September 2008 Archives

Angelou's "startling truth" is the fact that humans are this world's most beautiful and best treasure, and when people finally come to this truth all wars, violence, and hatred will be over.   I agree with her based on three things.  The first and third could be called subjective truths and the last reason I agree with Maya Angelou is based on an absolute truth.

The first reason I agree with Angelou is because I believe that if people would take care of others before themselves then the world would be a better place.  If a person is on the street and hungry because they have nowhere to go then someone should help them either by taking them to a shelter or even taking them home, depending on a person's comfort level.  If more people put other's needs first then there would not be as many needy people in this country and we could start focusing on how to help other countries with their poverty problems as well.  My belief is a subjective truth because it is personally true for me and may not be true to anyone else.

The absolute truth behind my agreement with Maya Angelou is simple.  If everyone thought everyone else was great and a person was more valued then something like oil or land then there would be no more killing.  If there would be no more killing there would be no way to have a war.  Likewise no one would go hungry because the world would be motivated by the human existence instead of a desire to satiate themselves first.  I believe that this type of world is the kind that Angelou describes and this is absolutely true.

The third reason I agree with Angelou's truth is based on the truth that men were created in the image of God and the first man and woman were perfect.  One of the reasons they were so perfect was because they were in such a relationship where God was number one and then the other person came first.  Adam and Eve knew they were the best part of creation because God them dominion over all the creatures He had made.  In short what Maya Angelou writes is the perfection of the Garden of Eden and the world to come.  This may be called a subjective truth because it is not true for everyone, and it cannot be proven.  To me, however, this truth is absolute.

The reasons I have given for agreeing to Angelou's "startling truth" are subjective and absolute.  The first reason is because I believe in the value of people based on their own humanity.  The second is because God made us in His image and when we get back to that everything will be good again.  The third reason is because if people were valued more than things than there would be no violence, war, or hatred because a life would mean more than an object.

This sentence, like post-modernism, can mean anything.  It can mean that to a person outside of this class the sentence has no particular meaning except what is written.  However, to a person in Honors 101, this sentence and the way they interpret it can mean the difference between a good paper and a bad paper.  On the other hand there are people like the author of this paper who think this sentence and the whole post-modern movement mean nothing.  On short this sentence can mean anything, everything, and nothing. 

First of all this sentence could mean anything at all.  In a conversation it could mean that a person is trying to change an awkward subject or break the ice.  This sentence could mean that it is indeed a superfluous set of words that was thrown together in the spur of the moment.  This would be the definition of the sentence that would most relate to post-modernism.  Post-modernism seems to be a movement that was thrown together on the spur of the moment.  The original term was used for a movement within the artistic world, but the meaning now seems to have been discussed in a large group that could not come up with one definition and so compromised and put many of their ideas together and called it a definition. 

According to that definition everything falls under the category of post-modernism.  A piece of art can still be post-modern, but there is also a new dimension to the definition.  Now knowledge, reason and truth can be put under a post-modern microscope and be judged as good or bad according to the people it marginalizes.  Therefore, post-modernism can be the assumption that a friend's shirt looks pretty. A post-modernist would say that is marginalizing the people who may not looks as pretty in the shirt as a friend does and so the statement uttered would not be a truth.  There is no relative truth because while something may be true in relative to something else the truth could marginalize another and so the truth cannot be true at all.  In these terms post-modernism applies to absolutely everything everyone says or does because it may marginalize another person.

Finally the sentence could in fact mean nothing at all.  That is this author's opinion anyway.  This is how she feels about post-modernism too.  In her opinion the people who came up with post-modernism in the first place were merely trying to keep themselves from the truth.  Truth can be relative, subjective, objective, or absolute.  The way post-modernism tries to make these void is bothersome.  The truth cannot be denied simply because it is not advantageous to a group of people.  Going with that as a stipulation then saying that terrorism is bad would not be a truth according to post-modernism because it does not cast terrorist in a fair light.  Rather a post-modern person would have it said that terrorists are merely misguided in their sense of justice, or that terrorists are people who are being used because they are under educated and do not know any better.  While this may be true it does not mean that terrorism is not still bad.  That is why to this author post-modernism means nothing.  It has no place in her mind and she does not accept it as a truth, absolute or otherwise.

"This sentence serves no logical purpose" is a wonderful illustration of post-modernism because it can mean anything, everything and nothing.  It can mean anything to a person who just happens to read it over the shoulder of an honors student who is doing their paper.  It could mean everything to an honors student who is trying his or her best to relate the sentence to the meaning of post-modernism.  Lastly, it can mean nothing at all to anyone.  To further illustrate the point a picture that most resembles this author's definition of the relation between the sentence and post-modernism has been added.

Slowly the sun rises over a tired camp.  People are beginning to stir.  One by one they emerge from their tents.  There is sadness here.  A girl is looking, looking for someone.  She passes the other soldiers one by one.  He doesn't seem to be there, the one she is looking for.  Increasingly she becomes more desperate to find him.  She begins calling his name.  Suddenly he is standing in front of her.  She is so happy she begins to weep, but then she sees him clearly.  She is very sad because his arm is injured.  He tries to console her and tells her not to worry.  She begins rejoicing again that he is alive.  They run to the top of a hill together.

                Below the rise of the hill a person waits.  His intentions are sinister.  He watches the couple in the shadows.  The couple continues their reunion, unaware that people are watching them.  The man in the shadow becomes jealous of the soldier.  He shoots him an evil glare.  In his mind he is plotting the demise of the young man.  He wants the girl for his own.  He signals the go ahead for the enemy army to attack.

                The couple on the hill is now having a picnic.  The sun is higher in the sky, but clouds have begun to gather.  The clouds do not deter them, however because they are in love.  They vow that nothing will ever split them apart. 

                Then the enemy cavalry attacks the camp below.  The young man starts to go to the camp.  The girl wants him to stay.  He leaves her with a tearful good bye.  Every step he takes from her sends off warning bells in her heart.  Below the battle rages on fiercely.  There is a lull and she runs to where her brave soldier was fighting.  She finds him alive.  She is so happy.  The enemy attacks again.  The young soldier protects the girl from the enemy with all his strength.  At the end of the battle the two stand together, knowing the battle is won. They stare at the horizon, where the sun is setting.

The metaphor of "staring at the sun" is helpful in that theology is like staring at the sun because if a person does not use the right tools to look at the sun he or she can become blinded and see things that aren't there, like spots.  If a person does not consider period and circumstances they may misinterpret the Bible.  For instance, some denominations do not consider some of the stories told in the Old Testament to be real.  This goes against another part of the Bible that states that the Bible is the inspired words of God and therefore cannot be said to be fiction if the Bible says the story is real.  A prime example of this effect is the story of the prophet Jonah.  In this story Jonah is to go to Nineveh but he tries to run away from his mission and is swallowed by a fish as a result.  Some people who study theology say that the story is merely a tool to illustrate a point to the people of the time period.  They would say that there is no way there could ever be a fish that size, or that a man could not survive in the belly of a fish for three days.  They are forgetting that God is all powerful.  They are blinded by human limitations because they do not take all of scripture into account.  Instead they isolate the story and are blinded by the brilliance of the Lord's mighty power in the same way a normal person is blinded by spots when they look directly into the sun.  Yet people are still tempted to look at the sun.

                One problem with this metaphor might be that some people try to get around the damage the sun can do to their eyes by looking at it through a different medium that they make themselves.  When an eclipse comes a hole can be cut in the bottom of a cardboard box and the eclipse can be watched indirectly through the hole.  Some theologians try to look at scriptures this way.  They do not look directly at scripture.  They try to see the truth through a different method.  While this may be a good way to view and eclipse it is not a good way to look at scripture.  If scripture is looked at in a different medium there is always a chance that the person looking through the hole will forget that there is nothing there.  He or she starts relying on the hole so much they forget that the Son is not supposed to fit neatly in a hole made by a human.  The Son is unfathomable to the brains of men and so when He no longer fits in the hole people say that He could never have done a thinking like that, or it was just a story meant to symbolize the true meaning of what was really going on.

Another problem with the metaphor comes from page 67.  Wright states that God, "...is his own category, not part of a larger one."  The sun, however, is part of a large category of classification, namely stars.  There are trillions of stars in this solar system alone.  The sun happens to be the closest and brightest star for earth.  In a different galaxy they would not be able to see the sun as anything more than a star, if they could see it at all.  The God in the Bible however, is one of a kind.  There is no way He would not be seen in another galaxy because He is everywhere.  When the metaphor, "looking at the Sun" is used in relation to theology it may give others the wrong idea.  They might begin to believe that the God in scriptures is one in a trillion, like the sun is one of trillions of stars.  This is not the case however.  God is to be seen as the only one of His kind.  Without acknowledging this fact none of scripture would make sense.  If God was not the only all powerful being then there should be more texts like the Bible. 

Wright's work does not invite a person to study theology more deeply because it is not appealing for a broader audience.  Most of the people who would read Wright's book probably already study theology or are familiar with the Bible.  Another reason Simply Christian does not inspire readers to study theology is because there are very few Bible verses sited directly.  Without a story to build off of there is no reason to dig deeper.  Also if Wright does intend for his readers to delve deeper by reading the stories he mentions he should keep in mind that people today are about instant gratification and will not take the extra time to look at something if it is not given to them.  This is not to say Wright should have left out the stories from the Bible, it is only to point out that people would be more likely to read the verses if they were in the book because they would believe that they are saving time by not having to look them up.  The book is an interesting read and should be carefully studied, but there are other more effective methods to convince a person to study theology more deeply.  A person who is better at learning through listening would benefit more from a live discussion of theology more than from any book that they have to read.  There are also others who learn though doing, and when the verses from the Bible are so few and far between, there is not much to do when they are reading this book.  While other people may argue that Wright's book is the best inspiration to study theology more deeply, this author finds that she does not have the urge to leap for the nearest Bible and intricately study every word and its meaning.