The Final Blog

Death –Questions why death and the afterlife is so prevalent in all ancient civilizations

The supernatural but mortal Beowulf-Related Beowulf to Gilgamesh.

"Spit her out...Let the girl go" –This is the quote from Antigone, It was probably my favorite post to think and write about.

I have selected these three posts to represent my best work over the semester,  because I feel that they represent my work as an overall.  I selected “Death” because in writing this post I felt that it made me think about a particular social aspect of the time, death and the afterlife.  It made me question why it seems like in every culture in literature, death and the afterlife is attempted to be written about.

“The supernatural but mortal Beowulf” I selected because in writing the post it made me refer to and connect a relationship between the two works Gilgamesh and Beowulf.  I enjoyed thinking about the two texts and finding similarities.

“Spit her out…Let the girl go” I selected because I enjoyed thinking about and writing about the quote.  When I read this quote from Antigone, I immediately took a pen and underlined it, I loved the quote, and one of these days will memorize it.

Since this is my fourth literature class from CWI, I kind of knew what I was getting into.  I think my ideas of literature have changed a little bit, not in a huge way, but I am definitely learning better skills of analyzing and writing about texts, which I enjoy getting better at.  From this course I believe I have learned to read literature at a more critical level, analyzing and drawing meaning from the text. 

One part of the course that I feel that I have learned the most was when reading from the Hebrew Text.  I have grown up with reading the bible and the Old Testament, it was fun and I learned how you can interpret, and especially analyze the bible in a academic way.  It made me look at the text in a different way, and look specifically what the text was saying, not what others interpret the text to say.

I believe that my performance in class was overall positive.  I did not miss a class the entire year, and participated in class activities and discussion.  Most of the time I completed the reading, and was prepared for class, class activities, and class discussion.

My strength as a writer is that for the most part I enjoy writing.  My weakness in writing is that I am not strong in vocabulary, punctuation, and the editing.  In thinking, I can come up most of the time, with original ideas (I have learned to do this from practicing analyzing texts).  My weakness in thinking is it takes a lot of effort on my part, and most of the time I have to put a lot of time into it.

If I were to give myself a grade in this class that reflects my performance in the class it would be an A-.  I feel that I have done the assignments, participated in class, and though I have received A’s on my papers, I feel it balances out.

Dante VS Beowulf

After having read some of Dante’s Inferno, and thinking about our final essay, I’m leaning towards Dante’s Inferno for the most relevant work for our society, compared to Beowulf.  Having read up to Canto 24 in Dante’s Inferno I am gathering an overall feel for the text. 

In Dante’s Inferno, it is teaching that what we do today, affects our future (this life and the next).  We can see this principle within the text.  As the people who are in hell, most have committed sins, some more severe than others, and are assigned punishment according to their sins.

 In their mortal life they may have gotten away without punishment for their misdeeds, but in the next life they were punished.  I think that this can be related to us in society today.  It seems that we can get by with a lot of bad deeds and not get caught doing them, but according to the lesson learned in Dante’s Inferno it will catch up to us in the end.  Lesson: do good deeds.

In Beowulf an overall lesson that could be applied to society today is the concept that the hero should be regarded not the villain.  It seems sometimes in today’s society that the villain is sometimes regarded as the hero, movies of people stealing cars, or money and are regarded as the hero come to mind.  In Beowulf, we find the hero as someone who was looking out and bettering the state of others, while conquering over evil. 

Looking at these lessons taught in the two works, I imagine that Dante’s Inferno has more relevance in today’s society.  I am thinking for my final paper I will have to go through the sources listed in the hand out, and read up on them to help me come to a more definite conclusion.  I also might be able to gather more information through finishing Dante’s Inferno as well.

Dante and Hell

An interesting idea came to me while reading Dante’s Inferno.  In the brief summary over Canto III it states “They hear the groans of those who have led uncommitted lives, choosing neither good nor evil during their time on earth.”  Then in Canto IV it states “these are the sinless souls who died unbaptized or were born before Christ; their punishment is not physical but mental, knowing they can never be saved.

These people are in hell, still in the first stages, but nevertheless in hell.  What interests me, is the reflection that Dante’s Inferno has on the accepted religious beliefs at the time.  I am no historian but I’m pretty sure that what Dante put down on paper reflects the orthodoxy of his time.

Now I’m going to sprinkle this blog post with some religious inquiries. To me it seems that maybe these people who are in hell, deserve a better state than what they are in, especially those who were not baptized because they were born before Christ.  If you think about it, God is all powerful, all knowing, and just, yet merciful.  To me there is a major paradox in this belief, if God allows those who were born before Christ to an eternity of hell just because they were born before Christ, or who did not know him, or were not baptized, where is the justice and mercy?

Religion is a very interesting subject; hell is a very interesting subject, a subject that Dante tackled.  His writings reflect the religious beliefs of his time.  I will end on one more thought, if Dante’s portrayed view of hell, and those who are condemned to hell, is a direct reflection to what was perceived religious orthodoxy  of the time, then if Dante lived today, and wrote about hell, would it be a similar text? Or would it be a completely different work?

Experience leads to Caution

After reading Tammy’s blog about the afterlife readings, I found an interesting point that she made, that stuck out to me.  The idea is that “Those who have just been punished for one thousand years are far more cautious, picking the lives which will guarantee them 1000 years of luxury”. 

Tammy brought to light the idea from the text that those who were wicked in their previous lives, and were punished were more cautious, and did not want to repeat what had happened to them.  I think this is a true principle in today’s world.  Those who have been punished, or who have gone through tough times are more cautious, in what they do.  Experience leads to cautiousness, and experience leads away from bliss.

An example of this idea, that a more experienced individual is more likely to be cautious, is perhaps for example someone who has left there door unlocked to their car, and someone stole their $150 sunglasses.  After this experience, I’m sure they will be more likely to lock their car and be more cautious in the future.

Experience tends to lead to caution in decision making.

Death

After having read some of the readings listed in our text book associated with “death and the underworld,” I have found an idea that interests me.  It appears that as the texts deal with death and the underworld, a common idea has emerged.  The idea or concept that I have found that is similar to almost all, if not all the texts, is the idea that how we live our life in this life affects our life to come.

The first text that really brought out this idea for me is the “Upanishads” from India.  In the book it talks about Hinduism, and their belief in Karma, and how your actions in this life echoes in the life to come. Karma, as the book points out “means that good thoughts or acts are rewarded with good consequences, bad results in bad.”  It seems that if you are bad in this life, Karma dictates, bad things to come to you, and vice a versa for good actions.

Another text that talks about the actions in this life affecting our lives in the next is “The Republic” by Plato.  In the account Ardiaeus the Great is brought up, who had apparently killed his father and brother, and was an overall bad person. Ardiaeus the Great is then described by Plato to have been in a sort of hell, being “bound hand and foot and neck” and being flayed. Ardiaeus had lived a bad life, so in the next life, it was a kind of hell for him.

I find it interesting that this concept of being punished for wrong doing, and being rewarded for righteous doings, is so prevalent.  As in the book it says “the reward for a life of justice comes in the afterlife.”  The questions that now rise in my mind and I now offer them in a blog is: Is the afterlife true? Will we be rewarded for good deeds, and punished for evil ones? Or is this concept of being punished or rewarded, which is so prevalent in almost every culture, just inspired by men trying to have others live a good lives, instilling in them fear of being punished? I guess the only way to know is wait our turn and experience it.

Response to Tyler's Blog

In response to Tyler’s blog about comitatus, I feel that I would have to agree with what he wrote.  I think that the idea of comitatus that is represented in Beowulf, is a strong bond between the leader, and the warriors.

 This bond was broken when Beowulf’s men left him, when they saw that he was going to be killed.  I thought it interesting how Tyler put it, “Comitatus is till death do us part.” I think that this quote does capture the idea of comitatus, that it is a bond between leader and warrior that was not superficial, that it was not broken because you are faced with death. 

The deal  that made up comitatus was that the leader would offer his protection and riches to the warriors, if the warriors would in turn fight for and protect the leader.  I think that Wiglaf truly understood comitatus and recognized what Beowulf had blessed him with, and in turn Wiglaf fulfilled his part of the deal.

Small Group Discussions

To prepare for the small group discussions, I first went over the text of Beowulf. Fortunately I had read the text before, s o it was fairly familiar to me.  I then went over the 10 questions that we had been given in class.  I then chose four questions that I felt that were interesting, and that I could write on and explore in great detail. 

Having chosen the four questions, I took each individual question and looked within the text of Beowulf and found textual evidence that dealt with the question. I underlined, and put color coordinated tabs for each section so that I could turn back to and find the textual evidence with ease. 

After having found the evidence to answer each question, I based an opinion, and based an answer according to the text.

Three things that I have learned from this exercise

1.       One thing that I have learned within the text is the idea of comitatus.  Before reading Beowulf, I have had never heard of comitatus.  I find it an interesting topic, and discussion.  I learned that comitatus, is really a promise and a pact between a leader and warrior, to help each other out.  I liked how it was shown in Beowulf.

2.       I also learned that it really does help to prepare for class, in which there is a discussion like we had.  I found it beneficial to be prepared, and to be able to participate in the discussion, I think if we were not being graded on it, it would have been even enjoyable, because we were actually getting some well thought out discussions that made you think.

3.       The third thing that I learned from this exercise is that it helps to be organized as well.  I think that being organized made presenting the information that I had had more simpler, and easier to understand.

I thought that there were many good points brought up, and overall it was a good discussion.  I think I also learned from others ideas as well, and made me think deeper about points that were brought up.  I think that I learned probably about the same as a regular lecture class.  I like lectures, and learn a lot from them, and I like the discussion and learned a lot from it as well.

Comitatus

A question I thought that was particularly thought provoking, that came from the Questions hand out for our small group discussion was the one that dealt with comitatus. 

The question is “Do the warriors have an obligation to Beowulf under the bonds of comitatus even though Beowulf himself tells them that this is his fight, and his fight alone?”  Obviously the answer can go both ways. I think it is important to look at the text and see how Beowulf said it was his fight.

Lines 2533 “It is not your way, nor proper for any man except me alone that he should match his strength against this monster.”  When Beowulf says that it is not “proper” for any man to fight other than himself, he leaves the door still wide open for comitatus.  Comitatus is not about what’s proper or not, it is an agreement.  In the back of our book it says:

“Comitatus: Arrangement whereby young warriors attached themselves to the leader of a group and defended him in return for his economic and legal protection.”

Comitatus was a strong bond between the warriors and leaders.  I think that the bond was stronger than what was proper or not. 

Another point that I would like to point out is that part of Comitatus was the idea that the warriors would protect their king for riches and protection.  Beowulf had already protected, and gave them riches, when It came down to their part of the deal, the warriors, turned and fled when it appeared that their king needed protection, and was about to fall in battle

At first I was thinking that the warriors were relieved of their responsibility to Beowulf, because he said he alone would fight, but after looking further into the book and writing about it I have convinced myself that the warriors did not hold up their end of the deal of comitatus.

Response To Tammy's Blog

In response to Tammy’s blog, I keyed in on the last paragraph of her blog.  She said “maybe Beowulf was more of a cautionary tale.  The people who were hearing the tale would know what a good warrior, wife and king is and know that the monsters were the opposite.”

I like this quote and find it very interesting.  I like the idea of Beowulf being a “cautionary tale”.  The way I think of Beowulf being a cautionary tale is that maybe the story was orally passed down, to influence the population.  I think the story took shape similar to a role model.  It may have influenced younger people in their youth to aspire to become warriors, to strive to be like Beowulf. 

Also I think the tale would in fact, influence others to “know what a good warrior, wife and king is.”  Once again similar to a role model, something you can look to and aspire to be.

The supernatural but mortal Beowulf

In the epic poem Beowulf, Beowulf is portrayed as a man who is stronger than normal men, yet is still mortal.  He is portrayed as a man with supernatural strength, in a world of supernatural creatures.

  I think it is interesting that in Beowulf the protagonist is faced with supernatural opposition, and is able to come off conquer.  In the battle with Grendel, when Grendel seizes Beowulf he is surprised and fearful because of the strength of Beowulf, in lines 750 it reads “as soon as the shepherd of sins discovered that he had never met on middle earth, in any region of the world, another man with a greater handgrip, in his heart he was afraid for his life.”

 Grendel being a supernatural creature could eat and destroy pretty much anything it wanted to, until it battled with Beowulf.  I find it interesting in this story how one man could be so much stronger and powerful than any other man. 

This idea of one man having supernatural strength and yet still mortal reminds me of Gilgamesh, and his friend Enkidu.  It seemed that these two had supernatural strength, beyond most humans. 

I do not know much about ancient literature, but I think it would be interesting to learn more about it, and see if this was a common idea in works of literature that were written in the past, almost a theme that reflected the ideas and wishes of people at the time. 

It would seem to me that if one wrote about a mortal with super natural strength, maybe that was a desire for the ancient time.  With so much wars and everything centered around ones strength it  would not surprise me to find out that most ancient literature did indeed focus on this topic of mortal, supernatural strength.

essay pitch

For my essay, I’m thinking about comparing and contrasting the biblical Eve and the Sophocles Antigone.  I have gone online and pulled a couple of sources from Ebsco that dive into both characters.   Here are my two citations so far…

 Reed, Valerie. "BRINGING ANTIGONE HOME?." Comparative Literature Studies 45.3 (2008): 316-340. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.

Harrison, Nonna Verna. "EVE, THE MOTHER OF GOD, AND OTHER WOMEN." Ecumenical Review 60.1/2 (2008): 71-81. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.

 I think that the citations will provide valuable information on both characters.  I think what I will focus on in the essay is the characters itself and how they are portrayed, and their roles with in the text.  For example both play a major role in the text and both could be considered main characters.  I think I will focus on how they are perceived today as well.  Eve may be considered as a trickster for example.

I also think that I will focus on the similarities and the differences of the characters.  For example I think that a similarity of Antigone and Eve would be is that their acts and decisions that they made not only affected themselves but everyone else surrounding them in the story. 

I difference between Eve and Antigone is the way that they are portrayed today.  Eve has a negative feeling about her, and sometimes thought of the cause of human misery.  Where Antigone can be considered as a tragic hero.

 I think I will use many examples from the text to help build my essay.  I’m not too sure what my main argument is going to be.  I’m hoping that the comparing is an argument with in itself, because I am interpreting the text, and in interpreting you naturally can have arguments.

Catullus

After having read some of the Roman Catullus’s poems, one stood out to me.  Found on page 798-799 titled “Poor damned Catullus here’s no time for nonsense.”  After having to read it a few times to make understanding out of it, I find it a very interesting poem. 

It starts out, as I interpret it that Catullus is analyzing an event that took place in his life.  In the first few lines he is calling himself to see things clearly, and for how they really are (sometimes hard to do when women are involved in your life). 

In the next few lines specifically in 6-7 we find an important part of the poem’s story.  This is the cause of Catullus’s poem, he has had sex with a girl, attached to the girl, but “now she’s no longer yielding.”  Pretty much as I see it, she has dumped him.

In the next few lines we find Catullus trying to motivate himself, and to build himself up, trying to let her go.  Also in lines 14+ the point of view may switch.  At first it appears that Catullus is addressing himself, and then he switches to anger and addresses the female.  In the words “you whore! Where’s your man to cling to…” (I find it interesting that when a women dumps a man, even back in the Roman Era, it comes natural to call here a whore.)

The last line of the poem, I believe we get some major Irony going.  It says “But always, your Catullus will be as firm as rock is” Catullus is trying to fool the girl, and possibly himself with this statement.  From the text we can conclude that Catullus is not firm as a rock, that he is quite the opposite, he is unstable and is trying to cope with an emotional break up.

I think Catullus captured some emotions that go along with a break up. I  find it interesting that poetry written so long ago can apply in our lives today.

Tragedy

The Aristotelian elements of a classical tragedy, according to the following website http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Tragedy.htm  is “plot, characters, verbal expression, thought, visual adornment, and song composition.”  In class, we went over the idea of tragedy, and what makes up a tragedy.  It seems like Antigone fits into the term tragedy, because of the content of the play.  The overall plot is set up to be tragic.  The characters posses certain characteristics that promotes the tragic events.  For example both Creon and Antigone both are stubborn and would not give. Their verbal expression and thought process all leads to the tragic ending as well. 

It is debated that Antigone could have two different tragic heroes, namely Antigone and Creon.  In my own understanding of a tragic hero, the hero is not a perfect being.  The hero will have his or her own flaws that will lead them down to their downfall.  The downfall will be tragic, and normally the downfall is brought about by pride, or some other personal trait.

I think the true tragic hero of the play would be Creon.  I think this way, because, he is the one who has to live with all the death that he thinks and accepts that he has caused.  In the play Creon, is definitely a major role, and it is his pride that brings the downfall.  Creon at the beginning was not necessarily a bad person, and did not have all bad motives. He wanted to make a point, and have the city be more important than family.  Later on in the play, he let his pride go to far, leading to the tragic events.  Creon let the pride go so far, as to at first, not listen to his trusted prophet.  Pride was inevitably his downfall, and this is why Creon is the Tragic Hero.

"Spit her out...Let the girl go"

While reading Antigone I came across a quote that I personally thought was interesting.  If I could memorize I would memorize it to quote.  It is found on line723

                                Oh Haemon never lose your sense of judgment over a woman.

                                The warmth, the rush of pleasure, it all goes cold in your arms,

                                I warn you…a worthless woman in your house, a misery in your

                                Bed.  What wound cuts deeper that a loved one turned against you?

                                Spit her out, like a mortal enemy—let the girl go.

As of right now I do not feel this way towards any woman, but I think Sophocles captures this difficult feeling on paper.  For this reason I am a fan of Sophocles now. 

I love the way this quote is shaped and formed.  I think the feeling that he is capturing in this quote can be a couple different ideas.  If we break it down line per line; the first line is all about not losing your rational over a woman.

 The second is about the physical aspects of loving a women can grow less significant.

The fourth is that a woman turned against you is one of the most significant heart breaking experiences.

 I love the last, Creon tells his son to let the girl go, simply get over her.

The overall theme of the quote for me, is that when you encounter a person of the opposite sex that you develop a relationship with, if the relationship is no good, “spit her out, let the girl go.”

Auerbach's Statement

According to Erich Auerbach’s essay “Odysseus’ scar” the statement is claimed that “Homer can be analyzed but cannot be interpreted.”  To look into this statement we first must come to a conclusion of the vocab used in the quote. 

Analysis as I see it deals with examination, it consists of looking into a word or subject, separating ideas, and dissecting the meaning.

Interpretation, on the other hand deals with making meaning out of what it is you are looking at.  The two terms are somewhat similar in that they both deal with looking at something with a lens, making a conclusion and deciphering, but they are inherently different in that interpretation takes on a meaning, and explanation.

Auerbach’s argument involves Homer’s tale of Odysseus and the Biblical account of Abraham and Isaac.  Auerbach’s statement that “Homer can be analyzed but cannot be interpreted” first had me question the validity of the statement.  My question was, “Cant everything be interpreted?” I still believe that every piece of literature can be interpreted, but to get my head around this statement I have to think of it as a comparison.  A comparison between the two works.

The Odyssey has little or no room for interpretation compared to the Biblical account of the Abraham and Isaac story.  Looking at the Abraham story we find that the author left plenty of room for interpretation, one such example is the question, “Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice his son.”  In the text there is no explanation for us, as a reader we must interpret it in our own way.

On the other hand, we find in the Odyssey that almost everything is explained and in great detail.  Leaving hardly, if any room, for interpretation.

So that is how I understand the statement by Auerbach, that “Homer can be analyzed but cannot be interpreted.

Why we all should be tricksters in this life

I find it interesting that Homer would have two protagonists with different characteristics.  Looking at the Iliad and the hero in that story Achilles, and the Hero in the Odyssey, Odysseus, we find two heroes that are very different in nature.  

Achilles as pointed out in the handout we received (“Homer, Odysseus and the Odyssey”)  is “renowned for his strength and skill in battle” He is a passionate hero who often shows “anger, sulking, pride and rashness.”

Odysseus on the other hand is “known for his cool intelligence and wit… a person who uses slyness and cunning to gain the upper hand in a conflict.”

Taking these two characters and their characteristics into consideration, I find it interesting to look at the outcome of the two.  Achilles, the passionate warrior, inevitably dies in battle, and Odysseus, essentially a “trickster” ends up back with his women Penelope.

Now I do not believe Homer was trying to say that if you are a trickster, that things will work out for you better than the passionate warrior.  But that is the message that I received while analyzing the two heroes.

Now applying this to everyday life, do we find out that maybe the “tricksters” of society have the upper hand in life, compared to the warriors?  Does wit overpower physical prowess?  I would submit that in most cases in life the trickster is better off than the warrior. 

And that is why we should all be tricksters.

The Flood Stories

In the two flood stories written in the Hebrew text and the Epic of Gilgamesh there are many similarities and differences.   There are three main and important differences that I found within the two texts.

The first main difference is found in the ending of the story.  In the Hebrew text we find that Noah gives a burnt sacrifice. And the Lord or Yahweh says unto Noah “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” Yahweh also gives unto Noah a covenant that he will never flood the earth completely again.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh Enlil, said unto Utnapishtim “In time past Utnapishtim was a mortal man; henceforth he and his wife shall live in the distance oat the mouth of the rivers.”  These are two distinct different endings to the stories.  Noah was given a commandment, and a promise for the future generations of earth, and Utnapishtim was given the ability to eternal life. We see that Utnapishtim was given eternal life in the quote where Gilgamesh says to Utnapishtim “Tell me truly, how was it that you came to enter the company of the gods to possess everlasting life?”

The second difference in these two stories is the divine characters.  In the Hebrew version there is Yaweh, a single God.  In the Epic of Gilgamesh  we find many gods who play a role in the flood story.  Such characters are Anu, lord of the firmament father and warrior.  Also Enlil their counselor, NInurta the helper, and Ennugi watcher over cannals, Adad lord of the storm. Nergal who pulled out the dams of the nether waters ect…   It seems that a main difference between the two stories is obviously that the Hebrew story is a monotheistic religion, and the Epic of Gilgamesh is a polytheistic religion.

The Last difference is the motive to flood the earth.  In the Hebrew text Yahweh is sadden and angered by the wickedness of the people on the earth. His creations.  In the Epic of Gilgamesh it says that “the world teemed, the people multiplied and the world bellowed like a wild bull, and the great god was aroused by the clamour…’The uproar of mankind is intolerable and sleep is no longer possible by reason…so the gods agreed to exterminate mankind.”

Though this quote from the Epic of Gilgamesh could be interpreted into wickedness, from just reading it we find that the noise of humans was too great.  Another key difference in the two stories.

Moral of the Story...

While reading The Epic of Gilgamesh, a quote from the story stuck out to me.  The quote from the story that I thought was interesting was towards the end of the “Forest Journey.”  Gilgamesh talks to his friend Enkidu, and says “He who leaves the fight unfinished is not at peace.”

 Enkidu was fearing to fight the dreaded opponent Humbaba.  To motivate Enkidu Gilgamesh speaks these words.  They have traveled a great distance and at the time of battle Enkidu was ready to go back. 

I think that there is a life lesson taught in this section of the story.  That it is important to finish the sometimes epic challenges of life and not to give up.  Also to try to live life with no regret, if they had turned back they probably would have regretted their decision and not have been at peace about it.  I guess the moral of this part of the story for me is not to give up.

The God of the Old Testament

The Christian concept of God is an all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect being.  From the Old Testament, we find what seems to the reader, a contradictory descriptions of God specifically in the Flood story.  We find specific words and examples of God being powerful, but questions may arise to the reader who is reading strictly in a literary standpoint. 

One such example of God almost having human characteristics and not necessarily all powerful, is found when God sees man and how wicked they have become, the account says “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

 The important word to focus on is repented.  Repentance is something you do when you have done something wrong, the way this story is structured, and its word choice, leads the reader to believe that God, has done something wrong.  This is contradictory, in nature, how can an omnipotent, perfect being, need repentance?

Another way that God is portrayed in this story is a merciful God.  We as readers can come to this conclusion, by the idea that God did not destroy everyone, but he warned Noah, and his family, and helped him develop a way to escape the flood.

Another description of God, found in the story of the Flood, is found at the end of the story. The God of the Old Testament is willing to bless the people who follow him. “And God blessed Noah and his sons”  After the water had receded, Noah and his family built an alter and offered sacrifices to the Lord.  The Lord accepted these sacrifices, and blessed Noah and his family.

The God of the Old Testament, can be portrayed through the text, as one who repents.  Through the text as well the God of the Old Testament can be described as a merciful God, and one who is willing to bless those who follow him.

Metadivine Realm

I found the Metadivine Realm, at least what we had gone over in class, interesting.  Probably the most interesting idea that I gathered from the MDR handout and lecture, was that evil came from the MDR.

 I'd like to point out how evil is "built into the structure of the universe," that it is "inherent in the world."

One idea  Kaufman brings out is that "humans are powerless in the struggle between good and evil."  This last quote makes me ponder a little, about the validity of the statement.

 Let's say that there is actually two forces at work good, and evil, and that these forces are so powerful that we and humans can not function without them, we are either doing something for good, or we are doing something for evil.  Maybe there is no middle ground, maybe we are truly "powerless in the struggle between good and evil."