My Take on the Religion and Ethics Debate

Since there was not reading posted for the week so far, I wanted to talk about the religion and ethics debate/discussion which we held in class on Friday. The source which I was assigned had to do with religion being enhanced by and supported by ethics and moralities of society. In the reading, the speaker defined five separate arguments to back up his overall theory of ethics being able to enhance religion in humanity. The argument I find to be most persuasive is the argument that every individual will get what they deserve based off of the quality of their morality throughout their lifetime as that is a motivation to understand religion and use it in the name of morality and goodness as it individually applies to one being and presents a conflict (hard but moral, or easy but unjust) which we are all familiar with; it does not look at humanity as a whole, but rather the individual as a whole which makes it more convincing and compelling to understand and apply to real life. The argument I find to be least persuasive is the one regarding God treating all creations equally, and therefore equality and morality must be implemented in society to honor that. I say this because every individual, regardless of religion, has their own interpretation of God or divinity, and it cannot be a universal concept which applies to all of humanity regarding God as a motivation to be moral. Creation, being part of religion and God varied belief systems is something unique to the individual, and merely saying that God created equality and it must be sustained is not enough of a driving force or motive to act moral on behalf of something interpretative, unproved, and undetermined! 

When we discussed in our small groups about our individual assigned arguments, all of their back up and support, and the validity of them, and surprisingly I found mine the most valid and meaningful to my individual life and throughout history. I began by asking my group if and how religion and ethics are interrelated with each other at all throughout history. What I discovered was that the two had come into contact with each other, and either one may have been a result of the other, but realistically, they are entirely different things. Here’s my point of view: religion is something that applies to an entire part of humanity, making the individual part of something bigger than itself because it applies and subjects to so many people, so equally. Ethics, on the other hand, is something completely defined by the individual as there cannot and has not been a system of morals and ethics to which everyone is subjected to like a religion; even if everyone were subject to it, that subjection would be far from equal as some would impose their morals/ethics more intensely and efficiently than others as rationally some would reject and neglect them--you can’t do that with a religion. Also, ethics are determined by the individual for that very individual because every person in history has an internal set of morals which they subject themselves to but not others, that would not be reasonable or moral (irony intended)! So, maybe an individual’s system of ethics and moral code can be influenced by or structured based off of one’s religious affiliations and practices as religion does incorporate ethical and moral themes, suggestions, and reasoning (lessons) within itself, but by no means would religion dictate and set those morals in place for the individual because like I stated before, ethics stem from the individual and his/her surroundings, upbringing, environment, etc.; moral are not determined communally or generally as opposed to religion which is imposed in a much more general, interpretative sense. Therefore, I find it somewhat irrational and meaningless to discuss or debate over these three different arguments (religion needs ethics, ethics needs religion, or religion enhances ethics) as religion has absolutely no affiliations with religion whatsoever! It is merely an internal tool(s) which individuals use to enhance their lives as they act according to reason and standards composed by themselves, and because that individual set of ethics enhances life, it would reasonably effect one’s religion/religious experience. In this way, ethics are able to/are used to increase or strengthen one’s religious experiences and practices as they are merely a set of tools used to live one’s life, religious or not. 

Religion is a Rulebook: Do Versus Dont

Religion is a complex and overruling aspect of human history that over the course of countless events, situations, and settings, religion has been the root cause for human thought, conflict, and ultimately a great part of history. Clearly, each of the different religious groups and beliefs, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Although, the religious groups almost have more similarities than they do differences, different than what may seem on the surface; but when looking historically beneath the mere outline/structure of the religions, they share so much that it almost contradicts the entire reason for having multiple religious beliefs and practices. It breaks down to really one primary difference: that is the difference between “do” and “do not”. Now, it may seem obvious and elementary, but when looking at it from strictly a historical perspective, it explains so much of the history regarding religions. Religion has revolved around a series of rules or beliefs that have been set according to a god, physical ruler, a king (basically anyone in a seat of power or influence over a certain group of people), and the followers and believers of a religion would be determined so based on the extent to which those rules were observed and acted upon. Accordingly so, religions had seen the most spreading and expanding during the time when a ruler either ruled under or over a certain religion as it had interfered with the politics of history, and therefore, more people following the “Dos” and “Do Nots”, or the rules of a religion, means more followers; the religion would further grow in size, placement, and importance in human history. I quote: “Instead of rules that were to be followed, religion became a set of beliefs that followers needed to embody by what they did, not what they did not do...the very "truths" of these religions, open to interpretation, change as humanity changes.” Essentially, this is saying that religion had transformed into something comparable to a rulebook or guidelines to which people abided by throughout their lives, following and believing the religion they saw fit best for them and their individual lives. What happens when it is individuality that plays a key component in the growing and setting of religions? Individual interpretation. People had begun to determine what religion means to them on their own, based on their own lives. These personal meanings clearly went to effect what it meant to be a follower of a certain religion, as that religion’s identity and/or rules (Dos or Do-Nots) may change as well. So, it makes sense to say that religion changed and progressed as human history progressed as well. Now, the world continues to adjust and gauge itself to the concept of religion on a Do versus Do-Not basis rather than looking at it as something that unifies a group of people together based off of a common belief. Don’t get me wrong, religion is still a communal label and brings together the people that share it, but it has developed into a general rule book of ways of life, but how those rules are interpreted and executed are entirely variable, up to the individual. In that way, religions are not that much different as they all serve as an overarching rulebook by which humanity can follow in order to gain something in their lives or for whatever personal reason it may be, but religion has become so much more personal and individual than it has communally or generally speaking. This may be as a result of the progressing history or accomplishments like mobility, where religion has the ability to move with the individual to individual places, not staying in one greater area and being forced upon those constituents, not changing as everyone was subject to the same thing; but when people could spread out, it pertained more to them alone than to a greater crowd, allowing it to individualize itself. That being just one explanation, religion progresses with history, and because of that progression, religion means something entirely different than it did throughout all moments in history. Although, one thing has not changed: religion is something that tells you what to do and what not to do. But just like religion as a whole did, the interpretation and execution of those dos and dont’s altered as well.

Manipulation of Religon

Throughout this entire unit, I have not seen that religion can be used for the good or for the bad of the people subjected to it. When introduced to the concept of religion being an agent of the powerful, I thought to myself that that was a very large step to take in terms of my understanding and perception of religion, but it made a lot of sense as religion has and is been used as a mean by which people use to achieve/gain certain things. But, the notion of religion being used as an agent of the powerless was something alien to me. As I made sense of it, it began to sink in and I thought of some instances in which this occurred. Although, other ideas began to foster in my head about religion in general. I began to think that religion wasn’t something spiritual or meaningful to most individuals, but rather was utilized as a mere tool in order to gain something which they strive for in their lives. In the concluding section of the textbook reading, it says that, “Powerful people often use religion to retain their power by violent means often use religion. However, religion certainly may be used by those without power in a nonviolent manner to achieve social justice. History has shown that religion is a means by which people see the world, and their use of religious beliefs, depending upon the way in which they see the world, can be either for or against those in power.” For whatever the reason may be, I feel somewhat uncomfortable when I read this statement  because to me, religion is something much more than just a tool or utility in life. I find it controversial, however, as religion can be used for horrible intentions, such as gaining more land via battle and brutal violence, or, can be used for really good reasons as to gain social justice or equality in the world. Although, I began to disregard my personal feelings when I looked at this blog prompt and it actually cleared a lot of thing up in my head. I think that purely looking at religion through a historical perspective, it is merely a mean by which people manipulate in which ever way benefits themselves or their cause the most, and is entirely disregarded as a spiritual or deeper meaning in one’s life. In the example above, I pointed out that religion can be used for positive of negative reasons and in good or bad ways as well as people’s methods when using religion contrast with good or bad. But once again, the idea of historiography comes into play as the justification of what is good versus what is bad is entirely pertaining to those involved in the action, being the contributors or the receivers. For example, Pope Urban used religion to further spread his religious ideas and empire, and to gain power. That is not necessarily a bad or evil idea, but the ways by which he executed his cause were--now to him they may not have been seen as crimes or unjust, but to the history observers and the persecuted ones, that act would have been seen as vile and inhuman. Plus, its interesting that religion itself could and does provide the answers to whether or not such acts or good or bad in the name of the people and participants of the religion. Although, because religion has developed into such a powerful, driving, and  unifying force throughout history, people have completely neglected the fundamental reason that religion exists, and are using it for the wrong reasons in whichever manner that one would. The justification of how one uses it and for what reasons one uses religion cannot be entirely answered as there are countless perspectives on the subject; but, religion itself may provide good insight. When looking through history, religion has sparked political motives, social motives, economic motives, cultural motives, etc. It has been an overlying source of unification and a commonality between most people in history. Therefore, it would makes sense that in order to fit and play a role in all of these different situations, it would be manipulated in all sorts of ways so that it could fulfill the role which people sought to in their lives. It’s interesting now that I look at religion that way, that it is not something that fulfills a spiritual or meaningful aspect in life, but rather is a mean by which things are done by. On a side note, that could be one of the reasons why so many different religions were established; one couldn’t fit the needs or circumstances of someone, so they sought out something new to fill that emptiness which the other religion used to hold. But who knows, religion has become so much more than just a spirituality in life, it has become a defining, fundamental property of human history. 

Missionaries: Why Would They Kill?

Missionaries in my mind are another version of the Crusades, just without most of the military and physical force in the good of spreading a religion. Their world views of religion, cultures, and societies were, just like the Crusades, altered or different in some ways than most of the other members of greater society as their religion had provided them with a purpose and “rational” (in their minds) reason to do something with their lives--spread their religion throughout the common geography. Interestingly, as the Crusades pertained only to Christian force and in the name of Christianity, the Missionaries involved more than one religion, as Buddhism came into play in order to prevent Christianity from spreading to the utmost amount of people and making it a world power; Christian missionaries did the same toward Buddhism. Although, it is important to note that both Buddhist and Christian missionaries had a common enemy/interest--that is to prevent the spreading and popularizing of Islam, another threatening religion in the geography, which could cause potential damage/undermining of the respective religion’s society and members. That common notion did not unite the two, however, as the missionaries' role in their religion’s history was to spread and overpower the other religions in the area and convert others with different belief systems, cultures, or societies while implementing their religious beliefs and philosophies on differing cultures/religions throughout the geography in places such as Africa, Asia, and the “New World”, or Americas. The missionaries were willing to use any force necessary, although did not initiate as a military force, to convert and greaten the chances of their religion becoming one of a world power/dominance over the other religions which existed. They did this by killing, preaching, threatening, etc. and all the other forces which could be beneficial to the spreading of the religion. They did this not because they “wanted” or “intended” to, but because that was what their religion entailed and told them to do; the religious officials, the ones close to God, sent the message to commit such actions in order to greaten the eminence of the religion itself. That provided solid reasoning and backup for the participants of the missionaries, and thus, the missionaries converted others and gained followers, and in the process, naturally had people turn against them, angered. I think that this occurred mainly in locations around Asia and older civilizations because they had had a lot of time and exchange and experience to establish their own defined lifestyle, and when someone stomps in by forces and forces you to convert after living an exposed, defined life, I’d imagine I wouldn’t be too happy. But in places like the “New World”, the Americas and Africa, people had had relatively zero exposure to other religions and cultures, and did not have the extensive history which the other’s had as their history had merely just begun, whereas in Asia it had already been continuing a history of one thousand years (more or less). But, the missionaries provided those with no religion in their lives with a religious, powerful force, those people would gladly join something bigger and pledge their lives to something already established amidst the mere origins of a new society. In that way, the Missionaries were successful as they provided those with none a new religion which would then, through cultural exchanges, spread on its own throughout that newly born geography; that would allow the religion to do a majority of its spreading, gain of power, and ultimate achievement of overpowering the other religious forces during the time.

The Crusades: Shaping Reality

As I have blogged about this before, I feel that it is important to revisit one of the central ideas of the religion unit as it perfectly relates and fits into the situation of Pope Urban and the establishment and action of the Crusades. Religion shapes and changes the way certain individuals in certain circumstances view things and think about their lives. Religion is an easy agent of the powerful to obtain and achieve a common goal throughout their rule, and serves as an incredible motivation for people, usually those who are powerless, to do certain things that isn’t considered rational or correct--but religion says it is and will put be in a better place, so it’s got to be right/good to do? That’s the question that popped in my mind when reading about the Crusades and Pope Urban’s admirable quality of convincing people through his language. His speaking attributes definitely made a considerable effect on the Christians among his rule, as his ability to mobilize and promote the religion to those who were barely even subjected to it (more obliged to their leader than the religion itself!) and make them go as far as to fight for their religion is astounding. The fact that Pope Urban was able to change the way people think about their life and religion and alter its philosophies to make the people under his rule think differently was quite the accomplishment. Regardless of Urban, though, Christianity and religion as a whole was such a driving force, maybe as a result of Urban’s inspiring words and actions, but the religious force caused so many people to think and see the world differently than they usually would, and therefore, justified radical actions such as the involvement of the Crusades throughout European and some of Asian religious history. The responsibility that all of the participants in the Crusades does not fault to the Pope’s speeches or irrational actions or secret societies--it is the fault of the religion itself (not that it is a bad fault, but it was the force which provided the means to which the people would participate/support the Crusades. Also, because so many new religious emerged during the uprising reign of Christianity throughout Europe, threats were posed indirectly to Christians as their world power, land, influence, and institutions were all subject to destruction, persecution, or overpowering from the other religions which existed. So, how did the Christians react to that posing threat and danger--they originated the movement of the Crusades. Christian officials were determined on preventing the Muslims and HIndus which shared the common geography in the area which the Christians centralized, as more participants and followers calls for a more powerful and to increase the presence of the religious force; followers and believers are essential to the success, spread, and popularizing of religions, so that was another key which the main powers of the opposing religions used to gain eminence. The last thing I want to touch on is the peculiarity of the reasoning for the Crusades and involvement in them; this is really good evidence for the notion of religion shaping one’s reality. Throughout history, including today, people usually don’t do something that extreme (like the Crusades) without good benefit for themselves or something/one of their own. Now, it can be argued that people participated because they were so loyal to their religion and conscious of the potential dangers undermining it. Although, I think that that was the only benefit in the actions of the Crusades, but the people involved in them were doing it according to a false notion either they created for themselves or handed to them by the persuasive and mesmerizing words of Pope Urban. There was a specific benefit for each person who was willing to fight on behalf of their religious beliefs and prominence in history, but they were not fighting for some cause that just existed--they fought for themselves because through the cultural interaction/exchange, and the general influence which others had on one individual would foster an idea that if I fight, I am saving myself from potential danger if one of these other religions rises to power, and if not (either way), I will be in a good place, solidified in heaven. All of these thoughts which were all very real and was the main reason that the Crusades escalated to such large numbers and heights, and shows how much religion and the perception (or misperception) of something can lead an individual or group of people to do things that they usually would not commit. The Crusades embodies the concept of religions seeking overall power and using it as an agent of the powerful to gain more power/get people to do things that they usually wouldn’t because religion changes the way people think about their lives, and therefore, act. 

The Origins of Islam and Christianity Compare

The origins of Islam are similar to those of Christianity. These means are obviously varied in many ways as they involve different people, times, places, etc. Although, they both revolve around a similar principle that happens to be the heading of the chapter: there was a messenger and the messenger sent a message that revolutionized the world of religion, initiating something new, appealing, and to become enormous. Islam began with the birth of Muhammad in 570 CE in Mecca. Accordingly, Mecca was going to become a holy, acclaimed, and historically significant site in Islamic history--all because of Muhammad. He undertook periods of disconnection from society, and when he was amidst the rest of life, he went through a deeply religious and eye opening experience which would set him with his drive for the meaning of the rest of his life: to enlighten and spread the words of God which connected with him during his periods of withdrawal and religious connection. These experiences had him convinced that he was the messenger of God, Allah, and that he was to do his work without question and with faith, devotion, and willingness. This is very comparable to Jesus, the initiator of the Christian movement and religion in history, who was born and raised in an outlandish home, far away from much civilization. There, after being born via immaculate conception (an already spiritual, god-like feature to his life) he was raised without much interaction with others in rural areas. He had experiences in which he personally established a connection with a higher power and that power (assuming God) provided Jesus with his insight and messages. Because of this, Jesus was considered the son of God, in the sense that he represented and embodied everything that the higher power consisted of. Both Jesus and Muhammad were individuals who, as a result of religious experiences, allegedly gained something from their Gods and went on to spread their message and attract others with the insight they possessed. They were both messengers of God, embodying everything that God was, and therefore, both became crucial figures in their respective religion’s history. Another similarity between the origins of Islam and Christianity was the reason which both of them succeeded in spreading their religious ideas and beliefs. Both Jesus and Muhammad were born without a holy scripture of their religion, and lived their lives in the absence of either religion’s religious texts. This was because they themselves would be one of the first things that would appear in their religion’s holy scriptures since they were the main root causes for the religion’s existence. Anyways, Muhammad was still actively spreading and teaching the principles of the Quran because what was in the Quran were God’s attributes and therefore the beliefs about Islam since they revolved around Allah. So, Muhammad had been teaching the lessons from God that were recorded in the Quran; being written down allowed Muhammad and Islam to spread much faster around since just verbally, Muhammad could not introduce Islamic tradition and belief around the entire region at the time. Oppositely, Christianity’s holy scriptures were written way after Jesus’ actual time spreading Christianity. He had to personally, verbally popularize and explain Christianity to everyone he interacted with, making the process of its spreading and appealing much slower than that of Islam. The Old Testament heavily revolved around Jesus and the beliefs of God, only because Jesus’ messages were implemented and transferred so strongly, historically, throughout society. So, both Islam and Christianity compare in the sense that their holy scriptures revolve around them, their interaction with God, and the religious beliefs according to them (and God), but Islam was able to use that to their advantage and widespread at a faster rate than Christianity did, considering their holy texts were not established yet. Considering both religion’s holy scriptures and messengers/messages, the origins of both Islam and Christianity (especially the lives of Muhammad and Jesus) compare to one another.

Religion in India: Mixed into Everything

In the beginning of the unit concerning religion, the central question posed was about how religion shapes different people’s realities and their lives as a whole. Throughout the course of the unit so far, I began to neglect that question and focused more on the specificity of certain religions, its practices and beliefs, their impact on history (historical significance) and the connections between different religions and branches of ones alike. Although, when asked to go through aspects of life and lifestyles in India, I really tried hard to bridge together those two concepts and establish a good foundation as to attempt to answer the overarching question, or find somewhat parts of evidence which I could use to back up my argument about religion in general. Anyways, what struck me to see when I reached the website was that religion one out of twenty four different topic to be discovered and looked upon. What? I had thought that the sole purpose of the assignment was to learn more about vast religions in the world, but here it said that religion was a minuscule fraction of the aspects of daily life in India. So, from the get-go, I forced myself to really critically think and find out how religion was incorporated in this given assignment, and what it would serve use to me in the development of my understanding of religion, generally speaking. So, after going through five different gateways, I had solidified a generalized opinion/argument about religion which I will soon use evidence to back up. I concluded that religion includes, covers, influences, is a result of, and is a part of everything (daily life) which consists of any individual or group of people. Religion is, usually (or in this case is) the root cause of everything; everything is an outcome of or is a result of a certain religion--and encompasses a specific aspect(s) while doing so. 

I’m going to start of with backing this up with the Ganges River. That river is used for everything, centralized right in the middle (geographically) of India, running through the entire region, assisting populated areas to fulfill the need for water. This river was relied on for an enormous variation of things, from agriculture to food and water, to hygiene, to history, and ironically, to religion! Who would have thought that a river would have anything to do with religion? This was my first attempt in bridging that gap that I had mentioned before. The river, it said, was the terrestrial home of Ganga, I highly regarded and powerful goddess in India’s religion. It has been the prided home of that religious figure ever since, and because of that, logically, the river would be established as a sacred, religious place. Therefore, it is favorable and “promising” to use it for such purposes as agriculture, drinking, bathing, and even use it as a deathbed for some, being a popular place to dump one’s ashes in (for a sense of goodness and prosperity). Bathing in particular is a big deal in this region (in the river itself) as it serves as a purifying ritual, symbolizing the washing away of one’s sins and evil within them as the goddess which inhabits the river interacts with the bather. And upon death, the spreading of one’s ashes in the water may improve ones lifestyle, afterlife, or humanity. So, clearly this is not anything comparable to the Chicago River, as the Ganges River is so much more than just a river. As it is a primary source for many aspects of their life, the fact that religion is incorporated with it and makes it that much more unique, special, and valuable clearly alters the way someone in that society views the world, nature in particular, than someone not in that culture. Like I said before, millions of people in Chicago neglect and discard the Chicago River, even though it has a historical importance (not so sure about religion...). Although, in India’s culture, one will view the (somewhat same!) river completely different as religion plays a part in it, therefore altering the way that one perceives their reality and aspects of their life. One more example. 

In the science and medicine section, it explains how India is characterized by its extensive scientific contributions. Although, the continuation of the sentence completely changes the meaning of the sentence! It says that in addition to the scientific contributions, its rich philosophical tradition integrates science and religion together so they coincide with one another. This basically says that science is a direct result of religion. It even goes on to describe how people in India began to practice ancient systems of science (astronomy and mathematics to be specific) and that the modern systems of science are merely advancements off of what was before. Isn’t that what religion is, too? The individual application of something greater that changes over time? So, religion changed the way people in India view science because their religion (or general upbringing) altered the way they view scientific reasoning, applications, and methods! Their religious history involves science and math, and therefore, the religious aspects play a significant part in the scientific and mathematic doings throughout their culture. So here is another example, of science an religion--two completely different aspects of life on opposite sides of the scale--which come together and create something different as a result of one another to change the way people view something. So, the River and science both support how religion is integrated into all (many more examples) aspects of life, and has a major cultural and traditional influence. Now that this is proved in India, I wonder how it could be proved and examined in my own life.

The Question of Constantine

In class today we talked about Constantine, his reign, and his importance in the Roman Empire/influence on Christianity. Although we did not elaborate on one of the many questions Mr. Moran proposed, I wanted to talk about one of them and try to answer it as best as possible. The question was: to what extent was Constantine a Christian? Was he a believer of the religion? As many historians and studiers of Constantine may try to delve into his history, religious backgrounds, and influences/influence in order to determine his actual participation and involvement with the religious force and efforts. As this may be a valid way to solve the unknown, there are two defects which must be strongly considered. First, it might be incredibly inefficient, time consuming, and almost impossible to figure out what is sought to be, as one must examine almost every angle of Constantine’s life, before, during, and after, as well as all of his surroundings, etc. Secondly, it can rationally be said (through previous knowledge and research done by many) that blatantly, we can never know for sure. Unless Constantine miraculously comes back and tells us exactly what he was thinking and what he did behind the scenes and in general history, there is no “possible” way to understand Constantine’s Christian involvement throughout his lifetime. Regardless, my argument/answer to this question is that--it doesn’t matter! and the question is somewhat valueless and will not lead anywhere. I think a better question to ask would be: What was Constantine’s effect on Christianity? Why did he have this effect? (that second part getting into the individual history stuff again but does not focus on his individual but rather his surroundings, his past, and his present histories/times). I say it does not matter (to the original question) not in the sense that I don’t care about Constantine, but more in the terms of through studying general patterns and themes of history we know why he would have done something, and that he did in fact have a profound effect on the religion. That’s exactly why it doesn’t matter! We know that Constantine had an enormous, vast effect on the religion of Christianity because he brought the religion to everyday-people’s terms and popularized it, “legalized” it in a sense, introduced it to go in accord with government and politics, and overall just allowed the religion to reach new heights through making the general population accept and practice/widespread the religion. Whether or not he was a Christian is beside the point! As he only officially converted on his deathbed itself, it may never be known if Constantine was an official Christian during his actual reign, and the extent to which he believed and practiced the religion is up in the air. But through history, we understand that Constantine had an extensive impact on the religion and even though he may not have been one, he opened up the door for and set million of other people throughout history on the path towards practicing, believing, and participating in the religion of Christianity. He marketed Christianity and created the investment opportunity for people to take during his time and onto the rest of time up until now; Constantine was a great Christian figure who set the movement of the religion that would play such a significant role throughout history to come. Now, the question comes out to be: does a religious figure need to be religious? What are the qualifications of a religious figure? 

The Caste System: Constructing Religious-Social Realities

The notion of religion being a mean by which people increase or decrease the amount of/use of power in society is a very prominent throughout history, and even in modern history. Although, (one of) the first religious-social societies which heavily combined the two aspects of life into one powerful and eminent force was the origins of Hinduism in the Indus Valley Region between 3500 and 1800 BCE. There were rankings of groups of people who were all involved in society, but in different, unique ways. The highest ranking that one could be in was the “Brahmins”. This level of society included priests, teachers, scholars, and other highly educated and exposed individuals. I believe that they were the highest ranked because they had the most to offer throughout society as they were the ones to educate others which would eventually follow them; naturally, those in the highest rankings tend to also have the highest priority and significance, so it makes sense that the teachers would preside first. Second, there are the “Kshatriyas”. This rank consisted of warriors, fighters, and royalty. Interestingly enough, royalty in this case was not the highest priority (as history plays out it becomes clear that royalty, sometimes as a result of religion, is the number one), and I think it is because in the time period back then, religion was their government, and once that governing need was fulfilled the royalty really had nothing to do except carry out family name and tradition--and control/maintain the region, somewhat. Next there was the “Vaishyas”, mostly traders and economic workers. This makes sense because an economy as a very functioning and somewhat essential part of life throughout history, and there is a pattern that when an economy disfunctions, the surrounding society(s) disfunction as well--so the ones who controlled and participated in the economy were definitely above the lower ranks of society. Lastly there was the “Shudras”, which were made up of farmers, servicemen, artists, laborers, and the working class in general terms. This sort of set the foundation for societal classes throughout history, as almost always until very modern history, the working class/the ones who provided the living essentials and add ons (like art, etc.) were at the lowest ranks of society since they were the ones that allowed everyone else in society to prosper and fulfill their roles in their respective ranks. They were the basis of society--literally. Surprisingly though, that is not all! There was an even lower class of people which were labeled as “Untouchables”. The name speaks for itself, as they were so low in ranking that even the people in the “Shudras” would consider them as inferior, and could not comprehend to even touch them--a little extreme, much? Regardless, this was the Caste system which ruled India and Hindus life for a while, and it was all based off of religion, indirectly though. 

The whole system of the Caste was hereditary, which meant that the people in each ranking didn’t have to do anything to be classified that way except being born--and once they were in, they could not get out for as long as they lived. The higher the rank, the higher the wealth and importance. As a result of the high influence of Hinduism (a religion), the Caste system implied that the ranks determined the religious rankings and significance of each individual. This makes sense as the priest, religious figure, made the cut off for the top priority. Anyways, the religious classifications also instituted a social, economic, and power system by which society operated, but the power classes were heavier than all the others, outweighing them. The Caste system is a perfect example of religion being used as a mean to gain or in this case, maintain power. The people in the higher rankings of the system used religion as an excuse to be powerful and used religion as their way to distribute and effectually use their power to their intention. Here, we see that religion itself becomes the institution in history by which social status (and thus economic, political, etc. statuses) were gained and maintained. Religion had begun to classify people and control how they live their lives. For our purposes, it perfectly exemplifies a way that would make someone in history think a certain way or do a certain thing. We’ve been asking what makes someone do something...this is a potential answer: in the case of a person living in this period in history, their religion would classify them in a specific ranking, therefore dictating to them how they should live their lives--and what ever they do, their incentive is based off of their religious-social placement. Their ranking and means by which they live their life would make people do or think a certain way, thus answering our overarching, historiographical question. Someone’s religion would transform their reality into something unique from any other’s because their religion would place them in such a classification/ranking (in this case, the Caste system), and whichever placement they are in, the way they see the world, act, and form realities are all an outcome of their religious-social organization and placement, thus answering the question of how religion contributes to constructing one’s reality in history.

The Success and Expansion of Christianity

Christianity rose to become one of the primary religions in the world. It proposed a change in society that allowed for people to perceive the way they live their general lives in and outside of religious boundaries differently. This change in how people viewed the world was received very positively, openly, and thoroughly, allowing the religion to rise up in terms of popularity/numbers and expand its boundaries. Specifically, what was unique about Christianity which appealed to so many people throughout early history was that its philosophies and principles redirected religious organization as well as social organizations which improved individual behavior and relationships, ultimately helping Christianity to rise up in popularity. This change in the ways of looking at relationships with other humans, not just about one’s relation with their deity, brought a new understanding of humanity to the table, altering the world which was overflowing with cruelties and negative action against humanity; in other words, Christianity proposed a change to the way people live their daily lives, and that change was widely yearned for and accepted. 

Christianity also posed dramatic change on the virtues which people observe and reflect upon in their daily lives. Christian principles were viewed as somewhat of a handbook by which people used to understand how they should act and participate in society. This was a significant difference between Christianity and most other religions at the time (e.g Judaism, Islam, etc). The contrast really promoted the new religion to a new level, as the main difference included that most other religions expressed requirements that needed to be fulfilled in order to be a participant in the religion. Judaism required the ethnic classification to have a Jewish ethnicity, for example. Christianity merely formed something more than a religion, and everything which encompassed the religion was just a guideline by which believers would follow and adapt for--it established a social format. This is the essential reason why Christianity became such a dominant world religion: it created an organizational framework about social relationships on a basis of religion. A Christian would then have the freedom to live the Christian philosophies and beliefs to the extent desired, which changed the world around humans, socially speaking. It was a unifying force which cancelled out all concepts of division, whether that be ethnically, socially, economically, sexually, etc. There were no requirements, therefore Christianity was much more open, and consequently more expansive and sizable, soon to be growing exponentially throughout history. The religion prompted liberating social relationships between people and united them through their differences; all barriers were broken as far as Christianity was concerned. Differences or requirements didn’t matter, religiously. That’s what made Christianity so special, prominent, and expansive: it was more than a religion--it introduced a new way of life which people sought for.

Prophet versus Missionary Analysis

A missionary is someone who dedicates their life to convincing others about something, in this case, a religion. Missionaries spread the word around and attempt to draw in as many people as they can to convert them into a new belief, broadening the acceptance and tolerance of such beliefs. Essentially, a missionary is a religious activist. In Paul’s case, his interpretation and perceiving of Jesus was spread through his individual views and experiences. This relates to the overarching concept of how history is created and why we study it, as the core foundational history of Christianity of based off of what we know was there and what was told to us; in religious, missionaries played an almost essential role in the “what was told to us” part. Also when considering missionaries, historical diffusion comes into play and very much so assisted the missionaries in achieving their goals of spreading the good word of a new religion or belief. Once spread to one area or group of people, or let alone an influential individual, history would do its part in establishing a great historical significance of the growth/expansions of ideas and beliefs throughout history. It was hard enough to reach someone and convince them of a radical idea, but once done, their job was pretty much over, as that individual would inhabit their beliefs and new ideas, spread them to others, only to be continually passed down through generations to initiate a new historically religious presence. Regardless, missionaries lead to more converts which lead to more believers, ultimately exaggerating, expanding, and popularizing religion throughout history (no believers = no religion!). This whole cycle of believers trying to seek others to also become believers provoked religious significance throughout time. 

Prophets, on the other hand, are people who advocate or speak in a visionary way about a new belief, cause, or theory. They are the ones throughout history who have established a personal connection with their religion and see it in a different way that nobody else can; but it is their job to enlighten and allow such enlightenment and achievement to continue throughout generations so that their religion and religious practices and all that it encompasses is not lost, but is passed on and further expanded to newer heights that cannot be reached alone, or without such insight, knowledge, and visionaries as prophets were. Cultural diffusion played a role, but a much smaller, indefinite role in the history of prophets. Think about it; missionaries spread the word but prophets gave, or initiated/introduced the word. Historical diffusion would not expand on and continue/greaten the visionary beliefs but would rather impede it from moving on; things which historically diffuse tend to have a history or previous significance, which is why missionaries were so successful and powerful. Prophets, on the other hand, were a  much more diminished, not powerful force as they must have individually preached their beliefs to one, and try to gain historical significance as an individual rather than a group or religion as a whole. It was a much slower, tenuous process, and therefore, prophet’s ideas were not that well spread and were not as successful as missionaries. Not to say that none were (there were some very influential and immensely significant prophets in religious history), it was just less common and more challenging.

When comparing a missionary and a prophet, one can establish yet another middle ground. Prophet qualities can easily fit those of a missionary, as both are there to spread ideas, gain significance, and advocates for something greater. Although, they are not interchangeable because missionary characteristics do not necessarily fit those of a prophet. A missionary does not make predictions, or have individual, visionary insight to the religion/beliefs of a prophet; they merely advocate and popularize while prophets create a new belief or concept and advocate on behalf of their individual practice/belief. Therefore, these two terms are not exactly interchangeably usable, but do share some notable characteristics which are greatly accounted for when observing religious history. 

Cult Versus Religion Analysis

Religion can be defined as the belief in and worship of a controlling, divine power, especially of a god or multiple gods. A cult can be defined with three main qualities: the first being a less amount of practitioners or participants than there are in the prevailing religion, the second being the concepts and beliefs of a cult must be outside of the mainstream of religion, and the third being that there is an iconic figure or thing to which admiration is shown and proved to. In other words, the practices of a cult has to be radical of the prevailing concepts (disregarding the admiration of a figure or thing). The differences are proved instantly by observations the definitions of the contrasting religious practices and practicers. To start off, in this case, the size off the practitioners and believers matter. Rationally, if more people are doing something, (more) people will regard it as a valid, credible practice. But, if there are less participants of a smaller group on the sidelines of the prevailing force (being religion in this case), (more) people will view it as an invalid, irrational, and a non-authoritative practice. A cult is much smaller in size of followers and practicers than there are in religion. Stemming off from size, the validity of the philosophies, beliefs, and actions of the group consisting of a smaller amount of people would be considered as less significant, rational, and credible to society. If less people are doing it, the cult would be deemed as a minority of society and something that is outlandish to the standards and philosophies of religion, therefore classifying it as it is. Oppositely, religion has many, almost an uncountable amount of participants and practicers which are engaged in religion daily, societally, and popularly; it much more widespread, accepted, and mainstream than that of a cult. Another defining quality of a cult is a the factor of admiration in the direction towards a figure, object, or other “thing”. This is where the two terms come into leveled playing field, and somewhat of similarities begin to emerge. A middle ground exists between cults and religions. It all begins with the similarity between the definitions of cults and religion which proved to be the starting point of the crossovers which will be explained shortly. Both religions and cults have a principle which holds core to the foundations: the admiration, worship, and following/attending to a higher (divine) figure, thing, or theory. From this, as time progresses, changes occur as cults can transform to religions, and religions can transform to cults. Let’s use Christianity (Paul) for an example. Paul began as a cult, with a small number of practitioners (only himself), a radical idea of Jesus being a direct descendant of god, and looked up to Jesus, worshiping and admiring him. The stage of a cult’s existence is set; but Paul went around and picked up a surprisingly large amount of followers which, through the process of historical diffusion, turned into an exponentially large amount of practitioners who participated and agreed with Paul’s theories and beliefs. Also, with the popularizing of his ideas and a large percent of society practicing those beliefs, the ideas of Christianity transitioned from those sitting on the sideline of society to those which had a large role in religious life, becoming mainstream. All along, they kept on admiring the overarching figure which guided the religion, Jesus. Now, everything that began as a cult turned into something that is the exact opposite of a cult--a mainstream, greatly practiced religion. The cult’s status transitioned into a religious status, which proves how a cult and a religion have similarities and a middle ground between the two exists, one that allow one to transition into the other interchangeably.

Abraham and His Historical Significance: The Planter, The Seed, The Roots

Abraham is a significant figure in history. Especially religious history. When it comes to history, I tend to think of it somewhat like a system of roots; there is one, beginning, central point (the seed) that everything stems off of to create a complex, diverse system of roots that is the history of the world. In this scenario, Abraham is the seed, and the roots are the rest of occurred/occurring religious history (in retrospect). According to Judaism, Abraham was the first Jew. It is an argument to make that Judaism was the earliest and is the oldest religion practice throughout humanity (certainly coming before Christianity and Islam, the other two main religions of the present day). However, going along with the argument proposing Judaism is (one of the) or (the) first religions to exist, Abraham can be classified as the first religious individual. Obviously, that title poses an enormous amount of historical significance, let alone religious (Judaic especially) history. Growing up diffused in a culture surrounded by beliefs, values, and concepts that he did not agree with or abide with, Abraham individually took action to replace the distorted religious societies which he was immersed in with ones that exercised/approached religion the way he felt was correct. He physically destroyed the “materialized” religion at hand and attempted to impose a more theoretical, rational, and faithful religion according to G-d. Although, being a minor religious force against a much stronger, popularized, and appealing religious power, Abraham’s revolutionary ideas and beliefs were immediately shut down. Left to say, this is almost a foreshadowing of Jewish history to come later as Jews become the minority in religious societies. Nevertheless, Abraham pursued his gut feeling and religious ideas that would alter the world of religion forever.

Partnering up with G-d, they established a religious force that would take history and change it forever. A sole man, with a core belief of believing in G-d, established one of the most powerful religions that humanity has/will ever see throughout history. He was not a product of society, but rather an individual who did the opposite of historically diffuse; he historically created, going against the gradient of religion and establishing a firm ground (planting the seed) which the three main religions of the modern world, over thousands of years later, would call as their history. His roots (offspring, pun intended) would then become the next central/beginning figures of two religions; his son Ishmael to Islam, and much farther down the roots system, Jesus to Christianity. Historically significant, Abraham would begin an incredibly long strand of religious-history makers just like him. He set the example and planted the seed (he’s the planter and the seed in this case), by which all others (the roots) would grow off of, learn from, and reflect upon/of when they participate in their religious practices and religion in general. 

Believers of Religion

Why are the believers the essential element to understanding the history of a religion?

Why do you think religion in 2011 CE is so much different than religion in 2011 BCE?

Believers are an essential element to all religions because they are the participants in that religion, also being the population of individuals that the religion is aimed/directed towards. They embrace and accept the ideas, philosophies, and beliefs (etc.) of the religion they belong to without question or doubt. While non participants may deem the basis of the religion as irrational, the believers withstand the ones who are opposed to them and make an impact on history. With an importance presence in history and beyond, believers carry along that religion’s beliefs and rituals throughout generations. They are the ones who continue to extend the history of that religion as they are being part of it, continuing the legacies, principles, and faiths of such a religion. By acting in ways the exemplify the philosophy of their religion, believers spread and expand their religion even more. Believers preserve religious devotion and allow such religions to maintain themselves throughout history. In a nutshell, believers embrace, live, and spread the faith of religion. Believers are the audience to the platform of the religion.

Historical Diffusion: Akhenaton to Steve Jobs

One of the central concepts of history is the notion of change over time. Rarely in history does one find an element that remains in the exact same form, manner, etc. that it was established in throughout time. Oppositely, it is almost the case that historically, elements of history never stay the same and changes (usually) drastically as the time, setting, and humanity progresses. History depends on its surroundings, and consequentially, those surroundings are the main contributing factors that alter the history to such an extent. These factors include environmental status, technological status, overall exposure to the greater world/humanity, the people associated, the history of the people/location/environment, etc. Although, the factors are unique and different for every moment and individual in history. They also change. So, we have this conceived notion of changes over time as a result of the surrounding environment. 

One of the outcomes of a continual change over time historical diffusion. As history changes, the humanity involved in it changes as well. Historical diffusion is the process of influence and creating. One cannot escape the history they are living in simply because it is impossible to escape their lives (except for resorting to death). Regardless, the history creates the environment that one lives in, therefore the history makes a profound impact on the individual just like if an earthquake struck, most, if not all individuals living at the time would be impacted; its not a choice, but the history is simply involved in their life and the effect is widely felt. Anyways, when living in the present, history occurs, therefore influencing whoever is present at the time. Historical diffusion is exactly that; “growing up” in a time when concepts, beliefs (in this case), technologies, etc. are being presented to you, directly or indirectly. Either way, the influence is felt and is unavoidable. It goes to say that humanity, in a way, is a product of the environment which they are involved in/exist in. When one is historically diffused, which happens almost every day throughout history to the present day (and in the future), they become a newly shaped individual, community, or ultimately a new form humanity that is an outcome of new, revolutionary history. It is not copying history, its intaking it individually and soon projecting it/redefining it to establish something completely new, to redefine history itself. It is an ongoing cycle that will never end as long as history is in play (which will continue for a fairly long amount of time). Returning to the concept of change over time throughout history, realistically, everything that makes up humanity today isn’t that much of a difference than it was since the earlier periods of history, it is just incredibly more elaborate, expansive, progressed, and added on to than it was when it started; either way, the progression of history and humanity as a whole are both distinct outcomes of the complex process of influence and creation, otherwise noted as historical diffusion.

An example of historical diffusion in the more modern part of history rather than Akhenaton can include the establishment and revolution of mobile technologies, something that really took off in the past five or seven years. Smart-phones initially began with the amazing invention of the Iphone, marketed by Apple in early 2007. Everybody demanded it. There was no kid, adult, or community that did not have any inclination to go into a store and test it out, or just buy one right off the bat. It was chaos; the way humanity operated mobile and how it connected with each other was changed forever. Little did we know it, a few months following the original, Apple had already announced plans to reinvent and create the Iphone 3G. It was everything that the Iphone had, and better. Clearly, other phone companies were loosing a lot of business and popularity as Apple took over the mobile world. As a result of this and the profound impact that the Iphone made on humanity and technology, other phone companies started up in the competition to create the first generation of smart phone technology.  

As soon as we know it, all other phone companies start shooting out other lines of phones comparable to the Iphone. In the past four years alone, Apple has made four new versions of the Iphone, while other phone companies combined has produced between eighty and one hundred different models of phones that can do the same, if not more than the Iphone. Regardless, all of the other phone companies diffused off the sole idea and concept that Apple proposed and had so much success with. Each company took the ideas and influence from the original smart phone inventor, Apple, and reshaped its concepts and principles to form an adaption of their own, thus creating the new lines of smart phones. By doing this, they gained eminence and much success, all as a result of diffusing through/modifying Apple’s historical achievement. The companies did not steal the principles of the Iphone, but rather were influenced by them and projected/redefined them to establish the new generations of smart phones that further revolutionized the world of technology and mobile functions; just like how Akhenaton revolutionized the world of religion and influenced a new generation of religions for the world to be marveled by and participate in, redefining the way humanity perceived religion. The new generation of Iphones and smart phones redefined the way humanity perceives technology, and changed how humanity operated, ultimately changing the history of humanity’s interaction with technology and each other. That’s what cultural diffusion does; on a larger and smaller scale alike, it transforms history to create a new future.

Ruth's Religious Identity

**I chose to take a more personal route on writing this blog, focusing in on an individual's story and religious experience**

Religion has played a large part in my family’s life, but coming from me, the most religious/religiously influenced character in my life in my grandmother Ruth. Being born in Israel, she had a large religious upbringing and background. Attending synagogue weekly, being exposed to the several different religious aspects of life throughout the state, nationality, and her parents, Ruth had a very sizable background in religion; she had a concrete understanding of her belief system, religious concepts, and individualized her religion to suit her. She continued this religious upbringing, but the climax of her experience with religion was her drafting into the Israeli army: the IDF. This military stronghold was the epitome of the Jewish religion and faith. Fighting and protecting the Jewish homeland with/and everything it stands for and believes in was Ruth’s defining characteristic of the Jewish religion. With everything that she had developed throughout her past years growing up in the heart of Judaism, and participating in an incredible religious act, Ruth’s sight of the world had altered significantly from when he was in her younger years, not as exposed to religious aspects of life in such large proportions and intensities. Nevertheless, religion had taken its toll on her life and redefined the way the Ruth experienced and took in the world she lived in.

Evidently, her Jewish identity effected the way that she continued to live her life outside of the state of Israel. Immigrating to America, Ruth discovered much more about  the reality of the world, all through her unique perspective as a result of her intense religious exposure and character. Her religion allowed her to see things from a view that was unmistakable, and apparently unknown to the most, if not all people. She thought the eating of a hamburger was vulgar and inhumane, let alone knowing how to eat it. She thought that the excess of American culture reflected the disgust she held for the way America operated in contrast to the way things went in Israel. She thought the heavy presence of an assortment of other religions undermined the importance and value of Judaism. The list goes on and on. Although, it remains clear that because of the stringent and narrow religious views which she held in Israel for so many years, the way she sees other cultures, culturally (and religiously) diffuses, and the way she feels about her surroundings were all concepts that were drastically impacted by her religion. Whether or not her religion enabled or disabled her to see things throughout her surroundings is a different story, but it is clear that her religion changed the way she viewed the world.

Despite a rough start, Ruth’s new culture and lifestyle allowed her previous 

one(s) to wither down, playing a less and less role in her current life. While getting accustomed to a new culture is a challenge for sure, Ruth soon discovered that religion does in fact have a significant role in her life, and the position which her religion from Israel used to fulfill was vacant, and needed to be filled. So, she diffused into American culture even more by combining the Jewish religion and American culture as one. Ruth became an active participant in a local Jewish synagogue, Jewish seminars, conferences, works, etc. The new form of religion which she followed allowed her to see the world in a more open, all-embracing fashion. Unlimited by Israeli religious lifestyle, Ruth established her own, independent religious ground which she would base a great portion of her life in America on. This allowed her to appreciate her religious, Jewish element in addition to her cultural, American element. This combination went to create the distinct and unrepeatable personality and overview which makes Ruth’s character such an interesting, broad, and engaging one. Religion had altered the ways by which she experienced life; whether one way or another, she always had a unique and individual perspective as a result of her participation, faith, and appreciation for religion.

Religion is a Tool: News Article Relfection

When asked to find an article concerning how religion shapes an individual’s perspective on the world/how they view things, the first thing that came to my mind was my religion: Judaism. Being as objective as I could be, I went to the primary news source of Israel, Judaism’s origin of its people, history, and foundation of the religious beliefs and principles. Although, I did not type anything into the search box; I scrolled to the politics and business sections in hopes that I would find an example of how religion contributes to a nation’s/religion’s perspective on a non-religious affiliated (for the most part) subject. I was in luck. I found an article that was written three hours before on this day, detailing in non-middle eastern affairs but rather provided a (somewhat) religious view on American culture, politics, and beliefs. It was titled “Why American religion isn’t refining American values”. Interestingly, it is profiling the American culture and way of life as a religion, which, in a way I agree with because I see it fit that American culture has most, if not all of the the aspects which encompasses a religion. But, it is not something that is spiritually connected, being my disagreement with the profiling. 

It poses a contradiction which proves a large issue with the American religion. Americans (92% to be exact) are religious believers, 80% being churchgoers; the same faithful, religious individuals materialize themselves and their religions with things like shopping (Black Friday) and being violent when doing so; joking of Tim Tebow, a devoted and religious Christian--someone who has had their religion used against them; people with a high exposure to and a large demand for pornography; etc. All of these things are examples of American culture that go much against some religious beliefs. Nevertheless, from the point of view from this Israeli (a Jew) who is recording this, the strict and faithful principles of his religion allowed him to view American culture or religion in an entirely alternate form as it would be viewed as by an Americans themselves, or perhaps from another religion. The writer’s religion forced him to see the negativities which arise out of this religion that are in great contrast to the aspects of his own religion. He has used his religious background and knowledge to shape the world he faces differently than (almost) any other individual. 

In response to some other the abnormalities and defects of the American religion, the author points out an additional key component to the religion that he feels is essential in all religions. Now controlled heavily by politics, gay and lesbian marriage as well as abortions have little relation to religion in the modern world. He states that some aspects of life, including these concepts, should be dictated by religion in opposition to politics; regardless, politicians are excluding all other values (religious or not) and making decisions/controlling the people devoted to this American religion in the wrong direction. Clarifying why this article was found in the political section in the first place, the author feels that religion should not be undermined and should continue to play a significant role in all of its values and practices in the daily lives of all. He posses an interesting thought, that American religion is so distracted and off balanced as a result of its advancements throughout the past few decades, and its governing bodies are loosing sight of what is truly the government of man: religion. The author is saying this because his religion personally changed the way he sees the world and operates, and the difference he notices between what is occurring in his nation and land, between what is occurring in America’s nation and land dictates the reasons for why he is saying what he is. His religion believes in something else that is more rational and ‘correct’, in a sense, so he wants to see a change in the opposing religion as well. 

The last lines of the article are particularly striking, as it states a “...cruel failure of leadership on the part of our religious, political, and cultural icons”. To me, this captures the subjectivity of religion perfectly. His religion has transformed the way he sees the world, as to say when something disagrees with, contradicts, or threats the religion he follows, the world beyond must be changed to match/suit the religious concepts and practices. Religion is a tool which people use to base their perspectives and judgements  on as it supports the individual’s (subjective) reason. Therefore, that tool is taken to use throughout all scenarios, as it changes the way people see, judge, absorb, and appreciate their surroundings.