Blog 3!!

Confucianism and Humaneness:

Although Confucius's ideas were not particularly successful during his time, through his teachings and followers, his ideas and morals are still apparent today. What does it mean to be humane? According to the Confucian analects, everybody wants to be recognized and rich, but to be humane you have to get to that state/position in a humane way. Being humane means collecting yourself before others, and realizing that the greatest thing you can love in life is humaneness. Non-humane means non joyful, and humaneness is loving people, and it is appreciating things and aspects of life beyond your first instinct. "The wise take joy in water, the humane take joy in mountains; the wise are active, the humane are tranquil; the wise enjoy, the humane endure." (Confucian analects) Being humane is something you can be if you really want to, considering a lot of people strive to be humane, (and a lot of people don't.) Being humane includes sometimes sacrificing lives, and a big message projected through being humane is "give and you shall receive." You must be kind and have the ability to influence others, and just overall be willing. I think that acts of humaneness relate to religion, especially Judaism. In Judaism there is Tzedakah is means righteousness and charity, and it is the obligation in the Jewish religion to give to others in order to live a satisfied and spiritual life. Tzedakah is a decision to be benevolent and philanthropic, and give back to others. This aspect of Judaism is an example of being humane because you are giving without receiving, however you are receiving the sense of pride and fulfillment that comes with assisting others. They are also similar because according to these laws if you are not humane you are not happy, and in Judaism if you do not perform Tzedakah than you will not live as good of a life. Social responsibility and Tzedakah are two parts of Judaism that are very closely linked with humaneness. Lastly, I feel that being humane is possible within relationships in a family, but not within the government. I think that a government does make decisions to please their people, although lots of the time they do things to get them done and to be effective and efficient rather than humane. When you have that much authority as the government does, I don't think you worry about loving everyone, or giving without receiving, or sacrificing yourself, or appreciating your surroundings because your life is so privileged already. I think that in an ideal world everyone would be humane, but it is truly impossible. It is possible in a family because parents care so much about their children that they are willing to sacrifice, to do things for them with nothing in return, and be fully humane. Being humane is different than being human...

Blog 2 (2-14-12)

The caste system derived from Hinduism which derived from Aryans (people who invaded and brought ideas with them, similar to diffusion.)  The ancient Hinduism is quite similar to Hinduism today as it has the overall same belief system. The caste system signifies people's power in society compared to others, with the Brahmins being at the top and the untouchables at the bottom. What makes a Brahman at the top? Well, they are the richest and the ones with the most opportunities, both while they live and afterlife. Within the range of the highest and lowest classes, there are various groups in the middle. The untouchables are people who do work that upperclass people are "too good" to do. They are the ones who get down and dirty to work, and who have only certain jobs offered to them. Untouchables are viewed differently in society, they are seen below everybody else, and they are known to be poorer than anyone else of the casted Hindus. The untouchables worked with things/people such as butchers, water, diseased humans, feces, animals, and human waste. Where did the shift in society come in, furthermore when were people who were considered untouchables then, viewed equally in society? Surprisingly, only about one hundred years ago this changed. I don't feel that garbage men, or doctors, or people who work with animals/meat are viewed differently today. Some form of the caste system still exists today in India, however since India has a population of nearly one billion and  citizens have developed and the caste system is illegal, most things are altered. However classes, segregation and competition within communities will always exist because it is nearly impossible for everyone to be equal no matter how hard we try.

Something similar between today and during the time of the caste system is that the higher class had better paying jobs and more organized jobs. Jobs on the street and jobs where your hands were physically dirty were never given to the upper class, and they were treated like royalty just because they have more money. The president would never go from being president to being a garbage-picker-upper on the street. In the case of the caste system, religion was used to assure that those in power stayed in power. Something different between today and the caste system is that religion and power are closely related, but in this system they are much more linked then they are today. Today social order and socioeconomic classes are not particularly determined or viewed with religion. I feel that today not many people use religion to climb their way higher in society. Religion is an important factor in society and people use it to their benefit, but not in terms of power I don't think. The president is not the man with authority because of his religion, whereas in the caste system your power completely depended on your religion. Another element in the caste system that is different today is the fact that if you push the rules or try to argue with the system, you will be completely denied and certainly not bumped up a class. However, today I feel like the people who don't necessarily argue with the rules, but push the buttons a little bit and suggest new things are the ones who are commended. History would never advance or have a fluid motion if everyone obeyed the rules exactly. Life would be boring if people were too afraid to do anything just because of their ranking of power in society, which is something that seems difficult about the caste system. Those who come up with enlightened ideas and protest (intelligently and respectfully) are the ones who create history.

Blog 1 (2-13-12)

Why are titles, (religious titles) significant?   

By definition, a “title” is a “prefix or suffix added to someone's name to signify either veneration, an official position or a professional or academic qualification; some titles are hereditary.” (Wikipedia.com) But why are titles, religious titles in this case, so significant? I have discovered that throughout history religious titles have constantly been important, even in some cases when they shouldn’t be. Centuries ago during the Roman Empire, and when monotheism and polytheism were awakening, religious titles were identified as a sense of belonging in society. People made sacrifices and went through physical pain just to have the title of being a “Jew.” Citizens felt that once they “officially” were part of a religion they were useful to others, they could turn to people with the same set of beliefs as them for answers, and they recognized the beneficial parts of a true community. Religion, like most communities that exist, are a place you can run to and be yourself when things around you are hard, which is why so many people strive and work towards a religious title. Additionally, when you are born a Christian lets say, and someone asks you what religion you practice and you say “Christianity,” what does that mean for the person speaking, and for others? Is it just a title you are born with, is it simply a hereditary title, or does is it hold further significance contributing to your identity? I feel that because religion has become such an integral part of everyday life, a title is vital and meaningful. In the time of Constantine, he was a ruler who didn’t have the Christian title until his deathbed. As a figure of authority however, he implemented the Christian beliefs and values in his followers, and by listening to him and talking to him you could assume he was a Christian even if he did not have the exact title. In this case, a religious title was not placed on him until he died, yet he still lived a normal life and got his points across.

For another example, in the Holocaust religious titles were indicative and forceful. When the German Nazi’s were attacking, they were dominantly targeting Jews because they have the title of a “Jew.” But did they know anything else about the people, except for what it means to be a Jew? Did they even fully comprehend what it meant to be part of the Jewish religion, considering they were never Jews? Just because someone is born a Jew, why should anyone discriminate them or attack them? I think that the Holocaust is both an extremely sad and confusing time in history. Just like the Nazi’s don’t know what is like to be a Jew, we don’t fully know what it is like to be a Nazi, or what is going through their heads. But despite any of that, each “Jew” has their own identity and own story, and I think partially the Nazi’s murdered millions of Jews just because of their religious titles. To me, having a Jewish title, and when someone asks me what it means to be a Jew, I could talk for days. In short, being Jewish to me triggers the ideas and memories of family, friends, education, values, traditions, and a chunk of my identity.

However, in historical terms, a religious title has been significant, and it always will be.

Blog 3 (2-8-12)

As discussed with Mr. Moran, a religion is a group that is legitimate and accepting by society/surroundings, whereas a cult is a rebellious group of people who are obedient a person who believes that their ways and beliefs are the only right way, and a cult is not justified in their actions or tolerated in society. Cults and religions are similar because they both believe in the idea of a controlling power and authority. They both have a sense of community and working together, and they are alike in the sense that the two have followers. Religions and cults take time and effort to develop because they need a ruler, a substantial amount of followers, and a way to keep up and spread their ideas. Cults have a negative title placed with them, because cults are often extremists, or an assembly of people who tend to be blindly obedient towards a ruler who is working for money and fame rather than an effective and moral religion. Cults and religions are different in numerous ways as well. Polytheistic religions believe in many G-d's, and there are various G-d's for certain aspects of life, whereas a cult has one supreme figure. Monotheistic religions were initially seen as a cult because they were not accepted by the Romans. Polytheism dominated the world for a long time, and monotheism was slow and struggling, however that flipped. Monotheism became a thriving and growing religion when it gained followers, the government had been involved, and it was accepted in civilization. Cults don't usually work and are not as successful as religions. Cults are not accepting of others, or open to new ideas, but religions are mostly open and welcoming, such as Polytheism, Christianity, and Judaism. Back when these religions and cults were developing, followers of Jesus were viewed as a cult because they went against most of humanity. In Monotheism, G-d requires you to go out and gain followers while Polytheists are not pressured by
G-d and by their religion to work to gain followers.

Missionaries and Prophets also have similarities and differences. To begin, a missionary is an individual who works profusely to gain followers and believers. Missionaries are often successful because of their work ethics and the fact that they create new ideas, not just obey or represent unimportance. Missionaries are why monotheism grew while polytheism eventually lost power and followers. Missionaries were a threat to the Roman Empire because they did not believe that the empire was the one and only highest ranking. Missionaries were mostly Christian, yet prophets tended to be an essential part of various religions throughout history. Missionaries were greatly assisted by geography and by diffusion, which I will explain more about soon. A prophet is someone who is known to be chosen by G-d as an advocate. Since G-d is a non-human figure, and is someone above and beyond anybody else, a prophet is the human representative on earth for the divine G-d. Prophets convey prophecies and they always do what G-d tells them. Prophets are quite obedient and are more of an average participant or servant, than one who brings new ideas and opportunities. Prophets have a direct link and connection with G-d and their life is revolved around that relationship whereas a missionaries' life is centered around evangelism and convincing others about certain things and sets of beliefs. Some similar things between missionaries and prophets are that they are both dedicated to what they do, and their obligations are obligations pretty much devoted for the rest of their lives. Both prophets and missionaries used diffusion to spread their ideas. The most popular example of a missionary was Paul, who was not a prophet. He considered himself a Jew, and believed that Jesus was not the messiah and was not the first coming of G-d. Paul worked and was concentrated on spreading his new religion and religious beliefs. He was a successful guy, and his ideas radiated and advanced a lot through diffusion. Diffusion is the process in which ideas are spread through human interaction and people moving locations. Jews had spread to different locations around the Mediterranean and around the Roman Empire, which is known as the Diaspora. Rather than ideas quickly spreading in one small area, Paul's viewpoints and concepts were quickly spread all over the place.

Blog 2

Even though there was no archaeological evidence from Abraham’s story, people still base their identity off of him. I find that in religions many people just believe old myths and practice rituals because that is what their ancestors did and because they were born to do it. Archaeologists, historians, and everyday citizens today thought that people might try to forget the story of Abraham because we have no evidence, yet it turned out to be the opposite. How can someone believe that one man spoke with G-d? Well, ultimately there are many stories in the Bible and in religions that seem unrealistic, but people still believe in them without proof. I am a person who needs proof to believe in things whether it is a science experiment or a part of my religion, but I do understand why people still believe in certain things without proof. Anyways,  as Christianity increases and Judaism diminishes, people start replacing Jesus with Abraham. Some claim that G-d loved Jesus more than Abraham loved Isaac (G-d is the father of Jesus and Abraham is the father of Isaac.) People probably base that off of the fact that Abraham sacrificed his son for his benefit. As stated in the podcast, “one man is at the heart of the religions who seem to be at war, and that man is Abraham.” Abraham is claimed to be the defining feud of the time since Sept 11, and is sometimes appeared as a rivalry among religions. A big question that was raised in the story of Abraham was, would I kill for G-d? This story was in the Bible, and the Bible is a holy book that many people look up to and resort to for answers. The story of Abraham arises both violence and peace, and even though Abraham was a net-postive figure in history, he was also a major family feud.

Blog 1 (2-6-12)

I think that the story of Abraham has positively affected history. It has been influential throughout history, and Abraham had such a close connection with G-d, which is something that people admire and aspire to have. Abraham was chosen by G-d, and G-d was chosen by Abraham, and they had a connection that was significant and unique. G-d promised Abraham a son, and that his son would be the ruler of a nation. As referenced in the podcast, “it is almost like you can’t get to G-d without Abraham.” The story of Abraham is artificial and pretty basic because it neglects and eliminates politics, a chaotic society, and many of the distractions that we have today. This story is important in history in the sense that in Abraham’s life, he marked a lot of modern day territory and his family also had the foundations of many names that appear today. The story of Abraham was one that both Jews and gentiles could relate to. Ishmael, Abraham’s son was a direct descent from Abraham and is seen as an ancestor of the Muslims and an important figure in their religion. It was believed that even gentiles could become children of Abraham. There is so much to interpret in this story, which makes it even more appealing. Abraham was a wanderer, meaning that he was curious and moved around a lot. As mentioned in the podcast, people who wander tend to be the people who are attached to something, and those types of people can relate to Abraham’s story. When you wander you feel both personally and collectively linked to things because they are new and interesting to you, and you want to remember them because you find passion in them. Abraham filled the requirements of a wanderer and people can relate to his motivations and his ideas.  The legend of Abraham is apparent today in countless cases, one being the role it plays in the holiest weeks of the year for a few religions; Rosh Hashana for Jews, Easter of Christians, and for the end of the pilgrimage for Muslims. The story of Abraham has lasted so long and has made an impact on society because his stories are somewhat separate from religion itself. His actions can be reflected in numerous religions today, and his story attracts not only the religion that he came from. Abraham is a universal figure who represents guidance in our history, and he is “fully human, and fully us.”

Blog 3 (2-1-12)

The story of Abraham is similar to diffusion because ideas and theories quickly spread around. Abraham adamantly believed the world was created by one individual, and he did not believe in idols. Abraham created a covenant with G-d reagarding obligations. A few things that come up in religion today that were expressed in this text were Abraham's personal theories and beliefs about how the world was created, about G-d’s and one’s connection with G-d, sacrifices, the desire to want children, and so on and so forth. Abarahm actively began to teach his beliefs and ideas to others. Abaraham did not belive in numerous idols, rather he believed in one figure. Abraham's motivations and incentives with G-d were similar to monotheism, which is part of diffusion and of history. Throughout Abrahams life, he had reoccurring interactions with G-d, which is a bit part of religion today. Abrahams story is significant in this sense because in religion, specifically Judaism, people often believe in a pure connection with G-d, and Abarham demonstrated that. Lots of Abrahamas actions and the story of his life, was the spark of how religion and how society is today, (with many alterations and adjustments of course.) Abraham assimilated and adopted different lifestyles, while also contributing his own core values and theories, which was important. Throughout Abarahams life many sacrifices took place, several callings from G-d occurred, and Abraham and his wife lived unusually long. Stories like this that are convincing and intruiging, are the ones that stick with people for a long time, and which spread which is why we have both diffusion and religion.  Abraham's deliberation, and courage was enviable throughout his whole life. He always had a feeling and he tried to convince his father that there truly was one G-d, and sure enough he built/received this connection with the G-d that he had always seen. 

The readings we had for homework were very enjoyable for me to read because I come from a background of eleven years at an all Jewish day school. I am quite familiar with the story of Abraham, with G-d, the creation of the world, beliefs and rituals, and especially the hebrew language. In the reading there were a few translations, but I understood the meanings within names and with places and such. It is interesting to think about how when a classroom full of diverse (or non-diverse) students reads the same exact piece, everyone interprets it completely different. I bet that I comprehended it and got certain things out of it that others did not because I am Jewish and I understood a lot because I have knowledge and experiences about this. If this was something about Christians or Jesus I would be less familiar and less able to find a connection between myself and the reading. This concept applies to life in general because your religion makes it so you understand the world and see things differently than everybody else, even if you come from the same religion.