heart disection

So, I know we discussed a lot of this in class, but i just feel like reiterating my view. Well, first off... I either go into a gory situation, like a movie or dissection, without any thought and feel fine or I walk in feeling wearing and queasy. It is always a crap shoot, and of course this time, in the case of the heart dissection, i was queasy... Because I was so, I just sat there for a period of time before I began butchering it. In that time, I really got to think... where did these hearts come from? How many did the school get and how many have we gone through? It just bothered me to be holding the heart of another animal. I literally had it in my grasp, dangling there... bloody and cold. I guess this was a realization for me... I know humanity is evolving, but this was the straw on my back. I was holding a once living organism's heart. Its heart... what you love with, what is easily broken but then again at the same time saved by love... What beats 80 times a minute for the entirety of your life... Granted it was a pig, but I still related it to a human. I gave the pig humanistic qualities, the ability to love, and of course to feel pain! Yes, the human race needs to feed, and evolve... but it really upsets me when large industries and business make a dollar over raising a living thing from birth. And that is not the bruit of it... these animals are kept in cells, not knowing what is it to see the sky, or run "wild" in a field (as lame as that sounds, but it is true). And here I am promoting this by sitting there in a room full of kids butchering the hell out of these heart for their own entertainment and inquiries. The kids across from my group were cutting their heart up into tiny pieces and making crude comments and jokes about it. The teacher running the lecture came over, took the heart away just to return with a new one... It was if she were handing the hearts out like gum. Anyone want a piece? Then my partner told me "you just have to not think about what you're doing, and do it." True, and as I put my moral values aside, I just began cutting what was once a living organism, now just an inanimate object. I can butcher things when I don't think about it or care... but that initially meant I had to lock up my feelings. It was ridiculous I thought. Then it got me thinking... what if everyone was shut up, and mechanically put to work? I don't know. Overall, I am just so used to "dissecting" things in lab, but this dissection was different for me. Now, I am not turning into some activist that is going on strike or something, I am not even a vegetarian... but I did have a vegetarian wrap today! Just the experience changed my view, but in all honesty... nothing will change, but the guilt that I felt. Overall, I guess one does what you have to in life.

Class discussion

This is what we were saying in class...

• How do you know that what your senses are telling you are reality? Senses give an accurate picture of reality. It is not true for everyone- ex. Skitso. You can not assume that everyone is relying on their senses to give them a clear reality.
• We can be self aware of what our senses tell us, but you can defy your senses. ex- mirage.
• How we interpret masses of sense data? Example, the masses that believed the world was flat.
• Proof of existence, can't judge the world is real, but look back on own thoughts and judge whether they are real
• If you cant escape it, it is a reality...?
• Sense are an individual thing. Only you can sense and feel it, and believe it to be true.
• your rational mind is telling you what you see with your senses could not possibly be real. Your senses tell you things in which your mind says no, that can't be real.

Discussion Questions in depth

How does Descartes argue for his own existence?
Descartes realizes that he is a being that thinks, doubts, desires and questions countless things. However, the notion that Descartes has of a Supreme Being, or God, is the clearest and most distinct when compared to his other philosophies. Descartes realizes that since he is a being that thinks, there must be a supreme being more perfect than him to help him realize his imperfections. For instance, how could he know what his shortcomings are supposed to be, without a perfect more supreme being to compare himself to…? Also, how can he exist without a more supreme being to create him…? These ideas led to the conclusion that a God does in fact exist. Yes, at times Descartes ponders his very own existence, however, he realizes that he is a being that thinks, stating, “I think, therefore I am, I am, therefore I exist”. He concludes that because he doubts, realizes his imperfections, and is an objective thinker, that he is a finite being. This leads to his confrontation on the existence of a God. Descartes states and believes that something cannot develop and evolve from nothing. He associates this with ideas.
What is his theory of knowledge, and what makes it different from a belief?
Descartes was a rationalist. He said that he believed, and that he had to doubt everything known to him to really understand knowledge… When Descartes started his thoughts, during the rise of science, he decided to set up a new system of knowledge to replace the knowledge of the church. (Kind of like Galileo, with the religion vs. science) This is where Descartes introduced his 'Method of Doubt'. In his method, he couldn't question every single object, so he concentrated on three main things:
1. The Senses (can be deceiving, you think you see something when it's not there, ex. Optical Illusions)
2. Physical Bodies
3. Math’s and The Sciences

What are two most important questions philosophies have to demonstrate? What are the two kinds of beliefs in which Descartes distinguishes? What does Descartes say about his proofs?

Mathematics of Descartes

Woops, disregard the post below... okay so in part 3 there is a list of things in which Descartes gives his reader. The first time I came across it was in the first paragraph. It states "I formed a provisional moral code for myself consisting in only three or four maxims..."

• Number 1.... to obey the laws and customs of my country, and to adhear to the religion in which God by His grace had me instructed from my childhood.
• Number 2.... to be as firm and resolute in my actions as I could, and to follow no less constantly the most doubtful opinions, once I had adopted for them, than i would have if they had been the most certain ones.
• Number 3.... to endeavour always to master myself rather than fortune, to try and change my desires rather than to change the order of the world, and in general to settle for the belief that there is nothing entirely in our power except our thoughts and after we have tried, in respect of things external to us, to do our best, everything in which we we do not succeed is absolutely impossible as far as we are concerned.
• Number 4.... I decided to review the carious occupations that men have in his life, in order to try to select the best one.

Descartes being inspirational...

Page 11....

• I could discover much more truth from the reasoning that we all make about things that affect us and that will soon cause us harm if we misjudge them, than from the speculations in which a scholar engages in the privacy of his study, that have no consequence for him except insofar as the further they are from common sense, the more he will be proud of them, because he has had to use so much more ingenuity and subtlety in the struggle to make them plausible.
• ... to look into myself and to use all of my mental powers to choose the paths I should follow.

This blog is short, yes, but I was just sharing the quotes I really have come to love in the text.... which in this blog seem to be just on page 11.

Good quote, may discussion worthy in class

The quote that really stopped me in my tracks and made me read over it a few times, because it is so true, and somewhat powerful... is on page 9, first full paragraph. It says...

• Those who reason most powerfully and are the most successful at ordering their thoughts so as to make them clear and intelligible will always be best able to persuade others of what they say, even if they speak in the thickest of dialects and have never learned any rhetoric. and those whose linguistic expression is the most pleasing and who frame their thoughts in the most eloquent and agreeable way would always end up being the best poets, even if they did not know a single rule of poetic composition.

So yea, I thought this quote was very powerful... it discussion persuasion, and understanding your thoughts... kind of going along with a blog i posted early about... if you believe you are right there is no one else to disprove you're wrong. okayy!

Descartes' Views on the topic of the Philosophy of Mind

It is as though Descartes has indeed made some notable contributions towards the philosophy of the mind throughout his "time". Descartes came off as being an avid dualist- This is the view that the mind and body are understood to be separate and distinct from each other, but in some way "causally" connected. I found Descartes was no exception, and he believed that the mind and body are two completely different substances. I think (hopefully i got this right, i tend to get their views wrong) he defines the body as an extended, non-thinking substance and the mind as a non-extended, thinking substance... It is not just these definitions that allow Descartes to adopt a dualistic point of view- Descartes came to the conclusion of his discourse of method that any data received from the senses could be doubted and therefore unreliable. Yea, my thoughts... aha okayy!

Discussion Questions

1. How does Descartes argue for his own existence?
2. What is his theory of knowledge, and what makes it different from a belief?
3. What are two most important questions philosophies have to demonstrate? What are the two kinds of beliefs in which Descartes distinguishes? What does Descartes say about his proofs?

These are a few notes that I have gathered from the reading...

• Descartes lived and worked in a period that had one way of thinking, and one worldview.
• Descartes deduces that truth can only be attained by the mind, as it is the only reasoning organ man possesses. He therefore proceeds to abandon any and all sensory knowledge on the grounds that our senses often deceive us.
• Descartes realizes though that, whatever else this powerful being might deceive him about, it could not deceive him into thinking he existed if he didn't. This is his first certainty - which he is thinking, therefore he exists.
• Branching off of the bullet above... I've come to realize that there can be several problems in Descartes reasoning's. First off, it is not possible to doubt everything... For instance, take Descartes claim that the senses have sometimes deceived him. How does he know they have? It seems as though, Descartes judges on the basis of other sensory experience which he takes to be accurate.... (okay, just storming)
• Descartes seems to employ the method of doubt in his search for certainty. He rejects any belief that can possibly be doubted... until he finds a belief that cannot possibly be doubted.
• My thoughts on the blog above.... To examine every single belief would be an impossible task, so it seems that Descartes instead of doing so, tries to doubt the basis for whole groups of beliefs. First he doubts the senses. (Which Galileo called, God given). Since the senses have at times deceived him in the past, the question is, how can he be so sure that they will not deceive him now? Finally, he considers the possible existence of a powerful being whose sole aim is to deceive him about everything, even the basic 'truths' of mathematics... (which will be an upcoming blog).

Branching off of more descartes....

From the certainty of Descartes expanding knowledge, it seems as though he admits to the existence of God and the reality of the physical world- which he held to be "mechanistic" and entirely "divorced" from the mind. The only connection I can see between the two is the intervention of God. Descartes, it seems, evaluates and discerns what is actually true when he divides the foundations of knowledge into three sources: the senses, reality, and context.

More Descartes

Rene Descartes, believed that the origin of knowledge comes from within the mind, a single indisputable fact to build on that can be gained through individual reflection. His Discourse on Method contains some of his most important philosophical theories. Especially mathematical, in which he found his passion lied. He intended to extend the mathematical method to all areas of human knowledge. He seemed to discarded the authoritarian and aristotelian systems of the scholastic philosophers, which was, according to the Aristotelian tradition, the mind proper—what is exclusively "inside the head." This is limited to reason and understanding. Senses, imagination, will, etc. make reference to things outside the mind. (not purely mental). Rather, they link the believer and thinker to the "outside" world. Thus, sensory experience gives us direct and immediate knowledge of objects in the world. Okay, carying on... Descaertes discarded that and began with universal doubt. Only one thing cannot be doubted: doubt itself. Therefore, the doubter must exist. Man is thus a thinking thing which you know evolved from the Descartes slogan "Cogito Ergo Sum" ---> I am, therefore I exist" You can doubt everything you want, but you cannot doubt doubting because you are thinking. Thus thinking exists! You exist!

In the method, the text is broken up into 6 parts. In the first, will be found various considerations touching the Sciences; in the second, the principal rules of the Method which the Author has discovered, in the third, certain of the rules of Morals which he has deduced from this Method; in the fourth, the reasonings by which he establishes the existence of God and of the Human Soul, which are the foundations of his Metaphysic; in the fifth, the order of the Physical questions which he has investigated, and, in particular, the explication of the motion of the heart and of some other difficulties pertaining to Medicine, as also the difference between the soul of man and that of the brutes; and, in the last, what the Author believes to be required in order to greater advancement in the investigation of Nature than has yet been made, with the reasons that have induced him to write. AKA- the heart... which we are disecting on tuesday!! so pumped.. aha no pun intended.

thoughts on descartes

Rene Descartes' overall objective in the "Discourse of Method" is to develop a new system of knowledge that is free of prejudices for establishing the truth of things. Most of Descartes "things" worth discussing are in Part 4 of the book. In part 4, he explains the philosophical basing (the meditations) for establishing the new system. These "meditations" are based on rationalism: that if someone truly knows something then they could not possibly be mistaken. (Which, I agree with, because those are your thoughts) He then goes on to provide a solid argument for his ideas. He comes to term with three certainties in meditation- the existence of the mind is/as the thing that thinks, the body is/as an extension, and God is/as the supreme being. (Which reminds me at this point of Galileo, because he mentioned God and the supreme being). He came to these conclusions by doubling all he learned in his formal education, and all he received through the senses..... Again with the senses thing, much like Galileo.

The difference between religion and science

Science versus Religion is a tough topic to discuss without letting ones own views interfere. It is also a difficult topic for me to accept both sides of the case because i am not that religious to begin with, and also my major is science, and i am just known to follow my scientific roots. I am also a very visual learner and "doer." therefore, it is difficult to accept the fact there is a greater being than ourselves, when i have yet to see it first hand, as opposed to science which i have seen experiments done, as well as been a part of them. Religion, more specifically Christianity, believes that God created the world, the universe and everything in them. It believes that God takes an ever-present and very active part in this world. Science, and evolution states that over long periods of time the world changes- bit by bit, change by change, the world was created and life began.

Another very obvious factor between Darwinism and Creationism, one is primarily based on data and research and the other is based on belief. Darwinism concerns itself as a science, that is explained by scientific methods and experiments. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors and over time evolutionary change gives rise to new species. On the other opposing side, the ideas of creation is that God created the universe-including humans and other living things-all at once (in 7 days) in the past. Creationists say that creatures started out as distinct and separate organisms when God created them and they do not believe that organisms change into complete differently and distinct animals through evolution.

But then I guess I have a question concerning religion... Every aspect of life in a Puritan society, way back when, revolved around religion. No matter what, they obey God. However, Puritanism reflects the notion of pre-destination. So if everything is pre-determined and whatnot, then how does life as a whole obtain any meaning what-so-ever, if technically someone is "pupeteering" your entire life? Science is about discovery, and not having a pre-determined understanding of what is going to happen... for instance Global warming. I am not quite sure what I am getting at here, I am kind of just letting the ideas flow.

Of Cannibals

Today in class we were able to go more in depth with the text, and came up with; the first thesis is more of a thing done universally (like logic, math, and even smiling!), and the second thesis is more so done in practice. There is no standard by which one culture can judge another.

One of the most important paragraphs within the entire piece in on page 18, in which it states: "So we may well call these people barbarians...but not in respect to ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarity." There is a somewhat scale in which we are being placed on comparatively to the barbarians.

On page 19, the paragraph about the Hungarians tells the reader how the Hungarians will torture their enemies until they confess to the crime committed, and then they let them go. Why? Well, their honor and worth of a man is dependent on the man's heart and will and soul... that is where his real honor and valor lies. It's an honor based culture, and once the opponent is humiliated they are trusted they will not do it again, because that is the lowest a man can feel, and will no longer attain that honor again.

On page 20, the author calls these cultures and their ancient customs lacking in reasoning and judgement and their minds are stupid that they can not adapt to any other course. This was shocking that he would call the cultural differences stupid. I mean it could be a kind of satirical humor, much like comedy with a purpose.

Lastly, when he is discussing the three things in which travelers had found most amazing about the culture; and Montaigne is only able to remember 2 of the 3. I think he is lying. He is such a careful and detailed writer that there is no way he forgot, and even if he had forgotten, he would not have mentioned there were 3! Its almost as though he wants the careful readers to depict what the third point is. Maybe cultural differences, and adaptations. Not sure yet.

Notes about Montaigne

This is what i gathered while reading the piece...

The first thing is the introduction of what was thought to be the thesis. Then, the history and discovery of new lands is introduced. It begins with the description of Atlantis, and then preludes into Aristotle. There seems to be like a sub plot of the story involving "i" and then the actual history and gathered notes and recollections of the discoveries. Next is the introduction of the second "thesis." Then i found it interesting the description of Art vs. Nature, and visa versa. Then the rest of the story is about the natives, and their ways of life, and eventually adapting to the more advanced cultures, somewhat like today with the underdeveloped countries. Ah! Then it gets into the actual cannibalism of the different cultures. For instance, the killing and roasting of enemies by the Scythians. What really got me was the dogie bags they sent to their friends who were unable to make the cook off. And in the final paragraph, I found a little comical relief in the sentence "they don't wear breeches."

Alright, now my thoughts... well, to be honest this piece was a little "all over the place" for me in a sense that, Montaigne's first couple pages are all about different cultural names, and the discovery of the new lands and laws and such, which to me was both irrelevant (with all of the characterisation and information), as well as, dragged on. I feel as though it could have been summed up in a few paragraphs. I mean, the title is "Of Cannibals," yet it takes almost half of the text to get into the actual cannibalism that is happening. Just the beginning lost some of my interest as a reader. The moment i read "...they roast him and eat him, in common and send some pieces to their absent friends" my attention was grasped! I didn't mind that he discussed the homes, bed, relationship between wife and husband, because it made it seem like this cute little culture off set from the advances of humanity. It reminded me of Pocahontas. I got so settled in and comfortable as a reader that the moment I read roast em and eat em, I was like WOA! hold up! That was defiantly an attention grabber.

I found it interesting the cultural differences of the then and the now. Could you imagine eating a murder or cooking and serving up an arsonist?! Ridiculous. All together i gathered that the main thesis is the one on page one; judge by reason, not popular opinion. I believe this is so, because the discoverers im sure were quick to judge the justification and reasoning behind this horrible act. Yet, there was an open "law" system, in the sense that there really wasn't one, they just knew what is right and what is wrong. One who is a foreigner coming into a new, undiscovered country has to realize the differences between the two.

Alright, dinner time.. YUMMMMMMMMM!

The main thesis of Montaigne's "Of Cannibals"

On page one; "Thus we should beware of clinging to vulgar opinions, and judge things by reason's way, not by popular say." --> We had said the message here is judge by reason, not by popular opinion.

On page two; "...it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in." --> We had said the message here is that there is no other test of truth, and reason than popular say.

Until i have formulated a solid opinion myself on the reading, and which thesis is which, then i will leave ya'll with this.

5 different teachings within the Gita

First Teaching: Arjuna’s Dejection
In this first teaching, the important value and lesson is that of Compassion – based on notions of atman, and the ability to feel for others as we feel for ourselves. The value and feeling of compassion is seen when Arjuna requests Krishna move his chariot between the two armies. When Arjuna sees his relatives on the opposing army side of the Kurus, he loses courage and decides not to fight.
Second Teaching: Philosophy and Spiritual Discipline
In this teaching, an important value that is represented is; Ahimsa (non-violence) – which is based on the concepts of atman and reincarnation. Atma is the individual self, from which all individual souls derive, and to which they return as the supreme goal of existence. Atma can neither be slain or slay. Atma is not destroyed when the body is. Atma is eternal, all pervading, and unchanging.
Third Teaching: Discipline of Action
In this teaching, there are three value that are respected, one of which is; Mind and sense control – considered essential for any form of mortality, and another is Wisdom – knowledge is contrasted with ignorance, the Hindu equivalent of “good-evil” paradigm, and finally Austerity- which is essential to gain the wisdom in addition to mere knowledge. Mind, Wisdom, and Austerity are presented when Arjuna asks why he should engage in fighting if knowledge is more important than action. Krishna urges Arjuna that performing his duties for the greater good, but without the attachment to results is the appropriate cause of action.
The Eighth Teaching: The Infinite Spirit
The value of Celibacy – Which is the important for spiritual life, is an important teaching and value in this chapter and the book. Krishna explains how one can remember him at the time of death and attain his supreme abode.
The Twelfth Teaching: Devotion
In this teaching, aside from the value of devotion, the value of Respect – for all living beings and for the sanctity of all life, is also prominent. This is because Krishna describes the process of devotional service, otherwise known in the story as Bhakti Yoga, which is the spiritual practice of fostering loving devotion for God, called Bkakti. Even when defined, the value of Hospitality – demonstrating magnanimity and the value of service, can even be fit in the teaching.

values

In Gita, especially in the second teaching, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to shake off the weakness and just slay as many people as he can in battle, because that is his duty as a warrior. He says how because the bodies are much like shells, and only the soul counts, then he should have no problem slaying them. Lord Krishna refers to this as Atma. Atma is not destroyed when the body is, and atma is forever eternal, all pervading, and unchanging. He says that death is certain for those who are born, just as life is certain for those who are destined to die.

A lot of what Lord Krishna says to Arjuna strikes me as strange, because I, much like Arjuna, do not understand how a body can feel no pain, and the only thing that is important is the soul. . . Atma, the eternal soul, can neither slain or be slain. However, its "capsule" can be. I do not understand how a knife to the gut can justify life and heroism, especially among family and friends! Alright, so this atma is indestructible. But i would find myself mourning for the bodies non the less. It would be like slaying someone near and dear to me, and then telling myself as i stand over their destroyed body, oh its okay, they are going to a better place, their atma is moving on. Just a strange concept.

in class

So this class we discussed Socrates again and how Euthyphro can not support himself in the argument at all. Euthyphro does a decent job in the beginning, but as the story continues he begins to only give Socrates one sentence or even one worded answers. You would think if one were confident they would not back down from the idea at hand. Socrates seems to also not back down either for the satisfaction of winning the argument and proving Euthyphro wrong, or because he truly cares... All in all, Euthyphro is unable to answer Socrates's questions, which results in the readers questions unanswered as well.

But honestly, i thought this story was interesting, and the more we explained it in class the more i understood it. I had already had a concrete understanding of it because i picked it apart, but it helps to discuss it and get opinions out in the classroom. The one paragraph on page 53 about the "it is something seen that it is seen, but the opposite: because it is seen, it is something seen..." I understand what he is saying, but I have no idea how to re explain that to any of you. The best way I can put it right now is; because someone sees whatever it is it is then seen, not that it is seen and then recognized is it seen... Aha man i have no idea how to put it. But I get it.

I would also like to say i am super pumped for Gilgamesh this week! and i promise not to eat my brochure during the show, only before and after will i attempt. (aha). See you all around campus and in class! Have a beautiful day!

chillin

hey class, i dont know what i am really going to say this blog, but i am exctied for fridays class because we will be getting revising our papers! (aha yea..) Just kidding, i am super excited because it is friday and my family is coming down from NY to visit me! I have to clean up a bit though... Um hope all is well, see you in class. (something relevant for class.. Socrates leave Euthyphro alone, let the man believe what he wants... without people like him, and without people like you, there would be no diversity, thus no excitement to living!)

Socrates- What's his deal

I would have to say Socrates is an annoying character in this story, but i love how he questions Euthyphro. I was always brought up to question things not only for curiosity purposes, but so that i can better understand and share them with others. However, this entire story Socrates just keeps running into a brick wall. He is trying to have a better understanding of where Euthyphro is coming from, but seems to get no answer, much like the reader at the end of the story.

I think that with any situation, Socrates would question the actions and philosophies of the opponent. It seems as though it is much easier for Socrates to beat on Euthyphro because he believe in numerous gods, which according to both characters, all want something different. Yet, if Socrates was arguing with a person who believed in only one god, I'm sure the questions would alter a little bit, but generally be the same. I feel as though Socrates is just asking why each time. It reminds me of the tostidos commercial with the little girl who is told to eat her food, and she asks why, and the father replies because it is good for you and she replies once again with why... and it goes on and on much like a circle.

Even if Socrates made Euthyphro question himself, I'm sure moments later Euthyphro would be back on his high horse telling anyone who will listen what life is all about, and it's pieties, and impieties. If one truly believed they were correct they would not back down.

Socrates just likes to argue. I mean he is on death row, why not go out with a bang, and piss off as many people as possible.

Socrates compared to Euthyphro

I'm not sure what to think about Euthyphro prosecuting his own father. I suppose that for the sake of justice (or impiety), it would be the right thing to do. To judge him on terms of piety, I would have no clue how to do that. All i know is I could never view my oen father as a killer, let alone take him to court. I also wasn't really sure exactly what piety was when I began reading the story. Of course I looked it up in the dictionary, but even though i have a definition, doesn't mean I understood it any better. Quite honestly, I did not receive an answer at the end of the reading either. I found myself going in the circles that Euthyphro was going in.

I found it somewhat humorous how Socrates goes about asking Euthyphro about the meaning of piety. It seemed as thoguht the entire restof the story was about Socrates one uping Euthyphro. Socrates actually seems a bit condescending in his questioning, but Euthyphro never seems to notice. Euthyphro's character seemed to be pleased in being thought of as an expert on the matter of piety (and impiety). I don't think Socrates expected to receive a definite answer to his questions from Euthyphro at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Euthyphro: he seems to be a bit power hungry, and attention hungry as well. he thrives ont he attention that Socrates is giving him and just keeps rambling on throughout the story until finally Socrates starts to fire back.

Socrates: I believe Socrates too was a bit hungry when it came to the spot light. He also loved pulling Suthyphro's chain, which Euthyphro never notices. it was kind of like the story "whose on First..." it kept going in circles and no one was getting the answer or response they wanted.

class

My thoughts about Noah and his sons is much simlar to that of the classes. Noah was ashamed of the fact that his youngest child witnessed Noah in such a free and expressive state. In addition, his son went to the eldest sons as well, and told them what he has just seen. So instead of fixing the problem on his own, he brought his brothers in to cover Noah. So maybe Noah was upset the grandson didn't step up and show respect for his grandfather and protect him by covering him. It shows that he to some extent did not step up to the plate.

Then again, yea so he didnt cover you up Noah, get over it youre the only family on the Earth right now, and you are going to start a fight between you. There is no where to go, and no one to talk to, so way to create drama.

As for the story of Abraham and Issac... I have to agree with Mandy. To love someone is to love God, because we are "all Gods children." So I don't understand why God would test Abraham by asking him to kill his son. I thought that was a little bullyish again by God. Then again, I truly thought about it, and that is a true measure of how much Abraham is willing to give up for God. So this was confusing, but I would have to say I still think it was wrong of God to do that to Abraham.

which is tougher... Genesis or the Packet

Either way, anything relating to the biblical text is tough for me, becuase I hardly ever go to church, and when I do it is once a year (Christmas mass). Anyhow, if I had to choose one of the texts that was a "tougher" read for me it would have to be Genesis.

The beginning part of Genesis provides what seems to be a chronological framework which is extreemly repetitive as well as having a rigid style. Not to mention God is just creating things left and right. He says let there be light, so there is light, and he says let there be animals and soon enough there is some fuzzy creature roaming around.

I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much as difficult to read and interprit (because there are sparknotes at the bottom) but because it is tough for me to believe in anything that is being said. Also to the extent that I do believe that God is somewhat a tormenter in the sense that what he says goes, and you better obey him or else. And it upsets me, because humans shouldnt have to obey God, but be guided by him and follow him. (Im not sure if I'm making sense, but it makes sense in my head).

The reason the packet was easy for me to read and understand was, because it was just sentences on how people and humanity should abide by or follow the religion. It was more or less rules. And becuase I really don't follow those as closely as others (not saying I go out and murder people) I am not as threatened to break them as others may be (I mean breaking the "respect thy father and mother one- relax people!). Also, the second part of the reading we had to do (the one that has an eye for an eye) was easier for me to understand, becasue in social studies all throughout high school, we learned about those rules. Also, no one really practices those anymore, so there is no sense in paying as much attention to them as the Ten Commandments.

Even so, the material we learn and go over in class doesnt really stay with me that long. As soon as I am out that door, all I can think is LUNCH TIME! It's not that I do not respect the views of the people at all, or God for that matter. I just don't know where I stand in belief. I do however, believe it is important to believe in something... anything at all. It's great to have belief when you've hit rock bottom or are as scared as can be, or any other time you just need to feel comfort when youre all alone. However, for me, I feel as though I can discuss this in class and have no feeling what-so-ever on the topic. Which can be good in a debate or a paper, becuase my own feelings don't come into the matter. I guess thought to some extend my feelings have to come into play

I would just like to stress again, I mean no disrespect when I say it doesn't effect me as much as others. I just did not grow up with it. I know I would have an entirely different view if I had though. I also would like to reilliterate the fact that it is interesting to me, but just not as emotional as others.

So all in all, the hardest read of Genesis because of my inability to believe in what was said to have gone down. I still find it interesting to hear everyones point of view, and express my own. So yup, I guess that's it... okay, well i am now going to finish my americano coffee (it has 4 shots of xpresso in it- and im not even a coffee drinker... can you say late night!?) Night gang!

Activity in class (sept 4/07)

Hey guys!

I thought the activity we did in class (look at the penny) was very interesting. It made me realize how i take the most simplistic things for grantide. Meaning, my entire life i have exchange countless amounts of pennies, and money and other things in general without actually ever truly looking at them. For instance on the penny I noticed Abraham in the building for the first time. Also it's interesting to know when things are made (or at least i think so). Our penny was made in 2006, but what about the pennies made in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and even 90s?! Think about everything that happened in those decades, and that very penny had been cirulating through them all along.

It would have been interesting to do the activity with anything really. Yet, i was thinking, what if we had to do it with ancient text? What about the bible!? That would take forever, even to get through one page! I wonder what antone would say (I hope i spelled that right, im SOO bad with names and spelling).

It didnt occur to me in class, but i got to thinking, if that penny did not have a date it would not have impacted me as much. It really made me think of everything its been through. Especially with anything from the past. Time is truly of the essance. I wonder where my pennies are going to end up. I hope they go places i never get to visit.

All in all, that was a very interesting activity! I cant believe i thought that in depth about a penny!

See all ya in class!