Moral Teachings of Jesus compared with other views

Zoroastrian vs. Jesus-

Similarities :

1.      both believed in one universal god

2.      both believed that being benevolent and being a good person would ensure one’s happiness and the fate of their futures

3.      both believe in afterlives

4.     both believe that people must be kindhearted, honest, and righteous in order to avoid conflicts to arise

Differences:

1.      Zoroastrians believed that Ahura Mazda existed who represented goodness, purity, and light but also Ahriman existed which represented evil and darkness

2.     Zoroastrians believed in good vs. evil while Jesus taught that everyone should be kind to each other no matter what

3.     Zoroastrians believed in a duality in their religion

Confucian vs. Jesus

Similarities:

1.      Both believed that having good social conduct, having just societies and being sincere to one another was key in life

2.     Jesus and Confucius taught that regardless of how nasty someone is treating you, you should always treat someone the way you want to be treated and never purposely be hurtful towards another person

3.     Both taught that being gentlemen to peers and resisting evil or the “eye for an eye” theory

Differences:

1.      Both of these religions are very much alike to the point where there isn’t much of a difference between the core moral teachings each offers except for the fact that Jesus taught that there was some people who exist and don’t abide by his rules, but Confucius taught that everyone was perfect in their own way regardless

Daoist vs. Jesus:

Similarities:

1.      Both agreed that good conduct would result in a rewards like better health and long lives

2.     Both wanted people to be less focused on the material world like money and power and more focused on bettering themselves as individuals and creating a more ordered universe

Differences:

1.      Daoists wanted their people to avoid earthly things and follow the “way”

2.     Daoists wanted their people to live in harmony with the Tao and nature and believed that all is one

3.     Daoists believed that people who had bad conduct would be punished with death, disease, and suffering in the afterlife

4.     Daoists number one hope was to be immortal, while Jesus wanted the people more focused on doing good deeds and treating others with respect and kindness

Buddhist vs. Jesus

Similarities:

1.      Both believed that doing things like killing, stealing, lying, and other bad behavior was inappropriate

2.     Both believed that self-control was important because people should be able to contain themselves even when they are upset at someone. People should be able to handle their emotions so they can react to occasions with more pleasant attitudes

3.     Believed that too much indulgence in the material world was unnecessary and people should be focused on more important things like being good Sumaritans

Differences:

1.      Buddhists wanted their people to focus a lot on self-reflection and make personal salvation as their number one goal in life

2.     Buddhists wanted to escape the cycle of incarnation and built caste systems based on social standings while Jesus believed that everyone should be treated fairly and kindly instead of being ranked

Hindu vs. Jesus:

Similarities:

1.      Both wanted their people to live honorable lives and pay more attention to being pure individuals who please God and his desire for benevolent individuals, and less attention to the material world

Differences:

1.      Hindus wanted their people to escape the cycle of incarnation and promised salvation to those who participated actively in trying to fulfill their caste responsibilities.

2.     Hindus were very focused on the fact that every person in a caste had the obligation to perform their duties faithfully, not because they were concerned about the consequences or rewards that would come with it while Jesus taught people to not segregate from each other based on class but rather help each other out when someone is in need of help

3.     Hindus believed that a balance of laws, economic well-being, and pleasure would lead to the salvation of souls while Jesus thought that being a good person would lead to salvation

Socrates vs. Jesus:

Similarities:

1.      Both wanted their people to strive for personal integrity

2.     Reflect on the purposes and goals of life ( being good people, performing good deeds, having no enemies)

3.     Both believed in an afterlife for those who were good people

Differences:

1.      Socrates questioned many things and was always wondering about why things were the way they were while Jesus already knew the guidelines his people should follow and how they should act

Why are empires formed?

                Empires form when a leader sees an opportunity to expand their civilization over more land and spread their control over more people. They are fully dependent on the successfulness of their leaders and the people making them up, so avoiding rebellions or cynicism within an empire is a serious issue. Rome had many difficulties at first because the average people there believed that the upper classes were abusing their power and causing the lower classes to suffer at their expense. During this time of displeasure, Julius Caesar arose and became more popular and gained support from the people of Rome. Because he was able to so easily gain the advocate himself and gain support, his army became very successful and was able to conquer new territories without many problems. After some time, a standardization of laws gave Rome some political stability and gave them an advantage over other civilizations.  China had a flourishing empire because the Han dynasty was able to completely disregard any threats like the Xiongnu because instead of being intimidated by them, they rose up to the challenge and conquered anyone who dared question their power.  Also, the Qin dynasty helped get the support of farmers because rulers like Shang Yang were able to encourage the cultivation of land, which helped provide for the community. This allowed a growth in population which led to a growth in the empire as a whole allowing the army to expand and become stronger.

                India, on the other hand, was not as successful with its ventures to expand its empire. Chandragupta Maurya seized control following Alexander’s death and immediately tried to conquer lands all the way from the Deccan Plateau to the Hindu Kush Mountains. This posed as too much land too fast, which was not good because the empire was not quite ready enough to support and maintain that much land. In the end, empires form as a way for smaller societies to expand their culture, army, control, and gain more land to try and dominate more territories.

Wikipedia vs. Textbook

                After the activity we did on Friday in class, I had the opportunity to compare and contrast the information sources of the website Wikipedia versus the old-fashioned textbook. In my opinion, Wikipedia was definitely a clearer, more in depth and involved source of information. Any topic that you type in automatically brings up a page consisting of every possible bit of description for it. It is an organized website that separates the sections of information on a side bar and allows you to navigate quickly from section to section. It provides helpful images and also provides links to certain words that an average person would probably not understand to help you further comprehend the reading. It does not use difficult language or diction so it allows people of all levels of education to read and understand the text. In addition to this, it is an easily accessible website that can be obtained within the click of a button. The textbook, on the other hand, is a very boring and less exaggerated source of information. It does not provide the details and bulk of information that could be found on Wikipedia. Also, the book can sometimes physiologically seem more tedious than just looking something up on Wikipedia. Because the book has so many topics to cover, it does not focus too much of its time on one certain aspect and provides general information where as Wikipedia specializes in whatever specific topic you decide to research.

            Both of these sources of information provide adequate details and are great ways to research topics. The book is sometimes good when dealing with learning about vast amounts of info and more focusing on learning about bulks of things vs. Wikipedia is website that pinpoints certain researched topics and becomes very involved and sometimes excessive in its details. Overall, I would prefer a class based on the book over Wikipedia because although Wikipedia appears to have many pros, our AP world class is not based on learning every aspect of one miniscule topic. We are focused on learning immense amounts of information about hundreds of societies and just learning the main, important facts about civilizations. Also, the textbook has all the information in one book, is tangible, easy to take notes from, and take from place to place (and it’s not even close to as heavy as my AP bio book which is a plus!).

Comparing the ethical teachings of Zarathustra, Confucius, and the Caste System in India

            The reflections on the caste duties and the detachments in the Bhagavad Gita show similarities and differences when compared to the ethical teachings of Zarathustra and Confucius. This excerpt clearly portrayed the strictly structured social classes that were maintained in India and their duties to their society. It became very evident that following orders and participating in Battle was a key point for being a member of the kshatriya caste.  Hinduism taught its followers the importance of responsibility to one’s society and how if each caste contributes its duties, it would result with the society growing as a whole. This caste-based society shares similarities with Confucianism and the teachings of Zarathustra because all three’s main goal was to better their society, however each went about it differently. Confucius taught that individuals, who displayed virtue and benevolence, while also concentrating of self-improvement, were key to enhancing their society. In comparison, Zarathustra taught that individuals needed to have good morals in order to build a just society. In general, it seemed as though Confucianism and Zoroastrianism both were more focused on the individual as opposed to Hinduism, which focused on the entire society as a whole. Hinduism also wanted people to stop thinking about personal gain or reward, but instead do things that they thought would help their population and complete their duties to their castes, while Confucianism and Zoroastrianism cared more about being self-satisfied instead of worrying about everyone else.  In the end, although there were definitely differences among all three of these religions and ethical teachings of each, they all have the same initial goal, to make their societies as successful as possible.

How blogs should be graded.

                   I think that blogs should definitely be graded not based on length, but based on the information within them and the message they get across. My definition of blog is that it is an area where people have the ability to post their own thoughts and opinions on different topics freeley. Whether the person who composes the blog post has a lot to say or feels strongly about a certain issue and needs to write extensively to satisfy themselves, or if a person is concise and gets to their point directly is that person's own choice. As long as the post answers the question, provides examples to support it, and gets to the point I think that its length and structure are completely irrelevent. Also, punctuation and other grammatical mistakes should not be accounted for because the purpose of this blog isn't to scrutinize someone's english, but rather to express their opinions and thoughts on different things. I think that the grading system should be that a person who recieves a 3 should have a well-thought out blog with details and enough information to support and explain the question. A 2 should be rewarded to someone who has done a good job but lacked depth and relevance in their post, for example by not providing enough arguements to support their perspective. A 1 is given to someone who got off topic, did not answer the question completely, but did an OK job. 0 is for someone who did not do the blog at all or completely misinterpreted the question and wrote something with no relevance to the question itself.

China dynasty : Qin

I think that a leader doing these things it would enhance trade and cause the empire to become more unified because more people can communicate with the universal writing system. It causes the rulers to have more control over the people in their empire. This allowed the rulers to obtain unity within the vast empire and keep order while also expanding.

Relating the selections from The Analects to modern politics

             I chose the passage from Book III. 16 saying, “The Master said, “The gentleman understands what is moral, the small man understands what is profitable.” I chose this passage because it has a message that is clearly relatable to current and past modern politics. I think that this passage has great significance because what it is trying to convey is that respectable men make decisions and act according to their morals and doing what is right, while selfish and ignorant men act on things based on personal gain. All of the past government officials who were put into office in the United States were put there for a reason, because the majority of the American people confided in their politics and believed that they could trust these officials with successfully completing their duties to the country and citizens. Trust is the basis of our government, and if any one person’s mind is corrupted with notions that are concerned with anything other than what’s best for the country, there is a serious problem. Officials should never make decisions based on what they think would be most beneficiary to people like them, but instead should regard all different perspectives on this issue and do what’s morally right in the situation. For example, wealthy government officials who are better off than most middle-class Americans should not alter taxation laws so that they pay the same as someone with a much lower income, they should make the policy fair so that people who are better off contribute more than those who genuinely cannot afford to be paying the same amount as people who make more than double their annual salary.

            When I read this passage, an epic moment in U.S. history immediately was triggered within my thoughts. Instantly, I thought of the Watergate scandal revolving around our former President, Richard Nixon. This incident occurred in the 1970’s when five of Nixon-associated men were caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters as a way to gather information in an attempt to re-elect Nixon as president. After proven guilty, it becomes obvious that Nixon was blinded by his own selfishness and greed to maintain the presidency so he lost all sense of right and wrong. He participated in an event that broke the law and was morally unjust because he thought that it would be profitable to him by helping win the election. This passage clearly dictates that, “a small man understands what is profitable,” which is exactly what Nixon proves to be. This scandal relates to this quote and I think that in modern-day politics, every official and President Obama need to decipher between their own needs and that of a country in order to gain the respect of the citizens and successfully run this country by become more selfless and focused on nationalism.