I have been thinking a lot about Muslim woman since Alex showed the ninja video on Thursday. We spoke of the misconceptions towards Muslim woman, but I'm still unsure they are misconceptions. Although we could say this about any culture or society that we haven't actually encountered first hand. All we have to go off of is what we are shown.

 We spoke about how the woman in the ninja video most likely come from a wealthy family but what about the woman who don't... is that where the misconception comes from? Alex was also talking about seeing the woman in their homes in Juicy Couture... once again we are speaking of families that are wealthy.There is a lot to consider when you think about things like this... they are just regular woman like anyone here. There is no reason to believe they are different. Maybe its just the cultural difference that we see negatively but if that is the case who are we to decide what is best for another culture? What do other people think about the image of Muslim woman?

Can the next prophet please stand up?

This week in class we spent a lot of time talking about peoples negative perceptions of other cultures and religions. This idea kind of goes hand in hand with my post from last week. For the average American our only view on other cultures are what we are told by the media. We are discussing Muhammad in class whose religion is is Islam. All of us are very aware of the way Americans perceive them.

Is it right or fare? No. Have we been brainwashed to think this way? Yes.

Would a prophet like Jesus even be able to to fix everyone's cynical perception of people different than themselves? Are we to far gone to be saved? Would a prophet make a difference?

My book analysis is on Taoism and I think one of the concepts really works for this argument. Taoist believe that being one with nature is key, and to be one with nature you must go back to your natural form, like a block of wood. You can carve a block of wood into anything. Just like our perceptions can be carved into anything. Can we get back to our natural way of thinking and decide for ourselves how we perceive the world around us?

Reading Avery Finnivan's post about religions being strict, and a friend who isn't allowed to be friends with someone of different beliefs really got me thinking about all religions.

When do "religions" and religious figure heads go to far. This brings me back to Jesus, and how what he was trying to teach has been altered and changed from the notion of equality among all men and woman to Christianity with thousands of rules.

Can what was originally purpose be twisted so far that the main point is actually erased? Do the wrong people become religious figure heads and alter the original message to make people act a certain way? You could even ask the same thing when it comes to news media. People are smart and know how to get reactions from the mass crowd. Scaring them into behaving.

Greed-excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.

In class yesterday Professor Silliman said that greed is what makes the world a bad place. I couldn't agree more. This idea isn't just the case in Buddhism which is the religion we were discussing, but I finds this to be a universal idea.

Greed, desire, jealousy all roll into one when we think about the human experience. The human race's mind set is to have more or something better than your neighbor and by doing this you will achieve happiness. FALSE! Happiness is fleeting and will only last a few moments. I think Buddhism has it right on this one. Greed is what makes the world go round but not in a good way.

Are we like an artichoke or an onion?

This we week we delved right into The Dhammapada, and understanding the teachings of Buddha. I have really enjoyed the readings thus far and think that even if one doesn't choose to become Buddhist they could definitely take what Buddha says it stride and apply it to their lives.

That being said I am still trying to understand the idea that we are just stick figures and our lives aren't real...we just are. Professor Silliman used an artichoke/ onion metaphor in class which really helped me to comprehend what Buddhist believe, but it is still hard to fully embrace this belief. We are taught to be ourselves and have a concrete belief of who we are, and being Buddhist you have to set that aside and just...be.

I guess this idea brings my post from last week about soul full circle. It is hard to comprehend but not impossible.

Soul.

We spoke about having a soul on Thursday, and how in the Buddhist religion the idea that every individual has a soul is non-existent. This belief is alien to me. I am not necessarily a religious person but I have referenced my soul many times. This got me thinking though, what is a soul? Is it something in your very core that makes you who you are?

The definition of soul according to dictionary.com is "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.". 


We hear reference to the soul all the time "hes a lost soul" when someone can't find their way, "they have a good soul" aka they're a good person. Is the idea of everyone having a soul an analogy for a moral compass or is it something bigger than can be comprehended? 


What does everyone else think about the idea of the soul?

So now we know a small amount about the historical Jesus his followers, and why everyone followed this peasant who altered many individuals perception of patriarchy among other things. I know that the gospels are embellished stories to show the significance of what Jesus did, but I want to know where God fits into all of this. I know it was a biography of Jesus, but from what I've learned over the years (I know I'm supposed to leave that out but since we are moving on I have been curious about this) the belief of Jesus and God kind of go hand and hand. Father and son, the holy family, etc. The kingdom of God is something we touch upon but once again that is not a literal place. He God also another embellishment of the history? or is that a whole other book?