UM Honors Blog 2017-2018

"For it is only the love of honour that never grows old; and honour it is, not gain, as some would have it, that rejoices the heart of age and helplessness." As I read this, in addition to the entire paper, I could not help but continually draw  similarities  to the United States that we know and love today.  When a soldier dies, families are given their medals and clothes, comforted with the thought that "Your husband or wife died in the most honorable way: serving his or her country and you should be proud of their life and sacrifice." Does honor really rejoice the heart that feels helpless? The family that has lost a loved one?  As he continually spoke about the culture and nature of the country and how the Athenians were above other countries due to their true democracy and military superiority, he also spoke about the greatest and most honorable death one could die being for one's country. This highlights well the nature of Greek honor c...

Well this semester and my first year of college has gone by really fast. As I am stressing about the last few days and getting everything done, I recall about how I felt about actually signing up for honors. Then once the class started and I saw the syllabus I was so nervous about taking the class. IN all honesty I am so glad that I signed up for honors because everyone has helped me so much and I have not regretted signing up for this class. Now to the post which is just about as sappy, this project was amazing. I really think the project is what really made me love honors so much. The project really was a blast and I was grateful to be apart of it because it really helped me open up and actually get to know you guys. If it was not for this project being group oriented and a close discussion between peers, I truly believe my outlook on honors and how much I love it now would have been different. This class and this project has absolutely made my first year of college amazing, and I...

I may not be leaving entirely like Nat is (I'm so sad that my Honors sister is leaving 😭), but this is my last blog post that I will do for the Honors Cycle. First, the actual post: The project we did this semester was probably the one project I got the most out of by participating. By that I mean I gained a slew of knowledge from it. Admittedly, I don't remember more than half of what we all discussed, but I did learn a great deal on how an atheist would go about thinking on certain biblical topics. I'm not a poet, so T.S. Elliot still means nothing to me. O'Connor gave a good story with an interesting role shift of the 'Christian' and the 'Atheist' archetypes in literature. I probably had the most fun refuting and debating with C.S. Lewis and the Poison of Subjectivism. Simply because Russell seemed to only view the Bible from a subjective viewpoint. This was a great project, but in my personal opinion, I always strive to want to do something like ...

This is my last post to ever write as an Honors student and as the Honors President and to say it is bittersweet is an understatement. Oh, dear friends, thank you for a year of adventure, debates, triumphs, defeats. Thank you for the thoughtful conversations that have taken place on this blog, in class, and outside of class. It has truly been an honor to be your president. As I prepare to hang my hat this Thursday, I am confident that I am handing it to a capable person and friend who will carry the traditions of the Honors program and will make us proud. I'm sure the other members of the Honors council will say the same of their positions as well. Thank you for being such great classmates--I hope we served you well. Wow. Okay, so to the actual post. I absolutely loved the Honors project and the works we read for it. Since I did "Little Gidding" by T.S. Eliot, I figured I would write on "The Lame Shall Enter First." I loved this short story even though it was ...

Well, I can’t believe it, the last blog of the semester. I’m going to miss you guys over the summer. Honors has been my favorite class I have ever taken and I can’t comprehend that my first year in the cycle is already almost over. I am sorry for being sappy, I will try to stop now. Anyways, this bonus blog post is on “The Lame Shall Enter First” by Flannery O'Connor. I LOVED this work and thought it was absolutely amazing. The way that O'Connor weaves her stories together is fascinating and I admire her great attention to detail. I think that my favorite part of her style of writing is that you never know what to expect. The only thing that you can really know for sure is that there is always a twist, but what twist? Well while reading one has no idea. Another thing I like is how carefully she names her characters. The fact that in this story “The Lame Shall Enter First” the lead male character is an atheist named “Sheppard” who is trying to save people FROM Christianity ...

OK so, honors project! Honestly I really loved it as a whole. I said this already in the video, but I feel like I personally could've done better. I just feel like I didn't have enough time to completely process some questions and be able to give my best responses. I really enjoyed reading the O'Connor piece, which I think was everyone's favorite anyway. I love narrative stories like that, but honestly I'm glad I got to be in the Russell group. I feel like that group was the easiest to argue and answer from, honestly. As a whole, I would love to do a project like this again in later semesters. It was a lot of fun and time FLEW by.

Yes, of course I’m doing a bonus blog! I mean, a blog about the Honors Project readings? All the hard work of analyzing O’Connor is behind me, this is a gimme in its purest form. Anyhow, I’m just here to spew a couple short paragraphs about Sheppard’s unique role in the story. We see him feeding the hungry and housing the homeless with his attitudes towards Rufus. He also teaches both boys to reject what he considers to be false doctrines and cling only to the truth he teaches. Then he encourages them to become astronauts—in other words, to live their lives to the end of piloting a rocket ship and ascending beyond the atmosphere, into the heavens. And, of course, his name is a play on the word “shepherd.” Does any of this sound familiar? …Yeah, he’s Jesus. The atheist version of Jesus, at least. Everything he does is a twisted version of Jesus’ actions. Instead of acting out of pure selflessness, he treats Rufus and his son in the way to best boost his ego. Jesus died for His follo...

Demythologization. While discussing this with Nate, this is the word he brought up (R.I.P. Nate, may he rest in peace, we miss you). I am on the same wave with everyone else with this week in that this book is starting to get borderline heretical in some places. First, I personally think that a religion without the stories that come with them is heretical. Revelations 22:19: " And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." Secondly, there are  points  in which he sounds  a lot  like the theology of the modern day mega church. A  "love" centered gospel that lacks sound doctrine. A love that is not founded upon the love of God. Also, Nate might be coming tomorrow and he wants to rip this guy up.  Commented on Natalie's and Zelda's

Sorry, couldn't resist. I feel really bad for saying that I will probably never read it again, but I don't see a situation in which I will ever need/want to reread a book in which a man is arguing for pretty much the distancing from God. He's pushing for a love-centered society which is great from the outside, but it means we will eventually separate ourselves further from God. That's what the quote from the middle of the book got wrong--it says that God will distance Himself from us as we progress in love, but in reality, we will separate ourselves from Him when we turn too much to others and learn to "rely" on ourselves more than Him. His points are not biblically sound and his reasoning is redundant. Yes, he quotes Kant, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and even Augustine, but I don't think any of them would truly agree with how he quoted them. Especially not Kierkegaard or Augustine. What he is saying goes completely against what Augustine believes (the whole...

First off, this entire book has really put me on edge. I usually love reading other points of view for new ideas on how to better improve the ministry, but this book stretched me beyond my limits. Much of what Robinson has suggested so far is becoming prevalent in today's society. People want God to fit into a confined and understandable space, while complaining that He isn't powerful enough to handle their problems. you can't have your cake and eat it too. By "recasting the mould" Robinson and many others are taking God's design and reshaping it to fit more precisely into a non-supernatural society. This is a hazard that will inevitably lead to problems. I do agree with Robinson that a religious understanding of the Gospel does go against what the Gospel was meant to be. However, he seems to be recasting the Gospel in a way that denies the very essence of what it is. For one he denies who Christ himself claimed to be. "I and the Father are the same, an...

Originally I said in my last blog post that I liked this book, but I have sort of changed my mind. It is not that I hate it or anything, it is just weird and I don’t really agree with what John Robinson is saying most of the time. I appreciate that he is trying to write something different and new, but my problem is that some of the ideas are just a little too radical for my taste, and I disagree with him a lot. In the seventh and last chapter of the book, Robinson himself acknowledges his radicalness and writes about how he knows that this type of thought on religion is controversial. He goes on to write how all great thinkers were seen as controversial when they first started and says, “Every new religious truth comes as the destroyer of some other god”. To further prove this point, he uses the example of how Socrates was condemned as an atheist for not believing in multiple gods, and while it is true that Socrates was a great philosopher who was not seen as so when he was alive, I ...

After finishing Honest to God, I sat back and thought some interesting things. I realized that this Enlightenment era writing reminded of the god that most religious and damningly fundamentalist people wish to have. A god that is not going to disrupt life or actually be their Lord, but merely this spiritual safety blanket they run to when things get rough. No frills, no mystery, no awe, just a created god that will serve our needs. Who doesn't want that? While he does call for a devotion to Christ, what kind of demotion can truly be given to such a false god that Robinson has created? I greatly appreciate this book, but I do not really like the whole message given. Seems like the title almost says, "Honest to God, I don't like who you are, so I'm gonna change that for the other upset people who want to be edgy and push out what the uncool theologians think". Fun. Obviously When I say, "Who doesn't want that?", I'm appealing to the fact that so ...

   I find it ironic that the author thinks he is "freeing" God from Christian boxes by labeling Him as love and Being. To me, thinking of God as these things just made Him a whole lot smaller. Perhaps this is because my head is still spinning from all the beings and Beings we talked about last class. When the author said that God is Being, I got a picture of the universe riding on the back of a deity, much like the Japanese folklore of the world existing on the back of a tortoise. It made me think of God being limited to the confines of this universe, that He has to abide by all its rules in order to still exist. When the author said that God is love, I had this picture of God being stretched, pulled, and pushed by the whims of emotional human beings. Even Christians are not loving all the time, which means that they would not be in God all the time (according to the author). Emotions are fleeting, and if all decisions were based on how loving a person felt in that moment, ou...

Initial thoughts after finishing Honest to God : this guy really needs to take a note from C.S. Lewis and simplify things a bit. When writing a book that you think can change the hearts of man towards God, it's probably a good idea to make it understandable enough that people don't have to read it twice through to be able to take in the full meaning. Some people are smart enough to get it immediately, I know, but not all. As a representative of the people who have a hard time focusing on readings that demand incredibly close attention, I hereby issue a formal complaint against Bishop Robinson. If the message is so important, make sure everyone will actually read it without falling asleep. While I try to figure out whether that complaint was one of legitimate concern or childish imbecility, I will say that I still have a difficult time determining between the revelation and the heresy (this either justifies my complaints or digs me a deeper grave, and I'm not sure on that ...

I sincerely apologize for the tardiness of my post. Before I start, I will be commenting on Zelda and Will's posts. I have probably read through the first few chapters three or four times trying find a good way to talk about this book. As a believer, I have found that the existence of God is not that hard to understand. Questions are only natural for a species that fell from grace in the beginning. As we have already discussed in earlier material, philosophers and writers have tried to grasp the concept of God by making him a being confined into the realm of time and space. Christianity does give much room for debate on the topic. We follow a God who exists outside of time, yet entered time as Christ, and returned once more to eternity. How can God exist in both ways? Robinson recalls God as "the Reality undergirding and penetrating through the whole derived creation". Although Christ causes us to think in terms of time, space, and the natural realm; We cannot place lim...

From what I have read I am actually enjoying this, there have been a few times I have actually had a few a ha moments. I actually found it kind of funny that God was compared to a, "rich aunt in Australia," when it came to him being a supreme being in the world. I feel it is entirely true in chapter one when he talks about how Bonhoffer was saying pretty much every man feels the need of religion of some form and that God is calling us to a Christianity not based on religious motives as there have been in the past but I did not feel he made God not God-like which I did not like. My favorite part was the excerpt he included from Tillich saying you can only be an atheist if your life is shallow, which is pretty cold, but I like how he said that if you think that life has depth you believe in God because God is depth and depth is the foundation of our being. P.S. I commented on Ty and Noah's post.

This whole book has already made some interesting points, particular for me his little section where he asks the question "What is Christ for us Today". I defiantly didn't like what I read to start off Bonhoeffer stating that God is weak and powerless, and how that's needed for him to be with us. I'm not sure if that meant to be a bit more metaphorical and such, but I can tell ya I wasn't the biggest fan of te claim that God somehow must limit himself to be with us. Is God really limiting himself or weakening himself by having such a relationship and position with us? Doesn't really make sense and I never like it when people start going down a rabbit trail that almost crutches God, cause He's not  God if he's weak, because even if He were to not use some of His power, that's not an inherent weakening. Maybe I don't understand it, but that's my take. I'm just interested in hearing everyone's opinions! P.S. I commented on Will...

Honestly, this is a book that continually brings my mind back towards Night. The theological statements, the challenges, what have you almost drive my brain to the questions that Wiesel had all throughout his terrible expereince. One thing I did appreciate was the willingness of Robinson to continually challenge the reader to go deeper than what we have been told our whole lives and seek to know God through his word and sound doctrine. He encourages an active faith walk, not hindered by trying to "appear" correct and play the game of religion, but to follow him with earnest desire. Also, this book is like a breath of fresh air since, for once, I can comprehend some things on the first try. Commented on Ty's and Noah's

Okay, so I read like 3/4th of Honest to God on Saturday and for some reason I chose not to Write a post before  Monday night at 11:00pm. Regardless, what's up everybody? It's your boy, Noah, back at it again with another blog post and BOY do I like this book but despise it at the same time. Honestly (hahaha), this book has me stumped. Everything is going so far over my head that even if I had a rocket ship to blast me into space where "up" is then arbitrary, I still couldn't grasp what it's saying. That's a half-truth, I think I understand this a little bit better because I have a bit more background with the Word than before. First off, on page 61, the last sentence before the break tells the tale of the modern world today, but the wording needs to be changed just a bit: "A right relationship to God depends nothing religious; in fact religion could be the greatest barrier to it." I believe this isn't more true to the fact that is stated. I...

Perception is a powerful thing. Consider the fact that we all see the world differently. Couldn't that lead to different understandings of what God really is or isn't? It's all about how each individual person views Him and what their personal relationship is with Him. John Robinson is focusing mainly on what we accept in our understanding of God. He uses science to attack the idea of God being "up there" and that leads to an avalanche effect on the idea of God being "out there". He includes opinions of atheists, suggesting that they could be right, but with stipulation. He proposed the idea that we are perceiving God to be something that he isn't and that "mental picture of such a God may be more of a stumbling-block than an aid to belief in the Gospel". I think there shouldn't be a universal understanding of God. His "presence" doesn't affect every person in the same way and each person's relationship with Him is d...

I honestly never really thought to challenge that old mindset of "Heaven is directly in the clouds." But then again, I haven't really thought of it like that since I was really  little. Now I see it more of just another world entirely that's separate from our own and cannot be accessed by physical means of the earth. Still technically "up there" but not really, if that makes much sense. This quote right in the first part of the book  really  struck a chord "But now it seems there is no room for him, not merely in the inn, but in the entire universe:" Mainly because it's so heavily true for the world today. Issues with people not wanting to attend church because it's out of the way and they have no room  for it. It's a good parallel on the author's part to reflect it back to Jesus' birth. Just for the sake of jumping to a different topic to end this post on, I do appreciate the fact that Robinson's main and driving goal wi...

   Of all the books I've read in this fine school, this has been in the top three of most infuriating. I have several beefs with this author, but I am going to start with some compliments to give myself a chance to calm down.    First, Mr. Robinson, the idea of God as ultimate reality is a good reminder of how Christians ought to view life. God is not "up-there" nor "out-there" watching distantly or waiting to be called upon by a desperate prayer, He is active and working in this world at this very moment, holding together the very fibers of physical matter that make up this planet. Second, I appreciated what you said about prayer being motivated by our relationship in God. In fact, everything we do ought to be motivated by love of God.    Okay, time to turn up the heat. I read up to page 104 and became increasingly agitated as I did. First of all, by definition, the Bible is myth. Myth does not mean that the story is made up, but that there is a tradit...