Think back on the three oral papers we heard this week. Choose one: do you agree with the thesis? Disagree? Choose a position and offer additional textual evidence for your position, i.e. evidence that either supports the thesis or evidence that undercuts the thesis. Consider yourself a jury member who must support either the defense or the prosecution and must have good reason for doing so.
Posts are due Wednesday, September 27th at 9:00 a.m.
While I agree with Aaron's well thought out thesis, an argument could be made to contradict the points he made. It was mentioned that God is shown to have never ending forgiveness and that God makes life harder for the people who sin, rather than killing them. If one were to pick out certain pieces of Genesis and not read the book as a whole, many verses can could be used to claim that God is not always forgiving.
ReplyDeleteArgument one: God said he is sorry he ever created man and wiped all but one from the Earth. For a God has never ending forgiveness, this can be seen as a very harsh punishment. (Genesis 6:6-7)
Argument two: God took Er’s life. In the argument made stating that God contains never ending forgiveness, it was said that God gives mild punishments. Death seems to be an extreme punishment. (Genesis 38:7)
Argument three: Not only does God kill a man once, but he also killed Er’s brother, Onan, for denying his dead brother a child. (Genesis 38:10)
If one were to think of these pieces of the text as factual events that happened exactly as stated in the Bible, then he/she could make this argument against the original thesis.
I am going to add on to Aaron's argument, specifically on the background point about God's punishments being light. It is clear in the text that God could have punished his people a lot more than he did. The clearest example is in the story of Adam and Eve, where they knew that if they ate the fruit, "you are sure to die" (Genesis 2:17 NLT). We learned in Genesis 3:16-19 the punishments for Adam and Eve, and they did not die. While I agree that the punishments were light, we don't know for sure that all of the judgement was fulfilled. Remember, it said "you are sure to die" (It never specifies when!). I think there is room to argue that God doesn't have to give all his punishment immediately. Just because God initially punishes lightly, doesn't mean that he unveils all his judgement right then and there. However, while these light punishments still point to his mercy, I think it begs the question: If God were to unveil all his judgement on his people immediately, should it have been clarified that in Genesis 2:17 (and the other texts where he punishes)? For example, should it have said "You will die immediately"?
ReplyDeleteEven if God is fulfilling all his punishment and judgement immediately, I don't think it takes away from Aaron's thesis of God's mercy. In fact, I think it points more to the character of God and his incredible timing. As I learned through basketball, "the game isn't over until the whistle blows" - my question is: Has the whistle blown yet?
In Rebecca's Oral Paper, she states within the thesis that "the type of creation exemplified throughout Genesis is predominately tied to procreation."
ReplyDeleteI agree that procreation is a major theme within the text. I would like to note that procreation is the only type of creation that the human characters can grasp at as a means of God-like control. They take their lineage very seriously, making fertility a contentious issue.
The impulse to further progeny is a major plot point multiple times throughout the chapter, possibly for this reason.
However, God ultimately has power over who can and cannot conceive. For example, God lets Sarah and Abraham have a child in their old age.
It is important to note that within Genesis, only women are barren. Never the men. This is likely a cultural/timely flaw to take into consideration when reading and discussing fertility within the Bible. The science behind it does not correlate to how it was perceived at the time, historically speaking. This is akin to how King Henry killed several wives for not producing sons despite the fact that it was technically his own sperms fault. The blame game when it comes to fertility often lies with women, even though truthfully the men just may not have been virile!
Ultimately, Rebecca made an insightful observation by affirming Genesis as a text of fertility. It has strong ties to the characters and their storylines.
While listening to Kelsey's oral paper, I found myself disagreeing with the last half of her thesis statement, which says "the women possess a higher understanding [than men] of God's plan and will operate under whatever means necessary to help execute the intent of the Lord as they see it." I do not think any of these deceptive women performed their act of trickery with the intent of moving God's plan along. I think their motives came from selfish intentions. My opposing view is as follows: the women mentioned in Kelsey's paper were sinful and selfish, yet despite their deception, God still found a way to implement his plan.
ReplyDeleteIn Genesis 25, God tells Rebekah, "The older shall serve the younger" (25:23). Through this, we know that God's plan involved Jacob being more powerful than Esau, however, God never said he needed help from Rebekah. By Rebekah urging Jacob to trick Isaac, she was not trusting that God had control of the situation. She simply favored Jacob over Esau and wanted to give him special treatment. Her intent was not to further God's plan.
When Leah hides her father's household gods in Genesis 31:34, she was not doing it to aid in God's divine plan. At this point, Leah had no idea what role, if any, she would play in God's plan, so she was not protecting herself in order to protect God's intentions. She simply lied so she wouldn't be put to death. In fact, an argument could be made that if Leah had died in Genesis 31, the rest of the story wouldn't have been affected at all. Therefore, we see that the purpose of Leah's trickery wasn't to execute the intent of the Lord; she was only focused on saving herself through lying.
I agree with Kelsy’s notion that the women’s trickery and considered deceit can be seen as positively generative, and bolster her argument further with my own examinations of evidence from both a modern day feminist perspective, and a literary functionality viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteFrom a feminist perspective, I support Kelsey’s strong examples and I claim that these actions of diverging from what is culturally just at the time can be viewed as liberating. Women throughout the text have not had much freedom, respect, or recognition, like in Genesis 8:18 where none of the women are even introduced on the ark, in the ten commandments objectifying with “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife,” the owning, demeaning, and selling of concubines, rape victims, and daughters in Exodus 21:7, Deuteronomy 22:28, and Kings 1:3, and in Leviticus 15:19 where it states menstruating women are unclean. With women like the ones Kelsey referenced however, their decisions to disobey and deceive using their femininity solidify their characters and combat the integrated misogyny during this time. I agree that these acts of defiance actually serve God’s purpose in the bigger picture by being the initial conduits to pave the way for other women and men to recognize gender equality and synergy which God had intended in Genesis. Although subdues by sin, like I had stated in the previous blog post, if everything God created was good, including the agency to commit sin, then in the bigger picture does that sin actually constitute as beneficial to God’s design? I see this as akin to a “lose the battle, win the war” type mentality. This free will in everyone was created to crystalize God’s forgiveness and growth, as reaffirmed in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”
As for a literary function, I see these acts as similar generators for the rest of the stories to be told, like a butterfly or domino effect. The bible would be completely different if these actions were not carried through, and perhaps the way society perceives and archetypically writes women into literature today. Overall, I thought it was clever to view the women’s tactics as feminist-driven plot and moral instigators.
In Aaron's analysis of Genesis he disputes that god is vindictive with points he feels prove god's "never ending forgiveness" and occasionally his "fairness" but I would disagree.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first points Aaron makes is that god is fair when punishing sinners and doesn't punish them for something they don't know is wrong, but it is true that by Genesis 6:5 it says "The lord observed the extent of human wickedness on the earth, and he saw that everything they thought or imagined was consistently and totally evil" Without any explanation of how this is wicked or evil. We can be fairly certain that the flood time is before god sends rules to Moses because the story of moses doesn't include any "giant Nephilites" or "heroes and famous warriors of ancient times". It is also true that by this point in the story the only sins we know of are breaking of covenants (like Adam and Eve did).
On the next page we get to the story of Cain and Abel where Aaron says "God shows his forgiveness and mercy by not killing him..." I believe this argument assumes that because this god character is all powerful he should also be unfair/unjust and therefore we should be thankful when he is not. It applies a relative morality to the actions of god in justifying not murdering someone. Killing someone to prove the point that killing people is wrong is inherently unjust and hypocritical. I don't think we should praise an apparently omniscient being for NOT being unjust/hypocritical. This same argument can be made for Adam and Eve. A punishment that yet further exemplifies how god's "forgiveness of eve" and other similar biblical sentiments have been used to justify the terrible treatment of women in the real world.
In the story of Jacob and Esau we actually see Jacob REWARDED for his awfulness toward his brother which seems pretty backwards to the point the paper was trying to make.
I wanted to talk about Kyrie’s idea about the gap theory, I thought that it was by far one of the most interesting ideas I have ever heard of, because it was literally the first time I have ever heard of this idea. I just thought that the idea of having a huge gap between genesis 1 and 2 just seems crazy to me. Growing up catholic it was never discussed in schools whether or not the time frame between genesis 1 and 2 was different than any of the other chapters. I think that where his theory can be argued and interpreted a different way is in Genesis 1:2 “the earth was without form and void” which means to me that God created it out of nothing, I also took this that God created the solar system and everything else first and earth was the last planet created, then humanity and so on and so forth. I just believe that there was no mentioned time frame so why should humans go on and on to dive further into whether or not we believe that the gap theory is an actual thing.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the thesis claiming that women possess a higher understanding of God's plans and that their use of trickery is an attempt to execute God's will. The text shows men utilizing deceit just as frequently as women, and for both sexes it appears the intent is purely selfish. Often, trickery will result in a positive outcome, but the text usually ascribes this to God. This says more about the goodness of God than the supposed "good" intentions of the deceiver.
ReplyDeleteI will give a few citations of men utilizing deceit to show that it is not merely a female act in Genesis. In chapter 4:8-9, Cain deceptively draws Abel out into the field in order to kill him. We also see Abraham, arguably the most important patriarch, attempt to deceive Pharaoh (12:10-20) and Abimelech (20:1-18) by lying about Sarah. We also see Isaac try to deceive Abimelech in the same manner (26:7-10). Although Rebekah planned the trickery that resulted in Jacob receiving Isaac's blessing, Jacob actually was the one who deceived his father and brother. He also craftily obtained his brother's birthright (25:29-34) (after all, his name sounds like "deceiver"). Later on, we see Jacob and Laban go back and forth deceiving each other.
In every example for the men, the text indicates that the motives for deceit are selfish. It is either out of fear (e.g. Abraham or Isaac) or out of greed/self-advancement (e.g. Jacob and Laban). When the women are shown to be tricky, I argue that the motives are the same. Rebekah played a part in tricking her husband because she loved Jacob more than Esau (25:28). Lot's daughters slept with him to "preserve our family line" (19:32). The text indicates that they knew there were other people with children (they left Zoar), leaving the only explanation for their deceitful incest as an attempt at self-preservation through offspring. Tamar also deceived Judah out of self-preservation - her future as a widow was very bleak without Judah following through on his responsibility to her, so she deceived him with the intent of ensuring she would be taken care of.
I do not disagree with the assertion that much of God's plan was furthered by trickery in Genesis, but I think that shows that God redeems the poor, selfish decisions of both men and women.
I enjoyed listening to Kyrie's oral paper, since personally, it answered a question of mine that I was hoping would get answered,
ReplyDeleteand fortunately it did (though with a deeper analysis, I could have realized this on my own, but Kyrie gave it a push). In relevance to his thesis, Kyrie makes a strong proposition that God did not create the world within consecutive days, rather that the creation within the verses Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 actually happened within years. This is interesting, because I never analyzed this before. In Genesis 1:1 we see that God created the heavens and the earth, and without background knowledge, goes on to say that the earth was dark and formless and empty. What causes this emptiness on earth? There must have been something in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that created this contrast, and with Kyrie's theory, Satan betrayed God and was cast down upon the earth (Satan is referenced as darkness and God as light), and caused destruction in which God later created light in 1:3. So there must have been evidence that Satan was here on earth between 1:1 and 1:2, and Kyrie provided that within Ezekiel 28:14-17 that Satan was cast down to earth, which has to be shown between the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the darkness and emptiness of it. He later explains that in Isaiah 14:12-21, that people saw Satan actually being thrown down to earth "I saw Satan falling from heaven as a flash of lightning!" Satan was a bearer of light, but because he betrayed God, he was thrust into darkness, which can also foreshadow his acts later on. With this analysis, you have to wonder that God did create the heavens and the earth, but, as said before, where did this sudden darkness come from if God created it, and with God, he himself is light? And thus God *later* creates light to wash away the darkness. So there must have been a distance between the creation and the fall and the creation once more.
I could agree enough to almost say that both Kelsey and Rebecca's argument would coincide in that both their arguments point out actions by women to make things go the way that they wished. In the examples that Kelsey provided as evidence to further her argument, three of the five women were acting to further her offspring's chance of success, ultimately stating that in Rebecca's argument that fertility was a major player in the every day life, is also correct. When Tamar and Lot's daughters decided to sleep with their relatives to further their own offspring, showing both deception and importance of fertility in the lives of those women, they proved that both arguments completely coincided in that instance.
ReplyDeleteIn the instance of Rebekah's deception, she enabled Jacob (her chosen son) to gain a better chance at life. This could be expanded by saying that Rebekah increased Jacob's life prospects, and in doing so, increased his own chances.
I think that Kelsey and Rebecca gave tremendous presentations, I would just love to hear more about how those two topics could be related.
All of the oral presenter's argued great points, but I would like to focus in on Aaron's argument that God has "never ending forgiveness," in Genesis.
ReplyDeleteAaron makes the point that even through human's sin in the garden, God punishes them lightly and "is very fair when punishing sinners." I disagree with this statement because of the fact that God told Adam and Eve (2:17) that if they eat of the tree YOU will surely die. They were deceived and ate from the tree, but the rest of mankind, even to this day, are the ones facing the consequence. I argue that God in this sense, God is vindictive in showing punishment to thousands of people who made no cognitive decision to disobey God.
I believe this example counters the point that Aaron made in showing God's character from a different light.
I would like to elaborate on Aaron's argument that God is very fair when he is punishing sinners. Incidences in Genesis show that God punishes for sinful intentions and not actions, even if the actions might be seen as immoral in our eyes.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most controversial incidences is Lot and his daughters. In Genesis 19:32, Lot's daughter says that, "That way we will preserve our family line through our father." It is clear that her motivation is purely to continue the family line, which actually coincides with God's repeatedly appearing commandment for the mankind to be fruitful and multiply.
I believe that intention drives the actions. A person wouldn't do something without any intention or motivation. And we all understand the awful feeling of being wronged, when something goes wrong with a good intention. If God judges upon human's actions instead of intention. It would not be fair.
The one that interested me the most was Kyrie's. I had never heard of the gap theory before, so it was new to me. We studied Genesis as a creation story in this class, but Kyrie points out that it may be the replenishing of earth from what Satan destroyed. I guess that I always just assumed that Satan was the serpent, but never had any way to back that up. Kyrie's oral paper provides me with insight to how to back up this statement.
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting part is the difference of the words in the rhetorical part of his oral paper. It shows how the Hebrew words can be differently interpreted and used in the text. It changes the way that I read and understood Genesis.
Obviously Genesis has a lot of missing information. We talked about this several times in class, but the idea of the Gap Theory indicates that there is more information missing between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 than there should be. I am not sure I totally agree with the gap theory, even though I find it interesting. For me to support the gap theory I would have to do more research than just what was proposed to me in class.
The paper that I thought struck me the most was Women/Deception in Genesis by Kelsey Batt. In the conclusion, the statement that stood out to me and made me question was: “Ultimately, the intent was not only out of self-preservation but also to further the purpose of their God.” I have a really difficult time with this statement. Thinking specifically about Rebekah, she encourages her son, the one that was chosen by god, to steal his brother’s birthright and blessing. Stealing is not a good thing! How can a god that is so good promote bad? The women in this story do a lot of trickery, which causes them to lie all of the time. How can lying be a good thing? Then the topic of rape comes up with Lot and his daughters and many other times in the Bible. That is not a good thing and how come they were rewarded with two nations when they did something that today is very wrong and would end someone in jail? How does god support that? I agree with the statement saying that maybe the women in the Bible used deception as what they thought was self preservation, but I disagree that they were furthering God’s plan. Yes, he might of intended for these stories to go differently but the ways the women get them done range from white lies to despicable. This goes for the men as well in my opinion. Cain was just trying to be favored by God when he killed his brother, Abel, which is a means of self preservation so as not to be smited by his God. Abraham at first deceives his son, Isaac, pretending that he is not the sacrifice so as to get him to go up the hill with him. He is doing what God asked but he is lying about it. It is really interesting how the thesis is true for so many stories throughout Genesis and the Bible, but I just can’t believe that God would reward terrible behavior. And why it is shown that he does in Genesis is a mystery to me. It make me wonder if God is good and why he lets those things happen and why he rewards them. It is discouraging as if being a good person doesn’t matter if you don’t deceive to further God’s plan.
ReplyDeleteI support Kelsey Batt'S thesis on Women and Deception. I believe that the inherent nature of women's deception upon disobeying Gods commandments, allowed for the actual realization of women's power, and in doing so women used their Feminity as their sole weapon to inadvertently accomplish Gods initial instructions or commandment, which is to go out into the world and multiply. We can see this in Genesis, with Lot and his two daughters, who had used their cunningness with feminine power to achieve a goal they wanted, because they wanted children.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, we also see Delilah in the book of Judges, when she was sought out by the philistines to find out Samson's source of power, she cunningly used her feminine prows of soft touch, beautiful looks and deceptive cry to make Samson tell her his source of power, but unknowing to her, it was still part of Gods plan to use Samson as a Destructive tool to the Philistines where he killed 3000 men, women and children, more than what he had accomplished while he was alive.
P:S I AM SORRY IT COMING LATE, I DIDNT REALIZE IT WAS DUE 0900AM TODAY.
The oral paper I would like to analyze is Aaron Herrenbruck’s, about God’s forgiveness. The major thing I noticed about this paper is the enormous amount of repetition. I counted the word “forgiveness” six times, “punish” (or some form of it) ten times, and some form of eating or food four times. This clearly means that these words have some sort of connection, because as we all know, repetition is important.
ReplyDeleteI propose that once people sin against God repetitively, He will punish them by taking away some form of food, and then ultimately forgive them since that is His nature. This can be seen in Ezekiel when God took away food and said that they would “waste away because of their sin,” but at the end of Ezekiel, God promised to be with the people, give them David as a ruler, and give them their country back. This is a prime example of God punishing a country by taking away their food and then forgiving them. This proves that humans obviously need food to live, so it makes sense that God would take that away to prove a distinct point.
This is Kimberly Goff.
DeleteI agree with Aaron's thesis that God is a God of forgiveness and understanding, not a God of unjust retaliation. In Aaron's paper, he discussed forgiveness in the context of God forgiving humans, and humans forgiving humans. I think this is an interesting juxtaposition. Given the fact that we are made in God's image/likeness (Genesis 1:27), I believe our capability to forgive comes from Him. Therefore, we know God has the power to forgive. Aaron mentioned forgiveness in the story of Joseph and his brothers. I think Joseph's actions mirror God's representation in some ways. It is stated several times that after his brothers hurt him, Joseph wept (Genesis 42:24). In Genesis 6:6, God is stating his regret for creating humans. This is because humans became sinful in nature and hurt God like Joseph's brothers hurt him. Joseph and God were both abandoned by the ones they loved. In both instances, this hurt them deeply. Joseph wept, and God was, "grieved to his heart." (Genesis 6:6) That being said, they each were given the chance to forgive. Joseph finally revealed his identity and forgave his brothers, and God forgave humanity by sparing Noah and his family.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that all parties were forgiven, there were still consequences for the guilty. Joseph's brothers had to demonstrate their helplessness and submit to their brother's authority (as prophesied in Joseph's dream), and God still wiped the earth of sin. However, they each were able to forgive and forget in the end. Another example is when Adam eats the forbidden fruit, he is not killed, but sentenced to have difficulty in working the land. I think all this evidence demonstrates that both God and humans have the capability to forgive, but sometimes you have to work a little for it.
Obviously my oral paper was the most interesting but Kelsey's made a lot of sense and I was able to follow easily. When she refers to Lot's Daughters I felt that this was one of the best examples of her thesis. Women wanted to control men and in this instance they do so with by tricking their father and gaining sons for themselves. It is very clear here that the daughters wanted control and they took it just as the curse God gave Eve in Genesis 3:16. Lot's daughters were able to have sons which would carry on the family line just as they needed.
ReplyDeleteThe paper I am choosing to comment on is Aaron Herrenbruck’s. I agree with Aaron’s thesis that although god does punish people constantly throughout genesis, he time and time again displays mercy and forgiveness for those who have sinned against him. Let’s just take a look at Adam and Eve to start. The first two human beings on earth who god created in his image, break the one rule god set in place for them. They eat from the forbidden tree and gain the knowledge of food and evil. God could have easily struck Adam and Eve dead and started fresh. But instead, although he does punish them, he allows them to keep living. Another example of god showing mercy on humans, is found in chapter 11 during the building of the tower of babel. Instead of striking the tower down and killing those who created it, he instead confuses their language. God can be seen time and time again punishing people, but he never bestows on them the ultimate punishment which in my eyes would be death. In Genesis 3:15 after Cain kills Abel, although he banishes him from the land, he place protection over Cain and says that if Cain is to be killed the person who killed him would face punishment seven times worse. God is merciful and he shows many times throughout Genesis.
ReplyDeleteReferring to Kyrie’s thesis claiming that the fall could have occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I disagree with the thesis proposed, however the evidence given could cause one to question exactly how much they know about the creation story. Like we have talked about in class, the texts have been translated over thousands of years, and one could argue that this fact benefits either side. The point I am making is that transcribers went back and placed the verse numbers in the text, so specifically pin pointing the fall of Satan from heaven, between the words “earth” and “the” at the end of verse 1 and beginning of verse 2 is impossible, literally speaking. After conducting some exterior research the theory was created in the 19th century and nowadays there are not current geologist that believe this could have been possible based on fossil readings. The verses in Isaiah and Jeremiah need more context to place billions of years between verse 1 and 2. Verse 2 is describing the creation, and it isn’t until the end Beginning of Genesis 2, where the narrator says, “So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed.” Scripture later talks in Genesis 3 of the fall significantly after everything was completed, so to place the fall that happens in Gen. 3 between verses 1 and 2 of Gen. 1 would need much more supporting evidence.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aaron's thesis, I agree with his thesis in that God is not always vindictive, but I feel as though he is not necessarily forgiving. I think it is somewhere in the middle of these two which I thought that the paper proved very well. Regarding the reference to Cain's transgression against God and his punishment (Gen 4:8-15), the punishment was not as light as was let on. Cain was marked and sentenced to a life as an outcast, which is the equivalent if not worse than the justice that a murderer would receive today in most states. Then in regards to Adam and Eve (3:16-19), though he spares there lives, he hands them down many punishments that take them from the eternal paradise and send them to a world of work and hardship for them and their lineage. This is merciful is some respect but still isn't quite forgiving. The other two examples show how he tries his best to settle human to human disputes, which shows that all that he does, wether punishment or reward, is for the good of his children.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kelsey’s oral paper, I agree with the part of her thesis that says the leading women in Genesis are very deceptive. However, I disagree with the part of her thesis that argues the women’s deception was for the purpose of fulfilling God’s will as they saw it. Instead, I think the women’s deception and rebellion against what was right should be interpreted as a direct result of God’s giving the gift of free will to humans. I think the women’s actions were done for their own personal gain, not because they thought they were helping fulfill or implement God’s plan. For example, I do not think Rebekah knew Jacob was “God’s chosen one,” but rather she just liked Jacob more than she liked Esau. In addition, I think Tamar’s actions were done out of spite to get back at Judah for denying her a husband. I do not think there was any forethought on Tamar’s part that she was doing what was right in God’s eyes by deceiving Judah. Also, I do not see a result from this particular story in which the woman’s actions seemed to help fulfill God’s plan. Still, regardless of my opposing opinion to the thesis, I think this is a very interesting and different way to read and interpret the stories of the women in Genesis, and I do not think I would have made these connections on my own. I applaud Kelsey for her careful reading and insight.
ReplyDeleteI found Kyrie's Gap Theory thesis for Genesis to be quite interesting and clearly a topic that will continue to be discussed. Since Kyrie was able to make seemingly clear and somewhat concise backed up claims showing the difference between Genesis 1 and 2, I think it's fair to say that there is some validity to this particular argument. In addition, though we haven't discussed it in great length, the class has been made aware that the bible is considered to have more than one author. Given that line of thought, it could be conceivable that this notion is also a part of what sets these two sections of Genesis apart. Since there is no comprehensive source that chronicles how and when the bible was composed I think that adds strength to the claims that he made. Additionally, though perhaps a bit time consuming, a modern audience may need some additional background information about the context and meanings behind certain words that may have a layered meaning that is generally unknown today. Kyrie was able to start to scratch that surface with the class which I believe he would have been able to eloquently and fully describe to the class if he was not limited to the time constraint of just four minutes for his presentation. Ultimately, as this is a discussion based class, Kyrie's presentation was right for the type of environment we've been fostering and was only hindered due to the scope of this idea to be processed by the class.
ReplyDelete