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?