Agree/Disagree

Look through your notes from the recent round of Oral Papers. Engage with ONE of the oral papers in one of the following ways:
1. Present a disagreeing rebuttal to the thesis, providing at least TWO items of textual evidence that support your rebuttal.
2. Present a supportive response to the these, providing at least TWO additional items of textual evidence that bolster your support.

Please note: disagreeing with someone's thesis does not mean you thought their oral paper was weak or insufficient. It simply means you see things another way. So don't be afraid or worried about presenting an opposing view. In truth, a good thesis is one that a rational person can reasonably disagree with. So you needn't fret about hurting anyone's feelings.

If you take an opposing view, do it with respect and clarity.

If you take a bolstering view, do it without being overly "bravo awesome."

Simply state your case - whether you disagree or agree and why (based on strong textual evidence).

Ready: go. DUE by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, October 4th.

Genesis (re)considered

"In the beginning" is a phrase most people recognize. The words that follow may or may not be equally familiar.

If the full book of Genesis was a new text to you before this class, 1) what expectations did you have for it (and what were those expectations based on), and 2) how were those expectations surprised? In others words, how was Genesis not what you thought it would be? Provide at least one specific example (include verse and chapter as needed) and briefly comment on your changed perspective.

If the book of Genesis was a familiar text to you before this class, 1) what was your perception of it before this most recent read-through (and what were those perceptions based on), and 2) how was that perception surprised after reading and discussing it? In other words, how is Genesis something new or different or more than it was previously? Provide at least one specific example (include verse and chapter as needed) and briefly comment on your changed perspective.

NOTE: don't waste any words on an intro statement, needless blather, or fancy tangled sentences. Say what you want to say with confidence, clarity, concision, and cohesion. Be thoughtful. Write something of substance. Use however many words you need to make your brilliant observation, and not a single word more. At the same time, don't use one word less than you need to fully and completely make your brilliant observation.

You can do this. Don't fret. Think about it. Mull it over. Dance through it a few times in your head. Then write it down, type it up, check for spelling errors (do. not. skip. this. step.), get rid of stray commas, post it, and enjoy a snack.

Posts are due by 11:59 p.m. Wednesday Sept. 12.

Carry on.

Noah re:mix

Enjoy this retelling of the Noah story, envisioned as postcards from sea-life - who understandably have a contextualized perception of reality. (Brown whale - brilliant.)

Note the color-coded palistrophic structure, the creatively envisioned heavenly organizations (e.g. "Travel Division of the Aquatic Subdepartment"), the PA (post angel) box numbers, and postal codes (which reference the Genesis passage, so "71740" alludes to Genesis 7:17 and 40 days/nights).

Bonus: postcard first and last are from creatures that can exist on both land and in water. Nice touch.

All creative pairings and written content belongs to Rachel Babiak.

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

Who Is This Man? (Blog post 9)

Jesus (by Kaichou Angel 

Luke 8:22-25 tells the story of Jesus calming the storm. You know the narrative - Jesus and his friends plus a boat; very bad storm; danger danger; boat filling with water; friends freak out; friends wake up Jesus (probably because they need more help bailing the boat); Jesus doesn't bail the boat; Jesus tells the wind and the waves to STOP; they stop; his friends (who've known him for awhile now) are terrified and amazed.

"Who is this man?" they ask each other.

That is the million dollar question.

Who is this man?

Luke's gospel gives us more details about Jesus' life than similar texts. And yet even this carefully organized and thoughtful account of his life is replete with unspoken backstory - or "fraught with background" as we discussed early in the semester.

Still, all we have to go on is what Luke (and the other gospel authors) actually wrote. It is much and little, all at the same time.

Choose two accounts/narratives in Luke's gospel and discuss how they illuminate the character of Jesus. You can focus on something Jesus said (or didn't say), something he did (or didn't do), or something someone else said or did in response to him.

Analyze the two accounts and offer an answer to the question "who is this man?" Your answer can be practical, literary, descriptive, relational, theological, philosophical - anything goes, as long as you craft a substantive and thoughtful response based on what Luke wrote.

Be sure to include references.

DUE: Friday, Dec. 1 before MIDNIGHT

The Jury is Out (Blog post 8)

John Cleese as a British judge - you're welcome.

(If you don't know who John Cleese is, shame on you. Look it up. Then watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Many times. And also the Dead Parrot skit. And the Ministry of Silly Walks sketch. Over and over and over again.

Respond to one of the recent oral papers on Samuel, Psalms, and/or Job with either a thumbs up (agree with the thesis) or thumbs down (disagree with the thesis - but not rendering judgment on the presenter or the paper itself; they were both likely quite awesome).

You must provide THREE supporting pieces of evidence for your viewpoint. In other words, offer three additional textual observations in support of the thesis OR three textual observations in opposition to the thesis (they can be entirely new pieces of evidence or new observations of evidence already submitted for consideration).

As always (ho hum - you've heard it before) be concise, articulate, and substantive. There is no room in a blog post for meandering, yammering, wandering, or ummming/ermmmming.

No need to wear a British judge wig while writing - but bravo if you attempt it.

POSTS ARE DUE WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER BY MIDNIGHT. (Put in on your calendar. Set an alarm. Write yourself a note.)