Monotheism: No offspring allowed

Muhammad did not agree with as many sexual notions that, for example, the Greeks did.  Muhammad did not agree with the existence of Jesus because Jesus is believed to be the offspring of God.  Being the offspring of God? Not likely, according to Muhammad.  Even after claiming the three most famous goddess as Allah's daughters, Muhammad took it back instantly.  His disagreement with grand holy figures having offspring help a high value.  Is this because God is too mighty to have children or because he lacks the power to?

Working with Societies and the present

We spoke in  class about Muhammad's attempt at woman equality and how the movement carried a lot of weight.  Although Muhammad did agree with equality for woman and did support his wife's attempts at more equality, there is more to the situation.  The society in which the movement was attempting to take off in did not agree at all and would  most certainly revolt against Muhammad's views as a whole if this woman equality movement was taken further.  This entire scenario holds, what I think, an important point.  Muhammad did not continue to enforce these ideals, however he did continue to support them.   Although this issue is dear to my heart, woman's rights, I believe Muhammad's reaction was reasonable.  Rather than losing a large amount of the audience over one issue, keep the issue as  a personal ideal and make a large effort to ensure all other ideas are practiced and effective.

Racial Profiling

Soon after the tragic explosion at Boston Marathon took place, there was an explosion of questioning, who did it and why would they do such a thing? Many of the theories that people were jumping to immediately concerned those of a different ethnicity. Because of the war occurring in the middle east, many have made theories based on middle eastern terrorists.  Although there have been events that were at fault by foreign terrorists, is it right to base all acts of terror on those of the middle east? I don't agree with some individuals tendencies to put all blame immediately on other countries.  When enough people do this, it offends those who are part of those countries. I believe it's important to keep an open mind in times like these.  Fault could  be over an ocean or in our backyard, however it's all equally possible.

Evil Stereo Type on Islam

We've opened the discussion in class of how many individuals around the world have viewed Islam as an evil religion.  Although there have been individuals that follow the faith that have done their evil actions because they believe it was for their faith, these actions were not carried out by the faith.  I agree with Professor Silliman, that because of the high amount of population that follows this faith, it's smarter to seek what is positive about the religion, rather than negative.  Although some societies that are not driven my the same ideals as Islam societies, in order to calm the differences, emphasizing the wrongs will do no justice.  Especially, when blaming an entire religion on a group's actions. 

However, another part of the battle is the disagreements within the religion. Some groups disagree with others about their practice under the same umbrella of Islam.  I wonder, if in order to erase this wide notion of evil on Islam, will Islam followers need to try to seek more of a common ground?

Universal Understanding

In class, we discussed how universal understanding was the most vibrant when society wasn't deeply involved with technology and therefore had the power to search and find millions of different interests at the click of a button.  Most people went to the same movie, had their hands on the same novel, or attended the same concerts.  There were more things that people could talk about and more things people had deep understanding of a common subject.  I believe religion is a timeless universal understanding.  It has been centuries yet those involved in the same religion are all aware of same subjects and can engage in deep conversation about them.  I believe this is a very positive benefit of religion. Those who follow the practice have the opportunity to engage conversations about subjects that are both meaningful to both parties and are known well by both parties.

The similarity between the sky and heaven

As we've discussed in class, the sky and heaven seem to be associated as the similar terms or used to describe both terms.  However, thinking deeper into the idea of sky and heaven being the same, I've come across a question; Is heaven really in the sky?
It seems odd to think of heaven as this place above the clouds, the home of this all mighty power.  Yet, it's referenced as just that.  As if we can fly a plane above the clouds and find all of this immortal power.
On the other hand, it does paint this pretty picture for heaven, a place so calm and beautiful above the clouds.  It is just a metaphor, but strange when taken literally.

Common theme: Who's the author?

I think it's both disappointing and interesting that a lot of the true authors of these religious works are questionable.  We have the names of a lot of the authors in Christianity but not all of the exact information of their lives.  There are multiple authors of  the bible because they couldn't decide one just one single author's text.  Here, in the beginning of the Confucius text, the translator explains how some scholars question if the text was actually written by "Confucius" or if he was a character a group of authors created to preach their ideas.  It's disappointing because, personally, I enjoy learning about the authors of the literature I read, it helps me interpret the text deeper and understand where the text derived from. On the other hand, it's interesting because we have multiple ways of looking at where this text grew from.  For example, the Jesus text we have just finished displays all of the texts and stories behind the life and lessons of Jesus.  We aren't  left with just one text, we are left with multiple texts and can decide which we believe is closest to the  truth.

The way Jesus passed on

It's interesting to think that some religious groups consider the entire thought of an individual to disappear if their body is no longer on earth.  Because I am not a Christan and have not looked into much of the religion, it was interesting to find out that that is the main idea behind a person's grave. 
Although Jesus's death was long and gruesome, was it better for this followers to see him fight for his life and try to hold himself and his ideals here on earth, rather then see his body be disposed of immediately?  I think if Jesus was cremated some sort of uprising would have happening because of the extreme way the Romans rid of him.  With crucifixion, Jesus's followers still had a sense of him for a little while on. 

Modern Day Interpretations

In class someone brought up the idea of taking the bible and interpretation it to more of a modern day religion.  In my opinion, that is what philosophers like Crossan are doing.  During our reading of Jesus Crossan is making an attempt to propose all possible explanations of the way Jesus lived and his motives.  While we have come across some of these explanations, some disputes rise when comparing the explanations to the Christan faith.  I believe these disputes have encouraged more research and more thought in this field and therefore have made a modern day interpretation.

The Feminist Emerge

Reading the NY Times the other week I clipped this article, "Arrest of 10 Women Praying at Western Wall Add to Tensions Over a Holy Site"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/world/middleeast/Women-Praying-at-Western-Wall-Detained.html?_r=0

What captured my attention about this article was the mix of feminism and religion.  For 24 years! women have protested the ultra-Orthodox insistence that only men may be allowed to wear the traditional grab at the Western Wall, one of Judaism's holiest sites.  These women were banned from the site for 15 days for wearing these garbs that women specifically are banned to wear at the site, a ban that is backed by the supreme court.  The Western Wall Heritage Foundation, which controls the site, has said in an interview in November that the site is nonnegotiable and not a place where "everyone can do what they want."  In response to this type of stubborn behavior of the Foundation, Woman of the Wall have filed law suites and started protests. 

I believe this is an interesting issue.  These women are not taking on this fight only because their are fighting for the rights, as feminists.  These women fully respect their faith, that is why their attend their Wall for prayer for their faith.  However, while they visit the Western Wall, these women want to be given the same respect and rights as men do.  I believe this is a very modern day idea and is inspiring.  It also gives the feminist fight a new spin, women of all different types believe we deserve the same rights as men.

Any thoughts?

Literalism: Something every religion has?

I would like to revisit the discussion in class regarding Literalism in religion. 

There are such fine lines between so many terms in religion.  The ones I would like to focus on are real events vs. myths and fact vs. fiction.  In this course we are strongly encouraged to look at the texts at with a literary perspective, not literal.  However, those who actually follow the faith take religious texts, such as the gospels, as actual events.  Some things have not been proven and some do not claim to be the actual truths.  However, it is under some faiths, like Christianity, to not question them.  When logic jumps into the picture, is it right for high religious figures to understand that some of these events are myths rather then actual events?

Personally, I think, although believing that some of the faith is not factual goes against the faith, that it is crucial to understand these things as a high figure.  I believe it would bring you to a closer understanding of the faith. 

Jeffery Small has an interesting view on the debate.  Below is his editorial from the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-small/mythology-and-the-bible_b_898253.html

The Impact of Language

Something that has really caught my attention over the years is the meaning of words in different languages.  We have had a few examples from the Bhagavad Gita regarding how some words in from the Hindu language like "Bhrama" mean more then the English language can allow us to describe. 

I think it is beautiful how different languages have words that carry such heavy meaning.  As an American I can never relate to such words because I am held back by such a limited language.  Is it because our language is only suited to communicate about materials and literal meanings? Or is it because our language is so new compared to languages that Hindus or Italians or the French use?  Because our language is so new it had the capability to center around something the people of that time thought was crucial, to be literal.  Although I do believe that is important, I don't believe it's the most important.  I believe it is important to have words that reach way beyond, it gives texture and richness to a conversation.

Taking the Text Literally: An Outside Perspective

As I'm reading The Bhagavad Gita I can't help but ask myself this question: To what extent are these believers not giving into the 'evils' of pleasure?

It's become clear that Krishna and the Hindu religion do not agree with one wasting life giving into the pleasures of life.  This is thought to be 'ignorant' in the Hindu faith.  However, where is the line drawn between being a human being and participating in evil actions?  To divulge into a huge slice of chocolate cake and coffee, is that evil? Is it evil to stay up late to watch your favorite show on a school night? 

I understand that the main concept of Hinduism is for its followers to practice to try to seek the good.  I respect this message in every way.  I think it would be interesting to read about the life of a Hindu that was born into the religion and actually found his way to follow all aspects of the faith.  Personally, it would be the hardest thing to do.  However, to give up such pleasures will send the followers to their goal of being united with the God head, a powerful motivation.

Just some food for thought. Could you do it?

Week #1 - The difference American Culture can make on religious followers

Post I

For my first blog post I would like to share a post from the New York Time labeled as an "India Letter," written by Manu Joseph ("editor of the Indian newsweekly Open and author of the novel 'The Illicit Happiness of Other People.'").  Below is the link to the entire article and three (3) excepts that were the most interesting to me from the article and why they had me thinking extra.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/world/asia/17iht-letter17.html?_r=0

"In a play that opened in New York last week, a Hindu god who drinks wine and uses foul language goes to Nazi Germany to reclaim the swastika from Hitler. The swastika, which for many has become a reminder of chilling human evil, is also an ancient and sacred Hindu symbol that is commonly found on doors and walls in Indian homes, and that women in southern India draw every morning on their porches." 

I thought that this was a perfect introduction to this article because of how interesting of a fact is thrown in the readers face right away.  It is really interesting to find that the swastika is still currently used as a Hindu symbol and used throughout southern India.  I believe this goes to show the real dedication Hinda followers have to their beliefs and how some do not let different interpretations effect their daily routine within the religion.  

Joseph then goes on to explain his theory on the differences between Hindus that are born and raised in America and those who were born and raised in India then moved to the United States.  The American raised Hindus, according to Joseph, take more offense to Hindus and India in themselves rather then the political side of the challenges in America, like the Hindus born in India.

"It is possible that there are many American Hindus who are not troubled enough by their cultural displacement to get too worked up about religion, India or myths of identity. But the most visible Hindus in the United States are the online fanatics who react instantly and with conviction to news developments and personalities in India. They are a part of the middle-class South Asian settlements in the United States that are growing disenchanted, whether discreetly or overtly, with the West and thus are becoming obsessed with their roots."

"There [is] a distinction between American Hindus who were born and raised in India and those whose formative memories are in the United States. It is those in the former group who feel compelled to react to Indian politics, she said. The latter tend to be less interested in politics, but just as passionate about Hinduism and India. Ms. Shah, who has a master’s degree from the London School of Economics, has been active in the foundation’s “Take Back Yoga” campaign, which seeks to remind everyone that yoga has Hindu origins and believes the world should acknowledge this. Among Ms. Shah’s many other activities is an attempt to nudge Americans beyond “caste, cow and karma” when viewing Hinduism, and to perceive it as a great antique philosophy rather than merely a pantheon of paranormal deities."

I believe his is a very interesting concept to choose.  As the article goes on to give examples of how connected to the politics of Hinduism some Hindus are, it becomes more clear why the American bread Hindus act differently towards others who do no agree with the religion, the American Culture.  While the American Hindus go on to be upset about others who missinterpret their religion the Hindus from India take a seat back and try to just reemphisize what Hinduism is all about and hope to change the minds of as many Americans as they can.  The American Hindus seem to miss the point of not trying to convert people, necessarily, but possibly trying to hear the other side and share with the other side the Hindu point-of-view.

Is American Culture really that powerful?