Absolute Being vs. Humaneness

I think it would be interesting to talk about Absolute Being in City of God, and the Humaneness in The Analects, because I see some similarities between the two. Both seem to be unobtainable in a way…but the same not really. It is implied that Absolute Being is a sort of enhanced view of the universe that can only be obtained in the after life only by those who have followed Jesus during their lives on Earth. I say "enhanced" because to saying that they are all-knowing would imply that they have the same knowledge as God, which is impossible. We have also pretty concretely defined Humaneness as a virtue of the gentleman, but at the same time, a person that is humane is always striving to be more humane through continual self-examination. The criteria for having reached Humaneness and Absolute being are both very obscure. What is the purpose of this?

creation & unity

After reading and thinking so much about free will due to these blog posts, I began to consider another part of Augustine's City of God. In Book XIV, Chapter 1, Augustine writes about God: "His first purpose was to give unity to the human race by the likeness of nature. His second purpose was to bind mankind by the bond of peace, through blood relationship, into one harmonious whole." He then briefly talks about creation, and how Adam came from nothing and Eve from him, and that their sin "impaired all of human nature." The sin that Eve committed was so great that it impacted human nature so heavily and in such a widespread manner. If God's purpose was to promote unity, then why, logically, would he impose the idea or threat or test of sin that could destroy all of this work? I understand that in one sense, sin has to exist to justify atrocities that occur, but on the other hand, all of these sins that are committed could technically be avoidable. As God creates the opportunities for these sins to occur, doesn't that simply work in the opposite way of his goal and what he was aiming to achieve, peace and unity?

Chastity

Something I found very interesting in our discussion of the concepts for the final yesterday was the idea of chastity.  As was said in class, chastity is supposed to be a spiritual state, not just a physical state as it is often defined.  Augustine makes a point of saying that someone can still be chaste if they are a rape victim (which honestly says a lot about the view of rape back then with victim blaming and the girl being ruined).  Interestingly, chastity derives from the Latin word castus, which means pure, morally pure, or guiltless.  The definition as morally pure leans more towards the idea that Augustine presents about chastity being a mental and spiritual state of moral goodness and separation from sin.  It is interesting that the word has evolved in it’s modern connotation to be totally about sex and abstinence from sexuality and sin in that way.  This also presents questions about where the spiritual and physical intersect. One explanation might be that it is an easy way  to prove your spiritual chastity by giving it a physical embodiment.

Confined Free Will?

In this week's and last week's classes, we spoke about free will. We came up with so many different theories about whether we actually have free will, and then decided if it was without restriction. After thinking about it, I understood that we must have free will. The fact that God created us with a conscience that would be able to recognize good and bad, and choose between them, means that we must have free will. If he knows every outcome, as well as the method taken to achieve them, aren't we just His puppets? The fact that Eve gave in to the serpent's temptation is proof of free will. Temptation, or desire, is part of the evil. Our job is to overcome it and choose the good side in every situation. As St. Augustine says, every time we choose good, we become closer to God. What do you guys think? Is life full of these tests, or 'karma moments,' in which we decide between good and bad?

Free will in relation to justice

I do not agree with the idea that free will is related to justice. We did not take into account temptation and trickery when we discussed this in class. Why is Eve punished so harshly when she was tricked by the serpent? In turn, does that not mean that humans were punished before they were even born? Evil was unleashed in the world because of Adam and Eve's actions, which would later affect every single human being born into the world. Evil affects the good just as much as it affects the bad. Also, what about the people who are born into this world by God's hand as handicapped? If they are unable to speak, eat, or think on their own then how would they be capable of having free will and being rewarded or punished for their actions on Earth? This means that not every person has free will, but rather it is a privilege that it decided for us before our birth.

Chart from Tuesday's class (12/2)

god's power, free will, & sin

During Tuesday's class, we came to the decision that God gives free will to people, and that their decision making is the test. In the story about Lucretia in Book I, Chapter 19, God tested her. She was raped and later committed suicide. In Chapter 28, Saint Augustine defends the idea that there is no excuse for resorting to this end, as we are all created in God's image and that from conception, our life is a gift, etc. "They believe that He would by no means abandon those who have served Him and invoked His aid so faithfully," Augustine writes. He expands on this idea by saying that God wouldn't permit the evils if they could destroy the "purity of soul" which he bestows on his saints. However, if God gives free will to man as a test, and someone sins which leads another person to sin, then is God truly acting in accordance with the idea that he wouldn't permit evils that destroy people? We concluded that God is responsible for everything; why then, would he (for instance) drive someone to suicide, or create a world in which free will could lead to so much sin?

Wealthy and poor in The Bible and City of God

What I have noticed while reading City of God is the view on rich and poor, which resembles the perspective we came across in the Bible. We can see this when Mary talks about her gratefulness to God and all the power that he has, as she includes “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:52-52). In City of God, we are also faced with discussion bout rich and poor in the form of analogy, saying that the poor man is better: “is religious and pious, of kindly disposition, healthy in body, self-restrained, chaste in morals, and at peace with his conscience”(Book IV, Chapter 3), while the wealthy man has worries, enemies, insecurity and fear. What struck me the most about this is the recurring view of negative things being attached to the wealthy and more positive to the poor. Is this in a way an aspect of justice and equality or on the other hand, relationship between rich and the poor and the view on authority and power mainly by the poor, with underlying cultural context in both cases.

Mary and Joseph

A few classes ago, we had a discussion about Mary and Joseph. Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit to give birth to Jesus, the son of God. She became pregnant as she was engaged to Joseph. Joseph, who at first had no way of understanding Mary's pregnancy, was about to leave her because, to him, the situation strongly resembled a case of adultery. He was going to quietly leave her, which I found to be very interesting. Obviously, he probably wasn't too happy that his wife-to-be was pregnant with (what he thought) was someone else's child. From what I understand, adultery was treated with very harshly in the Bible. In the 10 Commandments, God even says "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and multiple times throughout the Bible different people are put to death because they have committed this crime. My question is why would Joseph want to quietly leave Mary? After a bit of online research, it seems that this was to show how noble and kind a man he was. Although (most likely) hurt by the fact his fiancee cheated on him, he was still willing to leave her and not have her punished  publicly for her actions. Was Joseph really doing something good for the sake of Mary, by not putting her to death, or was he only trying to help himself? It's embarrassing to have a spouse cheat on you, so was he trying to save himself the shame he might receive from his neighbors and his community? In my opinion, it was a mixture of a) not wanting to have Mary killed even though she "cheated" and b) to save himself the embarrassment. Thoughts?  

New Testament V Old Testament

I was curious about the difference(s) between the NT and the OT. In the OT, God creates the universe, humans, and later on he helps the Jews out of Egypt. He also explains the 10 Commandments. In the NT, I feel that almost all the focus shifts from Yahweh to His son, Jesus. In a big way, I feel as if Jesus takes the place of God, at least for this part of the Bible. Since Jesus is a human while also being son of God, he can connect with both the spiritual world and human world. I believe that Jesus is a vital part of the story because without him, it would have been difficult to convert people to believe in God. Also, Jesus' preachings were vital to both the story and the religion itself. My question is if Jesus was necessary for the connection between the human race and Yahweh. Assuming that Jesus never existed, would people not believe in God as many strongly do today? Could God have converted these people on His own or did He need a physical being to spread the word of His existence?

Is The New Testament surprisingly Confucian or what?

Last class, we talked about how the system of laws conveyed by Paul in Romans 13 were similar to the strict hierarchical structure of Plato's republic. I agree with this, and interestingly enough, these laws also reminded me of some major themes in The Analects (I know this is from a while ago, sorry) such as respect and honor. If I didn't know that "respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due"(Romans 13:7)  was from the New Testament, I would probably guess that Confucius said it. In the Old Testament, the only people who are worthy of honor seem to be Yaweh and one's parents: "honor your father and mother…"(Exodus 20:12), while The New Testament applies the concept of honor to government. Could this be part of what differentiated Judaism from Christianity? Also, any other thoughts about connections between the New Testament and The Analects?

Importance of Letters

After reading parts of the New Testament I thought about the importance of writing letters and their purpose. We discussed that in the Old Testament a great deal of value was placed on the spoken word, and how in the Peloponnesian War speeches were important and necessary. However, in the New Testament Paul wrote letters to specific communities, one group being the Galatians. His letters had a purpose and they addressed problems in the regions he traveled to. It is interesting to see how letters were important during a time when long distance communication was difficult. The letters were meant to instruct faith on the people and were a means of communication. I wonder if there is any significance to the practice of writing letters and if it affected the religion of Christianity. Traditionally, information was passed down through the word of mouth, but why do we see letters becoming a large part of the New Testament?

11/5 event

Synchronicity and Other Mind-Matter Conjectures

Harald Atmanspacher, Joseph Cambray, Edgar Choueiri, Farzad Mahootian

Moderator: Beverley Zabriskie

How are mind and matter related? In the mid-20th century, the psychiatrist and analyst Carl Gustav Jung and the Nobel Laureate physicist Wolfgang Pauli formulated the concept of synchronicity. They sought a philosophical answer to this still unsolved question of how the mental and material, the physical and psychological are related in time. Pauli and Jung’s thesis suggests two types of mind-matter correlations for synchronistic experiences in which meaning is crucial.

In this second roundtable on "The Pauli-Jung Conjecture.”, the physicist Harald Atmanspacher and the Jungian Analyst Joseph Cambray will further the April 2014 discussion at the Helix Center (video at www.thehelixcenter.org ). Edgar Choueiri and Farzad Mahootian will argue its central thesis, that the mental and the material are two complementary and intersecting aspects of one underlying reality. (more here)

Wednesday, November 5th, 8 pm  Alumni Hall, NYU Langone Medical Center,  550 First Avenue between 30th and 32nd St. New York, New York

This program is free and open to the public.  Pre-registration (here) is required.

For more information, consult the JPA website www.nyjung.org or contact Allison Tuzo at JPA@nyjung.org

Duty in Plato's Republic and the Modern City

We never got to discuss this part of the power point, and it was absolutely crucial to understanding the city/soul analogy presented in Book IV. As we already saw, happiness in a city can be achieved if everyone is playing their part and doing the jobs that their nature entails them to do. This is loosely defined as the virtue of justice, although even then we don't have a very specific definition. "...one man should practice one thing only, the thing to which his nature was best adapted;- now justice is this principle or a part of it.” (Plato 123) In light of this, is it fair to assume that this applies in the modern day? It's a bit separatist in terms of class. At the moment, we live in a world that is becoming more and more about money, and we're all kind of caught in this race to get rich or die trying. New York City, in particular, has been put under scrutiny as a place that is no longer somewhere to look for opportunities, but rather a place to settle once one has acquired unfathomable wealth. What does this tell us about duty and our jobs? Cities are well-oiled machines because everyone is doing what they are meant to be doing, but how does nature decide what one is meant to be doing: does this refer to us following our passions to live happy lives (thus creating happy cities) or staying in our lanes and doing what we each need to do depending on our social status and what money we have at our disposal?

-Eduardo R.

Helping friends, Harming Enemies

In Plato's Republic, the quote, "justice is helping friends and harming enemies" is argued by Polymarchus. I strongly disagree with this because I feel that harming enemies and helping friends is in no way just. For instance, say that a murderer is on trial. Is it just for the murderer's friend to lie and defend him, even though the friend knows he's guilty? Of course not. Also, say that it was the opposite. If John's arch enemy is rich, according to Polymarches' statement, it wouldn't be wrong for John to steal from their enemy. Obviously, this is not justice. If everyone harmed their enemies and helped their friends, the world would be a mess. Harming people you don't like is not morally correct, especially if the reason for not liking them is trivial. I believe that this argument is totally wrong. Yes, of course you should try to help your friends, but not unjustly so. I don't think you should harm your enemies either, especially since harming one enemy may lead to the creation of many more enemies. Justice is about what's right, not about what a person feels like doing. You feel like punching your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend in the face? Well, you could do it, but it wouldn't be justice. In fact, it would even be wrong of you to do so.

Ritual & the Power of Words

When thinking about today's class discussion on ritual & the Way, I kept on thinking about the power of words & how we use them. The phrase "How are you?" is used daily, merely in passing & more as a common greeting than an actual question. I believe that in order to be successful in the environment we live in today, New York City especially, this is an essential thing that most seem to pick up on. After reading this article last year I told myself that whenever I would ask that common question to whmoever that I would genuinely want to know the answer, but sometimes even I forget. I just thought it was interesting that the article compares two totally different societies & creates a common link between the two with words. The main point that I was trying to show is that the same phrase is ritualistic in both settings, but contain different motives & meanings behind it. I believe that in New York sometimes fake niceness is used for success while in other places the motives behind questions or kindness can be totally different.

This is a paragraph from the article that I think does a nice job at describing the two societies different responses to the question briefly.

"In my native country, I had enough of eternal lamentations. People would complain any chance they had. They felt almost guilty doing well and were embarrassed to admit it; they wished to be pitied. A New Yorker, even in his saddest moments, when asked how is he doing, would calmly answer, Thank you, I am well. The answer, beyond its formalism, implicitly means he is not sharing his problems with you. Truth be told, this sparse and formal language brings its own kind of alienation. On the other hand, the abuse of strong words (love, happiness, God, etc.) are pretexts to avoid living their meaning profoundly." (Firan)

Read more: http://www.utne.com/arts/power-of-words-zm0z13mazros.aspx#ixzz3H1KEV1oH

Contradictions

I thought it was very interesting that in 13.16 the Master says, "[Act so that] those near to you are pleased, and those who are far from you are drawn close." I know this quote is not exactly the same in other versions of Analects, but the main idea behind it is consist through all translations. Is it not a contradiction to the Master's previous words? In earlier books he states that one must only work to please themselves and accomplish their own goals. They should not take into account any others in order to benefit themselves. This quote is stating the complete opposite of the Master's earlier account. It calls for one to work to please others, rather than to only please themselves. However, this may also be interpreted in a sense that one should please those near to them regarding family. In which case, the Master would not necessarily be posing contradicting ideas. The second interpretation is not how I viewed it myself. What do you think?

Grading Scale for the Midterm Examination

100          92            A

91            89            A-

88            85            B+

84            80            B

79            77            B-

76            73            C+

72            70            C

69            60            D

59            0              F

repetition of themes in the analects

Throughout reading The Analects something that I noticed was the repetition of the themes of humaneness and perception. Today in class one of the quotes we discussed was "One does not worry about the fact that other people do not appreciate one. One worries about not appreciating other people." (1.16) I feel like these ideas came up again in 4.3: "Only one who is humane is able to like other and able to dislike other people". I found this interesting because in a way it contradicts the idea presented in Book One. From that statement, I would assume that "appreciating" or "knowing" other people means that you don't lay harsh judgement on them, which is not the idea that 4.3 seems to promote. What do you guys think? Have you found any other passages that seem to relate back to the earlier books?

[As a side note, I found there to be a direct relationship between 1.16 and and 15.19: "The gentleman is pained at the lack of ability within himself; he is not pained at the fact that others do not appreciate him." This chapter seemed to be a continuation of 1.16 in that it further developed the idea that one can't be bothered by the opinions of others in a sense, which we talked about in class as well.]

The Stone: The Reign of ‘Terror’ http://t.co/tXHkeIdwKJ via @nytopinionator

— Ashley U. V. (@ProfVaught) October 20, 2014

Pity for those who may not deserve it?

Today in class you guys discussed pity and how we're able to feel empathy for those despite them being in the wrong. I couldn't think of an example during class but afterwards I thought of one based on a current event. I don't know if any of you heard from the news, but Teresa Guidice - a cast member from The Real Housewives of New Jersey - and her husband Joe Guidice have been sentenced to 15 months and 3.5 years in jail respectively after pleading guilty to multiple federal fraud charges, including conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and lying on mortgage and loan applications. Allegedly since 2004 they have been taking out false loans to amass a wealth of over $13 million in stolen money, in which the Federal Government caught notice of after the couple constantly flaunted their rich lifestyle and many possessions on the hit Bravo TV show. While the general public consensus is that they do deserve jail time, many people feel sympathy for them because their four young daughters will be without both parents for the next 4 - 5 years (they received staggered sentences). Also, it is believed that external influences, such as the pressure to maintain this lifestyle to impress the viewers of the show and Teresa's supposed lack of knowledge of the content of the documents she was signing off for her husband contributed to their crimes. Also, Joe Guidice who isn't an American citizen (he's originally from Italy) can possibly be deported after he serves his time. Many people feel bad for that possibility because it will only further tear the parents away from the children, whether he deserves it or not.

Sorry if this tangent was too long, but I just thought this was a good example on an ongoing situation in which a lot of people feel bad for wrongdoers and are able to look past their negative actions because of the situations surrounding it.

Persuasive Speeches

Throughout the book there are many speeches that might or might not be very accurate but they do have a common theme. I've noticed that every time a figure of authority wants his army to act a certain way, that would be beneficial for their land, they say a speech. They refer a lot to ancestors and honor so the arm can feel a sense of responsibility to fight with pride. Most speeches are persuasive but different men use different tactics to persuade. For example, in Book 6 from paragraph 8-24 we see that Nikias is trying to persuade the Athenians not to go on the journey to Sicily but Alcibiades convinces them to go. However, Nikias didn't give up and gave another speech but this time instead of telling them not to go, he stated all of Sicily's strengths to scare the Athenians. Nonetheless, it didn't work but Thucydides made it clear that speeches were used as a way to persuade with authority.

the power of speeches

We discussed how there are themes of lawlessness and honor in Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War. The US constitution details that the president needs to "give to Congress information of the State of the Union...as he shall judge necessary and expedient." (article II). However, it does not say anywhere that the address need be given in a specific form; as radio and television gained popularity much later on, it was only then that State of the Union addresses were given as broadcasted speeches. Before this, they were often just a written address to Congress. Today, if a president were to not give the State of the Union address as a speech it is likely that the American people would feel thrown off or maybe even uncomfortable due to the lack of its presence. Perikles gives a speech in The Peloponnesian War after the plague to try and calm the people and restore a sense of order. "For one who has ideas and does not instruct clearly is on the same level as if he had not thought of them," (II, 60) he says, which indicates his loyalty to helping his people through and out of such a difficult time of war and sickness. Perikles' speech boosts morale and allows him to reach the people on a more personal and comforting level. Are there other examples of speeches (possibly even ones more current) that act in the way Perikles' speech did?

Link for free Microsoft Office!

Found the link for free Office. It includes Word, Powerpoint, Excel, and some other stuff. Just log in with your NYU email address. Enjoy!

https://portal.office.com/start?sku=e82ae690-a2d5-4d76-8d30-7c6e01e6022e

Fear among the Athenians

Throughout this book, I have noticed a theme of fear. In book 1, it is states that "in action [we] fall short in the presence of fear"(Bk. §121).  It is made clear that men cannot fight with fear, as it will negatively impact their fighting skills, causing them to lose their battles. This fear is seen once again in book 2 when the Athenians blame Perikles for their losing the war at that given time. They agreed with him to participate in the war, but along with the plague, the Athenians are losing many of their people in the war. They are angry with this outcome, and therefore place the blame on Perikles. However, they proceed to elect Perikles as general and "considered him the most valuable man for the needs of the whole city" (Bk. 2 §65). I believe the Athenians did this out of fear, as they knew they could not handle the war without a leader, and sought Perikles to be the most fit. They continued to say that "when they were unreasonably afraid, he restored them to confidence" (Bk. 2 §65). The Athenians could only calm their fear through Perikles, therefore, they needed him to be their leader in such a time of trepidation. Without a leader, the Athenians would not know what to do in order to win the war, as their fear would keep them from attempting their own actions.

"No Spin Zone"

Most news agencies today claim to be unbiased. We discussed in the class today the notion that the information provider, i.e. the press secretary, is able to spin the news in its favor. However I think the burden of spinning falls on whomever is claiming to report fact. The reason I say this is, though Josh Earnest can choose to include and omit certain details of a story, it is up to the reporter to work with the facts given. For the most part, everybody is getting the same information at a press briefing. However it is the news agencies that can manipulate the facts given. Agency One will publish, "Coal companies must reduce CO2 emissions to record lows after President's new restrictions." Agency Two will publish, "Thousands of jobs lost after President imposes crippling restrictions on coal companies." My point is, it is not as much the facts given, but how they are manipulated.

God: A Contradiction

As we continue to study the Bible, I increasingly see both inherent and growing contradictions present in God and the concept of "faith". We touched on this in previous classes: God as an omniscient and omnipotent figure, however, as a figure who cannot, or chooses not to foresee future mistakes and wrongdoings by both himself and the people. He shows himself as an omniscient figure in that he has many powers, knows the actions of others, knows which animals to eat and how to live, etc., however, he shows a sense of regret after the flood, and when he asks people to perform tasks for him and they do not act correctly, he punishes them harshly. If he knows some will fail, why even ask? Moreover, why can't he stop suffering? When he talks to Moses, (Exodus 2:3) he acknowledges the suffering and cruel treatment of "his people." Why can he interfere some times and not others? There is this supposed concept of free will, yet it seems free will cannot ever truly be attained when God permeates life and everyone must obey. Furthermore, God expresses that the human race is "wicked" and that humans are evil from youth. If this is true, why expect humans to be good? And when humans make mistakes that he should ultimately know they would make, why be cruel to them? Humans are supposed to have faith and trust in God, yet how can they do that when there is a constant threat of plague, famine, and other punishments? God states in Deuteronomy that he will love those who obey him, yet he is still an authoritarian ruler that would be feared in our age. (This is another question in itself: how do the people we see in the Bible truly regard him: with fear? Respect? Admiration? Disdain?) God contradicts himself on multiple occasions, such as when he states that killing in terrible and makes in a commandment not to kill- something one would be put to death for- yet kills mass amounts of people in frequently cruel ways. He also states in Genesis: "Obey me and always do what is right" (Genesis 16:17) yet what if those are at odds with each other? What does God think is right? Is obeying God always right? If so, then why didn't he just say, "Always obey me?" How did his hypocritical actions and character overall morph into the loving and wholesome Lord and savior that we know today?

Feminist (and Anti-Feminist) Themes as Seen in "Esther" and "Deuteronomy"

With the feminist movement quickly gaining momentum in today's world, and the role of women having greatly expanded in importance and pre-eminence over the years, it's near-impossible not to view the Bible through the lens of the feminist ideology. In Deuteronomy, we see a mass objectification of women, to the point that they are treated no better than cattle, and even rape victims get stoned, simply for not asking for help, while their rapists get stoned for having raped another man's wife (Deuteronomy 22:24). We see a powerful anti-feminist sentiment here, among other places, where woman are placed in no better position than any other piece of property owned by a man. By contrast, the Book of Esther features a woman in a position of power. What makes Esther's ascent to royalty so astounding, besides the fact that back then woman did not have many rights, was that she was Jewish, and was thus safe from the bigotry and cruelty endured by her people and, later in the chapter, even has the power to save them from Haman.  Esther has to implore her husband, King Xerxes, who is the one to hang Haman in the gallows in the end, to do something about the situation. It could be argued that Esther has to get the help of a man to do anything at all, but in the end, it was her decision. She held her husband's affections, and had the power and courage to save her people, a strong positive female figure as opposed to the oppressed and objectified women seen put down by the laws in Deuteronomy. Thoughts?

- Eduardo R.

The Role of Aaron

One thing we haven't brought up at all is the presence and role of Aaron (Moses' brother) in Exodus. I think it's interesting that God speaks through Moses who speaks through Aaron. I want to pose the question as to why this was needed? I know it says that Moses is not good with words, but if he's carrying the message of God, does he need to be or can he just repeat what God has said? It starts out with Moses and Aaron being a joint group, always together. God even calls Moses a god and Aaron his prophet. But later in Exodus, we see Moses speaking without Aaron. I feel like this shows a subtle character development in Moses. I feel like this is an interesting aspect to Exodus that we haven't covered at all.

The Number Seven

In Genesis God creates everything in six days and on the seventh day he rested. As I kept reading, in Deuteronomy the number seven seems to come up again but this time the Lord is giving law that must be done in seven days, weeks, etc. Seven is a holy number throughout the bible but we can see how humans first applied it in chapter 16 of Deuteronomy. As stated, "Seven days you shall keep the festival to the Lord your God at the place that the Lord will choose..." (Deuteronomy 16:15) This quote also demonstrates how everything that the people must do must be at a chosen place—a place that only God can chose which made the even more sacred event. Everyone did exactly what God asked for in the specific amount of time that he wanted because of the harsh punishments that God also established; I saw a new side of God in this chapter. However, God wanted people to appreciate what he has done for humans. Maybe God wanted humans to do things in seven days, weeks, etc. as a way of thanking him for creating us

deuteronomy - holy wars

Chapter 20 of Deuteronomy, addresses waging holy wars. It says one should enter a town and it and attempt to offer peace. If those terms are rejected and the town surrenders, then "the the people in it shall serve you at forced labor" (Deuteronomy 20:11). Granted, God never lays out a specific commandment that states "you should not enslave others". The closest commandment there is to this would be "you shall not steal" (Exodous 20:15), as in stealing freedom from another (but this is an incredible stretch). Despite this, I would think that there isn't much honor in promoting the enslavement of others, especially given the fact that they were slaves in Egypt and understand the suffering. It's likely that I'm skeptical because I wasn't brought up religiously, but I still don't see the sense in forcing others to suffer in such a way that one would understand the pain of.

God and Sacrifice

God asks for animal sacrifice multiple times from various holy men (i.e. Abraham), such as cattle, lamb, and goat. What I don't understand is why God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, to test his faith in Genesis 22. In Exodus 20:13, it clearly states, "You shall not murder", yet this is what God asks of Abraham. When God sees that Abraham is willing to kill his most beloved son, is that act actually proving Abraham's faith of God or will to sin for God? Why would God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, when He doesn't want humans to murder? So God is testing Abraham to do something contrary to what Abraham knows is wrong in order to prove that God is above all else, including His own law? Hypothetically, were God to ask someone to kill to prove their faith and didn't stop them from murdering like He did with Abraham, what would this mean? I feel that if God's angel had not come in time to stop Abraham from killing Isaac, the story would have turned out very differently. Would God have punished Abraham for committing a sin, although God had requested he do so? Or would He be pleased, seeing that anything He says goes? Is God's word above His own word? How can God request someone to break His own rules? Although the Exodus (when God officially states, "You shall not murder" in Exodus 20:13) does indeed follow the Genesis, I think that it was already widely known that God didn't want humans to kill before then, since God does indeed punish Cain early in the story for killing his brother Abel in Genesis 4:10 (and in punishing Cain, God implies that killing is wrong).

Published by Cat Leone

Genesis (with experience comes knowledge)

After thinking about what I could take away from the discussion in class today, I realized that one of the main points that we didn't get to really address is that with experience comes knowledge. You don't know that you are doing something wrong in my opinion if it isn't made clear to you or you don't have previous knowledge about it. A perfect example in my opinion that I can think of is when God creates the flood. The flood is used as a mechanism to almost cleanse the earth, because he believes that it has somehow become almost corrupt. Afterwords though a chapter or two later in Genesis, he actually says that "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; not will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.." (Chapter 8) I believe that  just as God gains knowledge from his experiences, so does everyone else. The tricky part in my opinion about this concept is that  it is hard to justify his actions as good or bad because he did not know any better. Now, many people reference the Bible or what they have learned from past experiences to make decisions or take action. But in this case, I believe the perfect way to describe how God as well as everyone else gains knowledge through experience is that sometimes in life, you just don't know any better & do what you feel is best.

Some reading Notes, the Book of Genesis

1. Why are there two different accounts of the creation?  What are some of the significant differences between the two accounts?

2. In what ways can the account of the creation of non-human nature support an environmental ethic?

3. What is the significance of naming, the power of man in the second creation account?

4. Compare the east of Eden in 3:24 and 4:16.

5. God speaks directly to Noah, to tell him how large to build the boat, to prepare for the flood, etc.

6. So all of the landed creatures and birds were killed, but none of the sea creatures (including the "monsters," 1:21).  But when they get off the ark, even though the land creatures were gathered, presumably, so that they might repopulate the earth after the flood, Noah uses one of many "clean" species as a burnt offering (8:20).

7. Blood is life, and cannot be consumed (9:4).  Only cooked flesh, for raw flesh is an injury to God's creation.

8. 9:6?

9. 

Course texts with links to Amazon.com

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha. Edited by Marc Z. Brettler, Michael Coogan and Carol Newsom. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. ISBN: 9780195289602.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Oxford-Annotated-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289609

Confucius. Analects. Translated and edited by Raymond Dawson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN: 9780199540617.

http://www.amazon.com/Analects-Oxford-Worlds-Classics/dp/0199540616/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409662038&sr=1-1&keywords=9780199540617

Allan Bloom, trans. The Republic of Plato. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books, 1991. ISBN: 9780465069347.

http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Plato-Second/dp/0465069347/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409662114&sr=1-1&keywords=9780465069347

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War. Translated and edited by Steven Lattimore. Hackett Publishing Co., 1998. ISBN: 9780872203945.

http://www.amazon.com/Peloponnesian-War-Thucydides/dp/0872203948/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409662221&sr=1-1&keywords=peloponnesian+war+thucydides+hackett

Augustine. City of God. Translated by Gerald G. Walsh. Abridged ed. New York: Image Books/Doubleday, 1958. ISBN: 9780385029100.

http://www.amazon.com/City-God-Image-Classics-Augustine/dp/0385029101