Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Not sure what to call this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOFqzaD6Bog



Okay okay, so the above video may not leave much up to be interpreted, but i hope it's relavence consitutes enough for the technology requirment. If not, I blame the spam.



On a more serious note, I acctually do have some thoughts on book 6.



"Against unequal arms to fight in pan

Against unpained,impassive, from evil which

ruin must ensue"



(6: 454-456)



One thing about war amoungst the angels is that it accomplishes nothing, because angels are immortal. I don't find a point in going to war if no one's opinions are going to budge, and no casualties will ensue because no one is able to die. Satan wants victory, and won't accept peace any other way. But while he and the rebels angels are duking it out, they are eventually feeling the affects. The good angels are able to recover faster because they are fighting for God, if they feel anything at all. I was really surprised that that was even able to happen. This right here is a sign that Satan is most definatly not going to get away with this. With God overlooking everything, the battle is pretty much over before it started. Does Satan still think that He cannot see him?

Come to think of it, why were some angels even created to be more powerful than others? This was bound to happen to some degree, if not against God, than amoungst other angels. I think it shows to prove that even they possess that level of humanity, that angels can be currupt. It certainly adds an interesting tailspin to traditionalist views. When God made Man, did he have equality in mind? Eve is portrayed as Adam's subordinate, and God gave them the land and animals to sort of rule over. This can be a small government in itself, if Adam and Eve were intelligent enough to master it. The one thing they were forbidden to do was eat from the tree of Knowledge, but is knowledge in this case considered a bad thing by God? Satan was very intelligent, and he turned that into rhetoric that convinced a third of Gods angels to revolt. Maybe God is afraid that if Adam and Eve possess knowledge, than they will have even more potential to do harm to either temselves or their enviornment in which God has given them. If you look at the world know, people today do possess a lot more knowledge than they did even 200 years ago. We have technology, we have medicine, we have solutions. We also have pollution, murder, curruption, starvation, and greed. Most people sin every day, multiple times a day. Can we root that to knowledge, since it is intelligence that brought all of this good and bad? God wants to keep Adam and Eve innocent, so their innocence could keep them pure.


I'm not sure exactly where im going with this one. I may come back and edit it later.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Eve's Dream

In the fifth book of "Paradise Lost", Adam attempts to console Eve after she has had a disturbing dream that she eats fruit from the tree, the only thing that God told Adam and Eve not to do and would result in the greatest form of disobedience against God. He says to her,
 " Yet be not sad:
Evil into the mind of god or man
May come and go, so unapproved, and leave 
No spot or blame behind. Which gives me hope 
That what in sleep thou didst abhor to dream 
Waking thou never wilt consent to do.
Be not disheartened then nor cloud those looks 
That wont to be more cheerful and serene 
Than when fair morning first smiles on the world!" (5.116-124)

Here Adam is telling Eve not to worry about her dream that she had because dreams are not reality. He more or less tells her that just because she dreams something does not mean that she will act upon it. Dreams and inner thoughts do not depict the future, Adam reassures Eve. We briefly talked about this topic in class and the question was asked, "Does society believe that it is possible to have thoughts that do not lead to action?" Everyone has heard of the idea that there is a consequence for everything and that to every cause there is an affect. However, I find this notion interesting in the context to which I personally believe that society views someone's thoughts and their correlation to action. I think that people in society have the capacity to have thoughts which detail them doing horrible things without then following through and acting upon them but it seems to me that society does not always tend to believe this.  

 The idea of a school shooter came up during our discussion and I found that to be really interesting because we discussed the idea that a shooting in that sense is usually premeditated and there now seems to be a typical profile of a school shooter. This conversation reminded me of the book that I read called 19 Minutes by Jodi Picoult. This book examines the aftermath of a school shooting and unlike many other depictions of a massacre such as this one, this novel exposes both sides of the story through telling about the victims lives as well as the life of the shooter. Picoult explains about the shooter's childhood, how he grew up, what his everyday life was like, what drove him to shoot all those people. By doing this, Picoult becomes like Milton in the sense that she is humanizing the "demon" of the story and taking a character that most people see as pure evil and drawing parallels to the reader's life which makes it so that the readers can see themselves in the "demon" character; something that would make most people uncomfortable. However in the end you realize that this kid was someone like you or me but after being beaten so many times by society he finally had enough and fought back in the only way that he knew how. Now I am not saying that that in anyways justifies what Peter, the shooter in the story did or that I believe Satan's disobedience towards God was right but in both cases as you hear the justification from this so-called monster then it makes its easier to understand their view point and to see how they viewed this solution to be the best or in come cases the only solution that would provide relief. 

Especially in the book 19 Minutes, other school shootings, and other events in history that have resulted in tragedy and have been at the fault of one person, such as Satan's fall from heaven it seems that people try to go through and make sense in the aftermath of these tragedies. No one wants to believe that sometimes a person can just snap and cause so much harm or upset so they try to link it back to a person's inner thoughts; they look for clues in their art or their writing or behavior. It seems to me that people have become so sensitive to this ever-looming threat that whenever there is a possible danger they overreact and try to fix a situation that may never escalate. This seems ironic because most people overlook a cry for help such as what happened with Peter in 19 Minutes and what is happening with Eve in "Paradise Lost" and it seems that that is when you get catastrophic events like a loss of paradise.  

I think that it is interesting that Adam tells Eve that she still has "reason as chief" (5.102). He tells her that she still has reason and logic in reality that will prevent her from committing this horrible sin of eating from the tree yet we all know that Eve does in fact eat from the tree and I wonder what causes her to do this. What is it that steps in the way of her reason? Is it the same thing that cause Satan and other people who have committed great sins do what they did? 

In my opinion it is people like Satan and Eve that have caused people in our society to be so cautious of the danger of another's thoughts but it would be unfair to say that all people who say there are going to do something drastic or have a premonition that they are going to do something drastic are going to act on that. There are many people who probably have dreams similar to Eve's they are just never heard of because they don't ever pan out. 

Monday, September 8, 2008

Interesting Perspective

I'm not into religion much, but being raised as a Catholic really created a black and white image in my mind about Heaven and Hell. At first I was shocked that there were other fallen angels who were more powerful than Satan himself, and then I come to the end of book 4.

"Satan, I know thy strength and thou know'st mine:
Neither our own but giv'n. What folly then
To boast what arms can do since thine no more
Than Heav'n permits-nor mine though doubled now
To trample thee as mire. For proof look up
And read thy lot in yon celestial sign
Where thou art weighed and shown how light, how weak
If thou resist. The Fiend looked up and knew
His mounted scale aloft. Nor more, but fled
Murmuring, and with him fled the shades of night." (Milton 1006-1016)

Satan is no match for the other angels who had confronted him in Eden. He is outnumbered and just does nothing. Satan is weak. You can even argue that he's a coward. I was surprised to read that he just fled just took the insult from Gabriel and ran away. How can he expect to take over heaven and become as powerful as God if he can not fend off a few angels who get in his way? Gabriel was saying that both him and Satan know how powerful each other are, and not to make himself seem more than what he really is. He called him weak, and Satan just took it. Honestly, i expected more from the self-proclaimed ruler of Hell and evil. I expected a showdown, and am acctually a little disapointed. He doesn't stand a chance. I view this incident as even a little forshadowing of what may come. Satan has not listened to the plans of Mammon or any of the other fallen angels at all, and they will eventually find out that Satan has his own hidden agenda. Will they still back him up? They want to start thier own society, and Satan is still bent on shaking up Heaven. There is no way he can do it by himself, and will the rest of the fallen angels want to follow someone who doesn't take what they have to say into consideration? Will they eventually see what Satan is trying to do, despite their wants? If he isn't the most powerful angel, he can easily be usurped and taken out of power. Without backup, Satan is nothing. I think he will fail again.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

The way I see it


I feel like Merideth, another member of this group, did a great job on expanding on the entire quote as a whole, but I just wanted to expand on this little aspect in particular. I wrote this piece before I knew that she had already done the quote, but I think I could still add to it.


“There is a place,
If ancient and prophetic fame in Heav’n
Err not, another world, the happy seat
Of some new race called Man about this time
To be created like us though less
In pow’r and excellence but favored more
Of Him who rules above” (2. 345-51)

This section struck me as particularly interesting so far in everything I have read in Paradise Lost. In this speech, the narrator is exclaiming that humans (who have not yet come into existence) are going to be created and are exactly like the fallen angles who dwell in hell. The only difference is that they don’t have supernatural powers, but they will still be more favored by God than the fallen angels ever will. It’s a bit like a slap in the face. Satan and the fallen angels were technically Gods first children. They were there first. This new species of “Man” can be unperfect, do wrong, and sin on a regular basis, yet God will still love and accept this new creation more than them. Even though the only thing that seperates man from them is that they are not angels. I find that by the creation of “Man”, God is replacing those he cast in hell like they were nothing more than a previous mistake. Understandably, towards the end of the book Satan is determined to cross through the gates of hell and investigate this new creation, hoping to tempt Man into doing evil.


I believe this adds to the whole viewpoint of God being portrayed as an evil tyrant from Santan’s perspective. “Man” will now be God’s new supporter (if they follow the faith accordingly, that is), and are there in a way to make up for every being cast into hell. I think this parallel’s what was was being discussed in class with the author’s personal life as well. Allow me to explain.

According to my class notes, England had a civil war in 1642 when Charles I had some conflict with religious radicals (mostly calvinists and puritans who controlled Parliament). The civil war in England can be expressed through the war between Good and Evil in terms of Heaven and Hell. In a way it is a civil war since the fallen angels are in conflict with Heaven and God, whom they used to belong to. Maybe Milton viewed Hell as Parliament through Paradise Lost at the time. Book 2 does contain three speeches about going to war. When Oliver Cromwell became in charge of Parliament Charles I was beheaded, much like Satan was cast into hell. The two just did not agree. If God is portrayed as Cromwell and Charles I is portrayed as Satan, then it makes sense. Charles I beheading coresponds with Satan being sent to Hell, with Cromwell (as God in Paradise Lost) doing the beheading (and casting off). During this time, as head of Parliament, Cromwell was very influential. He pretty much ran everthing in england, just like God runs everything in Paradise Lost. God is portrayed as this merciless tyrant in the book, much like Oliver Cromwell was when he was in power. Of course, this is a pretty far fetched comparison, but it is the way I see it. I am merley making a comparison between the two events, I am in no way suggesting that they are directly connected with each other. If anyone has comments to add please do.

Monday, September 1, 2008

Is Evil really all that bad?

"There is a place,/If ancient and prophetic fame in Heav'n/Err not, another world, the happy seat/Of some new race called Man about this time/To be created like us though less

In pow'r and excellence but favored more/Of Him who rules above. So was His will/Pronounced among the gods and by an oath/That shook Heav'n's whole circumference confirmed./Thither let us bend all our thoughts to learn/What creatures there inhabit, of what mould/Or substance, how endued and what their power/And where their weakness, how attempted best/By force or subtlety. Though Heav'n be shut/And Heav'n's high Arbitrator sit secure/In His own strength, this place may lie exposed,/The utmost border of His kingdom left/To their defense who hold it. Here perhaps/Some advantageous act may be achieved/By sudden onset, either with hell fire/To waste His whole creation or possess/All as our own and drive, as we were driven,/The puny habitants, or if not drive/Seduce them to our party that their God/May prove their foe and with repenting hand/Abolish His own works. This would surpass/Common revenge and interrupt His joy/In our confusion and our joy upraise/In His disturbance when His darling sons/Hurled headlong to partake with us shall curse/Their frail originals and faded bliss--/Faded so soon! Advise if this be worth/Attempting or to sit in darkness here/ Hatching vain empires." [Book II, Lines 345-378]



This quotation intrigued me immensely while reading Book II of Paradise Lost. Milton's idea of the way Beelzebub changed the direction of the fallen angels that now inhabited Hell was astounding. Beelzebub was able to stand up and demand attention, mostly because he was second only to Satan in the line of command, and politely disagree with everything said before. Beelzebub stated that, instead of waging another war on Heaven, or sitting peacefully, hoping that God would no longer punish the angels and perhaps even forgive them. In response to these ideas, Beelzebub stands against them, revenge still the only thing in mind. He decides that waging another war on Heaven would be pointless, because God already had control over the fallen angels, as they were in Hell. He could also punish them much more greatly, similar to before, when they were left chained to the lake of fire. Instead of acting on Heaven, where God held the advantage, Beelzebub suggests that the Princes of Hell instead wage their subtle war on Mankind, a new creation of God. He states that this form of revenge would hurt God much worse than another failed attack to his fortress called Heaven. By attacking one of God's creations, these fallen angels of Hell might be able to force God to abolish his own creation; his prized and favored creatures. The ability to affect those beings that God created would hurt Him much more so than anything else, which is Beelzebub's capital point. With their inability to perform any other actions against God at the present, this seems to be their best chance.



However, if God is able to control Hell as well, which is why they were sent to such a place (so that God could keep them completely under wraps), God would be able to know what exactly they were up to. On top of that, God would be able to either stop them from doing such things by punishing them or try to prevent it. The Ten Commandments would be a way of God trying prevent this from happening, but why would God allow something like that to happen to his favorite creatures? Wouldn't God want his prized creations to sore above all others; to be perfect? If yes, then why would God allow the fallen angels even the fantasy of this plan working? If yes, why would God allow it, or even allow the possibility? And if no, what does God want with the race of Man? What is their purpose, and why would he allow them to be tempted, seduced and, in turn, be damned? Is He searching to root out all evil by testing each individual? Is He trying to show the difference between good and evil and teach with this idea? Is He trying to use evil to show what truly is good, and how it can be achieved? Is God simply a tyrant and plans to create, rule, damn and destroy all? Could he possibly be trying to use this evil to show what shouldn't be done, but include enough of it so good is also known? While the motives of the fallen angels are known, God's motives are forever unclear.

interpretations of Hell

The epic poem, "Paradise Lost" by John Milton begins with the battle that ensues between Satan and God after Satan and his fallen angels have been sent out of heaven and have landed in this hell. Milton frequently describes this hell as, "a burning mark" (1.296), a "convex of fire" (2.433) and a "fiery gulf" (1.50). Milton obviously has a clear picture in his mind as to what exactly hell is like and this idea has been the common notion that people derive when they think of hell. In the beginning of the first book, Milton tells the reader that he is invoking a muse to help him in writing this poem yet not just any muse, the Holy Spirit. By doing so, Milton has informed the reader that this must be the official word of God. For centuries, the basis of this idea of hell has held true in many cinematic productions and other interpretations of hell. Yet as time has progressed there have been interpretations that have put a spin on the initial interpretation of the bible, which in a sense is just another interpretation of the words of God. 

For this blog post I decided to try and find different interpretations that either supported Milton's idea of what hell was or those that differed from it. The first interpretation that I has found on Youtube was a similar, but more modernized version of hell that seemed to in the end follow in line with Milton. This is a clip of the actor and comedian Rowan Atkins as he portray the devil himself "welcoming" his guests into hell. Here Atkins has put a comedic twist on the idea of hell, thus contrasting the very serious nature of the hell that Milton knows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do

Through out this clip, Atkins repeats the idea that hell is a fiery, eternal pit that no one could ever fathom enjoying. He however makes it a comedic interpretation by "dressing" as Satan through donning on a pair of horns and singling out various demographics, poking fun as to why they are in hell and what eternal punishment means for them. 

The next clip that I had found took on a completely different tone, one that was parallel to Milton's through out "Paradise Lost". This video is also similar to "Paradise Lost" in the sense that I believe it was meant to educate people to the correct ideas of what hell is and to banish all misconceptions, as according to the author's opinions. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLPe2rRdY

One of the first things that I noticed when I watched this clip was that the author asks the question whether hell is just a stepping stone to heaven. This author preaches that hell is not an eternal state in which a sinner must stay forever but that there is a point in which everyone will make it to heaven as long as they pay their due time in hell. This made me wonder then what is purgatory. I had been taught that purgatory is the place that a person goes to wait for their judgment and the time that they spend their is directly related to their sins. However this author seems to believe that that is in fact hell, a person just waits in hell until they are able to be worthy to go up to heaven. I found it even more interesting to look at the comments that other viewers had posted on this video after watching it. It seems that this video had cause a small controversy between a viewer and the author.  SoldierofGod40, a Youtube member who had watched this video said, " Give me a verse that says hell is not eternal thats just not true you are fooling people once in hell always in hell." (SoldierofGod40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLFPe2rRY. June 2008). He says that the author is only fooling people. much like Milton says that Satan's only deceiving people and turning God's works into evil. The author responds back by saying, "there are 35 verses in the bible that mention the word hell. in each verse the word HELL and ETERNAL doesn't co-exist. Prove me wrong."(sevensealsofgod, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v+FZLFPe2rRdY. June 2008) One idea however that I recognized in this clip that paralleled Milton's idea was that the reason we are sent to hell is because we have turned away from God. Milton always underlies the message that God would forgive anyone, even Satan if they asked for his forgiveness. 

Through out time, our notion of hell has been modified and changed but in the end seems to still find parallels to the initial ideas of hell that were derived from the bible.  



Interpretations of Hell


hopefully this one works because my other few have not! 

Quote Post for Paradise Lost

"Nor failed they to express how much they praised/That for the gen'ral safety he despised/His own: for neither do the spirits damned/Lose all their virtue, lest bad men should boast/Their specious deeds  on earth which glory excites,/Or close ambition varnished o'er with zeal." (II, 480-485)

This quote really fascinated me as I was reading the text. At first, I had a little bit of trouble trying to determine what it meant completely even after I read the footnote. What I did not understand at first was how fallen angels that never lose their virtue connected to "bad men"who bragged about their supposedly good deeds. After some analysis, this quote makes a little more sense than it used to. To me, fallen angels obviously have had to do good deeds or at least have good souls in order to be called angels. However, as we all know, angels that fall from Grace have been banished from Heaven by God for some act of treason or evil. According to this quote, when angels fall, they maintain possession of some of their previous virtue or power. The text goes on to explain why: if angels did not maintain some of their goodness, then evil people who do "good deeds" (in which case have hidden intentions) could walk about bragging about their supposedly good deeds and label themselves good people. 
What struck me as interesting is the enforcement of the idea that good is usually humble. By saying that bad men boast (that's a mouthful) only enhances the original belief that truly good deeds are done out of kindness and humility, whereas evil deeds are done with too much pride and often expect something out of the deal in return. This is usually seen as a common trait that separates Good and Evil. 
Also, the idea of balance between Good and Evil is also present in this quote. Because fallen angels that are or were at once potentially good have virtue left, evil men cannot pride themselves on false claims of doing good deeds. There seems to be a distinct line that defines each side of the spectrum. However, it is interesting that though both sides are present, one side whether it be Good or Evil, cannot exist without the other. If there is no Good, how can one define what is Evil and vice versa? We only know what Good is because we know that there is Evil in the world, just like we only know what Evil is because we know the difference between Good and Evil. The presence of both powers is necessary in order for any side to truly exist.
If damned angels did not maintain any virtue of their previous state, then anyone could use any definition of Good or Evil to define themselves as an individual. This quote focuses on the inner intents of people. If someone is doing something that can be seen as a good deed to either receive praise or gain power, then their deed is not truly good. The concept of Good and Evil relies not only on actual acts committed, but on inner intents as well.
The only reason an angel would fall is because of a bad act. Because even angels can fall, demons and evil beings cannot claim to do good and maintain power. In my eyes though, this quote brings out the idea of sinning and forgiveness as well. We fall because we are sinners, but we can go back to God because He is forgiving and He knows that we are not perfect and divine like He is. 
Well, this was my first post but I plan on updating it more as I continue thinking about this quote. I'm not claiming to be right, so if anyone wants to add anything or has any comments and/or interpretations, I'm willing to listen and discuss them. I also may not have the "correct interpretation" but this quote brought quite a few thoughts and questions to my mind, so I decided to respond to it. There are few more things in the quote that I am still contemplating.
Out!
-Lauren

An Introduction of Sorts

Well, I'm sorry for the delay with this blog post. I had a few slight problems with email and then with the site, so I haven't been able to get on here.
I'm a little behind with things, but I am aware that we have to type up a little introduction about ourselves. So, here it goes.
I'm Lauren, a freshman English major (yes, I love the smell of new books) that will probably end up picking up a minor in music. 
I live in a small town (which I'm not really a huge fan of), but I was originally born elsewhere- then moved to FL, and now I'm here.
I don't know where I will be four years from now, but the idea of just living life out is much more appealing to me. 
Overall, I'm relatively religious. I have attended several mission trips in the last few summers that have been truly a life-changing experience. I'm also an instrumentalist. I mostly play French horn, but I do play other instruments as well. 
Over the summer, I work as a sailing instructor at a small yacht club where I teach people of all ages to sail. I have raced competitively all over Connecticut and on Long Island Sound, and I hope to continue sailing at college.
I tend to be talkative and really enjoy spending time with other individuals.
Well, that's a very very short version of me in a nutshell, but I'm sure that you'll know me much better by the end of the semester.