Focus Paper #3

Focus Paper #3
September 25, 2007

In Response to the Debate

I thought that the class debate on Monday turned out very well. It was definitely an interesting way to learn about the different perspectives on religion which we have been discussing during class. It also made it easier to understand the viewpoints of the Catholic Church, Thomas a Kempis, and Erasmus.

The Pope Leo X side focused largely on how God is the Supreme Power, and how spiritual things surpass all temporal things. It also claimed that in order for the soul to be saved, one must go through the Church.

Thomas a Kempis’ main claim was that one should live a life of solitude and stay away from society, in order to best serve God. He also said that it is okay to feel bad in life, because in the long run, you will be better off. A life of sorrow leads to an (afterlife) of happiness.
Erasmus found it best to read the Bible and to develop one’s own understanding of the Scripture. He did not find it sufficient to simply listen to another and “learn” from them. He believed that by keeping your mind focused on a righteous path, you would be able to resist temptations which exist everywhere in the world.

I think that all groups did a good job of presenting their sides and getting their points across. If I were to be the people who were listening to each of the cases of the debate, I would have to say that I would pick Erasmus’ perspective on religious life and the best way to live. I agree with Pope Leo X’s case that God is the Supreme Power; however, I do not believe that it is necessary for someone to direct all of their dealings with God through the means of the Church. For me, religion is a private matter, and does not require the involvement of a higher organization.

I have already discussed the absurdity of Thomas a Kempis’ work in my previous focus paper, so I will not go into detail about his case here. Basically though, I feel that his beliefs that everyone should live in solitude do not make sense at all – how can one thrive in life and religion if he is not able to discuss it with others? Furthermore, how is it possible to procreate (as God desires) if we are not supposed to interact with others?

This leaves Erasmus’ perspective, which I have already depicted as “the best”. Erasmus just makes the most sense to me, perhaps because his is the most modern version out of the three. Erasmus wants us to understand religion on our own and not simply rely on others, and he does not find it necessary for us to separate ourselves from the rest of society (just to do what we need to do to avoid sin and temptation). His view not only seems the most logical, but the most practical as well.