Question: Should we stand by and do nothing as corrupt people/ systems take advantage of weaker people? Or should we conform to this system that we believe is unjust?
Answer:
Do not conform to a system that you believe is unjust. Never lose sight of your humanity; if a person/ system takes advantage of weaker people, do not stand by and idle. Say what you know to be right, but do not stand alone. Get other people who believe what you believe to help you. The bond that God values most is between people and other people, not between people and systems.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Parable Draft #1
Many times, the socio-economic aspect of life in the Bible times are ignored because it makes people uncomfortable.[1] By questioning the canon of the Bible, they themselves question their own religious integrity. Because many interpreters are of upper or middle class backgrounds, they feel uncomfortable when faced with the dilemma of what to interpret when Jesus openly antagonizes the rich and powerful (much of what was not antagonization, but the actual truth).[2] But many times these interpreters commit the fallacy of relating God to the tax-collectors, or client-king, or whoever does the economic exploiting at the time.[3]
The socio-economic aspect plays a major role in the Parable of the Talents. In it, a man (presumably wealthy, as he has many servants) goes on a long journey. This also hints at his power because back at those times, nobody traveled a long distance unless it was of huge importance. He probably either went to attain client-kingship, or simply pursue his household’s interests abroad (another note of his mass amount of power).[4] He obviously was wealthy enough to have a hierarchy in his own household, as “each according to his ability” could very well actually mean “each according to his rank”.[5] He assigned his wealth proportionately to his servants, whom he trusted. A talent is much too large an amount of money to leave in the hands of untrustworthy people: obviously, the master was not testing his servants.[6]
While the first two higher ranking servants went to increase their talents, the third servant buried his one talent. Why did he do this? Because in ancient Israel, if money was buried upon receipt, the receiver was not liable if it was stolen.[7] Burying money was an acceptable way of protecting it. The third servant acted extremely cautious, though not necessarily to protect his master’s investment. He buried it because he feared his master’s wrath had it been stolen, because he believed his master to be unfair and severe.[8] The servant acted to protect himself from the master, who he believed would not punish him for acting cautiously.
At the end of the parable, the third servant is humiliated by his master. No doubt his perception of his master’s unfairness was correct. Also the first two servants went and made money, setting the bar for which the third servant would be judged; the master was indeed unfair.[9] When the third servant tells his master that he believes that “you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed”. He basically tells his master that he did not want to work for him anymore, and to shove it. The master, the third servant conveys, takes what is not his. His master, being a wealthy man, no doubt used his power to exploit others for personal gain.[10] The third servant wants none of this, and blatantly tells his master so. His burial of the money tells us that he assumes no responsibility whatsoever for the master’s “blood money”, and that he also fears for his own life. The third servant tried to take the most prudent route available to rebel against his master.
[1] Norman K. Gottwald, Social Class as an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 112, Spring 1993), 3-22
[2] Gottwald, Social Class as an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies, 4
[3] Ibid, 21
[4] Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) 154-168
[5] Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed, 158
[6] Ibid, 159
[7] E. Carson Brisson, Matthew 14-30, (Between Text and Sermon, July 2002) 1-4
[8] E. Carson Brisson, Matthew 14-30, 3
[9] Ibid, 3
[10] Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed, 163
The socio-economic aspect plays a major role in the Parable of the Talents. In it, a man (presumably wealthy, as he has many servants) goes on a long journey. This also hints at his power because back at those times, nobody traveled a long distance unless it was of huge importance. He probably either went to attain client-kingship, or simply pursue his household’s interests abroad (another note of his mass amount of power).[4] He obviously was wealthy enough to have a hierarchy in his own household, as “each according to his ability” could very well actually mean “each according to his rank”.[5] He assigned his wealth proportionately to his servants, whom he trusted. A talent is much too large an amount of money to leave in the hands of untrustworthy people: obviously, the master was not testing his servants.[6]
While the first two higher ranking servants went to increase their talents, the third servant buried his one talent. Why did he do this? Because in ancient Israel, if money was buried upon receipt, the receiver was not liable if it was stolen.[7] Burying money was an acceptable way of protecting it. The third servant acted extremely cautious, though not necessarily to protect his master’s investment. He buried it because he feared his master’s wrath had it been stolen, because he believed his master to be unfair and severe.[8] The servant acted to protect himself from the master, who he believed would not punish him for acting cautiously.
At the end of the parable, the third servant is humiliated by his master. No doubt his perception of his master’s unfairness was correct. Also the first two servants went and made money, setting the bar for which the third servant would be judged; the master was indeed unfair.[9] When the third servant tells his master that he believes that “you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed”. He basically tells his master that he did not want to work for him anymore, and to shove it. The master, the third servant conveys, takes what is not his. His master, being a wealthy man, no doubt used his power to exploit others for personal gain.[10] The third servant wants none of this, and blatantly tells his master so. His burial of the money tells us that he assumes no responsibility whatsoever for the master’s “blood money”, and that he also fears for his own life. The third servant tried to take the most prudent route available to rebel against his master.
[1] Norman K. Gottwald, Social Class as an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 112, Spring 1993), 3-22
[2] Gottwald, Social Class as an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies, 4
[3] Ibid, 21
[4] Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994) 154-168
[5] Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed, 158
[6] Ibid, 159
[7] E. Carson Brisson, Matthew 14-30, (Between Text and Sermon, July 2002) 1-4
[8] E. Carson Brisson, Matthew 14-30, 3
[9] Ibid, 3
[10] Walter Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed, 163
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Parable Documentation
1. Read the parable. Then re-read, paying attention to every detail/word. Get facts, summarize story.
In the parable of the talents, a man (presumably a wealthy man) leaves on a long journey. Before he leaves, he summons his three servants. The man gives one of them five talents, the other two, and the last servant one talent. The first servant immediately goes and makes another five talents with his original talents. The second servant does likewise and doubles his amount of talents, finishing with four. The third servant (who received one) goes and buries his talent in the ground. Upon the master's return, he is pleased with his first two servants' doings and promises them bigger responsibilities in the future. When he talks to the third servant, the third servant tells him that he knew that the master was demanding, and "reap what he has not sown", and he was fearful, so he did not do anything with the money. The master is outraged and calls the servant lazy and slothful, and gives his talent to the first servant, and casts him out.
2. Put into context based on what you know about ancient Israel.
The master left on a long journey, so evidently it was a trip of significance. He left his talents in the hands of his servants. A talent is too large a sum of money to be leaving in the hands of untrustworthy people, so the master must have trusted all the servants greatly; apparently he was not testing them. When it says that the master gave the talents according to ability, it may have been according to rank in the elite household hierarchy. The first two servants used their talents to gain more talents, evidence that they may have exploited other people on their way to attain what they got. The third servant buried his master's money in the ground. Back in ancient Israel, if a man buried money upon receiving it, he was not responsible for it if it was stolen. The thrid servants' words to his master suggest that his master is a powerful man that exploites those around him for personal gain. The servants' words had little effect because of his lower ranking among the hierarchy, and they were discarded along with him.
3. Determine who the audience is and why Jesus would tell this specific parable to this specific audience at this specific time.
Jesus was explaining the idea of the Kingdom of God, specifically judgement day, to his audience outside a temple in Jerusalem. His audience was probably economically diverse, as he was in Jerusalem, and he was close to a temple. Jesus probably told this because he witnessed injustices handed down by leaders and pharisees, who he criticized earlier. He criticized them, and then he came up with a parable to express his discontent with their exploitive actions. The parable itself has passive resistance in it, and it condemns aggressive resistance. Those who resist aggresively will be discarded, Jesus says. He may be discreetly telling the peasants to passively resist the injustices of the elite at that time, because if they told it how it was, they would be thrown out.
4. Determine which character is essential to the story. Analyze his actions, why he did them. Also analyze his background.
The third servant, the one who receives one talent from his master, is the essential character to the story. By burying his master's money, he was showing that he was not responsible for it, which was obtained through exploiting the poorer, weaker class. He does not want to take responsibility for his master's "blood money", but he is also cautious; by burying it, he is absolved from liability if it is stolen. He does not want to be held responsible for anything. Because the third servant is given only one talent, it can be assumed that he is the lowest ranking of the servants. His master trusted him the least, and his servant showed him why by telling him to shove it.
5. Find the purpose of the parable/ what it is trying to convey to the audience.
The purpose of the parable is to teach the audience about morality. If one thinks that something is wrong, then one should intervene and stop it. Do not just do what everyone else is doing; stand up for what you believe in. But you do not have to do it directly; the third servant passively rebelled by not doing anything with his master's money. But when the servant told the master what he thought was wrong with him, he was discarded. Jesus is trying to tell his audience that they can passively resist elitist rule without violence because when a lower class person tells the truth of injustice, he is just discarded.
6. Capture the essence/moral lesson/ how this relates to the Kingdom of God.
Again, the moral lesson being brought up by Jesus is to stand up for what you believe in. Do not go with the flow. If you know something is wrong, then do something about it. do not just sit idle and go along with everyone else. When people exploit other people who are weak and powerless, it is time to step in just as the third servant did.
7. Apply to a current event.
In the parable of the talents, a man (presumably a wealthy man) leaves on a long journey. Before he leaves, he summons his three servants. The man gives one of them five talents, the other two, and the last servant one talent. The first servant immediately goes and makes another five talents with his original talents. The second servant does likewise and doubles his amount of talents, finishing with four. The third servant (who received one) goes and buries his talent in the ground. Upon the master's return, he is pleased with his first two servants' doings and promises them bigger responsibilities in the future. When he talks to the third servant, the third servant tells him that he knew that the master was demanding, and "reap what he has not sown", and he was fearful, so he did not do anything with the money. The master is outraged and calls the servant lazy and slothful, and gives his talent to the first servant, and casts him out.
2. Put into context based on what you know about ancient Israel.
The master left on a long journey, so evidently it was a trip of significance. He left his talents in the hands of his servants. A talent is too large a sum of money to be leaving in the hands of untrustworthy people, so the master must have trusted all the servants greatly; apparently he was not testing them. When it says that the master gave the talents according to ability, it may have been according to rank in the elite household hierarchy. The first two servants used their talents to gain more talents, evidence that they may have exploited other people on their way to attain what they got. The third servant buried his master's money in the ground. Back in ancient Israel, if a man buried money upon receiving it, he was not responsible for it if it was stolen. The thrid servants' words to his master suggest that his master is a powerful man that exploites those around him for personal gain. The servants' words had little effect because of his lower ranking among the hierarchy, and they were discarded along with him.
3. Determine who the audience is and why Jesus would tell this specific parable to this specific audience at this specific time.
Jesus was explaining the idea of the Kingdom of God, specifically judgement day, to his audience outside a temple in Jerusalem. His audience was probably economically diverse, as he was in Jerusalem, and he was close to a temple. Jesus probably told this because he witnessed injustices handed down by leaders and pharisees, who he criticized earlier. He criticized them, and then he came up with a parable to express his discontent with their exploitive actions. The parable itself has passive resistance in it, and it condemns aggressive resistance. Those who resist aggresively will be discarded, Jesus says. He may be discreetly telling the peasants to passively resist the injustices of the elite at that time, because if they told it how it was, they would be thrown out.
4. Determine which character is essential to the story. Analyze his actions, why he did them. Also analyze his background.
The third servant, the one who receives one talent from his master, is the essential character to the story. By burying his master's money, he was showing that he was not responsible for it, which was obtained through exploiting the poorer, weaker class. He does not want to take responsibility for his master's "blood money", but he is also cautious; by burying it, he is absolved from liability if it is stolen. He does not want to be held responsible for anything. Because the third servant is given only one talent, it can be assumed that he is the lowest ranking of the servants. His master trusted him the least, and his servant showed him why by telling him to shove it.
5. Find the purpose of the parable/ what it is trying to convey to the audience.
The purpose of the parable is to teach the audience about morality. If one thinks that something is wrong, then one should intervene and stop it. Do not just do what everyone else is doing; stand up for what you believe in. But you do not have to do it directly; the third servant passively rebelled by not doing anything with his master's money. But when the servant told the master what he thought was wrong with him, he was discarded. Jesus is trying to tell his audience that they can passively resist elitist rule without violence because when a lower class person tells the truth of injustice, he is just discarded.
6. Capture the essence/moral lesson/ how this relates to the Kingdom of God.
Again, the moral lesson being brought up by Jesus is to stand up for what you believe in. Do not go with the flow. If you know something is wrong, then do something about it. do not just sit idle and go along with everyone else. When people exploit other people who are weak and powerless, it is time to step in just as the third servant did.
7. Apply to a current event.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Herzog
Herzog brings up the fallacy of saintliness in the Parable of the Talents. He asks, if the man leaving for the journey is like God, then why does the third servant describe him as demanding and oppurtunistic? The thrid servant says that the master collects what he does not own. Herzog also uses the Lukan version of the parable to help out. The servants may not have been given the talents according to ability, but according to rank. After describing the hierarchy of the elite household, Herzog goes into the economic and social standing of the parable time period. He says that the owner went to attain client-kingship from the ruler. The man leaving on the journey went far away, giving the hint that is a journey of significance. Also, one talent is too much money to leave in the hands of untrustworthy people, so the master must have trusted all of his servants a lot. Obviously, he was not testing his servants. The servants all do stuff with their money. The first and second both double their amounts, while the third buries his in the ground. The servants must have done this to get in the master's good graces when he returned, because they were not allowed to keep any of it. They used it to exploit people to gain more wealth, as their master had done in the past. The first two servants were given bigger responsibilities upon the master's return. The third servant defies the master and tells him what he really thinks of him. He says that the master exploits others for his own gain. The servant's words were so true that he was humiliated in front of everybody, and his words had no effect. The master was quick to label him lazy and takes away his talent. This was the price that the servant paid for telling the truth.
The sociology in Bible times has been largely ignored because it poses a threat to religious integrity. People are also reluctant to point out flaws in the Bible as they do not want to lineate and point out the huge gap between the rich and the poor, causing structural divisions. Social classes exist when one group takes advantage of surplus labor from other groups. There exists two divisions: the exploiters and the exploitees. The vast majority of the people at Bible times were the exploitees, exploited by the powerful exploitive elite few. At Bible times, the idea of a good kingdom was one full of peace and production of revenue. People are reluctant to point out flaws in social classes because they are afraid of being made to feel guilty. When people misinterpret parables, they compare God to the wealthy exploiters.
The sociology in Bible times has been largely ignored because it poses a threat to religious integrity. People are also reluctant to point out flaws in the Bible as they do not want to lineate and point out the huge gap between the rich and the poor, causing structural divisions. Social classes exist when one group takes advantage of surplus labor from other groups. There exists two divisions: the exploiters and the exploitees. The vast majority of the people at Bible times were the exploitees, exploited by the powerful exploitive elite few. At Bible times, the idea of a good kingdom was one full of peace and production of revenue. People are reluctant to point out flaws in social classes because they are afraid of being made to feel guilty. When people misinterpret parables, they compare God to the wealthy exploiters.
Research
Brisson, E. Carson. "Matthew 25:14-30. (Between Text and Sermon)." Interpretation 56.3 (July 2002): 307(4). General OneFile. Gale. St Marys High School (BAISL). 12 Nov. 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Final Reading Strategy
1. Read the parable. Then re-read, paying attention to every detail/word. Get facts, smmarize story.
2. Put into context based on what you know about ancient Israel.
3. Determine who the audience is and why Jesus would tell this specific parable to this specific audience at this specific time.
4. Determine which character is essential to the story. Analyze his actions, why he did them. Also analyze his background.
5. Find the purpose of the parable/ what it is trying to convey to the audience.
6. Capture the essence/moral lesson/ how this relates to the Kingdom of God.
7. Apply to a current event.
2. Put into context based on what you know about ancient Israel.
3. Determine who the audience is and why Jesus would tell this specific parable to this specific audience at this specific time.
4. Determine which character is essential to the story. Analyze his actions, why he did them. Also analyze his background.
5. Find the purpose of the parable/ what it is trying to convey to the audience.
6. Capture the essence/moral lesson/ how this relates to the Kingdom of God.
7. Apply to a current event.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Interpretation Methodology
1. Read the story. Read it carefully, paying attention to every word and detail.
2. Find what the parable addresses. Determine what issue Jesus is trying to confront. Use any knowledge you have about ancient Israel, combined with the details expressed in the story to put it into context.
3. Find out who the audience of the parable is. Ask yourself why Jesus would tell this parable to this particular audience, and whay he tells this specific story to them.
4. Decide who the main character is in the parable. Find out who or what he/it represents based on what you know already. Make sure that the character changes throughout the course of the story.
5. Determine if Jesus is criticizing the character's behavior or promoting it. Ask yourself why Jesus is doing this, and why he expresses his beliefs mainly through this character.
6. Placing the story into context, ask questions regarding every character's behavior. Determine why the characters act the way they do.
7. Finally, based on what you found out about the parable using the above steps, determine the purpose of the parable, and what it has to do with the Kingdom of God.
2. Find what the parable addresses. Determine what issue Jesus is trying to confront. Use any knowledge you have about ancient Israel, combined with the details expressed in the story to put it into context.
3. Find out who the audience of the parable is. Ask yourself why Jesus would tell this parable to this particular audience, and whay he tells this specific story to them.
4. Decide who the main character is in the parable. Find out who or what he/it represents based on what you know already. Make sure that the character changes throughout the course of the story.
5. Determine if Jesus is criticizing the character's behavior or promoting it. Ask yourself why Jesus is doing this, and why he expresses his beliefs mainly through this character.
6. Placing the story into context, ask questions regarding every character's behavior. Determine why the characters act the way they do.
7. Finally, based on what you found out about the parable using the above steps, determine the purpose of the parable, and what it has to do with the Kingdom of God.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
System Examples
Nobody at Countrywide made a serious attempt to help the man who had limited knowledge of the English language and Parkinson's disease. Maybe they felt that if they let him off, other people would want this show of mercy from them and try to exploit this "weakness". Countrywide did attempt to help by offering a $350,000 loan, but it was not enough for the man who needed $500,000 to buy back his house. I believe that Countrywide acted legally, but I still disagree with their actions. I believe that no matter how powerful a person (or company) becomes, he/she (or it) must never lose touch with his/her humanity. Countrywide did nothing wrong from a business standpoint, but from a moral and ethical standpoint, they commited a horrible crime. It is understandable that Countrywide feels that giving the man back his house would be bad for business, as it would show a weakness, but I believe that he should be given back his house based on his history of paying all the bills that he was able to understand.
The Stanford Prison Experiment reveals the true nature of most systems. Those who became powerful (the guards) began abusing their power shortly after the beginning of the experiment, and conformed to the prison guard mentality. The prisoners became victimized and powerless, and conformed to the prisoner mentality. Systems give power to one group and in turn take power away from another. Normal people who received power soon began using it against the other group of normal people that had had their power taken away from them. Normal people began behaving badly because of the power shift; systems are all about those in power, and a normal person with a little bit of power over another person is quick to exploit this.
The Stanford Prison Experiment reveals the true nature of most systems. Those who became powerful (the guards) began abusing their power shortly after the beginning of the experiment, and conformed to the prison guard mentality. The prisoners became victimized and powerless, and conformed to the prisoner mentality. Systems give power to one group and in turn take power away from another. Normal people who received power soon began using it against the other group of normal people that had had their power taken away from them. Normal people began behaving badly because of the power shift; systems are all about those in power, and a normal person with a little bit of power over another person is quick to exploit this.
Monday, October 29, 2007
unethical systems
Most systems turn out to be self-serving and unethical because it is human nature to try to one-up each other; greed is what drives people. These systems may start out with good intentions, but competition with other systems causes the original systems to try to adapt to survive. Humans are self-serving and at many times are unethical. There is nothing that can be done to change this; it has been this way since the beginning of time, beginning with Cain and Abel. For example, many politicians get into politics because they want to “change the way things are going”. But often times, their original purpose is lost in the backstabbing and cheapshot world of politics. To get what they want, they have to strike deals with other politicians, compromising their own ethics. Also, take the utopian experiments in America in the 1800’s. Because these communes held fast to their beliefs and did not try to change and conform, they failed. The notion of free enterprise and capitalism caused these systems to collapse because they did not try to adapt; to appeal to the human side of their inhabitants. The concept of self-success became too enticing. Systems in place tend to be self-serving because in today’s world (and the world of the past), it has been the only sure way to guarantee survival of the system.
People confrom to systems because they believe that they can benefit from the conformity. Systems often end up harmful because people are deceived into believing that they are being provided for, when in many cases does not occur. Systems are started by a group that eventually becomes the elite. These elitists form the system in an attempt to survive competition with other elitists who also want to establish their own systems. Systems may also become "evil" as a result of oblivious participants who do not care about the different parts working together to complete the system. The participants cannot, or will not, acknowledge their participation in another part of the system even though they are responsible. The participants may also be selfish and self-serving, which only contributes to the selfishness and self-serving mentality of the system. The intention behind systems is to include everyone, but often times this does not happen; the rich and powerful hold the power while the masses are held in ignorance, believing that they are also being benefitted by this system. People join systems in order to feel "included", and many times they are; but in most cases, they are left with the illusion that they are included, when in fact they are not.
People confrom to systems because they believe that they can benefit from the conformity. Systems often end up harmful because people are deceived into believing that they are being provided for, when in many cases does not occur. Systems are started by a group that eventually becomes the elite. These elitists form the system in an attempt to survive competition with other elitists who also want to establish their own systems. Systems may also become "evil" as a result of oblivious participants who do not care about the different parts working together to complete the system. The participants cannot, or will not, acknowledge their participation in another part of the system even though they are responsible. The participants may also be selfish and self-serving, which only contributes to the selfishness and self-serving mentality of the system. The intention behind systems is to include everyone, but often times this does not happen; the rich and powerful hold the power while the masses are held in ignorance, believing that they are also being benefitted by this system. People join systems in order to feel "included", and many times they are; but in most cases, they are left with the illusion that they are included, when in fact they are not.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
1. The Parable of the Unmerciful servant is about a "servant" to a king, probably a high-ranking official. He owed the king a huge debt, and was ordered into slavery by the king. But he begged the king for time to pay off the debt, and the king, moved by pity, forgave the debt entirely. Later on, the "servant" called in a small debt of one of his underlings. His underling was unable to pay the debt; the official choked him and had him thrown in jail. The king is the main character because he is at the top of the pyramid. He controls his servants through fear; his servants rule their servants through fear, and so on. The king has been ruling this way so long that it has been imprinted into everyone in the pyramid. One instance of change in his iron-fisted ways will not radiate throughout the pyramid.
2. The king decides to forgive the debt because the sight of the begging "servant" was so pitiful, he felt sorry for him. It was so pitiful that instead of allowing the servant more time to pay the debt as requested, the king forgave the debt completely. Moved by sympathy, the king showed a glimpse of emotion.
3. The servant does not forgive the debt because the process of ruling by fear has been imprinted into him. The king has a small change of heart, but this does not affect the servant, who himself has been ruling by fear. Because the servant has been ruling this way for so long, the king's forgiveness does not rub off on him. He feels that he still has to keep his servants in line, even though it would make him a hypcrite.
4. We can relate this parable to the Kingdom of God by seeing how this parable condemns hypocrites. The king showed mercy to the servant for a large debt, but the servant does not show mercy to his own servant for a small debt. The king punishes the high-level servant for not showing mercy and making him look bad. The Kingdom of God endorses humanity, none of which was shown by the servant.
2. The king decides to forgive the debt because the sight of the begging "servant" was so pitiful, he felt sorry for him. It was so pitiful that instead of allowing the servant more time to pay the debt as requested, the king forgave the debt completely. Moved by sympathy, the king showed a glimpse of emotion.
3. The servant does not forgive the debt because the process of ruling by fear has been imprinted into him. The king has a small change of heart, but this does not affect the servant, who himself has been ruling by fear. Because the servant has been ruling this way for so long, the king's forgiveness does not rub off on him. He feels that he still has to keep his servants in line, even though it would make him a hypcrite.
4. We can relate this parable to the Kingdom of God by seeing how this parable condemns hypocrites. The king showed mercy to the servant for a large debt, but the servant does not show mercy to his own servant for a small debt. The king punishes the high-level servant for not showing mercy and making him look bad. The Kingdom of God endorses humanity, none of which was shown by the servant.
Monday, October 15, 2007
U.S. Involvement
1. Didn't the United Nations create the state of Israel? Why didn't it create a State of Palestine too? Why doesnt't it now?
The United Nations, given the region of Palestine by the British after WWII, partitioned 55% of the land to create a Jewish nation. The other 45% was set aside to later become a free Palestinian state. The Palestinian state never came into existence, partly because of the Palestinians' inability to form the state, and partly because of the six-day war. As a result of the outcome of the six-day war, Israel was recognized as an independent nation, getting all the attention in the UN, and the Palestinians (many had fled during the war and had become refugees) were effectively forgotten.
2. Why is Israel so often criticized in the UN? Aren't other countries just as guilty of human rights violations?
Israel is criticized in the UN for its alleged abuse of the human rights of the Palestinians. While other countries violate the rights of their own people, Israel violates the rights of a people protected by the Geneva convention as refugees. Many in the UN say that Israel violates international law with its treatment of the Palestinians, many of whom are under military occupation.
3. What is the role of the UN in the Middle East these days? Why isn't the UN in charge of the overall peace process?
The UN does not play much of a role in the Middle East today. The United States, undoubtably the most powerful nation in the UN, had constantly kept the UN out of the loop when it comes to Israel. Heeding the demands of the Israelis, the United States has ruled UN intervention obsolete and has kept it from doing anything in the Middle East. The U.S. is one of the five permanent members of the security council and has veto power, which it constantly uses in issues involving the condemnation of Israel. The UN is not in charge of the peace process because the United States has kept it out of issues concerning Israel.
The United Nations, given the region of Palestine by the British after WWII, partitioned 55% of the land to create a Jewish nation. The other 45% was set aside to later become a free Palestinian state. The Palestinian state never came into existence, partly because of the Palestinians' inability to form the state, and partly because of the six-day war. As a result of the outcome of the six-day war, Israel was recognized as an independent nation, getting all the attention in the UN, and the Palestinians (many had fled during the war and had become refugees) were effectively forgotten.
2. Why is Israel so often criticized in the UN? Aren't other countries just as guilty of human rights violations?
Israel is criticized in the UN for its alleged abuse of the human rights of the Palestinians. While other countries violate the rights of their own people, Israel violates the rights of a people protected by the Geneva convention as refugees. Many in the UN say that Israel violates international law with its treatment of the Palestinians, many of whom are under military occupation.
3. What is the role of the UN in the Middle East these days? Why isn't the UN in charge of the overall peace process?
The UN does not play much of a role in the Middle East today. The United States, undoubtably the most powerful nation in the UN, had constantly kept the UN out of the loop when it comes to Israel. Heeding the demands of the Israelis, the United States has ruled UN intervention obsolete and has kept it from doing anything in the Middle East. The U.S. is one of the five permanent members of the security council and has veto power, which it constantly uses in issues involving the condemnation of Israel. The UN is not in charge of the peace process because the United States has kept it out of issues concerning Israel.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
NPR
Part 3 talks about the beginning of Israel. Britain gave control of Palestine over to the U.N. after repeated terrorist attacks by Jewish fundamentalists. The U.N. partitioned 55% of all of the land in Palestine to the Jews, who were fresh off the holocaust; many had nowhere else to go. Hostilities ensued; all of the surrounding Arab nations mobilized on the Israeli border. The Israelis sturck first and defeated them, taking more of Palestine. Many Palestinians fled their homes to avoid being caught up in the war.
Part 4 talks about the six-day war. The Soviet Union had misinformed the Syrian government that Israel was planning to invade Syria in 1967. Syria cut off all trade to Israel, and mobilized tanks on the border. The rest of the Arab nations went to the support of Syria, also mobilizing their militaries. After exhausting all diplomatic solutions, Israel decided to go on the offensive in order to defend itself. The Israeli military caught the Arabs off guard and ended up with numerous territories, most occupied by displaced Palestinians.
Part 5 covers the Yom Kippur War and Israel's peace agreement with Egypt. In 1973, Egypt and Syria, both defeated by Israel in the six day war, attacked Israel in an attempt to regain lands lost in the war. Egypt and Syria did not regain those territories, but they put Israel on the defensive. In 1979 Egypt and Israel reached a peace agreement; Egypt regained Sinai in return for formally recognizing Israel. The Palestinians were left out of the loop.
Part 6 covers the first Intifada and the Oslo peace agreement. In 1987, the Palestinians who had been living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, angered at the Israeli occupation, rioted. As the Infitada continued, more and more Israelis became willing to negotiate with the Palestinians. They finally reached it in the Oslo peace agreement in 1993, which was to help provide self-government to the Palestinians.
Part 7 talks about the death of the Oslo agreement. The Israeli Prime Minister responsible for the Oslo agreement was assasinated by a Jewish fundamentalist. Hamas began to carry out suicide bombings. A try at another peace agreement was not successful, and another Intifada broke out.
Part 4 talks about the six-day war. The Soviet Union had misinformed the Syrian government that Israel was planning to invade Syria in 1967. Syria cut off all trade to Israel, and mobilized tanks on the border. The rest of the Arab nations went to the support of Syria, also mobilizing their militaries. After exhausting all diplomatic solutions, Israel decided to go on the offensive in order to defend itself. The Israeli military caught the Arabs off guard and ended up with numerous territories, most occupied by displaced Palestinians.
Part 5 covers the Yom Kippur War and Israel's peace agreement with Egypt. In 1973, Egypt and Syria, both defeated by Israel in the six day war, attacked Israel in an attempt to regain lands lost in the war. Egypt and Syria did not regain those territories, but they put Israel on the defensive. In 1979 Egypt and Israel reached a peace agreement; Egypt regained Sinai in return for formally recognizing Israel. The Palestinians were left out of the loop.
Part 6 covers the first Intifada and the Oslo peace agreement. In 1987, the Palestinians who had been living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, angered at the Israeli occupation, rioted. As the Infitada continued, more and more Israelis became willing to negotiate with the Palestinians. They finally reached it in the Oslo peace agreement in 1993, which was to help provide self-government to the Palestinians.
Part 7 talks about the death of the Oslo agreement. The Israeli Prime Minister responsible for the Oslo agreement was assasinated by a Jewish fundamentalist. Hamas began to carry out suicide bombings. A try at another peace agreement was not successful, and another Intifada broke out.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Parable of the Tenants
I think that the parable of the tenants is a sort of subliminal message to the crowd. Jesus uses the parable to indirectly express his feelings; if he had done so directly, he would have been arrested and probably killed. The parable illustrates Jesus's dissatisfaction with violence and lack of humanity. In the parable, the landowner did not show any humanity. He took land from the farmers and planted an unnecessary crop in grapes; the tenants could not survive by planting them, as the grapes would take four years to mature. The tenants also displayed a lack of humanity in their usage of violence, beating and killing some of the boss's collectors. Jesus used this parable as a means of "saying something without saying it". This put on display the maliciousness and wickedness of the Jewish priests; they were looking for any reason they could to put Jesus away. It showed the willingness of the upper class to stifle the lower class. The parable of the tenants has a lesson in it, and also teaches us a lesson based on the situation going on outside of the parable. Jesus preached nonviolence and humanity in the parable and discreetly showed the intentions of the powerful upper class.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Letter to Senator
Dear ,
I am writing ask for your support for the following pending bills:
Education for All Act 2007 (S. 1259 / H.R. 2092)
U.S. Commitment to Global Child Survival Act (S. 1418 / H.R. 2266)
Global Resources and Opportunities for Women to Thrive (H.R. 2965)
Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation (H.R. 2634)
In our world today, 3 billion people, roughly half of Earth’s population, live on less than two U.S. dollars per day. This type of poverty can be ended with extended help from the United States. We as a country cumulatively give the most aid in terms of funding, but are second to last in the proportion of dollars given per person. By passing these four bills, we can take a step towards ending extreme world poverty. The Education for All Act can equip impoverished children with skills that can help them lead productive, peaceful lives. The U.S. Commitment to Global Child Survival Act can prevent millions of preventable deaths worldwide by simply providing immunizations, antibiotics, clean drinking water and vitamin supplements to those unable to afford them. The GROWTH Act can give women in oppressive countries opportunities to better their standards of living and take better care of their children. The Jubilee Act can help poor countries begin to accumulate their own income by canceling debts. All of these bills, if put into action, can greatly reduce poverty around in the world. But they need your support if they are to be legitimized into Acts.
Sincerely,
Blake Cushing
I am writing ask for your support for the following pending bills:
Education for All Act 2007 (S. 1259 / H.R. 2092)
U.S. Commitment to Global Child Survival Act (S. 1418 / H.R. 2266)
Global Resources and Opportunities for Women to Thrive (H.R. 2965)
Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation (H.R. 2634)
In our world today, 3 billion people, roughly half of Earth’s population, live on less than two U.S. dollars per day. This type of poverty can be ended with extended help from the United States. We as a country cumulatively give the most aid in terms of funding, but are second to last in the proportion of dollars given per person. By passing these four bills, we can take a step towards ending extreme world poverty. The Education for All Act can equip impoverished children with skills that can help them lead productive, peaceful lives. The U.S. Commitment to Global Child Survival Act can prevent millions of preventable deaths worldwide by simply providing immunizations, antibiotics, clean drinking water and vitamin supplements to those unable to afford them. The GROWTH Act can give women in oppressive countries opportunities to better their standards of living and take better care of their children. The Jubilee Act can help poor countries begin to accumulate their own income by canceling debts. All of these bills, if put into action, can greatly reduce poverty around in the world. But they need your support if they are to be legitimized into Acts.
Sincerely,
Blake Cushing
The Mustard Weed
The mustard seed takes over a garden like a weed. It germinates and grows into a large plant that takes resources away from other plants around it. It is similar to the Kingdom of God in that it irritates farmers like the Kingdom irritated those who were in power at Jesus' time. Once people begin to live the Kingdom of God, the word is spread and sure enough, it is everywhere. It was tiresome to the enemies of Jesus, as they were irritated by rapid spread of Jesus's teachings about the Kingdom of God.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Executive Summary Report on Africa
The aid that is given to impoverished countries is not enough, and most of the aid given is not truly used to target poverty. Many countries do not contribute aid out of pure good will instead they donate for commercial and economic reasons. Japan for example contributes the equivalent of millions of U.S. dollars to Vietnam; the money is used there to help develop a market for Japanese exports, but not to feed or clothe the thousands of homeless and impoverished in the country. The official international target for aid contribution is 0.7% of a country's total income from taxes, business, etc. But the average aid given by G7 donors (United States, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, the U.K., Japan) is only 0.07% of their total income. The G7 countries contribute 1/10th of what is suggested to assisting other countries. Ireland and Norway, countries with fractions of the wealth of the United States, proportionately contribute 14x and 38x, respectively, as much as the U.S. does. The United States and other G7 countries, being the most developed countries in the world, have an obligation to at least meet the international target.
Not only must the amount of aid given be improved, but the quality of the aid given must rise. 61% of aid given is "phantom aid". Phantom aid is aid that is not targeted for poverty reduction. It is aid that does not represent an effective resource transfer. Phantom aid is aid that also counts toward immigration, which is a domestic matter and not an international one. Real aid can be increased and phantom aid decreased if the money used by the receivers of the aid is used to target poverty. Donors should keep track of what happens to their money after they donate it and determine whether it is used effectively. Real Aid estimates that all donors contributed 0.7% of their income by 2010, and donors and recipients are held mutually accountable for funds, then poverty would be wiped off the face of the earth. As a class, we should feel responsible for letting others know these facts. We could have a presentation or distribute pamphlets; anything that could educate the people about what is (or should be) being done to help other human being; our neighbors.
Not only must the amount of aid given be improved, but the quality of the aid given must rise. 61% of aid given is "phantom aid". Phantom aid is aid that is not targeted for poverty reduction. It is aid that does not represent an effective resource transfer. Phantom aid is aid that also counts toward immigration, which is a domestic matter and not an international one. Real aid can be increased and phantom aid decreased if the money used by the receivers of the aid is used to target poverty. Donors should keep track of what happens to their money after they donate it and determine whether it is used effectively. Real Aid estimates that all donors contributed 0.7% of their income by 2010, and donors and recipients are held mutually accountable for funds, then poverty would be wiped off the face of the earth. As a class, we should feel responsible for letting others know these facts. We could have a presentation or distribute pamphlets; anything that could educate the people about what is (or should be) being done to help other human being; our neighbors.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Portfolio 2: What Should We Do?
I think that as a class, we could help reduce poverty by doing something that would boost awareness of the situation in impoverished countries. I think that we should make the statistics of poverty known in some way: maybe a presentation or an article in a newspaper. We could also make the Sachs and Singer methods for reducing poverty known, and we should make known how easy they are to accomplish. We should let the public (or just the rest of the school) know how little they could give and the dramatic effect their small contributions would have on reducing poverty. Giving a presentation at school would no doubt boost awareness of the problem of poverty, and would probably be more effective than mentioning it in a newspaper article.
I think that we should give a presentation or newspaper article because it would educate those who are not keenly aware of the problem. Sure, most people hear the word "poverty" thrown around, but how often does the word have a dramatic impact? We need to show to people the seriousness of the situation and how easily it can be solved according to Sachs and Singer. The people need to know that they can give little and still have an enourmous impact on a small, impoverished village. All we have to do is convince people to understand the problem and give a little.
I think that we should give a presentation or newspaper article because it would educate those who are not keenly aware of the problem. Sure, most people hear the word "poverty" thrown around, but how often does the word have a dramatic impact? We need to show to people the seriousness of the situation and how easily it can be solved according to Sachs and Singer. The people need to know that they can give little and still have an enourmous impact on a small, impoverished village. All we have to do is convince people to understand the problem and give a little.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Portfolio 2: Singer on Poverty
1. How much aid should we give to impoverished countries?
2. Are we obligated to give aid?
3. Should we concentrate on internal problems first?
4. Why should we give aid?
5. Should we all have equal privileges/income/resources?
6. Should we give up luxuries to help those we do not know?
7. Are we hurting the world?
8. Are helping those far away as important as helping those near to us?
9. Should governments make sure everyone has money?
10. Should state sovereignty be dissolved so that we can have one world?
2. Are we obligated to give aid?
3. Should we concentrate on internal problems first?
4. Why should we give aid?
5. Should we all have equal privileges/income/resources?
6. Should we give up luxuries to help those we do not know?
7. Are we hurting the world?
8. Are helping those far away as important as helping those near to us?
9. Should governments make sure everyone has money?
10. Should state sovereignty be dissolved so that we can have one world?
Portfolio 2: Good Samaritan Interpretation
In the parable The Good Samaritan, Jesus criticizes the lack of humanity in people, mainly the upper class in his society. He criticizes the priest's and the levite's selfishness and abscence of concern for the robbed, naked man. Because the man was naked, there was no way of knowing which class he belonged to. He was just a human. The levite and the priest might have helped the man had he been from the upper class, but they had no way of knowing; their reluctance to help another human being is revealed and scorned by Jesus. His solution is simple; treat others as human beings.
Monday, September 10, 2007
John the Baptist
John's birth was a fulfillment of a prophecy by an Angel of God. The Angel told Zecheriah, John's father, that he and his barren wife would have a son, and he was to be named John. John, the Angel said, would "be filled from the Holy Sprit even from his mother's womb, and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God." The Angel also said that John would "turn the hearts of fathers toward children and the disobedient to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord." Basically the Angel said that John would be a prophet that would preach the word of God to the Israelites and convert many people to follow God.
John the Baptist got his name from baptizing Israelites, notably Jesus, for repentance in the Jordan River. He preached to the masses about the Kingdom of God, just like Jesus would eventually do. His teachings consisted of people treating each other with respect and living life fairly. He taught that people with abundance should share with the not-so-fortunate. John also taught that the sinners would be discarded and the faithful would be welcomed into heaven. But John, unlike Jesus later, was a fiery, anger-driven preacher. He sometimes insulted the people because they did not exhibit the amount of faith that he was looking for. John and Jesus' teachings were very similar, though they were taught in different ways. Jesus probably looked for a more effective way than John's to communicate with the masses, though he taught the same lessons and a little bit more.
John the Baptist got his name from baptizing Israelites, notably Jesus, for repentance in the Jordan River. He preached to the masses about the Kingdom of God, just like Jesus would eventually do. His teachings consisted of people treating each other with respect and living life fairly. He taught that people with abundance should share with the not-so-fortunate. John also taught that the sinners would be discarded and the faithful would be welcomed into heaven. But John, unlike Jesus later, was a fiery, anger-driven preacher. He sometimes insulted the people because they did not exhibit the amount of faith that he was looking for. John and Jesus' teachings were very similar, though they were taught in different ways. Jesus probably looked for a more effective way than John's to communicate with the masses, though he taught the same lessons and a little bit more.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
I'm a Refugee
Jesus was raised as a refugee in a refugee family because God wanted him to be able to suffer; Jesus' suffering would help him be able to relate to the majority of the downtrodden population and would therefore make him a more effective leader. Being a refugee, Jesus probably lived in constant fear and despair. These things shaped who Jesus would become. He taught to have no fear, and not to despair, because God would always be there to help. Being a refugee also helped Jesus to see the faults in his society, mainly with the class system. He wanted change to make life better for the poor so nobody would have to suffer like he did. Jesus experienced firsthand the unfairness of being part of a poor majority. If Jesus had been born rich, would he really have been able to relate to the people he preached to? Would they listen to him? I do not think that they would have listened to the preachings of a rich man because they would have assumed that Jesus did not know the magnitude of their sufferings, which would probably be true had Jesus been born with money. Being a refugee, considered the bottom of the low class, helped Jesus to want to change the way things were going. It also made his mission more effective, as he was able to relate to his audience and get them to listen. Without Jesus having been a refugee, there would not be a Christian religion in existence today.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Portfolio 1: Who’s Your Momma?
We as a society project Mary as being a perfect woman. Mary was very humble and soft-spoken. The statue suggests several things about Mary. It appears that she is very fragile and weak because of her size and stature. Because she is praying, one gets the idea that she was extremely religious and faithful. The slant of her feet makes it look as if she is ascending to heaven, and by carrying rosary beads, she adds another attribution to her faith. The white color of the statue suggests her pureness.
The Luke passage tries to show the level Mary's undying faith in God. Mary makes several statements directed against the rich and powerful. This shows that Mary was probably a very independent woman, not as humble as she is perceived. Because she came from a poor family, she is probably biased against the rich and powerful; maybe a level of jealousy is taking place. The community probably interpreted that Mary may have also been adulterous, as her pregnancy did not result from sex with Joseph. If the community was able to interpret it that way, then why not the reader of the Bible?
God chose Mary because of her amount of faith in Him. Her bias towards the rich is exactly what God wanted, because throughout the Bible it is said that God does not like rich people because they are often materialistic.By her statements against the powerful, God may have seen that she would not be afraid. Mary's 'pureness' was probably deduced from her blind allegiance to God, even though she was not truly 'pure'. God chose Mary because she would not be afraid to speak her mind (in this case, her faith in God), and make her an example of what happens when one has faith in Him.
The Luke passage tries to show the level Mary's undying faith in God. Mary makes several statements directed against the rich and powerful. This shows that Mary was probably a very independent woman, not as humble as she is perceived. Because she came from a poor family, she is probably biased against the rich and powerful; maybe a level of jealousy is taking place. The community probably interpreted that Mary may have also been adulterous, as her pregnancy did not result from sex with Joseph. If the community was able to interpret it that way, then why not the reader of the Bible?
God chose Mary because of her amount of faith in Him. Her bias towards the rich is exactly what God wanted, because throughout the Bible it is said that God does not like rich people because they are often materialistic.By her statements against the powerful, God may have seen that she would not be afraid. Mary's 'pureness' was probably deduced from her blind allegiance to God, even though she was not truly 'pure'. God chose Mary because she would not be afraid to speak her mind (in this case, her faith in God), and make her an example of what happens when one has faith in Him.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
A Family of Freedom Fighters
Jericho was a city in the way of the Israelites' mission to conquer Canaan, so it was decided that it must be destroyed. Rahab was a prostitue living in a wall in Jericho at the time that the Israelites came to conquer Canaan. She helped two Israelite spies sent out by Joshua to scout the city. The spies were being looked for by soldiers from Jericho. They stopped at Rahab's "house", and she decided to hide them under bundles of flax on her roof after she made them promise that when the Israelites destroyed Jericho, she and her family would be spared. She told them that she had heard about the Israelites' journey and wanted to help (although she did not mean it: she did it for herself). She probably heard this through the powerful men that she slept with. When the walls of Jericho fell and the Israelites stormed in and started killing, Rahab marked her "house" with a red piece of cloth, and they passed by her. After Jericho, Rahab was assimilated into the Israelite culture. She converted to Judaism and, according to the bible, married Salmon of the tribe of Judah and became the mother of Boaz. She is part of Jesus' geneaology. In Jewish tradition, however, she is said to have married Joshua and became an ancestor of 8 prophets. She made a true conversion to Judaism, with God being the only God on Heaven and Earth.
Rahab went out of her way to assist the Israelite spies, but she did it for selfish reaons. She could have let them be caught and killed by the soldiers from Jericho, which was probably the right thing to do for a Jerichan, but she decided instead to sell her own people out to save herself. She probably saved many Israelite lives by helping the spies get back to Joshua and tell him information about Jericho, but she probably gave no thought to it; as long as she was being saved, everything would be allright. The attack was probably planned out much better than it would have been without Rahab's helping the spies. Rahab is in Jesus' geneaology because she is a very important figure in the scriptures, regardless of sex. She is honored in the scriptures by being listed in Jesus' line of descendants as a token of gratitude expressed by the authors for what she did. Without Rahab's selfish act, there is a good chance that the Israelites would have lost many more people in their conquering of Jericho and Canaan. Rahab saved other people, just like Jesus would later preach, but she did not know it because she was caught up in herself. She may not have been Jesus' actual 26-greats-grandmother, but the inclusion of Rahab in the geneaology of Jesus means that she had done enough to earn the right to be listed as his 26-greats-grandmother.
Rahab went out of her way to assist the Israelite spies, but she did it for selfish reaons. She could have let them be caught and killed by the soldiers from Jericho, which was probably the right thing to do for a Jerichan, but she decided instead to sell her own people out to save herself. She probably saved many Israelite lives by helping the spies get back to Joshua and tell him information about Jericho, but she probably gave no thought to it; as long as she was being saved, everything would be allright. The attack was probably planned out much better than it would have been without Rahab's helping the spies. Rahab is in Jesus' geneaology because she is a very important figure in the scriptures, regardless of sex. She is honored in the scriptures by being listed in Jesus' line of descendants as a token of gratitude expressed by the authors for what she did. Without Rahab's selfish act, there is a good chance that the Israelites would have lost many more people in their conquering of Jericho and Canaan. Rahab saved other people, just like Jesus would later preach, but she did not know it because she was caught up in herself. She may not have been Jesus' actual 26-greats-grandmother, but the inclusion of Rahab in the geneaology of Jesus means that she had done enough to earn the right to be listed as his 26-greats-grandmother.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Portfolio 1: What I think I can Achieve
I think that I am capable of getting an "A" in this class. I know that I can complete 100% of the assignments. I am capable of being an active participant in class. I can make my work creative and original. I think that i can learn without much teacher guidance. I can exhibit good behavior and a good attendance record. My work can be insightful and original. I can be organized and comprehensive in my tests, writing, and speaking.
Portfolio 1: Who is Jesus, Really?
I think that Jesus taught about God's love for everyone. He taught that even though we sometimes turn away from God, he still loves us because we are his children. He taught that man’s faith is constantly tested. He taught that people are free to do and believe whatever they want. He taught that the Kingdom of God is open to everyone, and that it surrounds us. Jesus taught against hypocrisy. He taught people to stop talking and take action. He taught that man should hold to the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. His main teaching was that everyone should love one another. Turn the other cheek; love your enemies; always be able to forgive.
I do not consider myself a strict follower of Jesus’ teachings. I do not think that I am very compassionate, and I have a hard time forgiving people. I do not think that I am a strict follower of what Jesus taught because I am not a religious person. Nobody in my family is very religious. In some situations I try to do what Jesus taught and I remind myself what the right thing to do is. I try not to curse anything or hurt anyone. I try, but I know that I am capable of doing a better job of following Jesus’ teachings. Jesus' teachings are not very hard to follw; i just have to try harder.
I do not consider myself a strict follower of Jesus’ teachings. I do not think that I am very compassionate, and I have a hard time forgiving people. I do not think that I am a strict follower of what Jesus taught because I am not a religious person. Nobody in my family is very religious. In some situations I try to do what Jesus taught and I remind myself what the right thing to do is. I try not to curse anything or hurt anyone. I try, but I know that I am capable of doing a better job of following Jesus’ teachings. Jesus' teachings are not very hard to follw; i just have to try harder.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Portfolio 1: Why We Tell Stories
One story that my family tells over and over about me is about an incident that happened when my family and I were visiting some family friends in Florida. I was in third grade. It happened at my parents' friends' house. I got a full liter of soda out of the fridge to pour for myself. it slipped out of my hands and hit the floor, where the top exploded off and the bottle spun around and around, spraying soda everywhere. Soda covered almost the whole room. The bottle was empty. Everything was wet and sticky. But i didn't get any soda on me. Neither did my parents' friend Fernando, who had been walking in the kitchen at the time of that i dropped the bottle. We had nothing on us. we were both dry with no drops of soda anywhere on us, but the room was covered in soda. Fernando bust out laughing and did not make me clean the whole room; just the floor. To this day, every time my name is mentioned to Fernando, he talks about what happened.
I think that my family tells this story just to tell people a story about someone in the family. I do not see any morals to my story, except maybe not to let 9-year-olds handle full liters of soda. Other than that, I do not see any other purpose for repeating this story over and over again. My family likes to talk about it because they find it funny and humorous. Fernando still talks about it although it happened 7 years ago, probably because he finds it amusing as well.
I think that my family tells this story just to tell people a story about someone in the family. I do not see any morals to my story, except maybe not to let 9-year-olds handle full liters of soda. Other than that, I do not see any other purpose for repeating this story over and over again. My family likes to talk about it because they find it funny and humorous. Fernando still talks about it although it happened 7 years ago, probably because he finds it amusing as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)