Study of Bible Passages for Humanities Class

Bible Stories Discussion Worksheet

Caitlin Havener

1. Explain the Dilemma posed to Abraham by God’s command regarding Isaac. The dilemma that occurred regarding Isaac was that he was Abraham’s only son that he loved very much, and God asked him to sacrifice his son. Yet when he was about to perform the act, an angel stopped him and pretty much told him that he passed the test. God just wanted to make sure that he feared him.
2. Summarize the actions of God in the Exodus story. God appears to Moses in a burning bush as an angel of the Lord. He tells him to take off his shoes because it is holy ground. God is concerned about how the Egyptians are oppressing the Israelites and commands Moses to lead them out. God gives Moses a few “magic tricks” to prove that he has come from God. He can throw his staff and it will turn into a snake, and when he reaches into his pocket his skin becomes Leprous. He can also turn water into blood. The Lord goes with Moses and helps him perform this feat.
3. What dilemma of belief in the Israelite God does the book of Job illustrate. This one was a difficult passage. Yet I would say that God is trying to display his power and knowledge upon Job. Job complains about his life assuming that he knows all, and God pretty much puts him in his place. In my eyes, it seems that he reminds him of how small he is compared to God. God knows and controls all the mysteries of the world, while Job knows nothing.
4. Summarize the principle events in Mark’s passion narrative from the entry into Jerusalem until the women in the tomb. In Mark’s narrative after approaching Jerusalem, they untie a colt and throw their cloaks over it. When Jesus entered Jerusalem into the temple and for some reason it was too late, so he went with Bethany and the other twelve. Jesus was hungry and went to a fig tree. It was not the season for figs, yet he told the tree it would never bear fruit again. Jesus found people trying to sell in the temple and overturned their tables. The next morning, the fig tree was withered. Jesus says that if you ask for something in prayer and believe you have received it, then you have. As well you must forgive those who have wronged you in prayer, for God to forgive you for your sins. The authorities of the temple ask Jesus by what authority is he making the actions he is taking. Jesus asks them whether it was god or people that baptized John. When they told him they did not know, he replied with a similar answer to their question. Jesus then spoke to them in parables, and in the end they walked away for fear of the crowds if they turned against Jesus. Some other men ask Jesus if they should pay takes to Caesar or not. On the premises that the coins have Caesars picture on them, he says that the money belongs to Caesar, therefore they should pay it. When asked what commandment was the most important, Jesus replied with “Love the Lord with all your heart” first and second, “love your neighbor.”
5. Define the unifying idea of the Sermon on the Mount and illustrate with one of Jesus’ ethical instructions or directives. The Sermon on the Mount was intended to point out how to live in order to enter the kingdom of heaven and how to live as to be raised up in the kingdom of heaven. First, Jesus describes who is most blessed in God’s eyes via the Beatitudes. Then he goes into depth about what sort of things would be sins against him and describes them all, such as: murder, adultery, divorce, holding an oath, an eye for an eye, love of enemies, giving to the needy, prayer, fasting, as well as other topics of how to live great.
6. How do the parables of the Good Shepherd and the Prodigal son illustrate aspects of the covenant between God and Israel? How does this compare to the evidence in the book of Job and the Exodus? The parables shown here are stories used to make a bigger point. All three parables are trying to exhibit that the sinner that wanders but comes back to repent is worthy of much celebration. Yet those who have never wandered should be humble in the good they have done, and not expect special attention. They already inherited the kingdom of heaven. This shows the covenant because it illustrates how one should be worried for the other to not sin against God so that he too can enter heaven. This is exhibited in Exodus, because God does not want to leave his fellow Israelites behind with the Egyptians living a life of oppression. In Job, God is seemingly pointing out how to live.

1. The underlying principles of rightful action are made very clear especially in the story of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus goes into detail and tells stories about each point he is trying to convey of how to live righteously. He explains the Ten Commandments, which are God’s underlying rules for how to live. The Beatitudes also assist these in direction toward rightful living. I found it very contradictory that Jesus would make the fig tree whither. Why would he want to rid his followers of more to eat? It just seemed pointless to me. This was in Mark’s narrative. I guess if I were a Christian and I were in the situation where I might want to cheat on my husband, I would consider the Ten Commandments, “Do not commit adultery.” Yet I am not, but I still find it wrong because I know that if he were to do the same to me, it would hurt. Therefore I live by having compassion for others. I have compassion because I know that treating others unfairly may very well come back around to me. Not by karma or chance, but because it is a very likely result of cause and effect.
2. ⁹"This, then, is how you should pray:
   " 'Our Father in heaven,
   hallowed be your name,
   ¹⁰your kingdom come,
   your will be done
   on earth as it is in heaven.
   ¹¹Give us today our daily bread.
   ¹²Forgive us our debts,
   as we also have forgiven our debtors.
   ¹³And lead us not into temptation,
   but deliver us from the evil one.^[j]' ¹⁴For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. ¹⁵But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

This quote has become a very important quote from the Bible. The Catholic’s especially use this prayer during every mass. They also pray with it as penance for post confession. It is the most popular prayer, I think. Other prayers, such as the “Hail Mary” are not agreed upon by all Christian denominations.

3. I guess I would like to know why God found authoritativeness to be the best route as to keep humans “in line?” It is often expressed that God is a loving God, but much of what we hear from him is very authoritative.
4. I was already quite familiar with many of these passages, yet haven’t read the direct text in quite a while. I would say that the more I read of Christian religion, the less I am convinced of its validity. There are many good points made here as far as how to live, yet I do not like that, for example, God tricked Abraham into thinking he had to sacrifice his only son just to test him. I do not like the Christian God, especially in the Old Testament and wouldn’t care to live by this authoritativeness even if I did believe it.

Religion Kills

I was watching "The Plague" on the History Channel today, and discovered yet another way that "overly" Christian people have committed mass murder. During the Black Plague back in the 1300's these people mimicked the pain and suffering of Jesus upon themselves. Whipping themselves and such, as they walked through the towns. This was supposed to be some sort of penance since they believed that the plague was an act of God. The general public looked up to these people, but the authority believed they were getting out of hand. Authority figures didn't do anything about it for a while because too much of the public loved these people. Well these Christian zealots started blaming the plague on Jews (of course) and killed them off. They did a bunch of other harmful bullshit as well, of course. Chris' dad had a point that these people only represent a small part of society, but look at all the stupid people that admired them? This is why you need to use your brains, people.

I am also going to post an essay I wrote for my Humanities class below:

Science, Religion, and the Cosmos

Two authors of essays contained in Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? were given a hefty task. They were given the objective of deciding whether the universe shows signs of having been designed. By designed, they are referring to some higher power having designed the universe. In the case of Christianity, that would be God having designed the world in six days.

Steven Weinberg, the author of the first essay, is a professor of physics at the University of Physics and has attained the physics Nobel Prize. He approaches the cosmological subject in his essay noting that human intelligence is somewhat beyond the hope of understanding (31). He then goes into explaining that if there were a designer it would have no personal interest in life. By this he means that the world would not have been designed with us in mind. Weinberg then quotes a man named Richard Feyman, and American physicist who made many contributions to the science of quantum physics. He said that the idea that a deity designed the world so that he or she could watch human’s struggle with good and evil doesn’t seem right (32). Weinberg then mentions that even if we come to any set theory, the question will always remain: “Why?” And knowing this he says that physics is in a better position to give an explanation for the mysteries than religion could. Explaining the creation of the universe is more consistent with using quantum mechanics for explanation, while a religious explanation is “infinitely flexible.” By this he is saying that a religious explanation could not give us any sort of concrete proof or rationale (33).

Weinberg then asserts that the universe was not designed for life but that it was made to bring life about (33). He states that some physicists believe that nature was “fine-tuned for life,” while others including the author believe that this would not make sense. The very first matter was not that that would support life. Yet, “hundreds of millions” of years later these elements were spurred from the first stars. He does state that there is one thing about Earth that is oddly in our favor, and that is the cosmological constant, or “the density of empty space” (34). He states that there are only theories out there to how the universe was formed, such as the “big-bang” theory. He states that it would make more sense that there are many “big-bangs” that happen all the time throughout the vast universe. Therefore, if there are so many solar systems being created, of course there was a good chance that Earth as well as perhaps other planets would happen to have the “values for the fundamental constants” that would support life (36). Weinberg states that it is a bias to examine the issue from only our point of view while there may be other parts of the universe that support life (37). He points out that there is “no sign of benevolence” that proves a deity or higher power designed the universe. Rather, many religions would say that God is granting us free will to live and learn by our actions. But how then does this excuse God for the suffering of those who go through cancer? Weinberg states the influence of religious morality has not been good. He then goes on to give several examples of where “religious enthusiasm” has harmed humanity: the Muslim “zealot” that killed Sadat, the Jewish “zealot” that killed Rabin, and the Hindu “zealot” that killed Gandhi. He goes on to say that he would not regard Hitler as a Christian “zealot” but that Nazism was founded on “centuries of Christian anti-Semitism.” One could argue that the end of slavery was heavily brought about by Christians. But then, one would see how the Christians lived with slavery for a long time without any problems and that it was formerly endorsed in the New Testament. It was justified as a punishment of the children of Ham as God’s will. He says that the campaign to end slavery was inspired more by the “spirit of the times” and not the “spirit of religion” (40).

The second essay was composed by Victor J. Stenger, a professor of physics at the University of Hawaii and author of many books. Stenger was given the same objective: was the universe created by a designer with a purpose in mind? At first it seems that he supports the notion that the universe was designed. But moreover gives an explanation why one would think so, then delves into opposition near the end. Stenger says that one would support the notion because of “anthropic coincidences.” By this he means the coincidental fact that Earth contains Carbon and other elements for survival of life, as well as the very sensitive balance of other atmospheric details (42). Stenger states that using the fact that Earth’s physical constants are so unique is not a good argument for the existence of a designer. And this is because of the bias the previous author, Weinberg, had stated, relating the notion that there could quite possibly be other life besides our own out there. Our life is Carbon based, but that does not mean that all life was made and exists from the same elements. There are also those called creationists, who see the universe as so unfit for life that there was no way that it evolved naturally. Stenger believes that one must find the scientific or natural explanations for the “anthropic coincidences” (43). He supports this by saying that a theory, such as the “big-bang” theory, is powerful because it follows the laws of physics. He then goes into an explanation of how this is so. He also mentions that life could have happened no matter what form we took, just as the crystals on a snowflake are arranged by chance (44). Stenger then reverts back to the previous topic about how it is bias to only examine the issue from our point of view. He states that you cannot assume that ours is the only universe. It is quite possible that there lies the existence of many universes. Yet it is important to make the least amount of assumptions as possible. Stenger states that, we are pretty sure that our visible universe is “but a grain of sand on the Sahara” (45).

Victor J. Stenger and Steven Weinberg could easily agree that the cosmos is far beyond human understanding, yet we should still try to examine it. Though, I think they also would agree that it should be examined with rational and scientific theory, rather than by the fluidity of religion. I completely agree with the assertions made by the men in these essays. I do not scorn those who believe in a creator, yet hope that they would try to compare the scientific explanations with that of their beliefs so that their assertions are valid.

Works Cited

Kurtz, Paul, ed. Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003.

Stenger, Victor J. “Anthropic Design: Does the Cosmos Show Evidence of Purpose?” Kurtz 42-45.

Weinberg, Steven. “A Designer Universe?” Kurtz 31-40.