Second Quarter

Questions Of The Day

Do boys have an advantage in society?

I think that they do, but women also an advantage over them. Did you ever notice that a girl saying bad words is less tolerated than a boy saying bad words? Did you ever notice that if a girl goes out with many boys, she is called a "whore" and many negative words, but when a boy goes out with many girls, he is called a "lady-killer"? However, boys also are put in unfair situations. Did you ever notice that a tomboy girl is more tolerated than a feminine boy? Did you ever notice that girls can hit boys, but they can't hit them back?

Biologically, women and men are different, so there has to be an advantage on something over each sex.

Regarding the "injustice" of a girl being called a whore, my opinion is that it is fair. I heard an explanation for that some years before: if a lock is opened by many different keys, the lock is useless. But if there is a key that opens many different locks, the keys is useful. Fair, isn't it? Different objects don't have the same conditions; therefore they don't have the same "use".

Girls saying bad words are also a problem, but they can be evolutionarily explained. Many thousand years before, when people were starting to exist and group up in tribes, it is very likely that 1:1 marriages didn't exist. Polygamy was the norm, because even if they were fertile, child mortality was high, and their lifespans were very short. Therefore, people had to procreate very much. And because they had to generate many children, many childbearing’s were needed, therefore, women. If there was an island with 99 women and one man, and another island with 99 men and one woman, the 10-years-later population of each island's would be highly distinguishable. So women had to be "weak" to let the man "do the work". She had to look, at least, vulnerable and weak, which leads to "delicate". "Delicate" is not the synonym of vulnerable and weak, but it has a similar mood. So to be delicate, women couldn't be as men were, and only delicate, the almost-synonym of "feminine".

Even though women are thought in some places to be inferior, people won't live without them. They are essential, as men are too.

What is your understanding of hell?

I don't believe in hell or heaven, but I'll do an analysis of hell. 

The interesting thing of hell is that people are imagined to have physical sufferings. In a book that I read, there was an artist in monarchy-Korea in the Kingdom of Joson. He was asked to draw hell in a monastery. He took a very long time to draw it in a wall. But when he finished, the monks were very astonished because he drew monks being tortured, and not sinners. And so, in other regions where Christianism wasn't present, there still was a heaven-and-hell concept, like the Zaratustrian philosophy, but only between good and evil. 

And also another thing about Christian hell is that people thought, and still think that hell is a burning sea of fire. If I am not mistaken, according to the article that I read years ago, it was caused by a mistranslation (or pun, like the red apple being compared to the forbidden fruit) from Latin to some other language, probably ancient French or Italian, since Italian is the "legitimate" descendent of Latin.

But if I believed in hell, I would imagine it as a place where you suffer for what you were. I remember of a passage in the Bible I read a year ago, where it said something like the selfish will have long spoons, so when they try to eat, the spoon is so long that they cannot put the food in their mouth, and the easiest way is to give others, but since they're selfish, they'll only try to have it for themselves, and not for other people. I think that hell is a place where you regret, and regret again, because guilt is the worst feeling a person can have. "Why did I do that? Why didn't I do that? Why didn't I simply do that?" people will be asking all the time for themselves. And that will go forever and ever...

What was interesting, unexpected, or exasperating about yesterday’s experience? More importantly, what did you learn about yourself?

The most unexpected, interesting, perhaps a sad thing is my grandmother’s death. I was a kind of expecting it, but not at that time. It was a holiday, and my parents were supposed to be traveling for two days, so I was supposed to be alone in the house for one night. But my solitary paradise without parents failed when they came the same day they parted at night. Something was different in their faces. Usually, my father would walk into the house pretending to be listening to my mom, that complaining right next to him. But that day, both of my parents were silent, slowly walking into the house. I knew something was different, even though I was too distracted by the game I was playing on PS3. “What happened?” I said. “Your grandmother passed away”. I actually didn’t really feel sad when I heard it. I think it’s because the relationship with my grandmother wasn’t so good. But one thing I felt was guilt.

She was born in North Korea, in a rich merchant family. Because of the Japanese domination at that time, she had to speak Japanese at school, otherwise the Japanese men would “hit the hands with a wooden stick”, as she told me. And then, when she was older, she worked to the UN when the Korean War happened. But because the UN troops were descending in the Korean territory, she had to leave her family and go alone in the south of the pre-separated Korea. But when the war was over and Korea was split into two, it was too late. My grandmother was stuck in the south. She thought she was left alone without her family until she found a distant uncle. And that’s how she met my grandfather. Her distant uncle who had a friend had a nephew in suitable conditions.

I felt very very sorry for her. Very sorry for not being mature enough to understand how much she suffered and mistreating her. Very sorry for hiding from her when she visited me. Very sorry for everything. I hadn’t visited her for weeks when she was at the hospital. And her corpse, lying in the coffin was her figure I saw in months. She had the face of always. Just no expression on her face. She was “stone dead”, as many people describe dead bodies. I didn’t feel anything when I looked at her face, contrary to my oldest uncle, who started to cry whenever he saw her face. And contrary to everyone in the funeral, I was happy. She was dead, at least. She found an end. An end to her sufferings, lying down unconscious at the hospital day for almost one year, forgetting things and fighting with someone of the family, not being able to see without glasses, not being able to walk by herself, not being to eat by herself, and not having her husband next to her.

I learned that I am pretty optimistic about death, and that I am not really afraid of death. When it’s time, I’ll go. I’ll go without any reluctance, because everyone has their own time.

Are there practical limits to our understanding of us?

I think that there are no limits of physically knowing ourselves, because our body is changing all the time, and even though our research about our own bodies is happening in a very high rate, we’re never going to know all about ourselves. For example, the urban grasshoppers are making lower frequency sounds than the rural grasshoppers so that they can be heard by their partners in order to reproduce. Like that, our bodies are adapting to our lifestyles, even if it the difference is very very small. So every time we try to unmask every mystery hiding in our body, we’re going to be too late to discover other changed thing. I know that adaptation doesn’t happen that fast, but trying to know about every part of our body will take pretty long time. Like… more than a hundred thousand years.

Is evil a failure of who we are or part of who we are?

Whenever I think of this question, my brain just bugs. I can’t really say if evil is really a failure or a part of who we are. Like a quote from whom I don’t know “darkness if the lack of light”, but the light is also the lack of darkness, but the darkness is also just a dark part of something.

I think that it is more like a part of who we are, because the darkness is also just dark. So according to the quote, goodness is supposed to be the lack of evil and evil is the lack of goodness. But evil is also a part of us. Therefore, evil is something that we learn throughout our life. And by learning evil, we incorporate it to us, making it a part of our minds. Based on the two sides that we learned the good and bad, we make decisions. And what influence our decisions are our morals.

What would it mean for a student to be captains of their learning?

I think that it is good if students are mature enough to know what they really want to in life. And as we learned last year, south European Universities let the students kind of govern the school back in the ages when the Catholic Church had political power. They could fire the teachers as they wanted, and have student councils so that they could define the destiny of their school. But in my opinion, they were pretty mature to do that, and it wasn't an adult-free university. There were students of all ages and probably, the older ones would have more authority than the younger. 

For me, students to be captains of their learning would be preparing them more to "real life" than only academic. However, many people would say that only learning what they really need is enough. But I have to reply that the "excess" of knowledge is what differentiates us from animals, because they only know how to survive, and not to live, as we do. We have a religion, opinion, knowledge, information, but they don't. If we only knew how to survive as they do, we would be no longer different than the animals. Anyways, the "real life" schools would be learning how the society works, and how you can live in there. For example, people could have cooking classes. As they learn how to make food for themselves, they'll go less to fast food restaurants, and as they grow and have children, they'll pass their eating habits for the children and consequently decrease health problems caused by the excess of lipid. And they could also have economy classes, like how to get a job and use their money wisely. And they could optionally learn how to sew or learn how to program stuff. I don't really know if this is going to make the world better, but I hope so.

Can men and women be just friends?

I think that they can depending on the friend. For example, if you're a friend of a guy for ten years, then you've already lost the sexual attraction for him. There are very many "layers" of relationship. There is the stranger; you've never seen him before. Then, there is the more-than-stranger-but-nah; you've seen him, but if you saw him again somewhere, you wouldn't recognize him. There is the almost-acquaintance-but-stranger; you've seen him before, but it's too awkward to start a conversation. There is the now-little-acquaintance; he is an acquaintance, but he could be starting the almost-acquaintance-but-stranger if you don't see him often. The acquaintance; you can casually start a conversation, but it would be awkward if he was too shy. From here, some divisions start to appear between a friend and a date if you don't like him since you've met him. The fifty-percent-more-than-a-normal-acquaintance is when you start deciding if you're going to be his date or not. And from here, there is a friend, who is just a friend and there is an hmm-friend. The hmm-friend is the guy you've decided to be the date. So if you advance more with your hmm-friend, he will be a "ficante", which is an expression in Portuguese, which is "the one who stays with you", like a starting-to-get-pink-mood-guy. And if you want something more serious, the "ficante" can be your boyfriend, but if you want something more playful and don't want to be "engaged" with someone, the "ficante" can be your major ficante. But if you part from acquaintance to friend, GAME (almost) OVER for him. You totally lose the sexual attraction to him, and think only as "a friend". But if you rethink and discover you have feelings for him, then you can jump to starting-to-get-pink-mood-guy, put that is less likely to happen. And if you advance more on this friendship, he can be your good friend, then very good friend, and super good friend, and BFF and then, brother. If you reach the Brother level, GAME TOTALLY OVER AND NO RESTART for him. You've totally lost the attraction for him and can't imagine yourself getting in a pink mood, because that would feel like you're doing the same thing with your brother and say a few "eeww"s. But obviously, this is not an equation. People are different, and different things happen to different people. Some people jump from stranger to starting-to-get-pink-mood-guy. And some from "ficante" to BFF.

Do you ever `Mix It Up` and socialize with different people at school?

Unfortunately, I don't have the "Mix It Up" day at my school, but I would like it to have. But I do that every time I go to camps, I at least try to mix with other people. It is very very very sad when I sit with my friends and see another person sitting alone, eating his/her own food with their fallen shoulders like a half circle sitting in a chair when looking at the left side. I feel so sorry for them. I feel like I have to get to their front and say "hello! I'm sitting with you, because I don't like people eating alone! They seem so poor!" and sit, talk, eat with them. 

But this "Mix It Up" day wouldn't probably work, because usually, these people who stay isolated are outliers, which means that they don't fit with "normal" people, the majority. They never heard about The Walking Dead, or don't comment about other girls' frontals (I tried to find an appropriate word), or never played Minecraft or Assassin's Creed or Counter Strike or never watched a football match (if he's a boy). And if it's a girl, they NEVER even heard about Pretty Little Liars or Gossip Girl (I find those series stupid), or doesn't throw a comment about Justin Bieber/One Direction, or don't think that Angelina Jolie is hot (she's not.) or don't EVER complement other girls' shoes/accessories/clothes/makeup/hair/little mechanical pencil in a cute pencil case/anything. So those isolated people are difficult to mix with. Even though both of the "groups" want to mix with other people, the "normals" will find it hard, because there is simply NOTHING to talk about.

But if people really have the initiative and they're willing to talk to each other, even though somehow their conversation ends up in an awkward silence, the "Mix It Up" day is good.

Should doping be allowed in sports?

No, because it would still be unfair if everyone took the same medicine. And it is still unfair to all the athletes have the competition in the same day, because some of them can be in their best conditions to play, but some can be in their worst conditions. Anyways, doping shouldn't be allowed in sports, because their bodies can react differently. It's the same way some people can't eat shrimps, because they're deadly for them by causing an allergy that causes some organs to swell and suffocate the person to death. But for some people - like me - can peacefully eat a bunch of them (with lemon!!! yummyy) sitting in a bench looking at the beach in a sunny day. I'm not saying that the medicine can cause a deadly swelling to suffocate the person to death, but I'm saying that their bodies can use the substances in the medicine more efficiently than others.

Another example of difference between bodies is the calorie-burning. If I and my father, for example, ate a piece of cake, I've probably gained some milligrams of lipids, but my father would've used the carbohydrates/sugars/lipids up and probably would've asked for one more piece. That's because my body - unfortunately - stores every single substance I eat. So I have a low metabolism and can gain weight very easily if I don't exercise (which I don't). But my father has a very high metabolism and just DOES NOT get fat. His body uses up every single substance, including a lot of carbohydrates, to maintain the organs working. I suppose that people have different metabolisms because of their ancestors. If you've gone through much time without eating and starving, your kids would probably have low metabolism. And it also depends on who you resemble. My mother has a low metabolism, and I've resembled my mom. However, my father has high metabolism and also does my brother.

Can the Robin Hood mentality ever be justified?

I think that it can't. As we learned on STOP, even though your initiatives are good, if your actions to achieve it are bad, then you're doing a wrong thing. 

To what extent do you enjoy being scared by horror movies or books? Do you think there are actual haunted houses out there?

I don't really enjoy watching horror movies, because I can't get scared. I've watched the three Paranormal Activities and I only got scared of the first one, because I was only twelve. Western movies ARE NOT scary. I've watched the movie that was about a tape that people watched and they would die in a week, and couldn't get scared. And I watched another horror movie with Daniel (unspellable surname), the actor of Harry Potter. The movie was called "The Woman In Black", and it was not scary. It is really not scary. If you want to watch it, just google it and you'll find the movie quite amusing. BUT Eastern movies are REALLY REALLY scary. If you think that Western movies are scary, don't watch Eastern ones, because they'll haunt you every time you're trying to sleep. I've watched only Korean horror movies, like "Apartment" and two others that I can't remember now, and they're scary. I was freaking out when I finished watching "Apartment", because the movie was obviously about apartments, and I lived in an apartment.
I've read some horror books, and I couldn't really get scared of them too. There was a book that I read, and it was a bunch of ghost stories. I got scared when I was reading, but I never had a nightmare about it, and it was scary until two months later. I think that there are not haunted houses. Some people will say that there are haunted houses because of their experiences, but since I've never gone through this situation, I don't believe in haunted houses. I've watched a program on Discovery Chanel about haunted houses, but I don't think it's true. 

Being able to read other people is more important to life and education than being able to read poetry.

I think that’s true, not only because I just can’t read poetry, but because I try to guess what’s happening to other people. I tend to think only in my inside. I don’t just go asking “What happened?”. I analyze all the actions of the person that I’m talking to. There is a book called “The Body Speaks”, which is a book about people’s unconscious body motions. It only talks about pretty obvious things, but I still learned some things from it. For example, where the person is looking: if the person doesn’t look right through your eyes, and frequently looks either down or other sides that does not correspond to your face or eyes, he/she has an insecurity about something. And if the person just frequently looks around either with the eyes or turning the neck, the person is expecting something or someone, or something very interesting has caught the sight and the person is no longer interested on the conversation.

On Saturday, I went to a book shop in Paulista. I really wanted a Starbuck’s Frappuccino, but I didn’t know if there was a Starbuck’s shop near where I was. So I just looked around for people who were carrying something from Starbucks, since there are a lot of the shops in Paulista. So I found a man holding a cup from Starbucks. I noticed that the cup was almost empty, and only the whipped cream remained on the cup. I observed him saying “oh, look! There’s the book (something I don’t remember)!” to three or four people around him, probably his friends. His tone was quite cheerful, meaning that he wasn’t really tired of books, since he was at the entrance of the store. And his wiped cream wasn’t melted, but the day was hot. Also, walking alone would take less time than being in a group, accompanying the group’s steps. And the cup was bigger than a “tall” size, but a man’s gulp wouldn’t take long to have all of the Frappuccino in a hot day. So I concluded that there was a Starbuck’s shop nearby, but I couldn’t go to the shop because I didn’t have much time to find it. 

Bedouin proverb says, “Me against my brother, my brothers and me against my cousins, then my cousins and me”.

I think that makes sense, because whenever I talk about my brother with my friends, I complain about him. I say he’s annoying with me and stuff. When my friends say that he’s not annoying and he’s cute, I contradict them saying again that he’s annoying, but when they say that he’s really annoying, I am like “no! He’s not annoying! How dare you talk about my brother in front of me.” I know… it’s stupid.
Another situation of shifting alliances is when my brother and my mother fight. My mother always starts complaining a million things to him and digs up the past. Then my brother complains back to her and they start fighting. Sometimes, my mother asks “I’m right? Am I not?” to me, and I often say “no”, and take the side of my brother and defend him. I say that she’s complaining too much and she’s stressing herself. But when the situation is on the contrary, where I am fighting with my mother, my brother always takes the side of my mother. He’s an annoying betrayer. However, whenever my mother and my father are debating and my mother asks who is right, I often take the side of my mother, and defend her. But when my father complains about “stupid motorcycle riders” that say it was the driver’s fault, I take the side of my father and also start complaining about the “stupid motorcycle riders”.

Should there be a law? "Any person who knows that another is in imminent danger, or has sustained serious physical harm, and who fails to render reasonable assistance shall be fined up to 5000 dollars, imprisoned for up to three months, or both". Civil liability could also be established, as in other countries.  A duty to help would not require bystanders to endanger themselves or provide help beyond their abilities; it could simply require warning someone of imminent danger or calling 911(Good Samaritan law).

I think that there should be a law, and I think that the law is correct, because you had the responsibility of helping the person when you noticed it. I heard about a paraplegic guy that went to his university with his friends and bet something in jumping into a pool. He was unfortunately the first one. He jumped and rotated in the air and landed with his head. But the problem was that the pool wasn’t as deep as he thought. So he hit his head on the pool’s bottom and broke the neck. When the friends noticed what happened, they took him out from the pool, but since they weren’t medical students, they forgot about the neck and carried him by his arms and legs, and left his neck just hanging between the shoulders. I don’t know what happened next, but the friends had a good intention, and wanted to help him. But the problem is that he was also stupid, because he could at least do another bet or check the pool’s depth before. In the cases when people are not serious, I think that the “helpers” shouldn’t be punished, because that’s the person’s problem. However, in more serious cases, I think that not doing anything would also help. My father was coming to São Paulo in the weekend, and in the way he was coming, the car right in front of him slipped in the road and rolled some meters on, leaving the car’s bottom up. My father somehow managed to swerve the car and parked his car in front of the other car. Soon, other people started to get off from their cars and gathered around the car to try to get the driver off the car. But my father said to not try to get him off, because they could break the person’s neck in the middle of the trial, and call the ambulance. And my father, after telling the little story, said that he would take the person off if he had the right equipment. Sometimes, people need right equipment to help someone. And sometimes, doing nothing and hoping for the best is also helping.


When you look at the moon, you think, “I am really small. What are my problems?" it sets things onto perspective. "We should all look at the moon a bit more often." (Alain de Botton). Comment.
I think that we have problems because we always expect things to go perfect.

Anyways, my problem is that I invent new problems to myself, and I hate it. For example, I need to sleep. But to sleep, I need to brush my teeth, take a shower & stuff, but I’m too lazy to do it and I don’t want to do it. So brushing my teeth and taking a shower & stuff becomes a problem to me, and so does sleeping. That’s why people should be more optimistic. Not cleaning my room is also another example. Both of my parents hate when I don’t clean my room, they say that I’m stepping on my clothes and other things all the time, that I’ll breathe dust (I’m allergic to dust), that a girl’s room shouldn’t be like that. But I have absolutely no problem on stepping on my clothes, because I’ll wash them anyways; if I breathe dust, my nose will start to drool, but I can always blow my nose. But that’s why I’m lazy. And I hate being lazy. I think that having problems is just dealing with the situation that you’re in.

What would you like to do if money were no object?
I would still follow the same dream I have, which is to be a doctor. I desire to learn everything that I possibly can during my life. I would travel around the world and be a doctor, but not play the Sims all day, as I usually do. It's because I can forget about money, but not about time. I have limited time, even though I have unlimited economic resources. So I would rather discover new visions than play the Sims all day in my room.
Because I am very curious about all the things, I would like to travel around the world. I would love to discover new cultures, new people, new everything, and rethink about my theory of stuff.
I would also be a doctor. I know that being a doctor is something that is stressful and difficult, but I would work to learn about people, and also to see death. I don’t think death is something scary and we should all avoid, but something that makes you calm down, have an eternal sleep.

What was the last time you judged someone?
That was probably less than five minutes ago. The person was saying something about her dreams, but then, I automatically said "no, you don't do that well" in my mind.... But nobody is perfect...

What would you do if you don't go to college?
I think that I'll probably work as a book clerk, because I love books.
The people that made a lot of money, Bill Gates, the founder of Facebook, Steve Jobs are a different case. Firstly, they are not what we call normal people. They're different. They are ambitious geniuses. But unlike "normal people", they had backgrounds that contributed to their work, as I read on the book "Outliers". Bill Gates was born in a wealthy family that allowed him to learn enough about computers. And the founder of Facebook, Mark (unspellable surname)’sfather is a computer programmer. So we just can’t say that not going to college is something that will make you successful. You need to have all the “criterias” that make you likely to be successful even though you don’t go to college.

Like I read in the book “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”, studying well, getting into a good college, getting a good job, getting a good salary is the cycle that’ll make you be the “average” person. The guy who wrote the book had a friend. And the friend’s father didn’t even go to high school. He worked in a sugar cane plantation, but was richer than the writer’s father. That’s because he had the capacity of doing business. If I’m not mistaken, he owned three restaurants, some convenience shops, some other shops and some other venues. But the writer’s father was a teacher (if I remember it well), and “left debts after he passed away”. And in the book, the writer told that what parents say about getting a good job and getting a good salary will not make them rich, which is what most people aim during their lifetime. So if you want to be really rich, you just can’t live your life in a cage.

Works

Reaction papers (no double spacing)

Cultural Relativity

 I think that the author is a kind of wrong and a kind of right. That’s because the cultural relativism itself is, as the author says, self-contradicting.  The world would be peaceful and both violent with cultural relativism. But at some points, I don’t agree with the author. Either the author was too uninformed to write the article, or he’s just ignoring some historical facts. The Allies didn’t know right from the start of WWII that there were concentration camps. In fact, even the Germans didn’t know that. And after they discovered the camps, their main goal was not liberate all the people from the concentration camps, but to win the war. And Hitler was not a “normal” person too. He didn’t have the same education as we had. There was no one to say that there was no race, and no one was superior than other. The author only mentioned the genocidal because it is a very polemic issue, and not because he really knew about the subject in depth.
 Another point that I don’t agree with the author is regarding, although indirectly, the Muslim society. A book that I read about Islamism changed my point of view about them. Women have to wear burqas because it is a symbol of women’s sexual purity. Since men are less pure in sexuality, women have to wear them, because it is a sign of protecting women from men’s perversity. And also does the separation between different genders. Women aren't allowed to be in a space full of men because of the same reason they have to wear burqas. And the polemic stoning a woman to death case is a law distorted from its real meaning. Both man and woman should be punished by flogging, and the holy book of the Muslims, the Quran, does not say that the betrayers should be punished by stoning to death. I think that the author was also pretty uninformed about the “burdensome dowry system”.
 I think that the problem with the author is that he’s only criticizing other people, and not trying to understand them, even though he does not agree with what the other people do. I think he didn’t read “The Captains Of Sand”, by Jorge Amado, that talks about the street’s boys. After reading this book, my vision about the criminals was changed. I only thought that they were bad and selfish, but after I read the book, I realized that the criminals had also a humanist part. It sounds absurd, isn’t it? How can a thief be good? That’s because you have different moral standards than they have. You had the privilege of being born into a family, have what to eat, what to wear, and someone to love you all the time. But they didn’t. They were abandoned from their births. They didn’t have what to eat, what to wear, and someone to love them. They didn’t have the privilege or luck to be born like you. You had money, education and a family, but they didn’t. Imagine if you were them. Imagine if you were the beggar you just saw on the street yesterday. Imagine if you were the guy who appeared on the news that you’ve watched yesterday. Painful, isn’t it? You think that they’re stealing your stuff, but you, me, all of us stole their happiness from them. That’s how people’s view’s differ. You were taught from an early age to not steal. But they were self-taught that they HAD to steal. But the lessons that you’ve learned are not all. Media also does control you. You think that the Arabs are bad, but in their point of view, you’re bad. The media tells you that they’re bad, and you should fight them, but the actual situation is not like that. You criticise North Korea’s government in manipulating people, but you don’t actually know that you’re also being manipulated by the media. If you were an Arab in, for example, Palestine, where a case of violence always pops up, you wouldn’t have the same view you have now. You and your ancestors were living peacefully in a land, until some foreigners that have absolutely nothing with you tell your people to get out of the land you’re leaving in, because some other people are coming to take over your land. Would you just give the land to them? No. You would fight for your land that your people were living in. But what the media tells you is that Arabs are bad, and they’re attacking the Jews for no reason. No. There is a reason, and they’re trying to defend their land, like you and me would do.
 But on other things, I agree with the author. Cultural relativism is not what we should totally believe in.

One solitary life

Reading about Jesus in this way is something unusual for me. If I lived at that time, I would’ve thought “what an odd man” and forget about it, if I didn’t have religion. And if I was a Jewish person living at the time Jesus existed, I would consider him a crazy absurd man who proclaimed himself the “savior” of my people.

Jews believed that their messiah, or mashiach (to be more accurate), would come and a king of the End of Days. The mashiach would be a “great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being”. So I understand that people didn’t trust him and didn’t like him, because Jesus wasn’t what people were expecting him to be. Their mashiach had to be a great man, who had power and good heart, who would battle for Israel, and not a poor jobless nomad with thousands of followers, who proclaimed himself the mashiach of the Jews. If I was living at jesus’s time and I was Jewish, I would’ve not liked him and try to make the Greeks prosecute him. I would think that his followers were a bunch of heresies.

The interesting thing is that he was one of the “acceptable” ones. He said anyone could join him, and it was not only for the rich or nobles, but for the poor and people at the bottom level of the social pyramid. He accepted the most hated people, like the tax collector. He accepted all the people as his followers as they were, without money, without titles, without achievements, only with faith. And so was him. He was a poor nomad that didn’t go to college, just like his poor followers; prostitutes, beggars, the sick. He taught to be like a child, doing everything God says without questioning and being faithful. Another interesting fact about Jesus is that he didn’t own anything valuable. His only property was his coat. I think that this is similar to what he says about accumulating things on the afterlife, but not on Earth. So he was the perfect example to his followers. He did many things for God (because he was actually God himself of Earth), and nothing for other “political” reasons. He wasn’t afraid of all the hate that would come to him by the people. He wasn’t allied to any politicians, as many other religions did, but he was literally a solitary life. He didn’t serve any other power than the people. And he wasn’t a hypocrite, and he said to other people to not be a hypocrite. He always did what he said to do. None of his actions really contradicted what he did, unlike other preachers that contradicted what they preached, and unlike my mother, who tells me to clean my room, but never cleans hers.

I think that he became the founder of a new religion that influenced the whole world, because he didn’t contradict any of his teachings. He said to love the neighbor. He loved everyone. He said to follow God as a child. He did. He said to accumulate things in the afterlife. He did. He taught many other things, and he did just as he said. And I am not considering the miracles that were supposedly done, because he could simply used any magic trick or something. Hassan-i Sabbah, the founder of the Assassin’s Order, used to drug his followers to show them a “paradise” and claim that he was the only one that could take them to the “paradise” again. So his followers showed an incredible amount of faithfulness to him. But only by the fact that Jesus didn’t say anything that contradicted him, makes him a very admirable person in history.

The Eight Beatitudes

I think that these verses are actually very difficult to be interpreted like the real meaning the author wanted to pass, because the literature in this time was very metaphoric.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. I think being poor in spirit means, in this case, being humble. By being humble, people don’t only avoid fights, but avoid everything bad. I think that the “kingdom of heaven” means peace in heart, and not really the kingdom of heaven, because you firstly need to be Christian to enter heaven. And being humble is something that people admired and admire until this time. As the book says, the gift that you have should be used to multiply in something good, and not only keep it to yourself. I think that it applies to my life. Once, I was really proud of myself because I had a very high grade on Geography without studying and had the highest grade on my class. So go just got proud of myself and I didn’t even study for my next Geography test. The results turned out to be a very low grade, because I didn’t study, so I ate the “humble pie” and always studied for my next Geography tests. Also, being humble is a kind of self-denial, which is a practise between Christians, and it’s associated to denying the temptations and claiming the faithfulness they have.

“Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted”. Logically, it makes sense. If you don’t mourn, then you’ll not be comforted. I think this has something to be with the “blessed are the poor in spirit”, because if you don’t mourn and think everything is perfect around you, then you’ll not be blessed. Also, mourning and feeling bad before will result on comforting and feeling much better lately, having a “profit” over the mourning. And comforting is done by someone, meaning that the person who mourns will gain a certain amount of relationship with another person, in this case, God. When my grandmother died, my uncle would inconsolably cry all the time, but after a lot of praying and people comforting him, he stopped crying for her, and he’s alright now. (I didn’t give examples of myself because I was happy for her death, rather than sad).

“Blessed are they who are prosecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. Again, I think that the “kingdom of heaven” refers to piece in heart, and not the heaven. But the “prosecuted for the sake of righteousness” is something that would be better than being alive and unfairly live. And the death because of justice is a martyrdom, that is associated with doing the right thing, and unfairly prosecuted. Also, being alive because of a lie that you told would be very disturbing and cause you to be guilty of what you did “only” to save your life. Therefore, not have the piece in heart. Being not guilty is a very big gift someone can have. My brother had a wallet that was similar to mine. And one day, I took my brother's wallet, not noticing it wasn't mine. When I looked inside the wallet, a 50 reais bill was in it. First, I was surprised that I had some money and thought it was mine and used the money. But when I got home, I found another wallet, and when I opened it, I realized that the wallet I've just found was mine, and not his. I was finding it strange at fist, when I looked inside my brother's wallet that I didn't find Subway's bill and my student card in it, but I've thought that I had taken it off. When I organized all the confusion on my head, I realized what happened and got guilty. I couldn't look straight into his eyes until I'd placed my money equivalent to his in his wallet. Then, all my guilty was suddenly gone, and I felt good again. So I could actually look at my brother's eyes again. 

Other works

Making Excuses - Chapter 3

"I didn't give the homeless man a dollar because I thought he'd spend it on alcohol or drugs".

"I simply forgot about your birthday"

"I don't see how you can blame me for hating them. It's how I was raised."

War criminal: "I was only following orders."

"I flunked the test because the teacher doesn't like me".

Review and Reflection - Chapter 3

Page 78

1. License is like an excuse, something that you excuse from; an exception or to justify something that abuses freedom, but freedom is something that makes us responsible for our actions. 

2. Determinists say that the destiny is the one responsible for our actions, but Christians believe that we're the one responsible for our actions through freedom. 

3. It means that we do have freedom and that our choices help form who we are. 

4. External freedom is something that can be limited by outside factors, internal freedom is something limited by our morals, the freedom from is the addition of the external and internal freedom. Freedom for is the result of the addition. 

5. Accepting Jesus as their savior and God as the only god.

6. Ignorance - not knowing what we should do. Inadvertence - not paying attention while acting. Duress - forcing to do something. Inordinate attachments - things that we attach too much on. Habit - repeated behavior; can be good or bad. 

Page 80

1. We're responsible for the actions that we do.

2. Actions that can be ascribed, attributed, or linked to a specific person or entity. 

3. They're the feelings. 

4. I heard that my friend said something bad about me. I go angry. I want to revenge with something worse, but I just go talk to her.

Page 83
1. "Care for the precious life God gave you".
""Love your neighbor"
"Do good and avoid evil"
2. Law is "an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community".
3. The natural law is the "light of understanding God has placed in us". Preserving life, developing an individuals and communities, sharing life with others.
4. It applies to all people, in all places, for all time.
5. The natural law applies for all the people in all places, and for all the time, but civil law only applies for some people at certain places temporarily.

Page 88
1. The old Law is the law that God gave us through Moses. It can be summarized by the Ten Commandments.
2. Instruct the Catholics to practice their religion.
3. "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you", "Love one another as I love you"
4. They should instruct Catholics how to practice their religion.
5. "You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation", "You shall confess your sins at least once a year", "you shall humbly receive your creator in holy communion at least during the Easter season", "You shall keep holy the holy days of obligation", "You shall observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence", "The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his abilities". 

Verses

Luke 4:18

Poor in spirit

The spirit of he lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach food news for the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind.

Luke 6:36

Be merciful

36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Prosecution

John 15:20

But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'

STOP

Our human morality as a Christian has to be based on the moral object (what), the intention or motive (why), and the circumstances (who, where, when, and how).

             Intention:
- Seeking out for others’ advice to improve yourself is always important and also it is considered as important in moral life. Also, you can get the advice from someone who already tried to solve the problem, or from the Church because Church has several good guideposts that can help while we are making moral decisions.
- The Church has the right and duty to teach moral principles, including those concerning society, because Christ gave them. The Holy Father and the bishops are the authentic teachers who has right to teach others based on Christ’s idea.
- We have two rights, which is the following. First, we have the right to be instructed in God’s saving precepts. Second, we have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed, because we have grace, heal wounded human reason, and legitimate authority of the Church.
- The proven way to do God’s will, it is to consider the good of all, and pay attention to the moral law as we were taught by the Church’s Magisterium. The moral teachings of Jesus Christ are found in the New Testament, and pope and the bishops are the people who help us to understand and apply those ideas to our lives.
             Pray
- Prayer, which is a conversation with God strengthens our relationship with him. It is of great help in discerning God’s will and can assist us as we decide what is moral and what is not. And in the listening part of prayer, God can affect our minds, hearts, imaginations, emotions, and memories. The Lord assures us that our prayers will be answered.
- Here is the definition of a prayer: the living relationship of the children of God with their Father who is good beyond measure, with his Son Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit, and this definition is more focused on the living relationship, which is the object that we should have with God, and God loves us.
- Jesus taught us to pray often when you are alone, or with other people, and he taught that God will answer to our question and the prayer no matter what. Also he taught how to pray perfectly, which is the summary of the Gospel.
- Conversation has two main parts, which is listening and talking. And we can say that prayer is the conversation between us and God because as we talk to God, he helps us and tell us what to do, and we are listening to them.
             Pray
- Prayer, which is a conversation with God strengthens our relationship with him. It is of great help in discerning God’s will and can assist us as we decide what is moral and what is not. And in the listening part of prayer, God can affect our minds, hearts, imaginations, emotions, and memories. The Lord assures us that our prayers will be answered.
- Here is the definition of a prayer: the living relationship of the children of God with their Father who is good beyond measure, with his Son Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit, and this definition is more focused on the living relationship, which is the object that we should have with God, and God loves us.
- Jesus taught us to pray often when you are alone, or with other people, and he taught that God will answer to our question and the prayer no matter what. Also he taught how to pray perfectly, which is the summary of the Gospel.
- Conversation has two main parts, which is listening and talking. And we can say that prayer is the conversation between us and God because as we talk to God, he helps us and tell us what to do, and we are listening to them. 

Search out the facts

Moral Object:

-Before we decide something to do, we have to ask ourselves what a person made in God’s image do if he were you; using our intellects that God gave to us, it is easy to find out the answer, whether our action is good or bad.

-Disobeying the Ten Commandments that God gave us, would be always wrong because these are the objective norms of morality which every human being has to follow without justifying oneself. Other actions that are always wrong are perjury, abortion, and blasphemy.

-Right actions are the pivotal for our love; Actions characterize who we are, make us into the person we are growing to be, and influence the others in the world.

-Intentions (why question) are for the purpose, or reason of your action. It mostly helps when there is first-and-second-degree murder. First degree murder is kill someone with a desire and second degree murder involve intent to kill but without planning.

-One action can have several intentions including good and bad intentions simultaneously; Intention can justify some wrong actions; in contrast, even though your action is good, if the intention is bad, the action isn’t moral, “the end does not justify the means”.

Circumstances:

·         -The Circumstance is constituted by the questions who, where, when and how. Through these questions, the seriousness of an act can be classified. For example, stealing a candy from a child is not as bad as stealing a candy from a supermarket.

·         -Who – the agent acting in this situation might affect the seriousness. If you were to rescue a person, but you panicked and didn’t make it, the fault wasn’t yours, because the fear affected your consciousness during the situation. However, if you were a trained doctor, and didn’t go rescue the person in time because you didn’t want to, the moral of your actions weren’t right.

·         -Where – the location isn’t really important when you commit a crime. Stealing is still stealing at school or at public places. But sometimes, the morality your actions may depend on where you do it. For example, if you scream “bug!” where there is actually a bug, you are doing the right thing. However, if you scream it to scare a person, your action isn’t right, because you can result it in panic that injures people.

·         -When – it’s the same thing as where. Stealing in the morning or in the afternoon doesn’t make a difference, because you’re stealing anyways. But timing makes a difference. Criticizing your friend of something right after he got the best score in the whole class, and right after he broke up with his girl/boyfriend will result in different impacts.

·         -The how question also compromises at your acts. Your means can be good, but your way to get there can be bad. For example, taking drugs to relax: even though relaxing is a good thing, taking drugs is not. So it is morally wrong.

Think About the Alternatives and Consequences

·         -There are many alternatives to solve a single problem, and no decisions should be made until we consider all the options. For example, there are a lot of ways to understand a certain topic in physics. We can study very hard on our own, or go ask the teacher, go for tutoring, search the internet for explanations, ask for extra activities to the teacher, ask the parents or friends to help you understand. You don’t really have to cheat, because there are a lot more options than you think.

·         -The consequences also have to be considered before taking any actions. It’s not only the “how” or “what” we do that the morality of our actions is going to be decided. By looking forward to what our alternatives can result, we can make morally better decisions. Two good rules that we should apply on our decisions are:

1.      Do only those things that you think would be morally acceptable for all people at all times.

2.      Always respect others as persons of incomparable worth who are made in God’s image.

Others

- First we need think if it’s going to affect others around us before we do something and make our action. And to think about it is not to feel guilty to ourselves but to take more care to others who are involved in making something. 

Prayer Analysis

Pg. 110
Our father - we are claiming that god is our father by calling him "daddy" in a very intimate mood. Even though he adopted us, because we're not their "legitimate" children, he loves us unconditionally.
Who art in heaven - heaven is god's majesty. We claim that we're in union with Jesus Christ in heaven.
Hallowed by thy name - by following Jesus Christ’s path of goodness, we attract attention from others by being exemplary and even loving our enemy.
The kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven- the kingdom refers to the kingdom of heaven, where god reigns it through love. So the kingdom coming and the doing of earth as in heaven refer to Jesus’s return. And we have to make the world a better place, to make it a kingdom ruled by love by being good to others.
Give us this day our daily bread - the "bread" is actually life, and not real bread. It refers to physical life, spiritual life, and psychological life.
And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us - we confess that we're sinners by asking god for forgiveness, since asking for forgiveness is a result of doing something wrong.
And leads us not into temptation - we ask to him to lead us through temptation, so that we don't sin and make god unhappy.
But deliver us from evil. Amen - we ask to him in order to be freed from Satan, who is ruling the world with evil. And "amen" means so be it.