Don't Do This, But Seriously, Do This.

One of my cousins posted this online: "Don't waste your time on revenge, those who hurt you will eventually face their own karma." I thought that this was an interesting attitude to take up, as I think that it does not fit into the beliefs of religions that deal with karma, nor does it fit in with my cousins self-identified religion of Christianity. The message of that post is essential "Don't act in revenge, but hope for it because people who hurt you deserve it." I think most religions that hold value to karma would likely say that we should not waste time on revenge or worry about karma and revenge - all we can do is behave well for ourselves. Additionally, I think that Christianity (not based on the historical Jesus), which my cousin follows, would still offer a different message - "Don't waste your time on revenge. We all deserve to punished for all of eternity; but even those who hurt you can be forgiven and will go to heaven and enjoy paradise and happiness." I think that Christianity based on the historical Jesus would say "Don't waste your time on revenge, forgive even those who hurt you."

Sweeping Generalizations

In response to Alex - full post here

I really like this meme and I've been laughing for quite sometime while looking at this website. I've always found it in bad taste, and rightly so, I think, to make sweeping generalizations about one group based off of a select few individuals. I've thought of comparing it to saying that all Christians picket soldier's funerals because the Westboro Baptist Church does. Or you could say that all Christian women have to wear black and cover their heads because Catholic nuns do.

Having more knowledge about the prophet Muhammad has helped me to strengthen the idea that Muslims are individuals too; they are different from each other. I mean, the knowledge from the book has done little in the way of changing my view of Muslims, it has however, given me more tools that I can to defend the religion against those who unfairly attribute to the many the characteristics and mindsets of the few

Thank the Good Lord

Jesus, as we have mentioned in class, was not 5 foot 7 inches, and he wasn't Caucasian, literate, or clean. In fact, he was short, stinky, and was middle eastern meaning that his skin was darker. By god, if Jesus came to our country today, we would pat him down in the airport. Then when he started to profess his radical ideas of freedom, equality, and change, we would write him off as a terrorist who threatens American freedom and liberty. We would likely put him in a detainment center wherein we would torture him for information on Al-Qaeda. Americans (especially those who lived near Jesus) would finally be able to sleep at night knowing that the streets are safe from middle-eastern men who threaten the American government by talking about such scary things as equality, and power and economic reform. Thank the god lord that we are so accepting and tolerant, and thank goodness that we have the ability to think for ourselves and realize when someone is offering something good/better than what we have now.

Welcome Jesus Into Our House

Many people confess that they love and support Jesus Christ. Though, conversely, they also support our current socio-economic system and the power dynamics of politics and home. Some of these people also claim that America was founded on what they would like to call Christian principles. I don't actually believe that is the case given that Jesus would not likely have agreed with the principles of America then or now. I doubt that Jesus would support capitalism and the individualistic motivation that excludes and disadvantages women and people of a different skin colour. Would these Americans let Jesus into their home? A man preaching about how the current economic and government systems are lousy and that we ought to replace them with a more socialist or communist system. Would they really humble themselves as Jesus suggests and help out a gay man, or a women with darker skin? I doubt it.

Also, here is a (somewhat related) picture: 

Biological Repression

One member of the MCLA class of 2015 has been posting on various social networking sites that he is fasting from food for entire days. He has also been posting that he is an ex-bisexual (which is awkward because sexual orientation is not a choice, and he is making it appear as though it is), which seems strange given that most of his posts are about sex, which leads many to think that he is constantly thinking about sex. He is also, apparently, neglecting education, he has said a few times that he could care less about education over God.  At any rate, he thinks that fasting/abstaining/neglecting from these things will help him to grow spiritually. I disagree with him, and instead agree with the Buddha. I think that you can only work on spirituality when you are not repressing your basic biological needs. The sexual repression, it seems, is especially leading to interference with spirituality with him. Given that at least 80% of his posts are about sex, and not about god, it's apparent that repressed sexuality is hogging up most of his thoughts. There is also the fact that sexual repression and fasting can have severely negative affects on a person's health. I hope that, if there is indeed a god, he is not the kind of god who supports sexual repression, starvation, and depriving oneself of knowledge just for him.

Paths Don't Pave Themselves

In response to Rachel - Full post here

While I certainly think that it is up to you to make your own choices, I would advise you to be cautious about this idea of path. Paths do not pave themselves. You, and only you, pave the path. You are always paving a path, even when you try not to pave the path, you are paving it by trying not to. What I mean is that inaction is a type of action. Your actively choosing to not pursue your education license, is paving another path which may or may not have worse affects on you. I think that the main point behind this meditation is that you should be okay with the choices that you make, not that you give up on something because something has changed. A Buddhist would probably tell you to do what feels right, and I would agree. Continuing briefly, and I'm not sure why, or to what end, I think that a Buddhist would say that striving for your teaching license despite the change in requirements can be the proper path just as much as graduating regardless of the status of your teaching license. Remember that the best path may not be the easiest path

You cannot know, beyond a shred of doubt, what the future is; therefore you cannot know, beyond a shred of doubt, what your path in life is. Choosing to pursue your teaching license may make you incredibly happy in the future, or it could turn out to be completely useless and a waste of time. Likewise, giving up on the teaching license could make you incredibly happy, or it could end with you being unhappy. The choice is yours to make, you cannot know if somebody has already chosen a path, so you must make a choice of your own. Simply, accept your choice and be willing to go with the flow.

Consumption is Justification

In response to Jess - full post here

I agree with the main point of your essay; there is essentially no difference between sacrificing animals and slaughtering them for consumption. I find it amazing that people could be so offended by animal sacrifice, but not blink an eye at the slaughterhouses in America. I suppose the problem with animal sacrifice is largely its association with barbaric tribal practices of the past; people who practice sarcophagy, it seems, are offended when people don't use animals explicitly for consumption. Modern Western society seems to justify meat consumption at the expense of severe animal cruelty.

I do disagree, however, with the view that we cannot get rid of slaughterhouses. Society is made up of individuals. The slaughterhouses will all fail if the majority, and preferably all of humanity, agrees that vegetarianism is preferable to the consumption of meat. You did miss a key point in that whole section about animals consuming other animals: not all animals consume other animals. As omnivores, we don't actually have to consume animal flesh; actually, humans are more biologically similar to herbivores than most other omnivores. As such, slaughterhouses are not necessary, but are, rather, a luxury of sorts.

I think that if a person is against animal abuse, they should become vegetarian. If a person finds that kicking a dog is unacceptable, they should be appropriately moved to find the slaughter of the more intelligent pigs to be equally, or perhaps more, unacceptable.