Wednesday, November 7, 2007


i really don't post enough
and i am sorry
but i really feel like i get to say what i am going to or want to say in class
so i don't feel a real need to post
that or i just flat out forget, which is normally what ends up happening.

on monday, there was a comment made that a person who believes in god and a person who doesn't automatically have a lack of connection, and that got me thinking, what about a person who is agnostic, or at least what i think is agnostic: a person who doesn't believe in god, but also doesn't not believe in god, a person who needs proof to believe in god. what is the connection between this person and someone who believes in god, or is it not there, and what about the agnostic person and the person who doesn't believe in god??

that is all
until next time

Sunday, October 7, 2007

paper 2 prepaper

This assignment was well challenging, sort of. It is hard to explain. It was rather difficult to start (all of this is for me I have no idea about for anybody else), and express and explain what you mean or even how you actually feel. But for the most part this was an interesting exercise and it was not fun but well Once I actually got writing it seemed fine. This is about the best I can do to explain everything that I felt was bad about this assignment.

Friday, October 5, 2007

catch up number 2

All right, this is more for Nathan than myself, because I want to know the topic of the next paper and I threw out an idea and now I have to write a blogpost around my idea. My idea was that I wanted to, so possible everyone may want to, or at least an option could be, look at how the tone changes between Arjuna and Krishna, and possible also Euthyphro and Socrates, throughout the books. I noticed, especially in The Gita, a big tone change in how Krishna was being addressed and talked to. That is my idea, I really hope it is an option, that would be awesome...yeah.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

catch up number 1

Wow, it has been a little bit since I've done this...
All right this is regarding Monday’s class and just some thoughts that popped into my head...
The first thought is the fact that we, as a race, as a people, just everyone in general, know very little
We think we know so much, but we don't know close to everything or really what seems like anything
If we knew everything we would have everything optimized, or have cures for all the malignant ailments we can get.
This isn't the first time I have realized this, just this is the first time I realized it about people in general, and that time I realized it about myself, that I really know nothing.

The second thought is about me and why I cannot really handle religion or really being religious. There is no rationale, no rationalization towards all beliefs. The blind beliefs, the ones that seem to come out of no where, or really have no reasoning behind why it is bad or good are the one of the main reasons I cannot do it. I have too many questions, too many things that are not fully explained or cannot be explained (really an explanation that I do not think is adequate).

Wednesday, September 12, 2007


It has come to my attention that what is said below seems like I believe that all religious people push their beliefs on everyone else. I infact do not believe this, and I am sorry if it seems that way. I apologize for that; it is just that that is what really bugs me about religion, the pushing of their beliefs on people. Anyways enjoy reading, and if you don't enjoy then well I am sorry again.

A lot of things came up today that I wanted to comment on or throw out my input but I couldn't find a good transition to me for lack of a better way of saying it.
For example, when Jon (the other Jon) was asked how he would raise his children and he said like my mother raised me, I wanted to ask him what if he married a religious person, who wanted to raise their children by his or her religion. Right now I am in a relationship with a catholic girl, who is well quite religious. With me not exactly religious at all it lets me think (especially since I think a lot about things that normally have no chance of happening or would be way into the future), if I married a religious person who wanted to raise our children (assuming she wants children, because I am pretty sure I do) by her religion, what would I do about it. I came to the conclusion that, having talked it over with my wife, I would probably allow this to happen, but I would also be allowed to tell them that they should question the authority and if they, when they think they can make this decision (along with my wife and I), want to basically drop religion, if they want to, then they would be able to do so.
Another thing that I wanted to say but didn't have a good transition, was not just do you believe in god or a higher power or whatever, and personally I am not sure, but I won't truly believe until I can see some cold, hard proof, but what about just superstition. I namely wanted to ask the religious people about it because I personally think it would be easier to be superstitious if you already have the ability to believe in something along those lines, although if the superstition conflicts with your religious beliefs (which I have no idea if that is possible or of any superstitions that do right now off the top of my head) then you would most likely just not believe in that one, than for a non-religious affiliated person to believe in superstitions. Personally I am a somewhat superstitious person. A bit of that is from when I used to play baseball, because superstitions are a large part, in my eyes and mind, or sports. Nevertheless I am a superstitious person, although not all superstitions, like walking under a ladder is going to give me bad luck and that sort of thing. Or a few of mine are kind of the reverse just because of experiences/coincidences if you prefer, like walking under a streetlight and having it go off right as you pass it. That is supposed to be considered bad luck, but for me I for seem to have something good happen.

One final comment thought thing I have for this post, I have always wanted to be religious. I believe it would make life a little easier and it would be nice to actually be able to believe in that higher being or whatever the religion may entail, but my drive has always stopped me. Anytime I think I will go and learn about this religion or that religion, I think about if I were religious, the abundance of crap I would probably get from other religious people if I tried to do what I basically despise myself and push my beliefs (namely if they were accidental because I would try my damnedest to not push my beliefs on purpose) or just the pressures to remain true to the religion. I have the utmost respect for people that can deal with it and are religious and for the people that have just tried to deal with it or be religious. I have never been able to come to that state and actually drive myself to be religious. Part of it isn't just these thoughts that race through my mind either, I was raised to question basically everything so that would hinder my ability to be religious I believe (by question I mean like the authority of the bible, if I became a Christian of any kind); also I find religious texts as stated in my last post boring. I would not be able to read the text unless I had to, like for school, which of course makes me automatically less interested.
I really feel like I had more to write about on this, but I lost all of my train of thought so if you have questions just ask me and I will do my best to answer them.

Once more I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my words and if something really bothers you just ask me to remove it and I will or come talk to me about it.

toughest part to chew

The hardest part about the bible for me to read...
I wouldn't say it would be anything that is in the bible per say; I believe the hardest part is the fact that when I read it I play straight into my religious reputation growing up, and I have tried to stray away from what was really thought about me growing up.
Religiously, growing up I was a Jew by birth. We did a few of the holidays but I didn't and still don't really know what they mean, and we only did this out of namely tradition for my mother who was basically the same way growing up (although she understood what they meant much more than I ever have).
So I have never been real religious and found religious texts well, boring. I find the concepts of religion and discussing them or comparing them or even just picking them apart for, well, what I do know about them, extremely interesting and engaging, but I haven't ever really delved into reading the texts.
The texts are just too boring for me to read and I cannot get through them; it is like trying to go through quicksand for me, the more I struggle to read through them, the less and less meaning I actually get and the more and more I sink. And whenever there is a part of the bible that actually interests me it is normally a bad form of interest. Namely because it is a part that is rather preachy and I...well...have issues with preachy.
I guess that is the hardest part about reading the bible for me; the fact that I find it boring and the baggage I bring along.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

wandering down penny lane

Today we were assigned to examine a penny and discuss it with our groups and it proved...interesting and difficult to say the least. We were told to look at this icon as if we knew nothing about the civilization and it could tell us what might be going on both on the icon itself and in the civilization it came from. I did not always agree with what was said even in my own group and found myself, after throwing a point to be examined by the group into the cauldron of ideas we had brewing, disagreeing with what I had just said or finding ways to prove it wrong. Like take good ol' Abe there on the one side, we said he could be god and that could be his temple. I was wondering, unless they thought that is what man should ideally look like (because if he is god he is certainly modeled after humans, or more likely god modeled humans after his own image), he is flawed to say the least in image. He is not beautiful or gorgeous or however you wish to phrase it. Most images of a god of some kind, unless evil, are flawless in complexion and are normally ideally shaped, as in perfect weight for their height, ripped muscles, that sort of thing. The character on the one side of the penny, from here on out if addressed again it will be declared the front of the penny, so the character on the front of the penny is not only not holding ripped muscles but he is also rather scrawny looking. He has a rather thin neck and what appears to be not that broad of shoulders. And for all the other details that this society could place on this small round chunk of crafted metal, they wouldn't have skipped out on the details of making their god look as perfect as possible. So I personally view this as a good argument against him being a god figure, but not against a figure of great importance and certainly one that should be known to all of the surrounding society and possibly their neighboring countries or civilizations that they may be in contact with and trade with (because not knowing anything about the society I believe it is safe to assume that this is some form of currency). This provides conflict though, because this figure is right under the phrase "in god we trust". So are they saying this flawed person is god and if they are does that say that it is okay to be flawed??
Either way this was a very interesting and valuable experience and hope that we do it again; I thoroughly enjoyed it.