaneous clashing beliefs.
I went to church and Sunday school for my whole childhood, but as I got older and started to learn more about science, some things just didn’t make sense anymore. I moved to L.A. and made friends with some devout Christians, so I would go to church with them a lot. It was very easy and lovely to believe in everything, and to know that I could go to heaven one day. However, I was in a car accident that left me in a coma for six weeks and with a traumatic brain injury. So many people ask me if I remember anything from the coma: did I see God, could I remember them talking to me, aren’t I so thankful that a higher power saved me? But the truth is: no, no-I don’t remember anything, and it sure didn’t feel like anyone or anything was helping me- especially once I woke up. I had to learn how to walk, write, talk quickly and keep my balance all over again. It was painful and the worst experience I've ever had in my whole life; that changed my life completely.
I feel like the human body is amazing though. The brain can heal itself and grow new connections and pathways. Is that God? It’s very easy to say that it was God or Allah or Buddha, whatever. I’m very conflicted myself. There are certain things that I feel no one can REALLY know, so does that make me an atheist? I don’t know. Maybe I have more in common with Bradstreet than I would have thought.
“Many times hath Satan troubled me concerning the verity of the Scriptures, many times by atheism how I could know whether there was a God; I never saw any miracles” (Bradstreet 216).
SUMMARY:
Bradstreet writes this letter that she wants to be read by her children when she is either on her deathbed or has already passed. It is many of her thoughts from her whole life written down so her children may understand her better.
RESPONSE:
I find the struggle Bradstreet goes through very interesting because I feel like I go through this same struggle often. She is troubled by her atheist thoughts because believing in God is so much easier. How else can she explain her recovery from sickness? How else can she explain anything? She also can believe that once she does perish, she will not suffer from the “Powers of Hell” since she has “committed to His charge” (Bradstreet 217). However, this “sorting out” of her conflicted thoughts may also just be for the sake of her children; so they don’t have to suffer from simultaneous clashing beliefs.
I went to church and Sunday school for my whole childhood, but as I got older and started to learn more about science, some things just didn’t make sense anymore. I moved to L.A. and made friends with some devout Christians, so I would go to church with them a lot. It was very easy and lovely to believe in everything, and to know that I could go to heaven one day. However, I was in a car accident that left me in a coma for six weeks and with a traumatic brain injury. So many people ask me if I remember anything from the coma: did I see God, could I remember them talking to me, aren’t I so thankful that a higher power saved me? But the truth is: no, no-I don’t remember anything, and it sure didn’t feel like anyone or anything was helping me- especially once I woke up. I had to learn how to walk, write, talk quickly and keep my balance all over again. It was painful and the worst experience I've ever had in my whole life; that changed my life completely.
I feel like the human body is amazing though. The brain can heal itself and grow new connections and pathways. Is that God? It’s very easy to say that it was God or Allah or Buddha, whatever. I’m very conflicted myself. There are certain things that I feel no one can REALLY know, so does that make me an atheist? I don’t know. Maybe I have more in common with Bradstreet than I would have thought.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Journal #5 Anne Bradstreet: Maybe Sorrow Brings The Best Poetry
QUOTE:
“Blest babe, why should I once bewail thy fate, / Or sigh thy days so soon were terminate, / Sith thou art in an everlasting state” (Bradstreet 210).
SUMMARY:
Bradstreet has written several poems about the deaths of her grandchildren. This line seems to be her struggling with the question of why she should mourn if the child barely had a chance to live.
RESPONSE:
The feeling I originally got from this quote was that Bradstreet is expressing how her sorrow is too great to only mourn for her grandchild once. However, after the class discussion, I realized that she is most likely expressing her feelings of how it may seem pointless for her to grieve more than once for the child. Since there are at least three poems of mourning for different grandchildren, with each child being under three years old, reading these poems opens a small window on this aspect of Bradstreet’s life as a grandmother. She lost many grandchildren before they were old enough to even speak, and that may explain why she may deal with her grief as if she lost a plant or crop from nature, as she seems to explain in the second stanza.
I would expect to see a lot of “God” mentioned in this sort of poem, but Bradstreet has no mention of God until the very last line. In the first stanza Bradstreet writes about her grandchild being “ta’en away unto eternity” (line 4) and “in an everlasting state” (line 7), but she doesn’t seem to be referring to the child going to heaven, or being taken by God himself. Only at the very end does she add in God having control over “nature and fate” (line 14), which could be a last minute thought, or could be Bradstreet finding the easiest explanation for the loss of a baby.
It seems like Bradstreet also writes as a way to deal with her inner-most thoughts and emotions, which is probably why she didn't want her work published. It's like everyone reading her diary, that just happened to be amazing writing, but her private diary nonetheless.
“Blest babe, why should I once bewail thy fate, / Or sigh thy days so soon were terminate, / Sith thou art in an everlasting state” (Bradstreet 210).
SUMMARY:
Bradstreet has written several poems about the deaths of her grandchildren. This line seems to be her struggling with the question of why she should mourn if the child barely had a chance to live.
RESPONSE:
The feeling I originally got from this quote was that Bradstreet is expressing how her sorrow is too great to only mourn for her grandchild once. However, after the class discussion, I realized that she is most likely expressing her feelings of how it may seem pointless for her to grieve more than once for the child. Since there are at least three poems of mourning for different grandchildren, with each child being under three years old, reading these poems opens a small window on this aspect of Bradstreet’s life as a grandmother. She lost many grandchildren before they were old enough to even speak, and that may explain why she may deal with her grief as if she lost a plant or crop from nature, as she seems to explain in the second stanza.
I would expect to see a lot of “God” mentioned in this sort of poem, but Bradstreet has no mention of God until the very last line. In the first stanza Bradstreet writes about her grandchild being “ta’en away unto eternity” (line 4) and “in an everlasting state” (line 7), but she doesn’t seem to be referring to the child going to heaven, or being taken by God himself. Only at the very end does she add in God having control over “nature and fate” (line 14), which could be a last minute thought, or could be Bradstreet finding the easiest explanation for the loss of a baby.
It seems like Bradstreet also writes as a way to deal with her inner-most thoughts and emotions, which is probably why she didn't want her work published. It's like everyone reading her diary, that just happened to be amazing writing, but her private diary nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
