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?