The Last Post

     A while ago, Keane posted a blog about why humans have religions.  As the semester is ending and we are about to be done with this class, this is something I have have been thinking a lot about. I commented on the blog and said that it is because we want something to believe in that gives meanings to our lives, glorifies us, and offers comfort.  But there are so many other reasons, just like there are so many religions.  I think that we believe in what we need to.  From a religious standpoint, it is also interesting to think (like Muhammad) that God purposely made different religions for different peoples.
     What are your thoughts?
    

I think it's interesting that so much is known about Muhammad, yet not very many westerners know a lot about him or Islam.  Obviously, there is not an enormous amount of Muslims here, but it is one of the largest religions in the world.  Religion courses aren't typically required at most schools, but given the fear associated with this religion, don't you think it would be wise to learn more about it?  Should schools make religion classes necessary-- if only so kids will not be so ignorant about other cultures?

Muhammad and Hinduism

     Chapter three dealt a lot with how Muhammad viewed Judaism and Christianity, so in my Q&A this week, I asked how he would view Hinduism.  I've been thinking more about that question, and I just find it so interesting that Hinduism and Islam-- from what I know so far about them-- are both accepting of other religions but in different ways.
     Hindu's and Muhammad agree that no one religion could possibly hold all of the answers.  So, Hinduism basically accepts all deities as sacred, while Islam, being extremely monotheistic, believes only in Allah and tries to find him in other religions.
     I think that if Muhammad had been exposed to Hinduism, he would have respected the core beliefs, but I am unsure of which god he would percieve as equal to Allah.  After all, he respected both Judaism and Christianity, but still considered some of their beliefs to be "deluded."
     What are your thoughts?

Goddesses

     As crazy as it sounds, I have never realized the irony of cultures that worship female goddesses, yet disrespect women.  We talked in class about how this is really just a way to ease the guilt-- we don't hate women, we worship a female, she just deserved to get beaten.  These goddesses must be the ideal woman: something that every female strived to be, and then got looked down upon when she was not.
     What are your thoughts on this?

Shared Culture vs. Diversity

Our discussion about the line between shared culture and diversity really interested me. Cultural unity allows us all to be "part of the dance"--it connects us; diversity, especially in America, allows people to be proud of their heritage.

            My question is what the line should be between the two.  Do you think that America’s focus on diversity is actually hurting us?  Should we focus more on common culture, so that Americans are proud to be Americans, or do you think that would mean losing important traditions?

Our discussion in class really helped me to understand the basics of Confucius' teachings.  I found the diagram put it into perspective.

Legalists

Confucius

Taoists

The Legalists believe in rigid structure, and that society cannot survive unless it enforces it's rules.  The Taoists, on the other hand, are pretty much an anti-civilization movement.  The teachings of Confucius are right in the middle.  This makes his message seem almost like the perfect balance.  Just based off of what we've read so far, do you think this seems ideal?

Jesus the Feminist?

     Today in class we discussed both the importance of women for Jesus, and Jesus' impact on women's rights.  We've already said that many of Jesus' very first followers were women, and that were essential in spreading the message after his death.  He believed in equality for everyone, and even devised a way for women to be fundamental in spreading his message.  My question, then, is what made or inspired him to think this way?  I mean, gender equality is still a pretty radical ideal today around the world, so it's almost impossible for me to imagine what it must have been like in his time.  Was it purely his hatred of patriarchal structures, or was it maybe a personal influence?
      I realize that this question can never really be answered because no one will ever know the thoughts of Jesus, which is most likely why Crossan never even asks the question.  Still, it's an interesting thought.  What do you think?

Healing

     If Jesus did not "magically" heal people's diseases, then how did he have the power to heal their illnesses?  I understand that he was a performer and must also have been a great public speaker, but I do not understand how Crossan's theory that Jesus healed the society of its prejudices, rather than actually healing the person could work.  Crossan says in chapter five, "Jesus thereby forced others either to reject him from their community or to accept the leper within it as well."  Why would a community ever choose to accept Jesus and a leper?  How could a man that never stayed in one place have gathered such a reputation that people were willing to cast aside such strong prejudices?  How widely known was he as the Messiah?  I know I must be missing something.  Maybe, even if it wasn't instantaneous, he did actually heal people.
     I would really appreciate it if you could enlighten me, because I am honestly confused.

The Message

I have always known that Jesus was Jewish, but I was never aware of how much the religion of Christianity changed his message.  Jesus hated the patriarchal family; the idea of Heaven came from the scribal elites.  Yet, family is an integral part of our culture, and Heaven is the goal of most Christians. Knowing this, I can't help but wonder if his message would be popular today if it had not been altered.  Thoughts?

The Power of Perception

     In class we discussed, among other things, the virgin birth and classified it as literary fiction that was eventually taken as literal.   What really interests me, however, is what prompted that literature.    In the Preface Crossan says, "The gospels are, in other words, interpretations.  Hence, of course, despite there being only one Jesus, there can be more than one gospel, more than one interpretation."  Jesus' impact on his followers was so great that it inspired writers to sensationalize. His "very conception announces that predestination to greatness" (6). 
     For years after Jesus' death, people were sharing their stories about him-- their perceptions-- with others.  It's only natural to assume that these stories changed over time as the people listened, interpreted it for themselves, and continued to pass the message along.  Like we said in class, it really must have been like a game of telephone.
     One article Crossan wrote for the Huffington Post explores the issue of interpretation and misinterpretation even further.  He explains the meanings of various verses (well, what he takes from them), verses the perception that the Bible is promoting inequality. One place that I found to be a prime example of the various opinions on the subject was the comments.  Some argued that the Bible promotes intolerance, and others say that it promotes freedom.  Like everything else in the world, it means different things to different people.
     Here's the link to the article I found.  It was really interesting to read more of Crossan's writing; I find his interpretations fascinating.

The Preface

      I found that reading the Preface after I had finished The Gita allowed me to be truly curious about the book and the religion.  My questions were not answered right away which allowed me to really consider the text and think for myself.
     One question that troubled me until the very end, however, was how Sri Krishna-- a god, a human being-- could be Brahman.  From all of our discussions in class I had gathered that people do not pray to Brahman because it is not a being.  The Preface helped me to answer this question by pointing out that maybe the conversation was not between two people at all.  Even though we have pointed out that the actual battle that they are discussing may not be real, this idea was something that had never crossed my mind.  The author says in the Preface,  "The Gita is not an external dialogue but an internal one: between the ordinary human personality, full of questions about the meaning of life, and our deepest Self, which is divine."  Krishna even admits this in the book when he says, "I am the true Self in the heart of every creature, Arjuna, and the beginning, middle, and end of their existence" (10:20).
     The conversation "takes place in the depths of consciousness and Krishna is not some external being, human or superhuman, but the spark of divinity that lies at the core of the human personality."
     Arjuna must be experiencing some sort of self-realization, realizing Atman.  If interpreted in this way, it would make complete sense that Krishna is Brahman as the Preface states: "Atman is Brahman: the Self in each person is not different from the Godhead."  

"Sin"

Last week a couple of people commented on the meaning of yoga in The Bhagavad Gita versus how we use the term in America.  This is just one of the many words from the book that the meaning differs in the book from how we use them.  While reading the text I find myself questioning the meaning of words that I use daily.  The word that confuses me the most, however, is sin.  Krishna says that even the most sinful of sinners can still attain spiritual wisdom and achieve Moksha.  From the perspective of someone who is most familiar with Christianity, this seemed all wrong.  Christianity classifies all people as sinners from birth, but from what I've read so far, Hinduism doesn't seem to do that.  So what could the English term "sin" mean in terms of Hinduism?

Women in Hinduism

In class, we briefly discussed verse 38 in Chapter 1 of The Bhagavad Gita.  We concluded that the comments in that verse may be interpreted as derogatory, but may not be if given the correct context.  Women in India ran their own land, while men moved into the house of their wives and mother-in-laws.  As a proud feminist (I know that word carries all sorts of negative connotations, but I promise I don't hate men or burn my bras) I was really intrigued by this.  It goes against everything I have heard about women in India: that they face discrimination throughout their lives, and are preferably not born at all.  So I decided to do some research online about the treatment of women in Hinduism and found a lot of contrasting views.  Some sources state that men and women are of equal status, with the role of mother being enormously respected, and powerful female deities that are honored; others claim that Hinduism supports the genocide of women in India.

I do not see how a nation can go from letting women handle their own lands during a time when it was extremely uncommon, to victimizing them during a time when we are closer to gender equality than ever before.  I don't see how a religion so open to others could support such oppression.  What am I missing? Hindus have just announced their support of appointing women to the Shura council in Saudi Arabia. Hinduism is the main religion in India. Why is this happening?

About Me

Hey!

My name is Payton Vincelette and I'm a freshman here at MCLA.  I am an English/Communications major, with a journalism concentration, and am thinking of minoring in Women's Studies.  This class interested me because I am always curious to learn about the religions of people around the world and how it impacts their lives and culture.  I've never blogged before, so this could be interesting!