Battle of the Prophets. It's On.

When it all comes boiled down, it seems that the teachings of Jesus Christ are fairly similar to the teachings of Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Socratic belief, with scattered differences here and there. First up: Jesus vs. Zoroastrianism. The teachings of the two are similar in that they both call for and encourage honest treatment of others and honest behavior. However, while Jesus preached that his followers should acknowledge their only one God, followers of Zoroastrianism believed in several deities in addition to Ahura Mazda, their supreme deity. In the case of Confucianism, one may observe a great deal of similarities to the teachings of Jesus. Predominant is the belief of treating others kindly, as one would want to be treated themselves. This high regard for respect permeates Jesus's teachings. In this same way, the teachings of Jesus are similar to Daoism as well. Daoism teaches that one should be like water, and "benefit all." This belief mirrors the similarity between Confucianism and the teachings of Jesus - that one should be kind to all and treat all with respect. Strengthening this similarity is the fact that Jesus also taunt to his followers that they should help others - just as Daoist followers were taught to benefit all. Jesus taught that the poor should be assisted, which draws a tie of similarity to Buddhism. Buddhist teachings extended to the lower caste members, allowing them a chance to better their lives. One may argue that this is aligned with Jesus's preaching for assistance to the poor, and the appeal of his teachings to the poor. In addition, like the past faiths mentioned, Buddhism also preached for correct, kind behavior - another similarity to the teachings of Jesus. Hinduist ideas preached of a reward to those who lived religiously and morally and followed these religious laws. This is similar to Jesus's teachings that one may be admitted to heaven with religious and moral behavior in life. It may also be argued that the Hindu belief in salvation of the soul is like Jesus's preaching of a happier life in heaven. Finally, Socratic teachings are similar to the teachings of Jesus as several other of the previously mentioned faiths are. Like Jesus, Socrates taught of leading honest lives and being good to one's neighbor.

I've been listening to too much Nirvana.

Why do empires form? I honestly feel that empires stem from the need for space in a rapidly growing society. Once an area becomes successful, its population rises. Everyone knows that once you have a bit of an economy going it's time to start building up the family, right? As populations grew and grew, leaders needed to find a way to accomodate their people. The only solution (other than mass murder or birth control perhaps)? Expansion. As societies expanded to become larger and larger, it was of course necessary to take over surrounding lands. And resulting from this, we find the empire. Just ask the Chinese - expansion was provoked during the Han dynasty when high agricultural production supported rapid growth and prosperity. By the end of the former Han dynasty, the population had tripled. In the case of India, the ruler Ashoka conquered considerable land to the Mauryan Empire. He had encouraged the expansion of agriculture with irrigation systems - obviously the population probably jumped from this. Finally, in terms of Rome, after establishing a stable agricultural economy, the empire expanded all over Europe, Mesopotamia, northern Africa, and even parts of Britain, most likely with the side note that their population was growing. Obviously, I stand by my belief that empires form from the need for space.

Wikiwikiwooooo It's a Beautiful Saturday Afternoon and I'm Feelin Shnazzy

"Oh and by the way, even though the topic of this project is not discussed anywhere on the Internet but Wikipedia, don't use Wikipedia. It's unreliable." Okay. I guess I'll make up some information of my own instead? Easy enough for me, Mrs. (insert some teacher's name here); I'll just say that ceiling fans are important to society because they prevent the spread of malicious little elves. It's from my imagination rather than Wikipedia, so it MUST be more reliable, right?
Bah humbug. A great deal of people write Wikipedia off without giving it a chance because they assume it to be an unreliable source. In all honesty, it is a highly useful and convenient tool that is capable of providing quick, general information on a wide array of topics. In class yesterday, my group investigated Buddhism through Wikipedia. We then proceeded to test its content with our all-knowing textbook. We found, despite common belief, that Wikipedia got virtually everything right. The one exception was a different point of view on the early life of the Buddha - Wikipedia told us that he was kept in his father's palace as a child, as he was going to be king, while the textbook claims that he was free to leave the palace whenever he pleased. Despite this, Wikipedia got everything we investigated spot on. I feel that teachers should give the tool a chance. It's easy print and font size make it very easy to read, and it provides quick and general information, so as not to bore or overwhelm the stressed reader. Because of this, I prefer Wikipedia far over I do our textbook. All the information I need is condensed and present on a Wikipedia page, however, in the textbook you are required to hunt around for certain tidbits of information, as there is so much fluff stuffed into those dreaded pages. We proved Wikipedia's usefulness, convenience, and relative accuracy...why not make our lives easier and use it more?

The Bhagavad Gita: Whoop Dee Doo....

The Bhagavad Gita - my favorite thing to compare to Zoroastrianism and Confucianism. Don't you just love it? Sigh. Confucianism deals with the belief that individuals possessing the traits of ren, li, and xiao (humanity, propriety, filial piety) will gain influence in society and become junzi, or leaders. Political and social order were thought to be resorted through enlightened leadership. Zoroastrianism, on the other hand, believes that good ultimately prevails. Honest, moral humans would go to paradise, while demons would go to hell. Followers were allowed to enjoy the world in moderation. Finally, we approach the Bhagavad Gita. This hunk of words basically portrays the belief that you have to "fight your battle" to get to heaven, and those who enjoy worldly pleasures are not successful. In this way, the Bhagavad Gita is both similar to Zoroastrianism and Confucianism, and very different from Zoroastrianism. All three religious elements all agree upon the fact that if a person is good, they will succeed (in the case of the Bhagavad Gita, if they work hard). Zoroastrianism conflicts from the newest installment of BHS's AP World classes' religious portfolio. While Zoroastrianism allows for human followers to enjoy worldly pleasures, while the Bhagavad Gita believes the exact opposite.

Blogs - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly...

So what makes a blog a good one? Well, to be honest, I don't think any blog post can be a bad one. It is composed of your own personal thoughts and opinions, correct? Well if that is the case, to call a blog bad would be to criticize someone's opinion. Therefore, we really can't just evaluate a blog. I believe the best way to judge a blog is to judge ones own thoughts while taking the post in. Does the blog form an opinion in the reader's mind? Does it pose interesting points? Honestly, I believe those previous criteria are what we should really be looking for when we evaluate someone's blog post. If you can read a post and finish it with a certain opinion, whether you agree with it or not, then it is a great post, as it provokes thought from the reader. I think it would be wrong to base judgement on conventions - spelling and such (or incorrect use of elements...for example, my use of the dash right there may be questionable, but hey, it makes me happy). A blog post is a personal thought and opinion. Let me ask you, do your dreams formulate themselves in perfect grammar? How about your thoughts, or instincts? Nope, and even if you say they do, you and I both know that that is probably only in some instances. So how exactly would one go about grading them on a scale of 1-3? Well first off, no one who writes a blog post should receive a zero, as their blog reflects their thoughts and opinions, and to award them a zero would be the equivalent of telling someone that their opinion is wrong. A work that would earn three points would contain thought provoking matter and would display a great deal of thought and effort on the writer's part. A two-worthy piece of work , in my opinion, should be interesting and thought out. A one, however, should be earned by a work that may show opinion but is not necessarily too interesting. I honestly feel that it would not make much of a difference should we as the students grade each other's blogs or should Mr. Whitten grade them. If the students were to grade each other, it would allow for a separate assignment in which the students could observe the opinions of others and reply to beliefs and ideas. However, overall I do not think it would make much of a difference in reference to which party would do the evaluating. Personally, I believe that we should be judging and evaluating blog posts based upon whether or not they provoke thought, opinion, or interest from the reader.

Hey America, Take Notes.

Book XII.7        Tzu-kung asked about government.  The Master said, “Give them enough food, give them enough arms, and the common people will trust in you.
                Tzu-kung said, “If one had to give up one of these three, which should one give up first?”
                “Give up arms.”
                Tzu-kung said, “If one had to give up one of the remaining two, which should one give up first?”
                “Give up food.  Death has always been with us since the beginning of time, but when there is no trust, the common people will have nothing to stand on.”

Many segments from "the Analects" may be derived as useful to our present day government despite their age and reeking of old fashioned behavior. For example, the previous quote mentioned is an ideal picture of trust that one would desire of a citizen-government relationship. The United States government could most certainly take note of Confucius's belief. It is highly probable that should the government take measures to build trust with the common citizen and attempt to preserve it at all costs, such as detailed by Confucius, the American people would be in a much happier state - they would accept the actions of our government more strongly, and therefore, the government would receive less hate mail...or on a more important level I suppose, the common citizen would feel less resentment towards the governing administration. Sure, the government will have some supporters anyways, but there will always be a population that will resent it for all it is worth. Should more trust be built, the population of the disapproving folks may decrease greatly. Hence we observe the importance of trust in one's government. Should the government place the trust of its citizens over other elements - war, money, etc. such as Confucius suggests, they will be met with a much more positive response daily from the people and will not receive so much backlash for various actions.