Is a Link to Weave or to Connect?

Cultural diffusion, human interaction. It’s common among all the 'themes' of world history that we have studied. From the initial, Environment Unit to our latest Law Unit, the idea of cultural diffusion has been stressed as an important contributor to history and advancement. I find it interesting that almost in all the events that we have taken a look at, I can find myself analyzing and trying to connect dots and looking for signs of diffusion. On and on and on, cultural diffusion is key to life since humans began to connect with one another. From what I have noticed, as time has moved on and passed, societies have grown closer together weaving in and out of each other, interacting, each time more and more than before. Society nowadays is basically based on human interaction. I don’t think anyone can deny the fact that if you look at history, the closeness of different people culturally and what not, has increased and people become aware of what goes on in far off places. I also don’t think one can deny that currently, with all the types of media we have now and transportation ways, humans have never been so in touch with another.

Taking into consideration this extreme necessity and dependency of history, advancement, and society as a whole on cultural diffusion, when we were introduced the upcoming project concerning events and themes and all that, I began to look at cultural diffusion as a possibility. But the issue with this is that the project asks for us to develop a 'fifth theme' that could potentially be added to the ninth grade history curriculum and while cultural diffusion can be found in most places, what might be troublesome could be separating it from the other themes. The issue I have is not of what could fit into Cultural Diffusion as a theme, but rather as to how to extract and separate cultural diffusion from the other themes. Maybe it is not possible because while it plays a part in all four themes that we have studied this year, maybe it is the link between all of them and considering the fact that we stress it so much already, it might be pushing my luck to try and stress it even more. Also, I find it difficult sometimes to separate cultural diffusion from mere human interaction. Human interaction could be as simple as sharing a pen, unless sharing a pen was something unique to one place and that pen was shared from a person belonging to that place and another person from elsewhere, it could not be considered cultural diffusion because it has no significant impact.

Cultural diffusion is a difficult term to deal with, dealing with it as a theme, might be even far more overwhelming. So could it actually have potential to be a fifth theme for this upcoming project or should I try to deal with it more as a connection between all themes and find another actual theme that fits right in with the others, connected by this very link of cultural diffusion.

The Way in Which it can be

think about how mosaic code features some of Hammurabi's code (cultural diffusion What Role does it play in the history of Law?)

The similarities between Hammurabi's Code and the Mosaic Code are just as much as the differences between these two. The purpose of these 'codes' was/ are mostly to provide order. Obviously, the way in which these 'codes' are used to provide order differentiate between both Hammurabi's Code and the Mosaic Code, but that is not what this post is about. 

The Way in Which it isn't

Think of differences:

Yesterday in class, we were told to compare and to contrast the Mosaic Code with Hammurabi's Code by making a Venn diagram with our assigned groups. I thought this activity was very useful and fun. In this activity, i cam to notice certain things that i would never have noticed if i had not had to compare and contrast the individual codes with each other. As is obviously well known by most, the Mosaic code was done by Moses, who was instructed by God. This makes the Mosaic Code a biblical text. This biblical text teaches lessons as does most of holy text tend to do. To me, this was possibly the most noticeable difference between the two. You see, the Mosaic Code and Hammurabi's Code are clearly both moral, maybe one more than the other, but to some level they both are. Now, the difference comes in in the way that these morals are further expressed. The Mosaic Code seats a list of values that must be followed. Hummarabi's Code is also a list of values that must be followed, but it is also a list of restrictions that must also be followed. Hammurabi's Code unlike the Mosaic Code sets what must be followed and then the possible punishement for failing to follow it. All in one, Hammurabi's Code is all about consequence while the Mosaic Code is more about teaching and putting out there what is to be viewed in what way, be it negatively or possitively. It offers more freedom for interpretation of punishment while Hammurabi's Code was basically set down in stone.

The naturality of Natural Rights

This week, we were asked the question "Do human rights exist? Are they real, or why did we decide to create them?" We were then all told to participate in a conversation as a whole class to talk about what we thought about this. At first, i thought we were talking about human rights as we know them now, as a set of  laws striving for justice and equal opportunity for all human beings. But that was not it. Instead, was i later came to understand was that it was not human rights themselves that we were being asked about but rather, about the idea of human rights, being rights we all deserved and simply had the 'right' to have just because we are people. This idea, as i think i mentioned in previous blog posts this week, is the idea of Natural Rights. As the title for this post hinted, i would like to speak of the possible naturality behind this idea of natural rights.

While the actual, literal idea of natural rights sounds to be an obvious phony, the idea behind it makes complete sense to me. Strangely, as the man in document 2 from a reading we had said, wanting is not enough, and i think the should is very similar to wanting, you think something should be because you want it to be so, so bad. So unlike i did in my first post for this week, i do not wish to speak about the answer to the question, but rather of what i think of the question and what i think about this idea of human rights being true natural rights

Silly if you go right

IN the textbook, there is a reading titled The evolution of Justice and Human Rights. the very first sentence of it shocked me. It made me laugh at how unresonable it is to me, but the reason that is, is because times have changed, and obviously, point of views have changed. I think the connection between Laws and peoples opinions and how closely related to one another they seem to me, is interesting. The connection between these two that i see is the way that they influence each other. Actually, that is something that confuses me. Is it that Laws are the once that influence what is seen as wrong or acceptable in society, or is it society that decides what things should become law? Technically, it can go either way.


A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.
You may be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have at least one dollar bill on your person.
You can get out of paying for a dependent's medical care by praying for him/her.
Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack.
One may not bathe without wearing "suitable clothing," i.e., that which covers one's body from neck to knee.

Do Human Rights exist?

I think that the question of whether human rights exist is entirely different from whether they are real. In the documents given during class, various opinions were given.  These documents did not talk about if they existed, but rather, some referenced the idea they had that such a thing should exist, therefore we should make it be that way. Others, then spoke of the idea of human rights as being something that naturally occurred, something we all deserved and were entitled to from birth. And then there was the one that challenged that by saying that for one, it is complete and utter nonsense that we are 'born' with such a divine right to have 'human rights', and that the idea of such a thing occurring simply because we wanted it to is ridiculous because, as was the example given, hunger does not produce bread.
So to me, do human rights exist? Yes, of course they do, many laws exist granting us with what are considered to be universal 'human rights'. But I don’t think that all these human rights are looked at in the same way by all, much less accepted by all. So how does this universal human rights thing work?  I find it hard to understand how a set of rights can be universally agreed upon when such rights are made to maintain up to some level and to create equality, or at least some certain sense of equal opportunity and treatment, for all. There is no denying that different morals exist in different areas of the world, some things that are considered good in one place can be considered terribly bad in another place, so by setting a universal code for human rights, I think it kind of ignores such differences. Although, not the most basic ones, because I don’t think that there exist such a culture who’s beliefs are against the happiness of individuals. So Yes, I do think human rights exist, just not natural human rights. Yes, every human being should have the right to be happy, but it isn’t so, because if such a thing were actually true, if it were a natural right, we would not find ourselves throughout history, violating such a thing, and also fighting for it. It would just be, and that would be the end of it.

So the whole idea of natural human rights, it really does sound like a lot of nonsense, as one of the documents pointed out. I think we created them and that because we wanted them to be real so badly, we made it evolve into something we all think of as natural. Natural in the sense that it should just be, so it is, and no real reasoning is needed, just because we think it makes sense that way.

Apart from the Whole

Apartheid was a big issue in south africa, as mentioned in the previous post. It boldly gave power, and took it. It oppressed, the minority, and lifted the oppressor. In south africa's case, the minority was not literally the minority, they were just the powerless

Political Exile

I still dont know the name of the movie we are watching in class, but it is very interesting. Currently, it is very suspenceful. I dont see myself making any educated guesses as to how things will work out because i keep on thinking about all the what ifs. Anyway, while i agree with the parents ideals about getting word out and creating social change in south africa, i dont think that they have the right to avoid telling their children what is actually going on. Yes, they are very young, but i believe they can understand. Personally, i have a connection to this. When i was little, i was told we (my parents and my sister) were coimg to the united states for a vacation. In this so said vacation, we were going to head to Disney World. Sadly, that has still not happened, now, ten years later. While i dont really remember when it was that i understood we were not going back, i do remember understanding i could not complain. My family's reasons for leaving our country were certainly not like _____'s family's reasons, the overal one, of leaving in order to be safe and still create change, was very much similar to what my own parents strived for.

The influence of Peace

Im amazed at the power that peace movements have had through out history. In the movie, Cry Freedom, South Africa has been segregated legally for quite a while by a set of laws named Apartheid. I definitely do not agree with Apartheid, and luckily many others did not either. Propaganda has a lot to do with movements. It helps get messages out there, it helps to influence people to follow a 'movement'. For example. In Cry Freedom, we could see that while Apartheid was very well known, those whom it oppressed were mostly the only ones that felt it's cruelness.

God is Good so, Good is God?

This week, I read about how Religion is Necessary for Ethics. It was an article that spoke about the Divine Command Theory and its counterpart, the Autonomy thesis. As I read through the article found that the divine command theory confused me. It also made me very curious. The article itself talked about morality and what is right and wrong and who decides what is right and what is wrong. I think that the idea that the Divine Command Theory proposes is mind boggling.  Basically, from what I understood, the theory proposes that God decides what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil. It says that God has the power to decide, so if he declares something that was once a bad thing, is now a good thing, or 'tells' somebody that something they are about to do is good, his approval automatically makes whatever the things was, good, just because He said so. The reason I found this confusing was because while the liberty that God has to choose on what is good and what is bad, clearly becomes the standard for human followers/ believers to go on when making decisions, does this mean that all that God claims as either one is really that? Thinking back, there is a part in the Bible there that talks about how God told Abraham to kill one of his sons. Then when Abraham was about to do it, right at the last second, God told him to not do it. But Abraham was only going to do it because God told him to, so he thought it was the right thing to do when in reality all God really wanted was for his devotion to be proved. So if this Divine Command theory was actually the real theory for how it works, would it justify the things that were done in the past, and that we now see as bad because those people claimed God told them to do so? I mean, would it justify even mass murders done by the decisions taken by the people in power in the of God?

It also confuses me how the Divine Command Theory and the Autonomy thesis are in the same article because they technically cancel each other out. The DTC says morality originates with God, The Autonomy Thesis says morality doesn’t come from God, DTC says Moral rightness is willed by god and moral wrongness is against will of god, The Autonomy Thesis says Right and wrong aren't based on the will of God, DTC says Morality is based on divine will, not on existing reasons for action, no further reasons for action are necessary, while the Autonomy thesis says that There are reasons for acting one way or the other that can be independent of God's will. In other words, they basically cancel each other out, invalidate each other’s defense, so what really is the point of this article? To present the reader with information to help make a choice on which is correct, Autonomy or DTC?

Please Do, Please Dont.

The reading that we did that was titled Do Versus Do Not, got me thinking about the way in which religions and their messages are interpreted in different ways by different people. The way I see it, most people, in the early beginning of religion would take the "Do Not" stance when examining and acting upon their religion's views.

While I am sure many can debate my point of view, I have an explanation as to why I think it is Do Not and not Do. Basically, I think this is because in the developing process of religions, most religions' initially sought it as their purpose and they're mission to guide people. By proposing a way to guide people, religion set out rules of what not's, because when developing, there is not much one can say must be done, instead, looking forward towards advancement, one can state what should not be done, the Do Not's. Such guidelines offer the people with an ideal from which is to be viewed as the correct way to live, as agreed and/ or stated by the religion.

Basically, in earlier times, people relied on religion to in a way, 'shape' their reality. This could be partially because back then, they did not have many things that told them why and how things happened or how they should deal with them making it likely for them to follow the rules set. A really good example is the Ten Commandments; they are basically the summing up of the religion's values and does this by stating one must NOT DO. But as I said before, I think this mentality of doing Do Not's instead of doing Do's was more attractive then because religion was just starting out, it was beginning to develop.

As things begin to progress, ideas get more complex, and views change, even if ever so slightly, the need for some change comes. I think its the transition that makes the way it is interpreted change from Do Not's to Do's, its when people obtain understanding of the world around them and feels comfortable enough to challenge beliefs. Do's is a more liberal way of viewing religion, it makes the interpretation more open to discussion, while the Do Not's were already clearly stated, and limited the possibilities of branching out into a more complex kind of life. Currently, I think we are stuck in between, with many of the Do Not's still present and effective in society, and the Do's slowly making their way into our daily lives as people find the need to experiment, to test, and to find their own reasons while still going along with god's word, making them more independent.

Agent of The Powerless

In class, I am part of the group that is in charge of learning about Oscar Romero and the Liberation Theology. So far, I have learnt that Oscar Romero was a guy who preached to large crowds about the Liberation Theology and about the role that the church should play in society. From what I understood, the Liberation Theology wanted for the Church, mainly it's holy men of power, to use their religious power to fight for the 'people'. It wanted for the church to fight the main power against oppression, their goal was to achieve justice, equality, and liberty. The liberation Theology was a popular movement with strong connections to the Marxist ideology, involving its own twist that asked for the Christian Church to support the movement by essentially become politically aware, then preaching to the public to also become more involved in political affairs by encouraging uprisings against all that was unfair.

From what I understood, this Liberation Theology movement was unsuccessful, but there were many people who felt passionate about it. While I agree in what this movement was trying to accomplish, I think the reason it was not successful was because while preaching to the public, talking to people about some of the issues that they wanted to change and improve could raise awareness, I’d say that the amount of people that would actually act upon their concerns on the issues being faced, was minimal.

The way that I see it, while it may be very close minded of me and what not, the reason for why the Liberation Theology was not successful in achieving its goals was because the execution of their plan relied far too much on religion itself along with its holy men of instead of basing some of it on the people themselves, as the bigger percent. I think that the Liberation Theology was either far too complex or too simple, and the people who supported it just found it hard to decide how to help it thrive and grow and be successful. I think its a poor example of how through out history religion has been used as an agent of the powerless because it relied on power.

Simon Says...,

The guideline for assuming a place of control: First of all, one must have and/ or claim a legitimate connection to god. Then followers who believe in god must be obtained. Out of these followers, devotees are formed and having devotees equals full support. With support, power is given to do almost anything with god's 'blessing'.

Most religious leaders believe that their religion is the max, is the best, and is incomparable to any other due to its greatness. Such religious leaders try to gain followers by convincing them of this: that there is no such thing better or more real than what they believe in. Once the convincing is done, I think it is the sense of community created that leads many to feel passionate about the beliefs presented. These feelings have shown time and time over again that it is quite possible and quite easy to acquire the feeling of wanting and needing to make an impact in order to become an important part of a religious movement were many are involved.

Religious leaders use this as a way to get people on their side. Once people get on their side, its all about extremity and conservatives. I think its they who at levels inspire people to want to join, because i think people are naturally attracting to things that show the possibility of success. Usually, the more people that support something, the more that others want to support it too. I think that it is all mostly about what is the mainstream. Through this idea of mainstream and following others, i think religion develops the ability to turn those very people ignorant.

Its Simon Says do this, and you do, because it is Simon, and if you don't, you lose.

Emotional Supression

In one of the readings that we were assigned for this week, I was part of the group that had to read from the point of view of a Muslim on Christianity. I had a work by an Islamic traveler whose name was Usamah ibn-Munquidh. His work was a narration of his experiences with those belonging to the christian faith, whom he referred to as the Franks. He begins by saying, 'Their lack of sense' and how although they are nothing but animals to God, their level of loyalty, faithfulness, and dependency to him is astonishing and admirable, but not very impacting. He also presents the idea that all Franks are cold- blooded, insensible, undisturbed people who find no need to help others see what is being done wrong.

I find this curious. One of the examples he gave was of a man who arrived home one day to find a stranger lying in bed with his wife. He proceeded in a very calm way to ask why it was that he was there. The other man responded that he was awfully tired and entered for a responsible nap. The man then asked why it was that he laid in that particular bed, the other man responded, because it was already disturbed. The man then asked why did he lay with his wife in it, the other man said because it would be rude of him to ask her to leave pertaining that it as her own bed. The man then told him to get out and if the event occurred again, he would be forced to challenge him in a quarrel. Given this story, could it be that Christianity actually teaches suppression of emotion, lack of sensibility along with lack of interest, and cold attitudes towards others? Although i am not of the christian faith, i did grow up with a catholic grandmother and later her values were taught to me through my own mother during my early years, as a little child. I like to think of myself as a warm hearted being, but with my lack of strong education on Christian beliefs, i am unsure now.

Considering the fact that the writer of this text was a Muslim of the Islamic faith during the period of the Crusades, and during the time when not everybody and not even the majority of the population knew how to read, it could be that he was probably trying to strengthen the beliefs of those who did know how to read? I mean, those higher up with power were the ones able to read, so he could also have been trying to appeal to them as an intellectual person who was devoted. Whichever goals that Usamah ibn-Munquidh was trying to achieve, i think he might have done because it makes Christianity appear as a religion that takes away from its followers the ability to have strong opinions, to feel strong feelings, and to be of free will.

Sneaky, Creepy, Freaky.

 Witchcraft and its relation as an agent of the powerful.

For a long span of time, and through out various different times in history, accusations of witchcraft have been flung over and over again. The targets of such accusations being mainly woman- yet another way in which societies have undermined women and placed them at a level below that of men. As you might know, it was specially during this time that women, most of them single and independent women that were looked down upon by society.. Of these women, I think it was mainly those of lower classes that had no real importance or way of defending themselves, that were accused. The possibility of maybe some single slightly successful women being accused and condemned by men of power that saw them as threats, is also quite possible because, who wants a woman, someone of a lesser sex and intelligence, to be successful and maybe take away the spotlight of a powerful male??

Although I wasn’t part of the group that was assigned to read the reading on witchcraft, from the activity we did in class of sharing ideas on the readings done, I was able to get an idea of the reading itself from the sharing my partner did, and from what I was able to hear from other group's conversations. I came to a point of general understanding on the subject and to the conclusion that the trials of witchcraftery were used as a form of demonstration of power. So if this was the case, who held the power? The judges, the ones with the ability to condemn and to accuse and to decide who was and who wasn’t under the influence of the demonic possessions of souls, under the control of the devil, and what not. They had their way one way or another, with no limiting to their decisions. I think that this is one of those things that can be seen time and time again among the characteristics considered in one way or another as a form of acquiring and maintaining power, the act of having the final and only word. From what I understood, witchcraft trials seemed to be almost inaccurate and unjust. From my knowledge on such trials, or lack thereof, I know that in some cases, if one agreed to repent their sins and confess to the world of their role in serving the devil, they would be let off the hook, otherwise, they would be executed by burning at the stake, hanging until dead, etc. But what is the point of this?  To be honest, I don't know. Maybe it’s just to show that these actions are possible and that proof is only existent in the head of the believer of such accusations. While in this post, I am not neglecting nor denying the existence of people of such magical powers; it was the case that in these trials, those killed were more often than not, innocent.

So what is the relation between witchcraft and power? Easy. Magic. You can’t prove something you cannot deny. You can’t accuse powerful men of lying without being told it is the devil inside you saying so. You cannot live without succumbing to the humiliation of having million ignorant people believe you a confessed witch, and few knowledables knowing you lied. The idea of wichcraftery is an idea brought upon by the religion and those powerful in the religion as a form of almost brainwashing the public with fear and hate and as a solution to confusing events or unsuspected success.

Religion and Union

It has been proven time and time again that religion has the power to unify and bring people together under one common belief, but it also has the power to disperse, separate, and discriminate. While many like to think religion can be a completely separate issue from politics, I think so otherwise. You see, religion unifies but also separates people, religion cannot exist without followers and religion needs leaders. Leaders are those who followers follow, if the followers are unsatisfied with leader, the leader must be changed. In other words, politics occur. When politics occur, it is very uncommon for people to all be in the same team, unless the leader is astonishingly great at leading and keeps followers content.

In Islam, Muhammad was the initial leader. He was a natural at inspiring followers, and was good at resolving problems between people. Islam prospered and grew. Islam became successful and united during his time. After Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E., the tightly knit Islamic society began to crumble. Conflicts concerning power, right of interpretations of the Islamic beliefs, and correct versus incorrect views on the role of Islam in society, arose.

In a reading for this week, I learned about the Sunni and Shia Muslims. You see, Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith, what they differ on are the political aspects. Over the centuries, these political differences have separated and created a number of varying practices and positions that have now come to carry a level of spiritual significance.

It is clear that the division between the Islamic sub-groups is connected to leadership and right. As mentioned, it was not until after Muhammad's death that these conflicts and groups began to appear. The question that the groups differed opinions on was as to who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. The Sunni Muslims agreed that the position should be taken by someone close to Muhammad, a close friend of his, someone capable of doing the job, and this is what happened. The first Caliph of the Islamic nation was a close friend of Muhammad. But some disagreed with this. The Shia Muslims believed that leadership should have stayed within Muhammad's bloodline, those specially appointed by the Prophet, or Imams appointed by God.

This political aspect of leadership lead to disputes, conflicts, and separation of two groups once very close in beliefs. This conflict has lead to violence such as civil wars between Muslim groups and the obvious separation of the overall faith of Islam, through the creation of new empires and new ways of worship. I think that Religion is largely affected by Politics, as proven here, but why does it have to be? What religions have avoided this immersion?

School is the way to go!

I think that in any case, education is the key to success. Through out time, it has been shown many, many times that the societies that thrive and prosper are the ones that set up systems of education, may they be for religious education such as monasteries, or for philosophical advancement such as universities, etc. Its societies such as the Buddhist, with their monk education, Christians with their priest schools, Islam with their houses of wisdom, the Greeks with their various type of schools, and many others that have found the need to reach some kind of level of "Enlightenment," to get out of the dark and as a society/ civilization, rise. I hold it as one of my strongest values that education has the power to help anybody advance more in life, and achieve something better.

Although it is very clear that many societies have acknowledged this need, the example I would like to explore is the Islamic community, all those alive during the time of Islam's rise and unknowingly became part of it. You see, Islam started very small and slowly gained followers. It’s the transition from small to bigger that I would like to get into. There are many reasons as to why Islam became so appealing to people, among them was the appeal that it was welcoming and did not discriminate against groups. Many can debate this, but it was the overall reason for many, it also did not present a suppressive reign. Islam brought many people together, and its openness to others aloud the tolerance of other beliefs.

So the importance of education in the spread of Islam was huge. With varying cultures, all together in a place, human interaction was at play. As it is well known, the house of wisdom that Islam had in Baghdad became a very attractive place for great minds to go. There, varying cultures merged with great minds. This is what essentially happens in any learning to teaching environment, ideas merge and advancement generally occurs. I think it was an important step that they took to explore previous great civilizations and their form of thinking along with the discoveries and advancements that they did. This to me shows that while they were doing good progress on their own, the need to look further out, and attain more views on something became known. Because of this need, Islamic scribes/ writers turned to ancient philosophers such as the Greeks, the Romans, the Persian, and many other ancient societies. They translated their scripts, and made books retelling the discoveries of the ancient philosophers, making them available to others who wanted to explore further. This in turn turned Arab into the language of knowledge. At this point, Islam reaches its point of importance and it was thanks to their choice of making education something valued

Pass the paper, please!

 Among the many things we modern people take for granted now, is paper. Paper? You may ask. Why? There is a simple reason for that. Books. You see, back when Europe was in its dark ages, in what we also know to be the medieval times/ ages, Islamic civilizations further down south, were thriving and making huge steps, more like leaps, with advancements in technology.  They made great discoveries and invented many methods that are still in use today, or were, for many, many years.

One of the most important contributions was the creation of paper. Through the creation of paper, the once mainly oral tradition of Islam became more solid, and less at risk of possible changes to the history of the religion through the writing of the Qur’an.  I think it’s interesting that even though the Qur'anic beliefs were once transmitted from person to person, the message it carried was apparently, for the most part at least, kept true to its origin. But that’s the thing, I don’t understand how oral traditions lasted so long in the teaching of something so important, while still staying true to the initial message, I’m sure things were emitted by some and added by others, yet its claimed that all is true, all to the very smallest detail. I am nobody to judge but it’s curious. I guess it’s all just on who decides to believe it. Maybe it’s the very smallest detail’s message that counts, and not the message itself.

Nonetheless, the importance of paper is due to the impact it had in the dispersion of the Islamic faith. With books written on it created to be the holy text, the availability of it was open for others to explore. In the movie, the "house of wisdom" was a place in Baghdad where the smartest people of the time, the scholars, gathered to discuss issues and resolve questions. I find it extremely interesting how through out history, there is always a "power." For example here it was the Islamic Empire/ Regimen, because of the knowledge developing in their area, their language became something extremely needed by others in order to be up to date with the advancements being made in such a palace. And of course, these were being recorded in... What? Paper of course!

The importance of paper is very, very high. Its effects on historical events are major, and its contribution to solid evidence and recording of information for the public helped even more with expansion of ideal. It became a prime use for human interactions. I don’t think Islam would have been so successful if it hadn’t been for paper, or at least, success would have taken longer.

New Cities- One way- no distraction

What would a Confucius society look like? What would Taoism look like in a society? What would these two places look like in comparison to each other?

I think that a society based on Confucianism would be equally as gentle as a society based on Taoism. The way I see it, Confucius' teachings were more socially based while Lao- Tzu teachings were more individually based.  You see, from what I understood, Confucianism is all about how one would is rewarded when and if one's actions are kind and humane. I understand this as to reach my goals; I must do so in a classy, honorable fashion. In contrast, Taoism is about one doing kind and humane actions out of one's heart not expecting reward for it. I take this to be, I'll be nice because its good to be nice, and although I don’t expect to get anything out of this, I think in the end I will... Enlightenment is the ultimate goal isn’t it?

So based on this, I think a place based on Confucianism would be a nice, comfortable place where rules on proper behavior are abundant, and social levels would be closely related to accomplishments, mainly in governmental related topics. Ideally, these social divisions would be just, and not corrupt since the whole idea is doing better without harming others in the process. But I do not see how such divisions could exist if all is to be fairly done? I mean, levels separate people, they put some above and the rest below, so how is this fair and just, if those below as has been seen in many cases, tend to get the worst? Since most societies tend to have a few gaps in their philosophies, I think this one might be it in the Confucianism society. I think that schools in this society would have proper behavior classes/ clubs where rules for interaction in a Confucius appropriate manner would be taught and/ or discussed. I could also see this place having adds advertising kindness, something along the lines of, do you think your being nice?

A place based on Taoism would be a relaxing, not extremely social or loud kind of scene. It would be a place where all people would have a meditating place separate from their everyday area. I think a Taoist society would have a very involved government, and I think social classes would not have very distinct separations. Elders would be very respected and very much like the Confucius society, would have a slogan going something like, have you helped another today?

In reality, I don’t actually think these places would be like this, but I think something along the description.

Humane From the Start

The activity that we did in class of comparing both Confucianism and Taoism brought me the question; do most ideologies base their beliefs on the ability of an individual to lean towards humane decisions?

As a general idea, I think most religions/ things that provide a set of beliefs to individuals, tend to agree that humane behaviors should be embraced and encouraged by all. Why is this? I think it’s interesting that humane is closely related to humanity. Could it be that as people, who are human, we really do lean towards humane things, as a natural instinct? Could humaneness be something, we all naturally do, want to do, or should do?

In Confucianism, Confucius believes that while we all wish to achieve the best and be successful, we must do so in a humane form. This humane form is just and honorable. In Taoism, Lao-Tzu believes that the goal of life is to reach enlightenment and to reach enlightenment one has to be harmonious and willing. In the dictionary, I found that it is having compassion and benevolence towards others. But none of these definitions tell one if it is of human nature/ instinct to be humane.

I find it that the idea of humanity as a peaceful compound of varying ideas is very complicated and hard to picture. While I do not believe that as a general rule, humans are either all evil or all kind, I do agree that we must have an inclination towards kindness. I think this is why people like Lao-Tzu and Confucius inspired many to follow their beliefs. Confucianism and Taoism, alike many other religions, have inspired people to push themselves to be compassionate, kind, loving, just, careful, giving, and in general, Humane.

Although the teachings of Taoism and Confucianism vary slightly in their focus and ways, I think that both make people want to be good, want to be nice, want to be kind and loving, and to be inspiring to others through their good actions. Maybe it’s the things taught that inspire many to want to belief humanity's natural instinct is to be humane. But the questions still stands, is it our instinct? Are we born with humaneness?

To me humane decision making and action taking revolve around one's desires to be liked. Like Confucius taught, it feels good to reach a goal cleanly, knowing no one was harmed by you, and in Taoism, its an accomplishment in it self to achieve things, through one's good behavior, and being able to help others reach that is also nice.

India

The structure of the caste system is based on religious beliefs of reincarnation as a justification for social inequality and the oppression of the lower classes/ castes. It must be my modernized form of thinking, but I find it unfair. The caste system limits the power to those who are higher up in society using the excuse of reincarnation and putting a punishment and reward as a system of justice that is based on a belief that cannot be proven or unproven. Those in the lower castes, mainly the untouchables, had rights significantly less respected by others and even the rights that they did have, were not very good. Also, depending on the caste, privileges and opportunities varied meaning that way of life was limited and the ones abilities therefore were also limited. 

Due to my lack of knowledge in the religion along with its values and its morals, my opinions can be argued as malformed and inaccurate but from what I do know and as was said in class, the caste system as was said in class, was used by those in power, to maintain power. The main way that this was achieved was through the statement in the caste system that limited the ability of an individual to improve his or her social situation. I think such limitations are inhumane because one cannot improve their lives and one cannot try to make their descendants have a better lifestyle, which is something widely done nowadays by societies outside of the caste system. 


In the reading about India's caste system, it said something about the motivating power of religion and how it has shown throughout history to be a force that cannot be denied because of its influential power. So really, while religion can and does have its positives, it also have a few negatives, and the way many individuals in power have used it has been negatively. In India, the caste system was accepted by many as a fact and an unchangeable way of life, I believe many must have also resented it. I wish I knew how the caste system came to be since it’s pretty elaborate and complex. I think that it must have put those with power in a position where they were admired by a few because to be in such high castes, they must have down something really good in their previous life…

Constantine: Legit?

Constantine did not convert into Christianity until he was in his deathbed, but promoted it for long time before that. Why? Many possible answers to that exist but as the reading taught, the two main reasons were one, for political advantage, or two, because he was a true believer. It’s a difficult thing to do, to try and give reasons to someone's choices when it concerns beliefs, in this case, religious beliefs. To further explore this, I researched a few things, among those that came up, I learned that Constantine began openly giving support to Christians once he was already on the clear road to power, this could lead many to believe that his intentions behind this leaned towards gaining support from that group also. But this could also be interpreted as history noticing this because not many had done it before.

So could it really have been because of political advantage, or just something that stood out among those that happened along the way? I also found, that although not too openly, in his early-ish life, he had been less tough on those who claimed to follow Christianity, than most people in power were in those times. When I read this, I was surprised. Could it have been, that his form of thinking, was not yet fully constructed, so he was more open to other ideas, or he was just a completely, well open- minded guy, which is a good thing. But when one is open minded, idea of others while not always, usually, tend to become one's one, and are accepted. I think this could have been what happened with Constantine. This is how I see it, Constantine used Christianity as something to help him advance politically, but his 'faked' support for it, lead him to actually, at his later years come to believe in it, and I think he died truly believing in Christianity as his religion.

Play on Words

What do cults and religions have in common? How do they differ from one another? A cult is a small group of people who have religious beliefs or practice that are often though of as sinister, or strange. Although this is not always the case, when the word cult is used to describe something, it usually falls on things thought by the majority to be wrongfully misplaced admiration, adoration, and/ or praise. A religion is the belief in or worship of a superhuman force/ controlling power such as God or Gods; a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Simply put, a cult is a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious, while a religion, is the name given to devotion and belief in something not necessarily accepted, but classified as normal(?) But if a cult is technically a religion, what about it makes us cringe at the word.. Cult. From what I know, and from what I myself do, a cult is associated with a group that has beliefs not well looked upon in society, or more specifically so as to not generalize, most of the time. When I hear cult, such things as Satan worshiping pop into my head, but I guess that is what a cult usually appears to be in most peoples minds because that’s what we are shown. In popular groups, open-mindedness is restricted and as happens with cults, there are certain things considered weird. Maybe the reason for this negative view on cults could be related to the idea that its something that diverts attention from the mainstream accepted religion, and usually but not always, tends to go against the teachings of it, which causes many to create a bad image for it. Such an example of this is when those who followed the teachings of Jesus were considered part of a cult (used negatively) and their practice was outlawed in various parts of Rome.

Now, what does a prophet and a missionary have in common? How do they differ? A prophet is a person who advocates or speaks in a visionary way about a new belief, cause, or theory. But more specifically in this context, it’s a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. The build up of the word prophet literally means before + speaker. So a speaker before something was? A Missionary on the other hand is basically a person of strong beliefs sent on a mission to help spread those beliefs, rather said, having a religious mission. So how does one spread beliefs? Well, one speaks about them to others; one preaches values and morals usually through stories to which others can relate. So if a missionary's mission is to spread the belief, and a prophet teaches and advocated through speaking about the belief, well then that’s something they have in common! Prophets and Missionary basically have the same mission, to help the religion thrive through inspirational work. The way I see it, most prophets were missionaries, but not most missionaries are prophets. Its a bit like all rectangles are squares but not all squares are rectangles(?) For example Paul, he was a missionary, yet, his work is in the bible. Why? Because he became a prophet through his hard work. While prophets and missionaries are very alike, they too have differences. You see, missionaries have it as a mission to convert others to their religion, it isn’t an option, and it’s a way of life. Prophets, while not necessarily a choice, I think there's freedom of it. I think Prophets represent the word of god through human interpretation, and while they put their teachings out there, that’s were they are, for others to see, to use, to belief. But they don’t force or want to convert other specifically.

Abraham, A Triangle of Faith

What is the significance of Abraham in the history of the world? I wouldn’t necessarily say, that it's Abraham himself who is significant with his impact on history, but instead, I’d say that its the relationship between him and his two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, that has had the most significance. Through his sons, be it, Isaac or Ishmael, people most belonging to Judaism or Islamic faiths have tried to claim their link to Abraham as the strongest. In the pod cast, it was mentioned how in the biblical scriptures(?) it says that all are children of Abraham, and in the Christian bible, it is said that gentiles can also become children of Abraham. This confused me. How can that happen, people who are neither can still become it? I think it's interesting how depending from what religion's perspective you see it through, the story of Abraham and his two sons changes, and they inspire different emotions. In 'Speaking of Faith' they mention something about the original story of Abraham, but how do they know what that story is? Is based on which one can be traced back farthest? Because if so, there is not prove that it is the original, it could have been modified.

Somewhere along the story, Sarah asks Abraham for the servant and his son, Ishmael, to leave, and god basically tells him, Listen to Sarah because your offspring will continue through Isaac. I will make a nation of Ishmael too, so don’t worry. The significance of the rivalry between the brothers, Isaac and Ishmael, is important when contrasting the history that the faiths that claim to have developed through them, Muslims through Ishmael and Jews through Isaac, have had. This is because although at one point, Muhammad, and the Islamic values, was open to the various interpretations on the story, once Judaism shifted the story to better suit them, Islam did the same. From what I came to understand, Abraham is presented in the religions as the ideal believer, in Judaism, they make modifications to better present him, example, they make him kosher. In Islam, Abraham is a Muslim, and carries the values out very well, while in Christianity, the story is just used as an example to show how Abraham did not kill his son Isaac, therefore did not love enough, but on the other hand, God allowed Jesus crucifixion, meaning he favored him.  But then the Jewish faith change it's story and said that in actuality, he did die. But this doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe if one takes the saying if you love set them free, but I don’t really think it applies to this either way. I also don’t understand how in the story of Abraham, when he has to take Isaac and sacrifice him, an angel comes down and tells him not to because he has now shown that he fears god. Why would it be necessary for him to prove that he fears god? Why does he need to fear god? Couldn’t it be out of respect and not fear? In pod cast, it's mentioned how Abraham achieved in death what he did not achieve in life. In his death funeral, Isaac and Ishmael stand side by side to morn his death. They are rivals, opposing leaders, and have a dislike for one another, but at that moment, they are not any of the above but are brothers. They have Abraham in common. Maybe this is the significance of Abraham and his sons; they represent hope and unity, and existence in harmony, because although Ishmael and Isaac were different from one another, in the end, they came together.

Akhenaten

In my mind, Akhenaten is a visionary. Although his attempt at a monotheistic faith partially failed, the attempt itself left a huge mark. Even with all that we have talked about in class as to why he might have had decided to switch the faith, it still puzzles me and I still do not understand. It is hard for me to imagine how the idea of going from many gods, to only one could appear, and a man, a very powerful man, a pharaoh, but nonetheless, one, could have come up with the idea that had not yet been presented. To me it seems that some people were ready for a change, you know because the world is always changing... But clearly, not enough people were because the monotheistic religion where Aten, a sort of kind of, derivate of Amen-re, was the all mighty one god. So what would have happened if Akhenaten's reign had lasted a bit longer? I mean, from what I found, he was pharaoh for approximately only 17 years... that’s not much time. So if it took only 17 years for the belief in a monotheistic faith to settle and although minimal, stay around, what could have happened if his reign would have lasted a little longer? There are many ways it could have gone, but that’s not what this post is about.

This post is about the ways that the small time it did last, impacted the spread of it. So back to what I found out, 17 years of reign under Akhenaten and his new religion, 17 years also happens to be the time that one whole new generation takes to develop almost all of their basic ways of thinking. So, I'm guessing that after the death of Akhenaten, things slowly went back to normal, normal being worshipping all the old gods, and embracing once again the former way of thinking and worshipping, and praying and living... But the generation, as I would guess could have been against this change considering they had grown up with Akhenaten's religion, not all of them, or course because even during Akhenaten's reign, there were people that stuck to their old ways. Anyway, with most of the young generation being rebellious to the change, something was bound to happen.

So as we discussed in class, the link between Egypt and Judaism is clear. And not too long before the whole Moses story and migration from Egypt thing, what happened? Yes, the Akhenaten religious reign occurred! So Judaism derivates from the monotheistic religion involving Aten, but interestingly enough, Christianity is said to be sprung from Judaism, all in all, the three mayor monotheistic faiths we have now are all in some way connected to one another, and with this being, they are then all existent and connected to the first one, the one Akhenaten created. Weird is it not, that everything seems to connect in history? I think so. But it’s also interesting. I can barely image what life would be like now if we had never moved away from paganism/ polytheistic faiths.

How to use a Guideline

Religion, past and present, has always had a big impact in human life. Just think about it, strong devotees to strong disbelievers, and still, its impact has not changed. Why is this? Why has religion become such a big part of our lives, even those who claim not to belong to any? Is it necessary? Can we as humans, live without believing in some kind of higher person, deity, energy, force, call it what you may, and still interact the way we do now? Religion plays a large part of life in society. Depending on your group's overall ideology, the way your beliefs are expressed highly influence the way in which you are seen inside that group. Even among non-believers, one cant help know of other religions and some of their main ideas, values, or morals, and base judgment on that knowledge, sometimes such occurrences when this knowledge comes out, can be viewed on badly but isn’t that what religion is for? At least the way I see it, religion is a set of guidelines on how to behave and basically on how to live one’s life. Through the passage of time, decades and centuries, we as conscious beings have indulged ourselves in religions both polytheistic and monotheistic. We have gone from strong believers to questionnaire-ees and some deny- ers. Why could this be?

First of all, what is the ultimate goal of a guideline? The goal of a guideline is to set up a successful way in which to begin making decisions. From there, it provides basic steps to continue moving towards whatever that something may be. Guidelines are not meant to be followed line by line, word by word, but instead, are meant to inspire ways to make good choices that would lead to success. But while much of our population does believe religions serve as a kind of guideline, there are those that disagree. Such that disagree are usually the most devoted, the extremist, they interpret their religion almost close to literally. But the fact that these kind of believers have diminished in number leads me to think, if we take into account the idea of religions serving as guidelines, and guidelines being used to help start off something, could it be that we are slowly moving away from it like a child moves away to college? Could it be that this means that we are now ready to leave religion, and if so, where would we go? I mean, this makes me go back to the question, is possible for us humans to ever stop believing in a higher power, completely?

Human Interactions

Honestly, I am not sure in what I believe, or even if I do believe in anything. So in this blog post, I don't want to sound like an atheist and I don't want to bash other people's beliefs. But if I were to take the sort of non-believer way of thinking, I would have to say that religion is and was basically an invention of humans. Yes, many can debate this, but many can also support this. I think that to some point, it is true. Through out history, there have existed many religions, with various differentiating beliefs. Somebody must have created religion, right? Or discovered? But it must have come somehow. The way I see it, religion is admiration at a higher level. It is both devotion and praise. From what I have noticed, most religions revolve around human emotions and decisions. So religion itself must have been based upon the ideas created by someone or some people..? These ideals were then compacted together and given names, and a form. I don’t understand how religions came to be so influential in history. I mean, yes religions have many sublevels to it, etc, etc. but even so, if it was to be summed up, one could say it is the belief in a higher power. But this belief in gods and goddesses, or god, how can it be any different from the belief in something like oxygen. We can see it, but we still believe it, we know it exists. The oxygen atom was discovered somewhere around 1774, but its not like before that date oxygen did not exist.  You do not hear of people creating scriptures or historical sightings, or anything of that type on oxygen, its just there. So why are deities different? Why is it that it has survived so long? Yes, deities are more than just something that is there, but that is now, after we created religion to go along with it, after we gave that "thing" a title, and along with it/ them some level of power.

So in reality, how much of religion is shaped by human interaction? Well, I would say the majority of it is shaped by human interactions. Values are constantly changing, many things that are considered acceptable now, were not considered acceptable decades ago. How do these values change? These values most commonly change through interaction between different cultures. When ideas merge and cultural diffusion occurs. A great example of merging cultures, ideals, and values, is the United States. People immigrate to the United States, as do many to other countries, but the diverse quantity that exist here and in places like the United States allow for cultural diffusion to occur at a large scale. Values also change through discoveries, made by humans, whose knowledge is them spread via... human interactions!  And what are values? Values are similar to morals. According to an online dictionary, values are a person's principles or standards of behavior, or one's judgment of what is important in life. In other words, values are not something divine, they are what humans have and use, as guidance to what is right and what is wrong.