This group is following Pi as he explores Christianity. They will relate words, phrases, quotes, symbols, etc. to the nature of God and how faith translates to life.

OK, everybody if you honestly don't know what Christianity is about you are either Athestic (and don't care) or you have been avoiding most of the people who live in the United States. So if you don't know what Christianity is post an ask for help and i will try to explain. But i would not like to waste this page explaining. I stead i would rather be debating something. If you disagree let me know. (ukilbarger, davis 6)

So to start us off on a debate. I have just one Question: Does any one out there think that the world religions will every live in peace? ( ukilbarger,davis6)
external image coexist.jpg

The answer to your question is NO. There is too much pride involved, so people close their hearts and minds to what others have to say. If only people would learn to act like Christ and Love each other, only then would the world have religious peace. But that wont happen ever...ever...ever. Im not a pessimist, just a realist. (sbullock)

I totally agree and this is my question there is no way any of the major reliogions can work together let alone live together peacefully. now why can't religions work like this
external image making_happy.png
I think its the don't accept defeat but are religions trying to defeat each other or are they playing a different game?

So that ? was a dud. Does anyone else have a debat "?" (ukilbarger, davis 6)

For musical hymns follow this.

external image jesuschristredrobe_medium.jpg

Jesus Christ is central to all Christian religions. Even though there are over One Thousand different christian denominations, each one believes in Jesus Christ. The reason there are so many different Christian denominations is because people stopped believing in their church and decided to reform. Each group thinks that they are the correct version of Christ's Church and that is why we have religious unrest. (Scott, Grant, Caroline, Jessica:Davispd1)


Quote: "What would you have to eat if you could have anything you wanted?" pg 307

Existentialist: "Why do we have to eat?
Scietist: "We need food so our bodies can convert it to working energy?
Existentialist: " Why cant we eat something else like dirt?"
Scientist: "Dirt does not have the the nutrients to sustain our bodies.
Existentialist: "If dirt does not have the right nutrients why can plants survive off of it?"
Scientist: "The things in dirt only supply the correct nutrients to plants and not amimals."
Exitentialist: Why cant dirt supply the correct nutrients?
Scientist:"Because its dirt."

As we can see a scientst tries to find reason to everyting where an Existentialists question everything.

Quote: "Instinct, its called instinct. Still, answer the question... the very definition of an animal and that is all you are." pg 312
Existentialist thought: "What makes an animal? What is the different between an animal and a human? A scientist might say that reason differentiates animals from humans, but what is reason? What creates reason? Is it just a figment of our immagination? (Caroline, Jessica, Grant, and Scott Davis 1)

I. Absolute Individuality and Absolute Freedom.
The Existentialist conceptions of freedom and value arise from their view of the individual. Since we are all ultimately alone, isolated islands of subjectivity in an objective world, we have absolute freedom over our internal nature, and the source of our value can only be internal.
II. The Existentialist View of Human Nature.
Existentialism is defined by the slogan Existence precedes Essence. This means:
1. We have no predetermined nature or essence that controls what we are, what we do, or what is valuable for us.
2. We are radically free to act independently of determination by outside influences.
3. We create our own human nature through these free choices.
4. We also create our values through these choices.
The Existentialist View (We create our own nature.): We are thrown into existence first without a predetermined nature and only later do we construct our nature or essence through our actions.
external image essence.jpg
This slogan is opposed to the traditional view that Essence precedes Existence, according to which we are seen as having a given nature that determines what we are and what our ultimate purpose or value is. We are understood by analogy to artifacts which are made with a pre-existing idea or concept of what they will be and what they will be good for.
(Caroline, Jessica,Scott,and Grant Davis 1)

Existentialist Quotes

“The moment a child is born, the mother is also born. She never existed before. The woman existed, but the mother, never. A mother is something absolutely new."
“ I say unto you that suffering is not holding you, you are holding suffering....”
“ The only way to know something absolutely is to experience it for yourself; anything less is theory, speculation, and belief. ”
(Caroline, Jessica, Scott, and Grant Davis 1)

The Men of Existentialism


Nietzsche, who was not acquainted with the work of Kierkegaard, influenced subsequent existentialist thought through his criticism of traditional metaphysical and moral assumptions and through his espousal of tragic pessimism and the life-affirming individual will that opposes itself to the moral conformity of the majority. In contrast to Kierkegaard, whose attack on conventional morality led him to advocate a radically individualistic Christianity, Nietzsche proclaimed the “death of God” and went on to reject the entire Judeo-Christian moral tradition in favor of a heroic pagan ideal.



Heidegger, like Pascal and Kierkegaard, reacted against an attempt to put philosophy on a conclusive rationalistic basis—in this case the phenomenology of the 20th-century German philosopher Edmund Husserl. Heidegger argued that humanity finds itself in an incomprehensible, indifferent world. Human beings can never hope to understand why they are here; instead, each individual must choose a goal and follow it with passionate conviction, aware of the certainty of death and the ultimate meaninglessness of one's life. Heidegger contributed to existentialist thought an original emphasis on being and ontology (see Metaphysics) as well as on language.



Sartre first gave the term existentialism general currency by using it for his own philosophy and by becoming the leading figure of a distinct movement in France that became internationally influential after World War II. Sartre's philosophy is explicitly atheistic and pessimistic; he declared that human beings require a rational basis for their lives but are unable to achieve one, and thus human life is a “futile passion.” Sartre nevertheless insisted that his existentialism is a form of humanism, and he strongly emphasized human freedom, choice, and responsibility. He eventually tried to reconcile these existentialist concepts with a Marxist analysis of society and history.
(Caroline, Jessica, Grant, and Scott Davis 1)

All these are great pieces to include to help us understand existentialism, but how do you all think it relates to Pi and our understanding of the latest chapters? --Mrs. Davis
Mrs. Davis I can answer this one. All of the Drama and the events that have made Pi's life horrible, would force most people to question why everything was happening to them. In the book so far I have not seen Pi once question the despreation of his suituation. Which brings me to wonder why? Pi has never once said "oh i hate you god for putting me in this boat.". He has never lost his faith and I think we need to compair an all questioning existentalist to Pi (and his firm standing faith). (Umberto Davis 6)

By the way:
Wow. Block One. I'm impressed. You guys really covered everything. (umberto Davis 6)
One of the biggest existentialist, religious, and ponder the meaning of the universe, questions is the question of free will verses fate.
Fate is defined by Wikipedia as:
Although the words are used interchangeably in many cases, fate and destiny can be distinguished. Modern usage defines fate as a power or agency that predetermines and orders the course of events. Fate defines events as ordered or "meant to be". Fate is used in regard to the finality of events as they have worked themselves out, and that same finality is projected into the future to become the inevitability of events as they will work themselves out. Fate implies no choice, and ends with a death. Fate is an outcome determined by an outside agency acting upon a person or entity; but with destiny the entity is participating in achieving an outcome that is directly related to itself. Participation happens wilfully.
Used in the past tense, "destiny" and "fate" are both more interchangeable, both imply "one's lot" or fortunes, and includes the sum of events leading up to a currently achieved outcome (e.g. "it was her destiny to be leader" and "it was her fate to be leader").

Free will is defined by Wikipedia as:
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinty does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.

So i have two Questions.
First, which do you think has more control over Pi, Free Will or Fate?
And second, Which do you believe in more?

Also any other groups reading this I would like your feed back also. (umberto Davis 6)