ideology means a system of ideas. jesus christ's way of thinking is an ideology, this is a contradiction of himself. also who is going to tell him that theology, ie the study of god, is a social science? How do we find the answer if we won't find it in JC's ideology or by studying the bible?

if this statement was true then media wouldn't have a problem with including lgbtq characters and homophobes wouldn't exist. Also he's referring to transgender and LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans, Queer) as if those refer to sexual appetite. They don't, at least not solely in the case of the LGB. They refer to identity and romanticism. He's showcasing his ignorance on the topic with this statement.

The way plants and animals fulfill our lives is very different than how humans do. We don't build homes out of bones like with trees; we don't eat corpses like with both groups. The message of this is great, it's to take care of the world but there are points of this text that make it sound like we should cannibalize each other. I agree wholely that we should do a better job of caring for the earth but the entire message gets misconstrued when you start comparing people to plants and animals. The explanations he gives later kind of clear this up but there is no feasible way for us to ask a bird what it wants done with the meadow because we don't speak bird. We should take what we need and give to the world but doing it the way animals and plants give to us is just not possible and also breaks some religious traditions. If we gave our bodies to the earth then that means we're getting buried in the garden or fed to some animals and I don't know, I just think some cultures would find that to be desecration of a human corpse. It's wonderful that the author wants to make a point about how we should do good for the world but the wording is easily misconstrued and it makes this good message seem terrible. The earth is important but so is good diction.

This seems like it's asking us to ask others to take their life. Any person or animal in their right mind says no. We can't speak to animals but their actions make it very clear that they don't want to be killed, no one does. If we abided by the answer we'd starve to death because we can't ask the carrot if we can uproot it or the cow if we can kill it. I mean their might be a human or two who's willing to take one for the team but I don't think cannibalism is the option we should be shooting for here.

I think names have power, it's nice to see this sentiment acknowledged beyond the realm of humanity. So often we label things without realizing the meaning.

I believe sometimes this habit goes unnoticed. When someone smiles, you smile back. That moment of noticing and the choice to return is the gratitude and the reciprocity. Gratitude in this piece is described in such a way it seems quite grand rather than the simple acknowledgment it typically is.

This depiction of God is very far from the common merciful God. Instead he is a being of perpetual anger, disgraced by our very existence who would like nothing more than to be given a reason to drop us into the flames of hell even if we have done nothing to cause this anger simply because we didn't do anything to stop his anger. It sounds like God needs anger management classes his mindset seems pretty toxic.

I find the juxtaposition of these statements interesting. In demonology it is thought by some that the angel Lucifer, cast down to hell for his pride and for challenging God (thus becoming his enemy), became the demon Satan, who is thought to represent the sin of wrath. Could it be that God's wrath is what turned Lucifer to Satan?

I find it concerning they refer to unbaptized people as dogs. It opens the door for acting terribly towards non-religious or non-baptized peoples especially since they claim the Lord said it. Really goes against the whole love thy neighbor, we are all god's children schtick.

These are traits commonly associated with those who are easily manipulated. I find it interesting that supposedly God or the Twelve Apostles is telling people to be guileless (a synonym to naive or innocent) and meek.

This reminds of the saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". By searching for commonality we begin to see people who we once thought as different than us to be the same yet diverse. What is spoken about here is the way we make friends starting from childhood. We have the same favorite color, same job, same class, same something and boom friendship. Understanding starts with humanization, which starts with something as simple as having the same backpack.

I agree with the texts that separating cultures makes discourse impossible. It's impossible to have a purely academic debate as morals will come into play. It's impossible to debate ethics without including academics. The debate format only works because it is a culmination of different cultures used to form an argument. Humans by nature strive to isolate and categorize things. We categorize shapes, languages, and even ourselves which creates this separation and isolation that is truly a detriment to our understanding of ourselves and one another and makes discourse impossible.

This reminds me of a story where a man stood on the roof during a flood. The water kept rising and he begged to God to help him. 2 times a boat of other survivors came and 2 times he turned it away because God would help him. He died and when he reached heaven he asked God why he didn't help. God replied that the boat had come 2 times to aid him and that he had turned them away. God didn't help the atheist or the man directly so they assumed he didn't help at all. When a different mind might find that God did help, just not in the way they expected.

I believe this is an important thing to remember because oftentimes people beat themselves over things they can't control. When you take pride in something or worship something any small failure will cut you deeply. Whether it's intangible or material.