Humans are dominant that animals

In Gensis 28:30 - "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth'"

GOD TOLD US THAT WE COULD EAT ANIMALS, FISH AND FOWL
Genesis 9:2-3 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

God knows that we need meat. He knows we have to eat. God commanded that Jews eat the sacrificial lamb at Passover. Even Jesus was a Jew.

People want to treat their animals like their equal. I don't know what their reading or what makes them think this but I know that when I die the animals are going to the same place i'm going.

Yes, God tells us to be kind to animals. We eat animals, animals eat each other, plants and so on. There is a cycle, We even learned this biology.

I'm not going to treat a animal like a human just as much as i'm not going to treat a 3 year old like a 10 year old. When I watch the news there are lost pets and the media would do whatever to find the animal and the person that took it. But if it's a black person found dead the media ain't doing shit to find the person that committed the murder. Somebody took a parot from the store and it was all over news, I didn't seee anybody looking for the person that killed the boy. Than you got people buying pads, clothes, dog car seats for the dog. Are you serious? All I can do is laugh when I see paris Hilton with that damn dog in her arm with a million dollar collar.
I had a dog and I treated my dog with a lot of kind. I fed it and cleaned it. What else is there to be done?

I dissected a pig in high school and a pig's heart in college. It's not like they killed it just to kill it. It was going to die anyway.

The Merchant of Venice

In The Merchant of Venice the book covered the themes about religion, gender and money.

In Venice the majority of the people were Christians (I’m guessing.) I am assuming that all of the characters beside Shylock and his daughter were Christians. In the story there wasn’t big distinction between Jews and Christians because they both read the same bible and they looked alike. The only difference was their name and they both interpret the stories in the bible differently. So my question is what the big deal was because a Jew had to convert to a Christian. Shylock could have convert to a Christian and still do the same thing spiritually as if he was a Jew.

Then the finance problem is what gets on my nerves. Bassanio needs money to court Portia. (ok fine whatever)

etc… etc…

It’s time for Shylock to his money back. Shylock doesn’t want double the money that he led to Bassanio. Shylock wants what’s in the contract which is Antonio flesh. I understand it’s a contract you have to go by the contract but he was given a chance for double that money but Shylock wants flesh. (are you kidding me) very funny!!!!!!!!!

Than the judge tells Shylock that he gets Antonio flesh but he can’t he can’t make Antonio bleed. What type of sense is that? Than Shylock changes his mind because he can’t make Antonio bleed, Shylock goes for the money (good thinking) the slick chick Portia tells Shylock he can’t because that’s not in the contract. (now she starting to get on my nerves cause she flip flopping) So now Shylock has to convert and give half of his property to his Antonio and Jessica. (now I’m too the point where I don’t like Portia nor Bassanio or Antonio) they all did wrong. (Shylock was the only good person) All he wanted was what was in the contract and he couldn't get it because he was a Jew. Than later on he converted to Christianity. I wonder if Shylock could of took him back to court after converted and still get treated the same.

The whole gender theme was about Bassanio and Antonio’s relationship. It was a little too strange too friendly to be a men friendship. Bassanio picks Antonio over his wife Portia. Portia gave a Bassanio a ring and told him no matter what don’t take the ring off. Later Bassanio takes the ring off to thank the person for saving his friend. That sounds very stupid. He gave up his word of bond to his wife for his friend. Sounds a little too funny. (NOW I KNOW WHY SHAKESPEARE CALLED IT A COMIC STORY)

It is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!

science and religion can co-exist on certain circumstances

Science and Religion can co-exist if they are not put together in the same category. For example scientist want to use scientific methods to explain certain situations happened in the bible. Scientist doesn’t believe that God brought multiply miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt. Scientist doesn’t believe that Nile river turned into blood because God. They believe it could of happen for another natural reason. The streams, waterways, ponds and all of the lakes will turn into blood. There was blood everywhere in Egypt, even in the wooden buckets and stone jars.

Then God causes frogs to come up abundantly from the river and these frogs then enter the people’s houses, their bedchambers, on the people themselves, into their ovens, into their kneading bowls. Scientist believes that the frogs came out of nowhere. They believe that all of a sudden all the frogs decide to come at the same time.

And all the other stories etc…

Scientist just thinks they know everything with a scientific experiment, hypothesis, and conclusions.


This is where science and religion can’t co-exist. When science wants to prove something’s in the bible as a myth.

Science needs to stick to finding new diseases and how to treat it etc…

Science doesn’t need to discuss whats in the bible.

Science is not always Right. It took scientist a while to find out that the world was round But the bible already stated that the world was round not flat.

God created everything, solar system too

The bible in the book of Genesis say's "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

The bible say's that God created the angels, man, and the animals. Not life on other planets.

Earth was created before any other planet or star existed. Earth came into existence on the first day of Creation (Genesis 1:1). God withheld the creation of the Sun, Moon and stars until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19).

God created the universe. I John 1:3 says, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". The Creation is the greatest miracle. God created all things - matter, life, and our own souls.

This means that the solar system was also created by God. Everything has a purpose. The solar system didn't evovle from anywhere, it was put there for a reason.

relationship b/w thought, will, & intention

In todays class the conversion was confusing. It was something about Neuros moving and God controlling something. It was about the relationship between thought, will, and intention. It was something about human will and human consciousness and nonspiritual people believeing in science. I didn;t understand what was going on and whatever it was it didn't get answered. No matter what people said it kept leading us back to the question about life I guess. In guess it can't be answered so we have to move on to another topic.

I hate reading complex books

Socrates and The Bhagavad-Gita are both complicated to read. I think The Bhagavad-Gita is a little more complex. Certain parts and teachings in the book were easy. After reading the answers to Arjuna question, it seemed like Lord Krishna didn’t answer the question or maybe I just didn’t understand the answer to the question. I didn’t like how The Bhagavad-Gita ended because I got confused at the end. I was actually confused through the whole thing. Did Arjuna end up fight the battle or what? I can’t believe Arjuna and Lord Krishna had this whole conversion in the middle of the battlefield. I know it went by faster than how long it took me to read it but it seemed like the conversation took longer in the middle of the battlefield. This book is also similar to Socrates. They both ended with leaving people clueless. I liked how Arjuna asked questions rather than Socrates because Socrates was too (thinking), too (thinking), too (thinking) I don’t know, but it’s too something. I don’t think I like Socrates but anyway I prefer to read Socrates rather than The Bhagavad-Gita. At first I thought The Bhagavad-Gita was easier to read but it’s not. What was different about the characters that asked questions was that Socrates did more of the talking and Lord Krishna did more of the talking. Socrates asked a lot of questions as if he knew the answer already and he wanted to confuse Euthyphro the teacher. Arjuna asked questions and didn’t ask questions to every little thing Lord Krishna said. Both of the characters asked questions in different ways. I think that if Socrates asked questions how Arjuna did than Socrates wouldn’t have been trialed.

By the way the prompt for the second essay is confusing a little. I don’t understand how the positive things from the books dialogues can make the class run better. What if I think the class is running just fine?

Gita teachings 1-2

In class I heard people say that the text was religious but I don't think the book is religious. The book isn't that boring but it does get a little confusing about who is talking at times and who certain people are. The Indian names are confusing. It seems like it's a story I’m reading rather than a dialogue in teachings 1. In the first teaching Arjuna said that he did not want to kill them even if he is killed. (pg. 28) Arjuna did not want to fight the men because he can know happiness if he kills his kinsmen because they are men of peoples family. I like page 29 because he talks about corrupting one thing that can lead to many other things be corrupted. It eventually becomes a circle. If the family is ruined then chaos overwhelms the family. If chaos overwhelms the family then women of family is corrupted. If women are corrupted then disorder is born in society. Then the family is dragged is to hell.

In teachings two Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that there is no point in grieving because death is inevitable. So what’s the point in grieving? On page 36 I was confused about line 28. Creatures are unmanifest in the beginning and the end but are manifest in life. How are creatures unmanifest in origin? I guess creatures unmanifest in the end means dead because at the end creatures are not alive. On page 36 line 33. I think its funny (really not funny) how Arjuna will gain evil if he does not kill people but Lord Krishna wants him to commit an evil act. Why is the fruit mentioned? (Page 38-39) Lord Krishna says that “be intent on action not on the fruits of action” What are the fruits of action? “Men are drawn by fruits of action”

UC Gilgamesh play

I thought the play was good. It was broken up into two parts because of the intermission. I liked the first part. The second part after the intermission was very boring. I felt like I wanted to leave but I couldn’t because I was sitting next to my professor. LOL .He wouldn’t have cared but I could tell that he didn’t like it either because of his facial expressions. The play was funny even though the funny parts weren’t meant intentionally.

It was funny how I missed out a few parts in the book because certain stuff happened in the play that I didn’t know was in the book. For example, when Gilgamesh went to the bottom of the sea to get a prickly plant, the next day the snake took the plant. It was acted out in the play but I can’t remember reading about. I didn’t like reading the book but I liked parts of the play. I found it funny how the people came out with cardboards shaped as animals running across the stage. Funny. The actors could have least been graceful it looked kind of cheesy. One thing i really liked was the forest. They made it looked HOT. For a minute i thought it was a real forest. To sum it all up it was a 6 out of 10.

My opinions on Socrate pg 48-54

What I noticed is when Socrates asks Euthyphro a question in that question there are two statements and Euthyphro has to say which one correct but he answers with a yes. Euthyphro answers the question with a yes but questions are for him to pick one of the statements that he agrees with.

For example “But is this the correction that we are now making in the argument: that whatever all the gods hate in impious and whatever they love is pious, but whatever some love and others hate neither both? Is this how you now wish it to be defined by us concerning the pious and the impious?”

There is more than one question but Socrates answers “Yes, for what prevents it”

It seems as though Socrates question is different but when Euthyphro defines pious and impious to Socrates it’s the same. It’s kind of repetitive because Euthyphro keep telling Socrates that whatever the gods love are pious and whatever they gods hate are impious. Pg 52

On page 53 I am confused 10c paragraph because Socrates talks about the thing carried something carried because it is carried or because of something else. Then he goes on more about “Nor because it is something carries is it carried; rather, because it is carried, it is something carried.” Socrates questions get even more complicated I’m surprised that Socrates didn’t trick himself up in his own question or Euthyphro. Sometimes you can ask so many questions you forget what the first question was and how you even to the last question. As the questioning continues and starts to get more complex Euthyphro answer’s gets smaller. For example Socrates conversation will be a paragraph and Socrates will answer with a “yes”, “certainly”, “quite so” or “I do”

I think Socrates ask question to the point where he is being aggressive. He questions Euthyphro as Euthyphro is the student. Socrates asks to be Euthyphro student because Euthyphro is wise but Socrates is not acting like a student. All he wants to do is ask questions rather than take anything in account of what Euthyphro says. If I had a wise teacher I would listen not ask so much damn questions that are uncalled for. It’s ok to ask questions but after awhile you need to do research so you learn. Socrates doesn’t deserve to go to jail but he needs to learn to stop questioning people on purpose so he can trick them up into what they believe.

My opinions on Socrate pg 41-47

Young ones are corrupted by corrupter’s page 42

I agree because it all starts with what you are told as a young child. It may not seem wrong to ask questions but I know that I would not want anyone questioning my child beliefs or my child period. Socrates makes up new God’s and that is wrong for young ones but that is Socrates opinion. Socrates should keep that to himself.

It is good to take care of the young first but not how Socrates take care of them because he wants to keep questioning them until they are confused and they will not have an answer.

Socrates thinks that Euthyphro should prosecute his father only if his father killed someone outside of the family. Euthyphro’s father didn’t literally kill the servant but if Euthyphro’s father didn’t bind and throw the servant in the ditch he wouldn’t have died. I don’t think it was impious for a son to take his father to court.

pi·ous
having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for God or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations. Euthyphro defines Pious as proceeding against whoever does injustice regarding murders etc… I think this is fulfilling a religious obligation. It will be obligating to do the right thing by their God’s.

I don’t think this relates back to Euthyphro taking his father to court. If anything it would be a pious act.

I think if someone in my family commits murder, I don’t know if I could prosecute them especially if I’m close to them.

Then Socrates asks to become Euthyphro student after their first conversation about Euthyphro sending his father to court and because he thinks Euthyphro is wise.

Gensis Ch. 9

1.) Why did Noah curse his family and his son offspring’s?

~ Noah did not curse his family or his son offspring’s. He cursed Canaan.

2.) What authority does Noah have to curse Family?

~ Noah did not curse his family but he does have authority to curse his son offspring. Every man has authority in their house and in their family.

3.) If Noah is a righteous man than why did he get drunk and curse his son offspring?

~ Just because God picked Noah because he was a righteous man that doesn’t mean Noah doesn’t have sins. Noah is a man that sins just like other men that has flaws and sin. Noah is still a prophet man. Noah put a curse on Canaan because Canaan ridiculed Noah because he saw Noah nakedness and that was disrespect. Canaan was the first person to walk through the tent but he went back out and told Shem and Japheth.

Remember God had already blessed Noah and his sons in Genesis 9:1

~ Even though Canaan was cursed he was still blessed
~ Canaan is the blessed land in Israel

White supremacists use this to justify slavery or racial prejudice. Some people use this story for the justification of slavery but Africans are the descendents Cush. Cush is the father of Africans.

Arabic’s were the FISRT to enslave black people.

CIE can only do 2 things

CIE can only do two things

It can either WEAKEN or STRENGTHEN your faith in God.

TOPICS BROUGHT UP IN CLASS

"God says he is jealous but he tells us not to be jealous"-anonymous

Ex. Your parents may tell you not to smoke even though they might.

One may tell you not to do something even though that person might do it.

Whats the difference? Is it because God said so.

God is SOVEREIGN. He can say what he want and do what he wants.

God maybe jealous but he is still forgiving. People now a days get jealous and is ready to fight and kill and you wonder why God says do notbe jealous.

Everybody isn't going to be able to understand the bible especially if they only read one book and judge God and the rest of the bible. You have to keep reading because in other books of the bible it explains more about whats in Genesis and in other books. (Sometimes i get confused but I ask a pastor or someone who knows the bible to clarify for me) A lot of people are confused about whats in Genesis but if you continue reading you might just find your answer.

I Corinthians 2:14
King James Bible
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

people don't understand why God does the things he does because they only look at it with a natural eye. They don't see with a spiritually eye.

There has to be some mystery and faith in following Christ.

some clearifications

In genesis most women names are mentioned but you couldn’t tell because they may have seemed as a male name. There are so many stories and names that could have been put in the bible but the men were named and pointed out b/c their stories were significant.

Adam and Eve behavior is erratic because they went against the proper conduct and ate from the tree. Gods behavior cannot be erratic because he is the usual and he made the conduct. Morality was taking from God’s words.

Erratic- adj- deviating from the usual or proper course in conduct or opinion; eccentric; queer

Gods kills all humans because with the flood because he waited until sin reached its climax.
6:1-13 about Noah Wait until sin reaches its climax
God chose Noah because Noah was a just man and perfect in his generation and NOAH WALKED WITH GOD! (key point)

He found grace in the eye of the lord. God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually this repented GOD that he made man and grieved him in his heart. The wickedness was from sleeping with ungodly men. GOD SAID BE IN THE WORLD NOT OF IT.
Sodom was destroyed because it was the city of sin the main point wasn’t because of homosexuality.

God was testing Abraham’s faith. God told Abraham one day he would have a son. God never told him to sleep with the servant. Abraham took it upon himself to have sex with the servant because he was impatient. If God told him one day he will have a son therefore Abraham has to be patient even if he is 100 years old. God never told Abraham when and when the servant gave birth to the boy it wasn’t the called son by God. God never refused to let Sarah have a child it was just all about patience.