I refuse to use a venn diagram, deal with it (<---- rebel)

These blog post titles should eventually have something to do with the actual topic shouldn't they?

Anyway, to the question at hand. I believe that Jesus's teaching are most like Zoroaster's teachings, as both put a large stress on charity. I think that Jesus's teachings are the least like the teachings of Taoism, which teaches a detachment from the world. Jesus's teachings instruct people to take a direct role in the material world, which places it at odds with the teachings of Taoism. Buddhism and Jesus's teachings are unrelated for the most part in my opinion, though I know Buddhism is unlike Christianity as Buddhism is polytheistic while Christianity is monotheistic. Christianity is like the views of Hinduism in the sense that everyone has a purpose, as in, people can help other people. Confucianism is much like Christianity, except for the fact that Confucianism does not place a stress on the afterlife, unlike Christianity. Both stress the importance of human kindness and helpfulness. The views of Socrates and Jesus are similar in ways; both stress the importance of virtue within people. 

I'm too tired to think of a witty title tonight, so...yea....

Empires form due to power vacuums that are left by the destruction of other empires or kingdoms. In the case of India, there was a void left by the removal of the armies of Alexander the great. This allowed other empires in India to form. In the case of the Roman empire, the Roman empire grew strong after the abolition of the last Etruscan king. In the case of (I know, real original opening) China, the Qin dynasty was allowed to grow after the destruction of the Zhou dynasty.

Wikipedia vs. Traditions & Encounters

I prefer Wikipedia when it comes to reading about the religions discussed in class. The reason may be that my generation is used to being able to jump to any category desired instantly, and lets not forget, the sacred control-F command. An index in the front of the book is nice and decently helpful, but an index that allows you to jump to any given category instantly is much more helpful. However,the one thing I believe that the textbook has over Wikipedia is that the textbook's sources are more accredited. Whenever reading Wikipedia, one must do so with a grain of salt and a discriminating disposition, as anything added may be from a college level professor or a disgruntled teenager. In terms of a Wikipedia-driven class, most teachers won't even accept Wikipedia as a source today, so a class completely based around Wikipedia is most likely a ways off. One can dream though, eh?

Caste Duties compared and contrasted to the teachings of Confucius and Zarathustra

Caste Duties According to the Bhagavad Gita has similarities and differences to Confucianism and Zoroastrianism. Some differences are that, while Confucianism focuses mainly on life on earth, this piece seems to refer to both life on earth and an after life. Another difference is that in Confucianism, people are judged by their virtues; in this piece it can be derived that people are judged by the battles they have won, not their virtues or characteristics. The fact that battles are so important in securing a place in the afterlife also means that this piece places the requirement for an afterlife on different things than Zoroastrianism. In Zoroastrianism, stress is placed on good deeds, good thoughts, and good actions; this conflicts with the idea that dying in battle is important to going to heaven. There are similarities between the pieces, however. One thing I noticed is that there is a blend of ideas between Zoroastrianism and Confucianism displayed in this piece. Confucianism places the stress on the world of the living, while Zoroastrianism places a stress on acting right in the world of the living to get to the true goal: the afterlife. In this piece, the idea that both the living world and the afterlife can be enjoyed equally, which is a blend of the ideas of Confucianism and Zoroastrianism.

Viva la gramática no! (long live no grammar)

I believe that our blog posts should not be graded on grammar, length or style. I do believe, however, that if people write a post that is illegible, lik if I rote a post lik this OMG tat would b awsome!, the post should disregarded, or counted as a zero. I believe that there is a firm line: either the post is legible or it is not, and anything in between should not affect the grade of a blog post. In terms of length, I believe personally that less is more in terms of writing, and if an idea can eloquently be articulated in a smaller amount of words, there is no point to add filler. On the same side, however, whatever length it is, it must have quality. This is why I believe that the only one of the four possible grading categories should be quality. In terms of style: blogs are personal, writing styles are personal. Grading something personal using impersonal standards just is not fair. I believe that you should be the one grading the blog posts, though maybe with a few changes. That means either fewer blog posts that are worth more, or a less in depth assessment of the post. I believe that people can earn zeros even if they write something, and this is more of a fine line with your grading style as it is mostly subjective. If the post is totally irrelevant, then give that person a zero.

How Confucian teachings can help our government today

Book III. 16          The Master said, “The gentleman understands what is moral, the small man understands what is profitable.”

I believe that this selection is one that the government of today needs to understand. More and more, during the news there is a story about how some politician is being "influenced" by businesses and corporations to swing legislation in their favor. This selection directly addresses that problem. Those who accept bribes from corporations are "small men;" they only see the profit and disregard morality. In my history class last year I learned about an award given to politicians when they had to make a decision that was unpopular, but was right in the long-term. In my opinion, no such award should exist. In my opinion, politicians should realize when they are running that they might have to make tough decisions that might lose them further elections. In my opinion, politicians should place the well-being of this nation above their own popularity. This relates directly to the quote because, in most cases, popularity translates into profit for many politicians (mainly in the form of campaign donations). Those that make the tough decisions in this nation are the "gentlemen," who may lost popularity or profit, but have done what is right. Those that are dictated by greed and who place profit over morality are the "small men."