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.