Jesus Vs. Others

Jesus taught his disciples and listeners to be good. That matches up with basically every other religion out there. However, Jesus's moral teachings, at least on the sermon on the mount, was more about how to treat other.

Jesus taught that even if someone is terrible to you, to treat them with kindness and goodness. This does in a way follow with the basics of Zoroastrian morals, however Zoroatrian is never this specific.

Confucius also valued goodness, but not to everybody. the lower classes were supposed to have more respect to the higher classes, or the lower in a specific relationship have more respect for the higher in a specific relationship. So like women, usually the lower in most relationship, are stuck with nothing.

Daoist morals are more about detachment. So in a way, if a daoist gets wronged, like the christian, the daoist wouldn't actively get revenge. But for the daoist it is more about not caring and less about being good.

Buddhists, although unlike christians in many ways, are like Christians in the way that they strive to do good, so that they in turn eventually get that good returned to them. The only difference is that Christians believe that good will come in the form of heaven after death, and Buddists believe that it will come back because of Karma.

Hindus are almost completely different from Christians. All a hindu was required to do was to follow caste rules. If your caste required you to be good, then that was great, if it didn't that was good too. Christians believed no matter who you are, you have to be good.

Empires

Empires form when there is a strong leader to take a city-state to the next level. The Qin dynasty, the first chinese empire, had Qin Shihuangdi. The first emperor of the Qin dynasty, he increased his power as a type of monarchy and standardized laws to unify China. Although the Qin dynasty was short lived it began the cycle of powerful empires in China. In Indai, the first longlived empire began when Chandragupta Maurya takes over and expands. Rome follows this same pattern, when Julius Caesar declares himself a dictator. He changed Rome from a republic to an empire. All these major empires were brought about by powerful leaders who created a imperial government with themselves as the head.

Wikipedia Vs. Textbooks

I think the text book does the better job, when it comes to getting information. Wikipedia gives very general information; information purely on the surface. When trying to find information on the origin of Jainism on wikipedia, all I got is that Chandragupta Maurya was a follower. The text book was the one who gave me actual details on Mahavira, who was called Jain by his disciples. The text book goes into more detail. I think classes should definitely be based on textbooks. People wouldn't learn anything if a class was based on wikipedia. There would be general understanding, but never details.

Bhagavad Gita, Zarathustra, Confucius

"How do these reflections on caste duties and detachment in the Bhagavad Gita compare and contrast with the moral and ethical teachings of Zarathustra and Confucius discussed in earlier chapters?"

Both Bhagavad Gita and Confucius's teachings focus on action. However, Bhagavad Gita specifically states, "Your business is with action alone, not by any means with the fruit of the action." This means not to care what comes out of your actions but to purely act. Confucius also teaches people to act. However, Confucius believes everyone should be good upright people. If an action led to death, Confucius would admonish the action.
Zarathustra does not focus so much on action. He focuses more on truth and goodness. So like Confucius, Zarathustra would admonish the act of fighting, because of its destructive nature.

Blog Posts

I think grammar should definitely be considered when grading blog posts. It shouldn't be the deciding factor of the grade, and it shouldn't be graded as strictly as someone would when reading an essay, but it should definitely be considered. I can write my opinions and use my own voice without ritin lik3 dis. This isn't a text message, it still counts as school work, so it shouldn't be completely relaxed. I do think, however, that the number one grading criteria should be content. Did I even address the question? I can have gramatical errors and still get a 3 if I got my point across. Also, I think the only reason someone should get a 0 is if they didn't write a blog post. Or if the blog asked for information on Central Asia and someone decided to write about ponies.
I think blogpost allows people to subscribe to eachother. If so, everyone in a class should subscribe to eachother, and if they feel like responding to a post, they can. If not, then thats fine too.

Government in Terms of Confucius

Book I. 2         Yu Tzu said, “It is rare for a man whose character is such that he is good as a son and obedient as a young man to have the inclination to transgress against his superiors; it is unheard of for one who has no such inclination to be inclined to start a rebellion. The gentleman devotes his efforts to the roots, for once the roots are established, the Way will grow therefrom.  Being good as a son and obedient as a young man is, perhaps, the root of a man’s character.


Although I don't know much about government, I think a lot of congressmen are guilty of not being as, "good as a son and obedient as young man". I think a lot of men would take the time to cooperate with president Obama instead of criticize him if they followed this "rule". Being good and obedient would mean, at least to me, that someone is working for a greater good. That, to me, means cooperating instead of being stubborn and obstinate against anything. As far as I have seen, republicans say that President Obama is too liberal. Democrats say that President Obama is not liberal enough. To me, being good and obedient means being willing to compromise.