I disagree with this. I don't think it is a particularly relevant argument to make, as something like a medical condition or diagnosis does not correlate ot something like being gay. Being gay is not something people "suffer from"

I relate this heavily to our class discussions about how the intersectional identities of Jesus do or do not matter. A lot of things can work together to define someone, including sexual orientation. I don't think it should be downplayed or privatized.

I connect this to the idea that some Native American and other Indigenous tribes around the world use all of an animal's "gifts" when they kill it. For example, not just using the meat for food, but the bones for bowls and cutlery and spearheads or the fur for blankets.

I have never seen animals described like this. I never took into consideration the idea that we are dependent completely on the fact that the animals we eat are providing us with generosity. I like this point of view.

I believe, after reading more, that Edward is utilizing the Old Testament and the wrath of God towards human evidenced there as a scare tactic. Morally, I think it is very wrong to convert or lecture people into believing in something because they are afraid of the consequences if they do not. It does not give people a choice, and they will live in constant fear that they have not done enough.

I find this interpretation of the Bible kind of concerning. Is God not presented as benevolent and loving towards all of creation? The idea that he has the capacity to hate, to have enemies, is worrying and contradictory.

There is research behind this. Maslow's hierarchy places belonging and love just above the basic need for safety and shelter as an important part of being happy. This is a beautifully phrased way of saying the same.

I think language is so in how we perceive our surroundings. Names are meanings, and in giving ordinary things meaning, I think the human experience is greatly improved.

This quote is very interesting to me. It kind of goes against the idea of God being benevolent and forgiving. By comparing people who don't follow him to dogs, he is disregarding and even advocating for the disinterest in those who are not of the same faith.

This is also kind of a strange quote to me. The way I read it, it dismisses the need for new perspective. It is always a good thing to find you are not alone in an opinion, but it is just as meaningful to grow those ideas by learning more about the other sides. I can see how it could be interpreted differently, though.

I completely agree. In order for genuine change to be made in the world there must be communication and growth. We cannot grow unless we open our perspectives and our hearts to others, even when disagreeing.

I believe that people are often too polarized one way or the other on religion vs science. They can and should interact with one another, build off of each other. Many times, though, people are close-minded and not willing to explore the opposite side.

I like how he phrases this. It's all about choice. In college, it's a new experience to be able to choose everything- your major, your friends, your food choices, your experience. It's a learning curve on how to function as an induvidual.

I like his view on this, as well. Even when talking with someone about opinions and beliefs, the question of "what made you think that?" is almost never asked.