Gut: Change yourself; change the world.
Spill: You are a part of the world. You may be a Christian and feel you don't belong here, but yet you are here on earth--and a part of it. You may be a small, almost insignificant part of the world, but you can change the world simply by changing yourself. I think even changing a small part of the world can have an impact. We are all little pieces of the world, and when many little pieces change in the same way they can have a large impact. Often, if you want to see a change, the easiest place to begin is with yourself. This may be a shallow, girly example, but sometimes slipping into a favorite dress or pair of jeans (changing your appearance/self) will affect how the world sees you. Will they see confidence? Style? Hate your style? By changing yourself and how the world views you, even if it's just your outward appearance, you have affected the world in some way. There are deeper things you can alter about yourself, and sometimes if one person can see something in you that is different, they may be inspired to adopt that same change in themselves.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
13
Gut: Where is the love?
Spill: One thing I would like to change about the world is prejudice. Whether it be because of background, race, or status, people are judged and viewed in a particular way based on their physical, material being. One can claim to love everyone, but only God can love everyone. What difference should it make if someone who grew up in the 'burbs is best friends with someone who grew up in a ghetto or if an Irish guy dates a black woman or if a millionaire marries a person who lived in a trailer park their entire life? Putting up these barriers between each other only puts up barriers between us and God. I think the Gospels try to explain that God sees hearts, and if someone's heart is right, then nothing about them is wrong. "To discriminate only generates hate, and when you hate then you're bound to get irate."
Spill: One thing I would like to change about the world is prejudice. Whether it be because of background, race, or status, people are judged and viewed in a particular way based on their physical, material being. One can claim to love everyone, but only God can love everyone. What difference should it make if someone who grew up in the 'burbs is best friends with someone who grew up in a ghetto or if an Irish guy dates a black woman or if a millionaire marries a person who lived in a trailer park their entire life? Putting up these barriers between each other only puts up barriers between us and God. I think the Gospels try to explain that God sees hearts, and if someone's heart is right, then nothing about them is wrong. "To discriminate only generates hate, and when you hate then you're bound to get irate."
Thursday, October 14, 2010
12
Gut: What is the point?
Spill: This whole biology lesson about Colony Collapse Disorder and bees reminded me of what is the purpose of our lives? I mean, if we can survive without pollinators, why does it matter if they become extinct? Well, if we can't make a change and our lives make no difference, what is the purpose of them? I don't think working for a change and knowing it will never occur makes working for that change meaningless/purposeless. I think knowing it won't and deciding not to work for the change you want makes your life purposeless. Working for a change you cannot see and that may not ever happen is hard, but it gives life purpose.
Spill: This whole biology lesson about Colony Collapse Disorder and bees reminded me of what is the purpose of our lives? I mean, if we can survive without pollinators, why does it matter if they become extinct? Well, if we can't make a change and our lives make no difference, what is the purpose of them? I don't think working for a change and knowing it will never occur makes working for that change meaningless/purposeless. I think knowing it won't and deciding not to work for the change you want makes your life purposeless. Working for a change you cannot see and that may not ever happen is hard, but it gives life purpose.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
11
Gut: We've been dead for a while.
Spill: We are so consumed with making grades (some of us are) that we don't learn anything anymore. We memorize information mindlessly for a test on something we often don't even care about, all for a GPA that doesn't suck. The standards we try to achieve are based on what's been drilled into us, but what about our own standards? Learning is only worth something if you apply it. We need to wake up and determine for ourselves where we're going, not where they say we should go. We've been dead for a while, and I'm tired of it.
Spill: We are so consumed with making grades (some of us are) that we don't learn anything anymore. We memorize information mindlessly for a test on something we often don't even care about, all for a GPA that doesn't suck. The standards we try to achieve are based on what's been drilled into us, but what about our own standards? Learning is only worth something if you apply it. We need to wake up and determine for ourselves where we're going, not where they say we should go. We've been dead for a while, and I'm tired of it.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
10
Gut: I'm an outcast. GOOD.
Spill: If I were to stay in character as an Essene, I would just run into the wilderness and avoid everything I hate/dislike about the world. However, I am not one. To try and solve the issues of today is useless, but just because you cannot solve them doesn't mean you cannot decrease the world-suck as some people describe it. You cannot change the world by trying to remove yourself from it, but nor can you be of the world to change it. You are an outcast either way, only your motivation is different. Impacting the world for the better puts your focus on others rather than yourself. The Essenes THE PEOPLE IN THE DORM NEXT TO ME NEED TO STOP USING THE MICROWAVE--IT KEEPS DINGING. STOP EATING. Okay, the Essenes removed themselves from the world with the hope of being saved, but Jesus immersed himself in the world in order to save. You cannot change the world or have an impact by keeping your hands clean; you have to be willing to work with the dirt in the world to make something grow from it. And usually, dirty people are outcasts.
Spill: If I were to stay in character as an Essene, I would just run into the wilderness and avoid everything I hate/dislike about the world. However, I am not one. To try and solve the issues of today is useless, but just because you cannot solve them doesn't mean you cannot decrease the world-suck as some people describe it. You cannot change the world by trying to remove yourself from it, but nor can you be of the world to change it. You are an outcast either way, only your motivation is different. Impacting the world for the better puts your focus on others rather than yourself. The Essenes THE PEOPLE IN THE DORM NEXT TO ME NEED TO STOP USING THE MICROWAVE--IT KEEPS DINGING. STOP EATING. Okay, the Essenes removed themselves from the world with the hope of being saved, but Jesus immersed himself in the world in order to save. You cannot change the world or have an impact by keeping your hands clean; you have to be willing to work with the dirt in the world to make something grow from it. And usually, dirty people are outcasts.
9
Gut: Doing, thinking, and doing thinking
Spill: So we learn by doing and not so much just by thinking.....I'll agree to an extent with that because I am a tactile learner. I haven't learned something until I can do it by myself. This understanding that learning isn't happening unless one is doing makes me think (haha). I'm thinking about doing. So does this mean I am learning from thinking, or will I not learn until I do according to my thinking? WHAT. I did not intend for this to hurt my mind so much; so this will be very brief. Are you not learning when you think things through before you put them into action? Is there not something you learn from just thinking? Maybe it's not just learning from doing; it's the thinking that leads to the doing that really shows we are learning. The thinking behind the doing is what leads to learning? Hmm...the philosophical is something I will never enjoy. I never feel like I've learned anything, just like I've run in circles--and I hate running.
Spill: So we learn by doing and not so much just by thinking.....I'll agree to an extent with that because I am a tactile learner. I haven't learned something until I can do it by myself. This understanding that learning isn't happening unless one is doing makes me think (haha). I'm thinking about doing. So does this mean I am learning from thinking, or will I not learn until I do according to my thinking? WHAT. I did not intend for this to hurt my mind so much; so this will be very brief. Are you not learning when you think things through before you put them into action? Is there not something you learn from just thinking? Maybe it's not just learning from doing; it's the thinking that leads to the doing that really shows we are learning. The thinking behind the doing is what leads to learning? Hmm...the philosophical is something I will never enjoy. I never feel like I've learned anything, just like I've run in circles--and I hate running.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
8
Gut: Combining the historical with the fictional without confusing the two
Spill:
Dear Dr. Kratzinger,
Your attention to historical accuracy and your regular critiques kept me from submersing myself into the story of The Shadow of the Galilean. I was reminded at the end of every chapter of the historical purpose of the book tied into the narrative element of it. You constantly brought me back to reality and helped me distinguish and maintain fact from fiction. You continually brought up questions and knowledge that I found helpful when reading, but perhaps the most beneficial thing you brought to The Shadow of the Galilean was your subtle display of how fictitious figures can embody the truth. By demanding I constantly compare my knowledge of the historical Jesus with the fictional image of Him created within the book, I was able to see how the two images complemented each other. Creating fiction around history heightens an understanding of the truth. Fiction allows history to become tangible to the reader, because they are able to relate to it on a more personal level. The shadow of your presence throughout the book helped bring clarity to the shadow of the Galilean.
Yours,
Mary Elizabeth
Spill:
Dear Dr. Kratzinger,
Your attention to historical accuracy and your regular critiques kept me from submersing myself into the story of The Shadow of the Galilean. I was reminded at the end of every chapter of the historical purpose of the book tied into the narrative element of it. You constantly brought me back to reality and helped me distinguish and maintain fact from fiction. You continually brought up questions and knowledge that I found helpful when reading, but perhaps the most beneficial thing you brought to The Shadow of the Galilean was your subtle display of how fictitious figures can embody the truth. By demanding I constantly compare my knowledge of the historical Jesus with the fictional image of Him created within the book, I was able to see how the two images complemented each other. Creating fiction around history heightens an understanding of the truth. Fiction allows history to become tangible to the reader, because they are able to relate to it on a more personal level. The shadow of your presence throughout the book helped bring clarity to the shadow of the Galilean.
Yours,
Mary Elizabeth
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
7
Gut: Innocuous Jesus or innocuous Andreas? I say neither.
Spill: The whole time Andreas is gathering information for Metilius and Pilate about Jesus and the Zealot movement he is concerned with preserving not only his life but also the lives he is supposed to be monitoring. He does not want anyone to come to harm because of his reports, but he also does not want harm to come to himself or his business. Andreas' situation is surely not innocuous for he holds the lives of others in his hands (figuratively through his writing of reports), and Pilate has power over Andreas' life. When Andreas must write a report on Jesus, he plays Jesus off as just another philosopher/poet to prevent the Romans from suspecting him as a revolutionary. This gentle report of Jesus and His teachings is making light of Jesus' movement, but it is also serving to keep Andreas' conscience clean. In the end, I feel both Jesus and Andreas will be exposed. Jesus is going to continue His movement, and the Romans will soon find He is not innocuous as Andreas portrayed Him. Andreas will find himself finally unable to explain his way out of things and forced to choose sides--he cannot remain neutral forever. Andreas' purpose for writing an innocuous report of Jesus is merely to keep himself and his conscience guilt free, but the time is coming where he will no longer be able to remain innocuous himself.
Spill: The whole time Andreas is gathering information for Metilius and Pilate about Jesus and the Zealot movement he is concerned with preserving not only his life but also the lives he is supposed to be monitoring. He does not want anyone to come to harm because of his reports, but he also does not want harm to come to himself or his business. Andreas' situation is surely not innocuous for he holds the lives of others in his hands (figuratively through his writing of reports), and Pilate has power over Andreas' life. When Andreas must write a report on Jesus, he plays Jesus off as just another philosopher/poet to prevent the Romans from suspecting him as a revolutionary. This gentle report of Jesus and His teachings is making light of Jesus' movement, but it is also serving to keep Andreas' conscience clean. In the end, I feel both Jesus and Andreas will be exposed. Jesus is going to continue His movement, and the Romans will soon find He is not innocuous as Andreas portrayed Him. Andreas will find himself finally unable to explain his way out of things and forced to choose sides--he cannot remain neutral forever. Andreas' purpose for writing an innocuous report of Jesus is merely to keep himself and his conscience guilt free, but the time is coming where he will no longer be able to remain innocuous himself.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
6
Gut: "...--I would rather change my views about Jesus than despise you."
Spill: Perhaps I like this line spoken by Chuza referring to his wife Joanna in The Shadow of the Galilean because I am a girl and find it sweet. But maybe it is more than a husband's love talking. It is possible that before the book comes to a close, Chuza will in fact change his views about Jesus. I am only speculating, but I would like to think he will and that it is not just an empty quote. Also, Barabbas came back on the scene, and he revealed that he has murdered others. This further ties him to the criminal spoken of in the Gospels who was released from custody instead of Jesus. Maybe this book will even portray him as the Barabbas. But so far, Barabbas seems as if he is already a prisoner, held captive by the Zealots and a "Robin Hood mentality" which seems to create as many problems as it solves. Jesus and His followers hold no value on life and do not fear death, but it seems as if Barabbas' own fear of death (from the Zealots) is what is driving him instead of confidence in his own cause. I do not think Barabbas will change his views about Jesus simply becasue he wishes to avoid being despised and killed by the Zealots. Both Chuza and Barabbas have a decision to make (so does Andreas): to follow Jesus or despise Him.
Spill: Perhaps I like this line spoken by Chuza referring to his wife Joanna in The Shadow of the Galilean because I am a girl and find it sweet. But maybe it is more than a husband's love talking. It is possible that before the book comes to a close, Chuza will in fact change his views about Jesus. I am only speculating, but I would like to think he will and that it is not just an empty quote. Also, Barabbas came back on the scene, and he revealed that he has murdered others. This further ties him to the criminal spoken of in the Gospels who was released from custody instead of Jesus. Maybe this book will even portray him as the Barabbas. But so far, Barabbas seems as if he is already a prisoner, held captive by the Zealots and a "Robin Hood mentality" which seems to create as many problems as it solves. Jesus and His followers hold no value on life and do not fear death, but it seems as if Barabbas' own fear of death (from the Zealots) is what is driving him instead of confidence in his own cause. I do not think Barabbas will change his views about Jesus simply becasue he wishes to avoid being despised and killed by the Zealots. Both Chuza and Barabbas have a decision to make (so does Andreas): to follow Jesus or despise Him.
5
Gut: Words paint the picture of Jesus.
Spill: Who is Jesus (historically, politically, physically, etc.)? Many peolpe throughout "history" have painted, sculpted, and depicted Jesus through other various forms of art in an attempt to portray who He was/is to them (the artist). Some of these images are accepted and others cause controversy or even a comedic response. Well, since I'm sure we will never all agree on a particular physical appearance of Jesus, why keep trying to attach an image to a name? The paparazzis of the first century seem to have failed to get a physical picture of Jesus so why centuries later are we still trying? The artists who have produced images of Jesus had their reasons for depicting Him the way they did, but perhaps their purpose in creating a "physical Jesus" was merely an expression of their own culture and how they perceived Him--as man or messiah. Stories of His actions and interactions with the people of His day written by people familiar with the culture and the people during Jesus' life give a greater sense of the man/messiah/savior He was/is than a picture created by someone who never saw Him, heard Him speak, or lived in His century.
Spill: Who is Jesus (historically, politically, physically, etc.)? Many peolpe throughout "history" have painted, sculpted, and depicted Jesus through other various forms of art in an attempt to portray who He was/is to them (the artist). Some of these images are accepted and others cause controversy or even a comedic response. Well, since I'm sure we will never all agree on a particular physical appearance of Jesus, why keep trying to attach an image to a name? The paparazzis of the first century seem to have failed to get a physical picture of Jesus so why centuries later are we still trying? The artists who have produced images of Jesus had their reasons for depicting Him the way they did, but perhaps their purpose in creating a "physical Jesus" was merely an expression of their own culture and how they perceived Him--as man or messiah. Stories of His actions and interactions with the people of His day written by people familiar with the culture and the people during Jesus' life give a greater sense of the man/messiah/savior He was/is than a picture created by someone who never saw Him, heard Him speak, or lived in His century.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
4
Gut: What's a perspective? It's a perspective.
Spill: Personally, I feel the 4 different perspectives (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) on Jesus' life give it more credibility than all of them matching up precisely the same. If four different people were to give an account of your life, they certainly wouldn't all be the same. Different things are observed by different people, and some things/events aren't remembered with 100% clarity. The fact that each of these accounts is different makes it highly likely they were not all written by the same person or just straight copied. Someone said Jesus is divine or He isn't--there's no other perspective. Well, okay, these four different perspectives point to His divinity in some way or another. Are there other perspectives that say He is merely a man/teacher, of course. There are also ones that will say He never existed at all. In the end, it comes down to the individual and there interpretation of the resources laid before them.
Spill: Personally, I feel the 4 different perspectives (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) on Jesus' life give it more credibility than all of them matching up precisely the same. If four different people were to give an account of your life, they certainly wouldn't all be the same. Different things are observed by different people, and some things/events aren't remembered with 100% clarity. The fact that each of these accounts is different makes it highly likely they were not all written by the same person or just straight copied. Someone said Jesus is divine or He isn't--there's no other perspective. Well, okay, these four different perspectives point to His divinity in some way or another. Are there other perspectives that say He is merely a man/teacher, of course. There are also ones that will say He never existed at all. In the end, it comes down to the individual and there interpretation of the resources laid before them.
3
Gut: I am about to complain about life and somehow relate it to the purpose of this blog (aka: state a few things you probably already know/won't find interesting/or don't agree with).
Spill: I do not like to write. I hate it. This blog is writing. OH WELL. Anyway, I do not mind reading, so I guess The Shadow of the Galilean will be what I blog about the most--but not today. Today, I am going to complain about writing. I am not excited about a 6 page research paper. I wouldn't mind reading one, but I do not want to write one. After saying that, I will do it anyway (I mean, I want to pass or actually more than just pass). I am going to stay positive about writing as best I can, even though it is so disagreeable to me. Of course this is just my opinion concerning writing, papers, etc., some people like it (English majors?). We are studying (or will be) four different books written about Jesus and events surrounding his life. Anyway, I have been raised to believe these 4 texts and the entire Bible were written by people because they were divinely inspired to do so by God. I'm not sure how one would prove this divine inspiration, but what would faith be without a little faith? However, we don't really know (have hard evidence) that they didn't just write them because they wanted to. It's not possible for me to write something just because I want to, but if I had a little divine inspiration....who knows!
Spill: I do not like to write. I hate it. This blog is writing. OH WELL. Anyway, I do not mind reading, so I guess The Shadow of the Galilean will be what I blog about the most--but not today. Today, I am going to complain about writing. I am not excited about a 6 page research paper. I wouldn't mind reading one, but I do not want to write one. After saying that, I will do it anyway (I mean, I want to pass or actually more than just pass). I am going to stay positive about writing as best I can, even though it is so disagreeable to me. Of course this is just my opinion concerning writing, papers, etc., some people like it (English majors?). We are studying (or will be) four different books written about Jesus and events surrounding his life. Anyway, I have been raised to believe these 4 texts and the entire Bible were written by people because they were divinely inspired to do so by God. I'm not sure how one would prove this divine inspiration, but what would faith be without a little faith? However, we don't really know (have hard evidence) that they didn't just write them because they wanted to. It's not possible for me to write something just because I want to, but if I had a little divine inspiration....who knows!
Thursday, August 26, 2010
2
Gut: What role will Barabbas play in The Shadow of the Galilean?
Spill: The Shadow of the Galilean is not fascinating on the same level as Harry Potter (in my opinion), but after reading the first 3 chapters I already find myself wanting the protagonist to prevail over Pilate's blackmail tactics. I really don't even know very much about Andreas, and I am already on his side. The character that intrigues me the most though is Barabbas. Why must their acquaintance be kept such a secret? Wasn't Barabbas the name of the murderer who was set free while Jesus was taken prisoner? Andreas talks about how he does not share the same religious views as Barabbas although they studied in the wilderness with the same teacher. I would like to know more about this Barabbas character and if his name holds any significance to the role he is to play in the book.
Spill: The Shadow of the Galilean is not fascinating on the same level as Harry Potter (in my opinion), but after reading the first 3 chapters I already find myself wanting the protagonist to prevail over Pilate's blackmail tactics. I really don't even know very much about Andreas, and I am already on his side. The character that intrigues me the most though is Barabbas. Why must their acquaintance be kept such a secret? Wasn't Barabbas the name of the murderer who was set free while Jesus was taken prisoner? Andreas talks about how he does not share the same religious views as Barabbas although they studied in the wilderness with the same teacher. I would like to know more about this Barabbas character and if his name holds any significance to the role he is to play in the book.
1
Gut: Is it all one big paradox or is there a purpose?
Spill: There is a gray area surrounding everything. One can go off on a philosophical tangent regarding almost anything, especially theology. Someone can say one thing and it can be immediately twisted in a way contradictory to its original meaning. There are opinions and truths that are all wrong and all right. There are answers for everything, and there are questions that cannot be answered. Sometimes dwelling on these things can further our understanding of something, but doing so can also obscure it. We can become distracted by all the historical and chronological errors etc. in a text that we fail to see the author's purpose in writing it. It's possible to dig too deep, and get yourself stuck in a hole full of mindless details and miss the message. But inevitably once you find the message, there will be someone who found a different message or someone who believes there is no message at all. Are you all right? Are you all wrong? It's madness to carry on this way. If we could all grasp the same message from the same perspective why are there 4 different accounts of Jesus' life in the Bible?
Spill: There is a gray area surrounding everything. One can go off on a philosophical tangent regarding almost anything, especially theology. Someone can say one thing and it can be immediately twisted in a way contradictory to its original meaning. There are opinions and truths that are all wrong and all right. There are answers for everything, and there are questions that cannot be answered. Sometimes dwelling on these things can further our understanding of something, but doing so can also obscure it. We can become distracted by all the historical and chronological errors etc. in a text that we fail to see the author's purpose in writing it. It's possible to dig too deep, and get yourself stuck in a hole full of mindless details and miss the message. But inevitably once you find the message, there will be someone who found a different message or someone who believes there is no message at all. Are you all right? Are you all wrong? It's madness to carry on this way. If we could all grasp the same message from the same perspective why are there 4 different accounts of Jesus' life in the Bible?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)