Post 19: Dante's Concept of Hell - Punishment and Suffering

Before I begin, I want to define two very important terms to this topic: Inferno and Hell.

1. Inferno: another word for Hell. This explains the reasoning behind the title of Dante's time spent in Hell being named this. Another definition is "a large fire that is dangerously out of control" (Google). I found this interesting because the Bible describes Hell as a big lake of fire, yet Dante's "Inferno" is named after this, but is described much differently than the Bible. Hmm...

2. Hell: "a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the Earth where the wicked are punished after death" (Google).

Before reading the "Inferno", I had never read or heard of any other story that is completely focused and based on Hell besides the Bible; however, Dante's view of Hell in "Inferno" is much different than that of the Bible, considering the Bible describes it as a burning fire. "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41) perfectly describes how the Holy Spirit (in the Bible) sees Hell, which sounds to me like an everlasting burn fest under the ground. What I found interesting after reading the "Inferno" and doing further research of Dante's concept of Hell was that the 9 Circles of Hell in the "Inferno" are quite similar to the 10 Commandments of the Bible, which are a set of rules handed down to the followers of Christ, in which Christians are expected to respect, perform, and not break in their life on Earth.

In the "Inferno", Dante first begins by being lost in the woods, where he is attacked by three beasts and then saved by Virgil, a poet, sent by Beatrice, who is Dante's "ideal" woman. This leads to Dante's journey through Hell. Dante's view of Hell is quite complicated in my opinion because he is introduced to the "9 Circles of Hell" (Limbo, Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Anger, Heresy, Violence, Fraud, and Treachery), where each display a different perspective of life to Dante. What makes Dante's view of Hell interesting is how each "sin" that is not forgivable before life ends is a "level" in Hell, and each person that goes to Hell in the afterlife goes to the specific sin they are guilty of. I think that this part of Dante's concept is an appeal of punishment because someone is punished eternally because of their faults in life, and the suffering is their actual eternity spent in their specific "circle" of hell because that is horrible and goes on endlessly forever.

Post 18: Jesus in the Quran

The Quran and the New Testament both display a positive view of Jesus and both appreciate him and his performance of good deeds and roles very highly. However, the Quran describes Jesus a little differently than that of the New Testament, considering Jesus has more of a higher standing and is followed and worshiped throughout the New Testament.

In the Quran, Jesus is considered just a prophet, and nothing more. Jesus is known for performing miracles and healing those who are not in good health, just like the New Testament. Jesus is also born of a virgin in the Quran, and that virgin being Mary. Jesus is meant to be the messenger of "Allah", the Islamic god, where Jesus said to the Islamic people, "Lo! I have come with a clear Sign from your Lord; so fear God and obey me. Indeed God is my Lord, and also your Lord; therefore worship Him alone: that is the straight way" (Quran 3:49-51). This quote entails that Jesus came to the Earth to teach others about God, and to show the evidence of God through himself. According to the Quran, Jesus was not crucified nor resurrected, but another man with similar qualities and features of Jesus is sacrificed and killed instead, whereas in the New Testament he is indeed crucified for the sinners of the Christian religion and is then resurrected days later.

In the Quran, Jesus was thought highly of, and was very important considering he is mentioned just as much in the Quran than in the New Testament. Although Jesus has a higher position and is worshiped rather than just looked up to in the New Testament, Jesus still performs miracles that no other person could really perform nor understand, so the character of Jesus is mostly similar in the Quran and the New Testament. 

Post 17: Quran vs. New Testament

The Quran and the New Testament both vary in differences, however they have some similarities. The Quran is the holy and religious book of the Islam religion, written in Arabic and is believed to be dictated by Muhammad but the revelation of God, in the eyes of the Islamic. The New Testament is the second part of the Christian religion's holy text, known as the Bible. It was originally written in Greek and was the recordings of Jesus' life and his followers along the way. The "god" of the Quran is considered to be Muhammad and the "god" of the New Testament (the Bible) is God.

The most important comparison between the Quran and the New Testament is the simple fact that they both consist of stories/parables of Jesus and his life and impact upon his followers and others during his time on Earth. In the Quran, Jesus is considered only a prophet, who performs miracles and is a healer of the those who cannot normally be healed by the human hands; "I [Jesus] also heal the blind and the leper" (Quran 3:49). Contrastingly, however, the New Testament describes Jesus as the son of God, who is born of a virgin, who is sent to the Earth to represent God, perform miracles, and be a leader of the Christian faith, where he is later sacrificed and crucified for the sinners of the Earth. In the Quran, Jesus is indeed born of a virgin, and is known to perform miracles and heal, but the Islamic religion refuses to acknowledge the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and instead tells that they sacrifice a man who closely resembles the qualities of Jesus, but indeed was not Jesus.

Also, the Quran supports the idea of multiple marriages, or being married to more than one person at one time. Having 3 or 4 marriages is normal for the Islamic religion and even worse it is supported and respected; "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess." Quran (4:3). According to the New Testament, "...and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh" (Mark 10:8) once you get married or commit to someone, you both become one person, and it continues to support the fact that one marriage should be your only marriage and that you should be committed and give yourself to ONE person and that person only, since you are indeed one. 

Post 16: Should government officialsl lead by personal example and high ideals?

I think that government officials should most certainly lead by personal example because most all people look up to those of higher standing for guidance and almost as role models. Our government officials are responsible for running the country and we respect them and trust them with our lives, so they should be personably genuine and trustworthy people. However, there are government officials who are not good people, but we just don't see that side of them, yet they are still good at what they do. I think that as long as someone is running the country properly and not affecting any of the citizens in any negative manner, then they can have any reputation they'd like. It's just much easier and comforting to know that we have good hearted, kind and smart people running our government.

Post 15: The Role of the President - Socrates and Confucius

The role that the President of the United States performs can be very stressful, and contains many aspects. The main, and most important functions that the president performs include:

• Chief of state - acts as the symbolic leader of the country (probably one of the most vital) 
• Chief - executes the laws, appoints key federal officials, grants
• Executive - pardons and reprieves
• Commander in Chief - runs the armed forces (declares when we go to war; another important job)
• Chief Diplomat - negotiates with other countries 
• Chief Legislator - signs/vetoes legislation, introduces legislation, works with Congress on the budget
• Super politician - helps his/her party raise money and elect candidates

These roles are important when running a country, so it is crucial that the president accepts the responsibility of these and the actions that come along with them. It's safe to say that our president has to be a person we, as citizens of the US, can count on to fill the shoes and perform these actions to the best of his/her ability. 

When it comes to the role of the president in terms of Socrates and Confucius, a president should be very comfortable with the idea of social and political life and virtue, since both Socrates and Confucius are remembered by these aspects. They both based their beliefs on knowledge and emphasized the importance of rigid social and political order. Basically, they were familiar with people and how to treat them, and most importantly how to establish a society in a political form. Both Socrates and Confucius were wise, indeed smart, and could operate any government if given one. In my opinion, I think our president should be much like Socrates and Confucius, because it is imperative that our president be a good person with awesome social skills, know how and what they're doing when it comes to running a country, and of course he/she needs to be educated and wise. Although Socrates and Confucius were not presidents, they were still very important and well-respected leaders of their time period, and are good role models for our presidents and even any other leaders in our world today. Lastly, yes, the roles of the president are much different the roles that Socrates and Confucius had, however, when it comes to the basic skills that our president needs, he/she could easily look at the roles and changes that Socrates and Confucius took on and made, and learn many valuable lessons that could help their time in presidency. 

Post 14: Ancient vs. Modern Gods of War

Ancient gods of war were viewed as a more higher standard of being, where they were known to behold and perform supernatural things that today may almost seem unrealistic. They were almost always involved and responsible for the creation and the natural affects of the war, and less of things that can be controlled. These gods performed various tasks and functions when it came to war and its surroundings. For example, the Greek gods of war performed the "Keres" or "Death Fates", which were the scavengers of the battlefield who defied the dead. There was also the Eris, who was the goddess of battle strife and feuds. These types of gods/goddesses of war in any given culture of the ancient time period participated in functions such as this, but in their own ways. They functioned as the feelings of war as well, which include panic, pain, terror, fear, shock etc. along with many more.

In my opinion, I don't think there is a true definition or even existence of modern gods of war because our war is fought by our soldiers, and we are all guided by our one God and creator of the world, whereas most of don't believe in any god at all much less a specific one. Our modern war gods would be our soldiers in my eyes, and they are less apart of the controlling of nature and creation and more apart of saving the world, and saving our people. War today and war in the ancient days are much different and are founded on opposite types of reasonings. Our God guides our soldiers to provide service, fights, and protection for our country.

Post 13: Wars with the US

In my opinion, war should be able to be avoided at all costs, in order for the US to obtain their peace with the world. I think that peace with other countries happens to be the most important aspect to maintain because with no peace comes attack. I want to feel safe in my country, but here recently I don't, due to threats of ISIS and other non religious, evil groups. Because of the interference of war between the US, Syria and Iraq, our country has been put into great danger. It seems to be that because of pro-democracy nations, such as the US, other nations have been flipped upside down and their government corrupted because we think that our way of living is what's best for everyone - but it's not. I completely support our war with Afghanistan because their leader, Osama bin Laden, killed 3,000 of our citizens, and for that they deserved a declaration of war. In my opinion, I think the only reason we should ever go to war is if our country and our people are threatened in any way of danger, just like we were by al Qaeda. Only then should we go to war and fight for the justice of our country.

The Art of War was based on the aspects of war and obviously very much supported war of its time period, considering it landed in the hands of many politicians, military leaders and even scholars of the 8th century. As we learned in lecture on Monday, even today's military leaders make their new combats read the Art of War as part of their initiation. Since this is so, it is clear that the Art of War supports the decision of the US wars with Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan because it supports war in general. It informs the leaders of our country and more importantly, our military on how to handle their military conquests and military maneuvers, and has done so all over the world for centuries.

The Bhagavad-Gita supports a more opposite idea when it comes to war. One of its main characters is debating on whether or not he wants to go to war due to the other army consisting of his cousins and people that matter to him. I think it modern day, the US should think like this before we jump into war. For instance, in the war with Iraq, at one point we were working with Iraq and when they went to war with another country, we were supporting Iraq. As leaders of a growing nation, our politicians should think more into their decisions of war before getting ourselves into more danger, like in the Bhagavad-Gita. I am more of a supporter of the Gita than the Art of War, due to its more aggression towards peace than just violence.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/35806229

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/15214375

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-justifying-war/p7689