I wrote my Q&A this week on angels, so I thought I might blog about it as well (apologies, Professor Silliman, if this is repetitive!)

For most of my life, I always thought that angels were these sweet, beautiful, divine beings, and was never taught otherwise. Last semester, I was watching a documentary on angels and demons, that explained that in order to do evil, it would serve demons better to appear as extremely beautiful. Although it wasn't a conscious choice, I always believed demons in their purest forms would be extremely, for lack of better words, ugly. This completely altered my view of demons, the way our book and pamphlet have altered my ideas surrounding angels. When the angel was described in the handout we received this week as doing things such as torturing Muhammad into reciting, I was really taken aback. I thought an angel, from what I've been taught, would not have been capable of such things. I guess it just goes to show that mindlessly accepting what you've been taught isn't always going to reveal the true nature of the world - the way reading about something is never the same as experiencing it firsthand.

I thought it was really interesting in class today how we discussed the length at which people strongly believe that most of the change in their life is behind them after a certain point. A lot of people I know, especially before leaving for college, frequently expressed how afraid they were of the change, how they didn't want it, they wanted to go back to high school, etc. Even now, I have some friends who still lament over how much they miss high school. Yet, for a society that seems to fear change so much, we also seem to hold a lot of frustration towards mundane things. It seems that so many people in this society dread waking up, working 9 to 5, etc. Despite their unrest with their daily lives, they also don't welcome change, even if it could provide a better daily life than what they are currently experiencing. Humans are just fascinating creatures sometimes.

One of the concepts I had difficulty wrapping my mind around this week was female infanticide. I understand it is normal in patriarchal societies, as male babies are an economic advantage. However, when we were discussing it in class as a form of "birth control", I became stuck. Though we do have contraceptives available in the United States, the gender of any child can never be fully guaranteed. It made me think: even if contraceptives were available in these societies regardless, I feel as though infanticide would still be a widespread problem. I guess I just do not feel that infanticide as a form of birth control is the right way to phrase it.

I also wonder how society would stand if all parents made the decision to get rid of female infants. Eventually, there would be very few women, and then who would be there to give birth to the next generation? If there was a shortage of females due to infanticide, could that potentially be the basis for great societal change?

When we were discussing in class how the best politicians use enticement instead of force to get their points across, it made a lot of sense to me. I also can see how that would work religiously to gain a following. With the world evolving, it seems to becoming harder and more time-consuming to devoutly follow all of the rules any religion may have. I feel that perhaps one of the things that may draw so many to Wicca is that any practitioner can choose when and how they worship, and the rest of the time, they are free to live their lives as they see fit. In a way, I feel like Wicca as a religion entices people to practice in this way instead of telling any potential followers a list of rules they need to follow. I'm not trying to say that having many strict rules in a religion is a bad thing (it was actually very disconcerting to me when I began practicing that Wicca didn't have strict standards on how to live), I'm mostly thinking that perhaps it's becoming harder to find a balance between strictly obeying those rules and living in a modern world. 

Thoughts?

Well, this blog is a day late, but I was really excited to blog this week so I am going to post this anyways. I was really interested in learning about the words used in Analects and what a basic English equivalent is. I am attempting to learn Mandarin right now, and I am taking a course that teaches the 500 most frequently used words in Mandarin. The first thing I thought was interesting was the word tao, taught as "the way" in my course instead of just "way", was a common word used in everyday Mandarin. Then, the character for tao, 道, has the word for self, 自, in it. Like Matt said, we can't fully comprehend what exactly the Mandarin speakers mean by self. I would like to think that it means something similar to the concept of Self found in the Bhagavad-Gita, but I am no expert. However, it is similar to Self, then I would like to think it is nice that it is found within the word for "the way".

Any thoughts?

After defining everything Jesus was (and wasn't) in class, I have a much different image than that which was created in Catholic school. Jesus was taught as someone who seemed to be peaceful, holy, somehow on a completely different level than other humans. After talking about what he was really like, he seems much more realistic and likable as a person. I also feel like he was much more socially intelligent than I previously thought. To explain that, based on actions such as dining with the tax collector, I thought he was wise but also a bit naive to social workings. After talking about his rejection of patriarchy and his understanding of humans as social creatures, I feel I respect him much more than I did before, and not just because I was told that I should respect him.

First, though unrelated, I wanted to share this image I found on tumblr recently:

I just thought it was amusing considering how we've been talking recently of the bible as fiction.

I thought it was interesting today when we talked about how the idea of heaven as the Kingdom of God came from a need for a reward for enduring the toils of life as a Jewish peasant thousands of years ago, and how class influenced the ideas of the Kingdom of God to fit the needs of each class. It appeared to me like a spiritual coping mechanism to survive the difficulties of living in that time period. We seem to live much less spiritually now, if we're unhappy with our government, it seems like we'd be much more likely to host physical protests than search spiritually for an answer like Heaven.

Thoughts?

I really like the idea of the gospels in the bibles being works of metaphorical fiction. Personally, I've always thought that the bible should not be literally followed, as many of the original meanings were probably lost in translation, edited out, etc. Then, there were probably words equivalent to slang that would have no equivalent meaning in today's society. Either way, a bible we may read today is probably very different from one that could have been found centuries ago. Do not get me wrong, I think the bible does teach many fantastic moral stories, I just believe it should also be approached without the intention to follow it's teachings without question. 

I think the fact that they are fiction should be made more well-known among Christians, if only because they should have a better idea of what exactly their holy text is. I was raised in a Christian family, and always assumed the gospels were penned by the original disciples of Jesus. I suppose that's my own folly for assuming, but I have heard others say they have made the same mistake, and I guess I just find it strange that we're taught what the bible says on the surface, and not it's entire story. 

Thoughts?

I really liked the ideas we talked about in class earlier this week about how we exert so much effort into trying to achieve earthly goals like pleasure, success, etc., when spirituality is what we truly desire. I really liked how the Gita encouraged us to pursue earthly goals despite this, though, seemingly knowing that we would realize what we truly want in our own time, as spirituality gives much more satisfaction in the long run than anything else.

This really resonated with me. My family has always been very religious, and even though I no longer practice the same religion as them, it still holds a very important place in my life, and brings me a lot of happiness, even though I gain no earthly benefits from worship. It just brings a sense of fulfillment that nothing  else can compare to. I still enjoy earthly things, like good food or a good video game, but I also recognize that religion has a very important place in the long-run.

One of the concepts I find especially fascinating within the Bhagavad-Gita and Hinduism in general is the concept that reincarnation is a dreadful curse. I personally believe in reincarnation, and I consider it to be a great blessing. However, I also find this planet to be a lovely and fantastic place, and am very much attached to physically being here and experiencing everything this plane of existence has to offer. If I was correct in my interpretation, my attachment is exactly the kind of thing Hinduism does not endorse.

However, the dissolution of being upon escaping the cycle of reincarnation reminds me of something. I read a book several years ago detailing people's experiences in near-death situations. Some of them recovered with a fantastic amount of knowledge of concepts they were unaware of before their various incidents. My mother told me she believed they had not gone to heaven or hell, but to a "Greater Knowledge". The way it was talked about in the Bhagavad-Gita reminded me of that idea, and if there is an end to the reincarnation cycle (as there surely must be), then if it is a "Greater Knowledge" like my mother described, I can see why many of the Hindu faith would desire it.

Okay, I'm going to apologize in advance if this post gets a little wordy, I like to make sure I explain myself fully.

In class today, we discussed how those who practice Hinduism have the freedom to worship deities from any religions, such as Buddha or Jesus. This interested me, because this freedom is found in my religion as well. For those who don't know, I am an avid practitioner of Wicca. Before you yell "Witch!" and burn me at the stake, let me explain a little about Wicca.

Wicca is a largely individualized religion. What this means is that there is really no set code on how to practice Wicca. The one rule Wiccans follow is known as the Wiccan Rede, which states: "An ye harm none, do what ye will." I have spoken to Wiccans who worship Hindu deities, Egyptian deities, the Christian God, and no deities at all. Included with the diversity of deities is the diversity of worship. Some perform "magic", some pray, some dance in the woods at night. Whatever one does, it is typically for spiritual connection with deity or the five elements. It is not the evil cult that it has been made out to be in the past.

Personally, I worship a deity that fits the occasion I am praying for. For instance, if I am ailed, perhaps I'll offer a prayer to Iaso, a Greek goddess of health. However, many Wiccans will choose a patron deity. A Wiccan will have a strong, personal relationship with this deity, who provides guidance as a Wiccan travels their spiritual path. My patron deity is Brighid, a Celtic deity of healing, poetry, divination, and craftsmanship.

A picture of the deity "Brighid"

While doing research into Brighid, I discovered that she is also worshiped as "Saint Bridget" in Catholicism. I thought it was interesting how some religions saw the same being as a deity, while others did not. Despite many years in the Catholic Church and Catholic School, I cannot recall all of the teaching of Catholicism, so feel free to correct me on the following, and I mean no offense in the following observation. However, it almost seemed to me that the Catholic Saints exist a way for the Catholic religion to be polytheistic without violating God's will on worshiping him and him alone. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, I will not deny that.  If anyone can educate me further on the saints, I'd love to hear about it! :)