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