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.

The Divine Right of Kings and the French Revolution

When first reading this passage from King James I, I immediately thought of the Divine Right of Kings, and what he explained about it, in the context of the French Revolution. One of the main causes of the French Revolution was the people’s limited amount of power and equality held between the monarch and the rest of society. France was an absolute monarchy which ran in accordance to the Divine Right of Kings. Ironically, one of the major shifts which occurred during and after the French Revolution was the transition from a primary belief in religion to beliefs of science and rationality. Before the Revolution, however, society operated completely off of the structure of the Church, and religious status indicated and controlled everything about an individual’s life. That is why France functioned governmentally by an absolute monarchy; the Divine Right of Kings identifies a king as a god, representing divine powers and attributes, making the King the closest individual to god. The king was the highest religious official, therefore had the most, and all of the power to control France entirely. Logically, society would not rebel, as they too believed that religion defined every aspect of life. Therefore, they respected, obeyed, and followed the king as he was the closest one to god. He had the power to create or destroy, give life, send death, etc., which are all attributes of god which everyone throughout society attempted to obtain. But, they could not as the king’s power, authority, and life came from god himself, allowing him to have all the potential power at his hands, just like god does. Interestingly, in the second paragraph, King James I makes a profound distinguishing point as he draws the line between the two different types of kings. One king is elected by the people as their character and effectiveness serves for the law. The other king is appointed (assumedly by god) and set out on conquest to achieve civility and policy (law). King James I defines himself as the second type of king, as he is self-determined to obtain the reputation of a king who was careful to have his law observed by his governed people, and to hand over his governed and government to the king which will follow him in the order which he found and manipulated it. This is exactly what the people of France detested of regarding their governing structure, as the kings were merely a line of generations of the same family, because supposedly, their ancestor(s) were placed in such a position by god himself. The Divine Right of Kings hands over the right to govern to an individual whose ancestors were on a holier level than all others, therefore making them as holy, giving them the right to power. But, as France shifted from religion to rationality, the Divine Right of Kings did not apply to society or the government itself anymore, as it spoke of things considered incorrect, or irrelevant; the overthrowing of the absolute monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings was a foreshadowing, in a way, of the way governments would be designed to function as today: for the people and of the people. Regardless, King James I states that kings have the power of god beside them, but to use such power without good reason, rationality, or unlawfully, they are betraying the very force which provides them with their power position. King James I, in a way, foresaw the French Revolution, and set an example for kings to follow him that even though the Divine Right of Kings appointed them as divine and godlike individuals, it does not give them the power to deprive their governed of their rights and humanity; kings should use their power and enlightenment with reason, rationality, good will, and lawfully. Clearly, Louis XVI didn’t get the message.

The Effects of Feudalism

How does government effect society? In what ways does it do so?

Government and forms of leadership is the defining factor of a society in history. All components which make up a society depend upon and operate according to the governmental structure which it functions under. Consequently, if the government is influenced, changed, or effected in any way, an equal effect would be felt on all components of the governed, as well as the governed institutions which makeup the societal foundation. But, if the government makes an improvement or success, that triumph is sure to be felt throughout the foundations of society, including aspects such as the economy and instated laws. It can be said that history is generally made when change happens, and one of the biggest changes which can occur happens in government and the way a society is ran and functions. In Europe, Feudalism is an ideal demonstration of how the government effects the very foundations of society with every change it undergoes. Feudalism, the new principle of law and governing structure of Europe between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, vastly influenced the entire population of the continent, as well as how it operated and abided by aspects of life. Firstly, the way by which the government, or positions in society (rankings) were taken was drastically changed as a result of the shift in governing structures. Under Feudalism, no one was “crowned head” or “sovereign”. Instead, the King, lords, vassals, and people (serfs) were joined by a contract, all part of a symbiotic lifestyle; Feudalism worked as a mere relationship and mutual responsibility, so to speak. Although there was still a notion of supremacy, it was a much more involving and inclusive structure than it was before. Thus, we see the first change which Feudalism imposed on society, as it was an encompassing governing effort, opposed to a monarchial system. Additionally, because of the serf-lord contract, there was everything but a shortage of work, surplus of production, and a great amount of food! Feudalism redefined the way a peasant lived their life, as the lord provided them with everything they strived to attain themselves: protection, food, work, occasionally money, and a home. The “manor” of the lord became the village, which included housing of the lord and peasantry, vast farmlands, and more. Rarely would a serf abandon the lord and their estate, as they would loose everything the lord provided. The people also received the administration of justice, something which was quite challenging to obtain before Feudalism was instated in society. Part of the justice was the right to food, as the peasants received a portion of the produce which they worked for. Essentially, Feudalism reestablished the way common people lived their lives, making them a much more participatory and influential role in society. Not only effecting social class, Feudalism also influenced the economy. With the lord and serf relationship, and all the giving (lords) and working/receiving (peasants), money was not very much needed as no currency was being exchanged! Virtually (in Europe), no money was being circulated since the new currency was forms of work and loyalty. This, of course, had an immense effect on the economy as Europe was pretty much removed from the economic edge of things for a good while; they might have sold produced materials and goods, but had little intake as they sustained themselves from what was being made/had locally. The government dictated the economic flow and status throughout the society which it governed. Lastly, Feudalism was in great support of and greatly impacted the religious role of leaders and beliefs in society. As the manorial system was based agriculturally (land-wise), it makes sense to say that the clergy and religious officials were incredibly supported during the reign of Feudalism and they were the ones who owned such lands, and therefore, good and workers. The church in Europe held much of the land in form of manors, as the lords were primarily (if not all) religious officials and members of the higher clergy. Therefore, an increased importance of the church was imposed throughout Europe as the governing structure was based off of religiously related leaders. Feudalism illustrates how a governmental structure of a society completely redefines the way it functions and the principles which its population operates by, as Feudal standards made an enormous impact on how European society functioned lawfully, agriculturally, socially, economically, and religiously. Governments develop standards by which societies regulate upon, making the governing structure of a society one of the key components which defines such a society and the way which it is managed; this also makes a profound effect on history itself. Feudalism totally redefined Europe, as well as the history of government and leadership as we know it.