POSTING FOR QUESTION 3 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 3 (EASTERN IDEAS) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 3 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THEM OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

x

Question A

will i guess it would be healthy in it own way. for example it not technically hurting anyone and if they truely belive in it whos to say it wrong and unhealthy. yes they might not being living to there fullest potental. and they are stuck in the same twist routine but it allows jobs and a gaunatee that the society can function with out you. also i create a system where your looking forward to a ulimate goal and teaches you not to be scared of death.

question A

It has been evident through many of the stories that the class has read that it is not healthy at all to practice such self sacrifice. one prime example of this would be the story of siddharta. the physical strain that it takes to trick your body to do things such as fast for days, and meditate for days at a time. though this self sacrifice sounds very commendable in the popular siddharta folktale, it would not be best for someone to live their life like this in today's modern world. this would be tragic because there would be many unhealthy people with broken homes, all because they devoted all of their time to trying to reach enlightenment and not showing their children the right way to live.

Question A

The self-sacrifice we learned in eastern religions and philosophies in not healthy. We learned in Hinduism people believed in reincarnation. They were forced to live a certain way to reach a greater being in the next life cycle. And having "Bad Karma" will only bring them down. Living in a society like that will not let people act like they should naturally. However it did keep order in that society with the caste system. It is not wise to willingly give up our consciousness in search for a higher one. We learn this is Siddhartha. He spent 6 Years trying to find a higher one. But only to realize that the only way to break the cycle is to reach Nirvana. He wasted 6 years of his life to only reach a conclusion he had with him all along. So giving up your consciousness in search for a "Higher" one might just cause more problems for you.

Question A

The self-sacrifice we learned in eastern religions and philosophies in not healthy. We learned in Hinduism people believed in reincarnation. They were forced to live a certain way to reach a greater being in the next life cycle. And having "Bad Karma" will only bring them down. Living in a society like that will not let people act like they should naturally. However it did keep order in that society with the caste system. It is not wise to willingly give up our consciousness in search for a higher one. We learn this is Siddhartha. He spent 6 Years trying to find a higher one. But only to realize that the only way to break the cycle is to reach Nirvana. He wasted 6 years of his life to only reach a conclusion he had with him all along. So giving up your consciousness in search for a "Higher" one might just cause more problems for you.

Question A

The self-sacrifice we learned in eastern religions and philosophies in not healthy. We learned in Hinduism people believed in reincarnation. They were forced to live a certain way to reach a greater being in the next life cycle. And having "Bad Karma" will only bring them down. Living in a society like that will not let people act like they should naturally. However it did keep order in that society with the caste system. It is not wise to willingly give up our consciousness in search for a higher one. We learn this is Siddhartha. He spent 6 Years trying to find a higher one. But only to realize that the "Higher" one is to break the life cycle and to reach Nirvana. He wasted 6 years of his life to only reach a conclusion he had with him all along. So giving up your consciousness in search for a "Higher" one might just cause more problems for you.

Question A: Is the kind of self-sacrifice is promoted by the Eastern religions and philosophies we’ve studied healthy? Is it wise to willingly give up our consciousness in search of a “higher” one?

Physically, I dont think that this is healthy at all. As we saw with Siddartha, he starved himself for 6 years or something and thanks to the movie we all saw what happened to him. Because of his religion, he felt that he couldn't want anything and to get to that point he had to starve himself for a long period of time. In real life, you would die after a week or something. Mentally though, I think this ok to do. Searching for a higher consciousness makes you think about yourself and life which could lead to discoveries about yourself that you wouldn't find otherwise. So in conclusion, a hardcore Sidartha approach to this would not end well. If you take a monk like aproach to this then thats fine because its part of their culture and its not an unhealthy or dangerous lifestyle.

Love and Order Don't Mix

It seems that the Beatles and Confucious differ in their views of how to "create a harmonious social order." The Beatles felt that the world would be a much better place if everyone was loving and nice, and that we should avoid violence. However, Confucious felt that love alone would not create a powerful social structure.

The main problem with having a world based on love is that no true leader would emerge. If everyone was kind, no one would want to agrue against one another because they could potentially hurt the other persons feelings. For example, we've all worked on group projects in school and when planning your project everyone seems to have different ideas of how to complete it. But there's always one person who shoots down the bad ideas and decides on the best idea. Sometimes this can result with someones feelings getting hurt. Now, if everyone in that group was completely kind-hearted, then there wouldn't be anyone to decide what ideas are bad and what are good because they wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. If you apply this same concept to a country like the US then there would be no leader. Without a leader, there in turn would be no rules and no structure and people would be running around doing whatever loving things they wanted to do. Obama is an excellent leader and naturally a very nice person, but you cant say that he became President without hurting a few peoples feelings along the way.

So in conclusion, I agree more with Confucious and I think it would nice to have an earth that is full of nice people but it would not be an effective world. We wouldn't have a leader and without a leader nothing would get done and we would have no structure. Basically, a fully loving world would be nice and relaxing but it would not be effective and stable.

Question B

Is love enough?

True, a society where everyone simply loved and was kind to each other would be very lovely, but is it realistic? Would this be enough to create a stable society?

Well if everyone loves and is kind to one another then they will help each other out and everyone will be taken care of. Or will they? You can’t always please everyone and oftentimes a person’s actions, while being kind and loving in the eyes of one person, may not be so in the eyes of another. There are usually several people affected by an action and you can not always positively affect all people involved.

You also have to consider the fact that there will eventually come a person who sees this love and kindness as an opportunity to take control. They could simply take advantage of the kind and loving people because truly what are they gonna do? According to what they believe they must simply be kind to this person taking advantage of them and love them. But, just because people are kind does that mean that they have to listen to everything someone tells them to do? Do they have to follow someone’s orders or is simply politely declining enough? If this is so then how can there be any control or structure to the society if no one will listen to orders? Or do you not need someone giving orders because as I stated above since everyone is kind and loving they will look out for each other?

There will also always be conflict amongst people. Just because you love someone does not mean that you agree with them in everything or that you accept their views on a topic. However; if everyone were kind and loving then these conflicts would be resolved peacefully. Right? Wouldn’t setting specific customs rules create more hate and conflict because people do not accept those that believe in different customs and rules?

I believe that while kindness and love should play and important role in the beliefs of a society there needs to be a balance with the control and rule of rituals and customs. Love is simply not enough. There will always be conflict and hate. It is simply human nature. There needs to be discipline and order to keep people from taking advantage of the kind. As nice as it sounds, it’s unrealistic to believe that everyone would be kind an get along.

Question A

In Eastern philosophies, are we ever asked to truly give up our consciousness- to deny its existence, to extinguish it? Or are we merely asked to release it into a higher state of being- a state that already exists within our consciousness?

In certain lights, the philosophies we've studied to seem to require a non existence of self and consciousness. In Taoism, for example, a in order for a follower to be in tune with the Dao they must be in a state of non doing, non wanting, and non action. They let everything happen to them, and live their lives in the direction that any worldly force pushes them. Is this healthy? Not actively doing does not mean that nothing happens or nothing is accomplished- if teachers want a follower to do his homework, he does it, since he must neither want to do nor not want to do it. By this train of thought, laziness, procrastination, and other such traits wouldn't happen. However, neither would any change. Change requires a person to recognize that a situation is bad (as far as I can tell, this type of recognition isn't supported by the Tao Te Ching), to want to change it, and then to take action to effect this change. So much of today's world wouldn't exist if the people of it only went with the flow; this may be good or bad depending on your view point, but I'm going to go with bad. It's especially bad if you take the question literally: No change means no medical advances, which truly is not healthy. Spiritually, this seems unhealthy as well, for how can one connect with or be a higher consciousness/being if one's in a constant state of lethargy and non thought?

Yet, not all of Eastern philosophy seems to require this extinction of will and self. Buddhism doesn't even state whether there is or is not a self- it's irrelevant to the message and philosophy. Emptiness replaces non existence. All things (form, feeling, volition, conditioning factors, consciousness) are empty. This does not mean non existence, but rather, without characteristics, unproduced, unceased, undiminished, unfilled, and all other sorts of purposefully conflicting adjectives. Phenomenon do not exist, yet they do not not exist. Self and consciousness fall under the category of phenomenon; therefore, according Buddhism their existence neither is nor isn't. So, are we truly being asked to eradicate our consciousness? Our consciousness that does not exist, yet also doesn't lie in the non existence category? How can we end something that doesn't exist to begin with?

Buddhism states in its Noble Truths that life is suffering, and desire causes suffering. Where does desire come from, if not from the self, the consciousness? Buddhism asks its followers to release themselves from their consciousness so that they may end desire and therefore suffering. By becoming part of a "higher consciousness" they are not ending their own- their consciousness is the higher one, just as the higher one is "lower". The self consciousness (not the low self esteem kind) and the higher consciousness are not other. In reaching this state of higher being, a follower is indeed released from desire, but they gain compassion, and compassion (as much as desire) can spur one to action and change. 

Therefore, release from one's consciousness and self is healthy. Besides the physical benefits of stress reduction, etc., the spiritual benefits of happiness and release from suffering far outweigh the "negatives" of not actively pursuing goals at all times. Which, if you think about it, isn't all that negative.

Question B

A love based society would solve so many problems people face today. It really would be a wonderful thing. But as amazing as the idea of a society based all on love is, I think that it is extremely unlikely to happen or for it to even last long if it lasted at all in the beginning. The idea of everyone loving each other is great. I mean if it worked out world peace would finally occur and most people would be happier then they are today. Everyone would love their neighbor and get along extremely well. And I think that if a selected amount of specially chosen people were placed in a town with the concept of all you need is love, they could possibly live purely based on that, at least for a while. However the fact of the matter is no matter how many are raised on the concept that one only needs love, someone is bound to question it and disagree. For many people who did not agree with the concept, and there would be many, would take advantage of those who did and somehow turn that love and use it to benefit them in an unloving way. People in general don't get along with everyone and can not possibly love every single person they meet. It just isn't realistic to think that could happen. People retaliate and express how they feel on issues and arguments, disagreements, and hatred arises within people naturally. You can't simply ignore your thoughts and feelings if they might cause you to hate someone or thing. A society based solely on love would be amazing. The thing is, it could not happen in reality, people are too strong willed and opinionated for love to have that much power in a society.

Question B

A society based on loving and kindness definitely has the possibility of being stable… on an extremely small scale. Kindness and love can be the foundation of a small-scale operation like a Buddhist monastery. Love and kindness can get you far in life and can enrich relationships. However I don’t think that a larger society or most of today’s societies could be based merely on kindness, compassion, and love. In the US, we place a large value on the common good. For the common good to exist, there have to be some that don’t agree with choices made by the government. Because everyone has a different view on what is “unkind”, not everyone can be pleased. Our society is cutthroat and in regards to applying for jobs and attempting to excel in the corporate world, the people most skilled for their job will succeed even if they aren’t the most loving and compassionate person. Plus, not everyone believes that love is the way to solve our problems. This would cause conflict because of people's conflicting views and values. Don’t get me wrong I love kindness and love and all of that but I just don’t think it is realistic to live your life according to the “all you need is love” mindset. We need more than that to be the foundation of our society.

Question B

Civil and social stability cannot be based only on being kind and loving to everyone. People take advantage of such a benevolent society so there must be boundaries, limits, and customs enforced. Yes, being kind and loving should play a role in social stability because it would make things go smoother and easier. But in order to find such a good stability in society, there has to be a balance between being harmonious and kind to one another, as well as customs and respect. Being kind and loving to everyone does have benefits in making a society work, though. There would be a lot less judgement and hate,and more forgiveness and care toward one another. Those qualities are great and important for making a society work and stay stable. But stability requires balance and more of one element than another would obviously create an imbalance, therefore resulting in an unstable society. A society couldn't function with simply just rituals, customs, and respect. People would rebel, harshly judge one another, create hate within themselves, and be unhappy. On the contrary, a society where everyone just loved each other would be easy for people who did not agree with that moral code to take advantage of others and in the end, they would be triumphant because what are the people who do agree with the moral code going to do? Forgive them, love them anyway, and move on? Well, it would be their loss and the other's gain. So yes, a balance of both make a society function stably because both extremes have positive outcomes than can balance each other out. Respect and customs play a role in the stability of society because they set the bar of where people of a society should be, act, and follow. It's just that it can't be expected of everyone to love EVERYONE. People's personalities clash, some people just don't like each other and even though a society filled with benevolence sounds amazing, it's more of a fantasy because it's not possible. It's human nature to like and dislike others. That being said, I don't mean that loving, caring, and considering others isn't important, as I've said before, it's key to the balance of a stable society. As long as there is an enough amount of respect, customs, and benevolence in society, it creates an orderly system and balance.

Is love enough?

Question B: The Beatles sang that “All we need is love.” However, Confucious held that, even if it were possible, treating everyone lovingly would not create a harmonious social order. He posited that li, respect for ritual and custom, was an important and necessary counterforce to pure jen, or good will and benevolence. Do you agree that a civil and social stability cannot be based merely on being kind and loving to everyone? If not, what else is needed? Explain your answer.

Basing society off the thought that everyone must be kind to everyone seems like an awesome idea, and it seems like world peace would finally exist. People would not have to worry about being shot on the street, and such, if they could count on everyone being loving. The world would be such a happy place. If being loving and kind to each other was our standard, with nothing else required, there would be less fighting and less frustration. But would everyone follow the rule? Or even a majority? If one family out of the world decided to raise their children differently and create new notions for how to run society, other than merely with love, these new ideas could spread and the love love love idea would be destroyed. But, does creating a set government and rules create groups who are against each other and who hate each other? Also, it is against human nature to ask everyone to get along. People naturally get annoyed with each other and disagree and, eventually, do something about it, which is what creates trouble and fighting and wars. Even by asking everyone to agree to disagree, we are asking for everyone to treat each other lovingly and kindly. Society tends to fall into disarray without a set of rules and a ruler, and this requires asking something of everyone, to follow along. If there was no ruler or rules, people would not feel motivated to do anything, except love everyone. Which is lovely until someone doesn't want to love everyone, which is where society's rules come in. So, in conclusion, I agree that love is not enough. We need more structure (rules), but I think we also need to retain the underlying theme of love in life.

Confucious: Kindness and Love?

Confucious teachings taught how an individual should live ones life, how one should interact with others, and the forms of society and government in which one should participate. His treachings influenced the minds of many of his followers and even the nation of Chinatoday. Though peace and love is always great and the world needs more of it, it will not create civil and social stable society. In reality humans are naturally selfish and greedy. As things seem to go in our way, we tend to what more of it. It is not possible to create a serene society when not all of the population is able to commit to being kind and loving to all.

Tough Question, Tough Love

Does being kind and loving to everyone else bring social order? Does it?
If all people are kind and loving to everyone else, it seems as if life would be pleasant. However, if even one other person didn't live by that same philosophy, that one person could take advantage of everybody else. Having to obey their own moral code, they would have to obey him. That is the kind thing to do.
Or would they? Does love require full obedience to another person's will? They could be kind to that ruler and not listen to him. Just because they don't do what he says, it doesn't mean that they didn't try to understand, they weren't polite, and that they don't love him. Uh Oh! I see a problem arising. If they don't listen to the self-appointed ruler, then they aren't being obedient to him. If they aren't obeying the ruler, who has power? How can things get done? That's an unreliable system for creating social stability.
Or is it? If the world doesn't listen to that one ruler, or if there isn't even a self-appointed ruler, could the people help each other out and create social stability? People would be benevolent and considerate. Hence, they'd be looking out for each other. So, out of kindness, they would try to help out their neighbours. But, sometimes, doing the kind thing for one person, is doing an inconsiderate thing for another. Just like letting the other team score on you in a soccer game. It's really kind to the other team. But, it's inconsiderate to your teammates. It's near impossible to do the kind thing for everybody. Similarly, doing the kind thing isn't necessarily doing the right thing. It isn't the moral thing. And people not doing the right thing is damaging to the social order in any society because someone has to pay the price somewhere down the line.
It's decided. Love isn't enough. We need something that explains every single moral action one should take, something with a clear guide to what is right. Then, if everybody loves one another, everybody is kind to one another, and if everybody can tell right from wrong, people can be kind to some without harming others.

Question B

Confucious said that there needed to be a balance between li, respect for ritual and custom and jen, good will and benevolence. He said that we can't just love each other and therefore all the problems disappear. The social stability can't be purely based on love. There needs to be some discipline and someone to lead us. If there is a leader then some people are bound to hate him/her because of the choices that leader must make for the good of the public. It is not possible to make everyone happy, someone is bound to disagree. Although the world would be a better place if everyone just loved each other. I suppose there would be no wars or fights and everyone would be happy because everyone was loved. Although this sounds nice, it can only be imagined because people are bound to hate. Not because they are bad people but because their strong opinions can result in hating those with different opinions. So civil and social stability cannot only be based on love. You need a leader as well and you need acceptance. People should accept other cultures and traditions. But overall I think that there cannot be a society based on love. Someone is bound to hate because of different opinions. There are so many people in the world with so many different opinions and cultures that it is impossible to agree with everyone on everything.

Blog Post 3: Eastern Wisdom

For this post, you may choose to respond to Question A or Question B below; make it clear in the title of your post what question you're responding to.

Question A: Is the kind of self-sacrifice is promoted by the Eastern religions and philosophies we’ve studied healthy? Is it wise to willingly give up our consciousness in search of a “higher” one?

OR

Question B: The Beatles sang that “All we need is love.” However, Confucious held that, even if it were possible, treating everyone lovingly would not create a harmonious social order. He posited that li, respect for ritual and custom, was an important and necessary counterforce to pure jen, or good will and benevolence. Do you agree that a civil and social stability cannot be based merely on being kind and loving to everyone? If not, what else is needed? Explain your answer.

POST DUE: Thursday, November 12 by start of class.

2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Monday, November 16 by the start of class.

NOTE: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.

POSTING FOR QUESTION 2 HAS ENDED

SINCE GRADING FOR BLOG QUESTION 2 (CREATION MYTHS) HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE REPONSES TO QUESTION 2 OR COMMENTS ON POSTS ON THE BLOG ITSELF.

IF YOU WANT LATE CREDIT, JUST TYPE UP YOUR POSTS AND RESPONSES TO POSTS, PRINT THIS OUT, AND TURN THEM IN DIRECTLY TO ME.

IF YOU POST THEM HERE A THIS POINT, I WILL NOT KNOW TO GIVE YOU LATE CREDIT.

THANKS,

Mr. B

creation story

It's hard for me to understand the navajos story coming from a catholic family. I'v been taught the book of Genesis when I was a kid so trying to understand this story is a little hard. Keeping an open mind, I thought this story is not true compared to the book of Genesis. I find the book of the Genesis more realistic due to the fact that it involved god bring people onto earth. "The Navajo fled, climbing through a hole in the sky to an above world," made the story seem false to me. I cant imagine people leaving earth through a hole in the sky. Everything seemed peaceful when the "first man filled the world." If this were true, it would have some effects in todays society. The book of Genesis involved the garden of Eve. Which showed the true nature of humans which makes me believe the story more easily.

Creation Stories

Its very difficult to believe the story of Genesis or the Navajo creation story. In both stories, many unbelievable things happen such as Adam and Eve talking to a snake or people living beneath the world. If I had to believe one then it would probably be the Genesis story because it has more plausible things in it. The Navajo story really doesn't make much sense.

Creation Stories

From a modern day perspective, I cannot see how either the Navajo creation story or the story of Genesis could be true. In both stories, there are many supernatural things that occur. In the Navajo story, the people are able to crawl through holes in the sky and people can create mountains and animals out of random things. In the story of Genesis, Adam and Eve have a conversation with a talking snake. These aspects of the story are very hard to believe because in the modern world, we know that no one can crawl through the sky and no one can talk to snakes. Because of this, both stories seem unbelievable. There is also no evidence to back up these stories, adding to its incredibility.
If I had to decide whether one was more believable, I would choose the story of Genesis. The characters in Genesis, Adam and Eve, originated on earth, not within the earth. Also, Adam and Eve learned about life, whereas the Navajo’s somehow just had that knowledge in their brain. The Navajo’s would flee from every world when it became too violent and overrun with lust and envy. However, when Adam and Eve were placed on Earth, they did not know what lust or envy or violence was, they had to learn first hand about it. For example, they learned about desire when the snake told them about the forbidden fruit and how they were not supposed to eat it. This makes Adam and Eve seem more like humans, therefore more believable to humans of today.

Creation Stories!!

I find it very difficult to believe that the Navajo story or the book of Genesis could possibly true. Science of today has provided completely different possibilities that are much more reasonable and realistic. However, I do believe that if you have to choose, the story told in the book of Genesis is more believable than the creation story told by the Navajo Native Americans.
Genesis answers more questions than does the Navajo creation story. The Navajo story doesn’t go into any detail as to where humans really came from. It simply tells us that we started out in worlds deep within the one we reside in today. But how did we get to that first world? Also it gives humans the power to create everything from mountains to colors and hours. If we had this power then, why do we not have it now? The book of Genesis answers these questions. It attributes all of these things to a greater power beyond all of us the put us on this earth along with everything else. This just seems so much more realistic than humans having the power to create everything at one point in time but not anymore.
The Navajo story also doesn’t really explain why humans stopped moving foreword in the cycle and stayed in this world. It says that the reason they always fled from the worlds was because lust and envy took hold and made people violent. No one can deny that lust and envy are very present in our world and people are violent. So why didn’t we continue to move on when lust and envy took hold of this world?
There are simply too many holes in the Navajo creation story for it to be very believable. Unlike the book of Genesis it leaves many questions unanswered.

Creation Stories

  The Navajo creation story and Genesis are both equally false and equally true. They are false in that the two stories tell of events that science and reason prove (for now) are "impossible", therefore they are equally likely to have not happened. Or, on the other side of the coin, they have the same chance of being literally true. People in our society who were not raised on the Navajo teachings would almost always find them implausible, at best. However, Navajos who were not raised on Genesis would probably have the same reaction to Genesis's teachings that those raised on the Bible would have to the Navajo story: It could never have happened.  

  Now, all of the above deals with truth in the context of facts, and in spirituality the scientific facts are rarely the most important part of truth. People's belief in the stories makes for a different kind of truth, a truth that's only possible in the context of religion and spirituality. If a person fully believes in a religious teaching, then it becomes true for them in the way it affects their spiritual (and through that their "real") life. For a non-believing other person, such a teaching would be utterly false. The subjective nature of spiritual/religious truth would make both people equally right. Therefore, each creation story holds the same amount of truth and meaning (remember, this meaning could be metaphorical, not literal) for the people that believe in them, and for this truth both stories deserve equal consideration.

Creation Stories!!!

While both creation stories seem very unlikely to me, I think the one in the book of Genesis is more likely. The Navajo story says that people have always been on Earth, and it does not give any sense of beginning or creation of humankind, as the Bible does, by saying God put Adam and Eve on Earth. This is at least an explanation, albeit and unreliable and unlikely one. The Navajo story attributes the fleeing through the sky to lust and envy taking hold, but it does not explain why lust and envy didn't used to be a problem. They existed before but weren't a problem and didn't create violence? The Bible's explanation for feelings such as lust and envy come from Eve eating the forbidden fruit, so again, there is at least a reason for such emotions. Also, the Navajo stopped fleeing the evil worlds corrupted by lust, violence, and envy but they stopped at Earth. For the cycle of the story to continue they should have continued fleeing through the holes in the sky, since lust/violence/envy are very, very present on Earth. I do not understand why they didn't flee from Earth as they fleed from all of the other worlds. The Bible gives an explanation for many things it claims happened, such as people are on Earth because God put them there, and envy and lust exist because someone broke a rule and ruined it for everyone. If the first Navajo man who came to Earth was able to transform things into mountains and animals and hours, why wasn't every other man able to do the same? According to the Bible, all humans are mortal and do not have supernatural powers, which seems more likely to me. While both of these stories are very unfathomable for me, I like the Navajo one more because it is more interesting and pleseant, but I find the Bible creation story more likely, if only marginally.

Creation Story

I think this creation story can be just as true as the one we found in genesis. I think that everyone has their own beliefs about what happened in the beginning of time and who created the world so this story is just as valid as the next.
I don't know exactly what I believe happened in the beginning of time. I think after I hear about different cultures and their beliefs I might be able to form my own opinion. I always just assumed it was the Adam and Eve story because that is what I was taught but now I'm definitely starting to rethink it.

Pieces that just don't Fit

As I understand it, the Navajo people passed down their beliefs orally from generation to generation. There's something so much more credible about a book, especially if there are so many different writers attributed with its works. Of course, this isn't a logical reason to place more reason in the Bible.
What particularly irritated me was the claim about the 4 main types of colours. If there's anything that I value from my elementary to middle school education, it's the belief in the 3 primary colours: red, blue, and yellow. They are the most basic of colours, as they can create any other colour. Black is the absence of light, and white is the overwhelming presence of light. So, the Navajo Creation Myth loses points there.
There's another flaw in the Navajo Creation Myth that bothered me; the medicine. If the first man had this medicine to create all these physical phenomena, where did it go?
Lastly, the Creation Myth answers all but (arguably) the most important question. Where do we come from? The first man was a Navajo from one of the past underground worlds. All the people were from that underground world. They came from the previous underground world. But, where did the people come from before the first underground world, or perhaps more importantly, how and why did they come to being there.
The Bible addresses this issue by attributing our creation to God. It doesn't claim anything about nonexistent magical medicine, or about false primary colours, and it answers the questions we really want to know from a Creation Myth. That's why Genesis' Creation Myth seems more likely to be true.

Early creation stories

While both the Navajo creation story and the story of the beginning of human kind in the book of Genesis are unlikely to have happened scientifically speaking, I believe that the version in the book of Genesis is more true then the other. I just feel that even though neither story is exactly realistic the one in the book of Genesis is much less far fetched then that of the Navajo creation story. The Navajo one speaks of one man basically creating earth and everything that is within it including seasons, animals, and time. This is an extremely different idea then that in the book of Genesis which believes that God is the one who created earth and Adam and Eve. Even though the idea of god might not be exactly a scientific concept, my religion and beliefs tell me that this is what truly did happen.

Early Creation Stories

The Navajo Creation Story is quite different than the account we have in Genesis. According to the Navajos, the world where people first lived was deep within the world we inhabit now. It had no sun or moon, and contained only dim clouds, which moved to tell the hours. Life began peacefully, but then lust and envy took hold. The people become violent. The Navajo fled, climbing through a hole in the sky to an above world. This world also began peacefully, but the same evils happened. This process repeated itself until finally the first man and woman emerged on the present earth. The first man filled the world with the aid of a sacred bundle of medicine, transforming different items into mountains, animals, hours, and so on. Everything in this new world was balanced: four directions, four seasons, four basic colors of black, blue, amber, and white. An essential harmony, called hozho, then prevailed.

Is this creation story any more or less likely to be true than the creation story we find in Genesis?

POST DUE: Thursday, October 15 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Monday, October 19 by the start of class.

Note: Remember to create your own post for your main response (your teacher modeled this in class). That way, people will be able to click on the word “comment” below your post to respond to what you said.

Magic and Pre-History Humans

Examine and share your basic beliefs about magic as defined in class. Do not confuse this with your belief in something like miracles. Do you believe in magic even a tiny bit? Are there things which you view as “extraordinary material”? Does the practice of magic still have a place in modern culture?

POST DUE: Tuesday, September 15 by start of class.

2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Friday, September 18 by the start of class.Note: Click on the word “comment” below, to post your initial response to the question(s).

Welcome!

Welcome to the Q & A page for Mr. Boswell's period 7 Humanities A class! Here, I will post interesting information and questions/answers for discussion and reflections. I look forward to corresponding with you and hope that you have a great semester.

Remember, for your safety, do not give out your email address or any personal information when posting/responding to a comment/topic as the Internet is public domain.

Thanks,

Mr. B