Athenian secularity

Today in class we were discussing the position the Gods maintained in the lives of the Greeks as well as the position the Greeks maintained in the perspective of the Gods. The Athenians were known for developing a secular school of thought, otherwise known as ancient Greek philosophy. Since this had its foundation in Athens, we can only assume that Thucydides is somewhat part of its foundation. Thucydides' telling of the Peloponnesian War is strictly historical because he wants to tell what exactly happened; however, do you think that the events that occurred between the two states occurred because of their diverging outlook on life with regards to belief? For example, the Athenians faced a disastrous plague, but looked at it only as a event of life rather than something imposed by an angry God(s).

Power and Civilization

From what I've read of Greek stories, the Odyssey and a bit of the Peloponnesian War, it is clear that violence and physical strength determine an individual's power and status.  The same is true for civilizations.  Their power, influence, and ability to last were dependent on its peoples' successes and failures in battle.  The first book of the Peloponnesian War provides an overview of the many civilizations rises and falls.  Hellenes is most closely accounted for.  While I did get a bit lost in the information, I gleaned that war and violence were central to Greek culture and the means for survival.  Over and over, peoples conquered other peoples giving way to stronger, more long lasting civilizations.  This value system provides some contrast from that described in the Hebrew Bible.  The Jews are pictured as victim and mostly peaceful followers to God while the Greek peoples/tribes are more warlike and dynamic - there groups and ideas are changing.  The two texts are similar in that the people have the ultimate goal of reproducing and flourishing, just as God said, "be fruitful and multiply."  This seems to be a common theme throughout ancient texts as there is power in numbers and growing population.

Is Religion like Politics?

When thinking about both religion and politics as concepts, they frame our society either by classifying people into different categories depending on their belief or even by making them obey to rules.

Religion from latin religare, means to gather, Religion gathers people around God. This social aspect is what brings it closer to Politics.

Prof. Vaught had many references of the Bible explaining religion as a political system, with a bunch of strict laws (last class with the discussion about Father founders of the law). Altars seem like sorts of courts, the covenants and commandments seem like promises between God and the people which makes us think about laws.

In our modern days, governments are turning into secular ones, and religion is practiced on an individual level rather than in a society in general. Although, we would imagine a world without religion as being a world without conflict, the question would be would it be realistic to imagine a world without religion? And my question to you would be, Is a man able to free himself from religious beliefs or feeling?

Haman: An Emasculate Figure

Last class, we discussed traits of certain male characters in the Book of Esther. Namely, we noted some of the emasculate qualities of both Haman and King Ahasuerus. For example, after Mordechai refuses to bow down to Haman, Haman then takes measures to eradicate all of the Jews. In my opinion, this reaction is sign of weakness, and almost emasculates Haman. By taking Mordechai’s gesture so seriously, he—in turn—diminishes his sense-of-self. Do you feel that Haman’s reaction displays power or weakness?

-Ethan G

Cruel God?

In class we discussed much about the character of God. God in the Old Testament comes off as a harsh, mighty yet terrifying figure when compared to the loving God of the New Testament. Professor  Vaught made a point saying it is unfair to compare the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. But does the New Testament really corrupt our view of the Old Testament? It is better to understand that the God of the New Testament is just a much more merciful one. In both the New and Old Testament, God is holy but very opposing of sin. In the Old Testament, however, God is much less patient with his people and often calls for judgement. One might wonder how can a loving God support all the slaughter and murder that takes place in Deuteronomy? He must enforce his law the same way in our world the law is enforced by a police, even sometimes using brute force.

Of God and the Seven Deadly Sins

Towards the end of the class, the question of compatibility between the Old and New Testaments was brought up. And while postulating the personality of god, I cannot help but find that this “jealous God” that bans the Hebrews “[having] other gods before [him]”(20:3) seems to directly contradict several of the Seven Deadly Sins in the New Testament. Apart from Jealousy, another bold trait that god embodies throughout Exodus seems to be wrath. Yet having his anger “[blazing] against you, and [killing] you with the sword” seems to be an excessively cruel and blatant violation of Anger. To further expand, while New Testament indicates that the lord hates “a lying tongue”,  the Binding of Isaac seems too deceitful to not cross the line of this sin.

Therefore, on this note, I believe that the Old and New Testament simply cannot be related to one another when read. That is, while we can related back to the Old when reading the New (for it is where the whole book stems from), we cannot use the lens of the New Testament to evaluate the Old Testament’s teaching. 

Just to throw it out there, what does anyone else think about the issue of compatibility? Are there other parts of the two books that are parallel or paradoxical to one another?

-Robert

My thoughts on the story Esther

Wendell Pfeffer

Ashley Vaught

Blog post #2

               Today in class we talked about the king and his relationship with Esther. The king, in my opinion, seemed like a softy and a bad ruler. He never stuck to his word and people all around him were able to manipulate him in such an easy manner. Especially Esther, whom convinces her husband in the final stages of the story to save the Jews from extermination. I found it strange though how he took Esther’s advice so seriously. I mean he literally betrays Haman by going against what they agreed on earlier and he even executes him in the end just so that he could retain Esther’s so called love.  If it weren’t for the king’s poor decision-making skills so many lives wouldn’t have been lost in the process. As I continue to ponder about the situation in the story it would have been even better if Mordecai had just bowed down. I understand he is trying to prove a point, but why cause any trouble?

Let me know what you guys think – Wendell Pfeffer