Why does the colour of Christ matter? What colour do you think he was and if I were to tell you that it might be different than what you thought would it change your notion of Christ?

For centuries now, there have been issues and conflicts among races. It is commonly believed that one race is superior to other races. This notion seems to vary from one geographic location to the other. White people often believe that black people and brown people are inferior to them. Similarly, they believe that Christ was white and that white people are closer to him than other races.

            Christ is quite a dominant figure in terms of Christianity and his colour tends to provide a specific race with a special sense of proximity and superiority. I also believe that Jesus was white but then again, I also think that he might have a different background than what I presume. After all, modern science has revealed that we are not aware of our ancestral backgrounds as they are likely to be mixed and different than what we believe. Therefore, if colour of Christ was not white, it would not matter to me. The colour of Christ would not change what he did for people (NPR, 2012).

Where are we today, in 2020?  Where do you see truth and beauty?

            In 2020, we are in a middle of transformation. Similar to previous renaissance in which France and Italy were dominant, Middle Eastern and Asian nations are dominant now. In the past, these areas were believed to be dangerous and people would not visit these places. However, in recent times, this perception has changed. Nations such as Pakistan and India illustrate and represent old and interesting cultures which are attracting and influencing other nations.

            In addition to it, new fields in science are emerging and they are also influenced by these countries. It means that the way we used to see these cultures is changing. It might even reveal interesting information about ourselves and where do we stand. These countries are rich in terms of literature as well. They are opening a path to their heritage and their unique culture. In this manner, renaissance still exists in the modern world.

Do you agree with Machiavelli that a ruler cannot be both loved and feared? Why might it be safer to be feared?  Some scholars argue Machiavelli was writing in a satirical manner (i.e. he wrote this as a joke like our modern day Onion website)--do you agree?

            I do not agree that a ruler cannot be both feared and loved. It is possible for a ruler to be both loved and feared at the same time. This can be done through justice. If a ruler makes only sound and just decisions and promote a culture in which everyone is happy, he will be loved. Meanwhile, if he sets strict rules against crimes, he will be feared. Similarly, if he possesses power, eh will be feared by foreigners as well. Thus, it is certainly possible for a ruler to be both feared and loved.

            The might be safer to be feared than to be loved is because being loved sometimes undermines the fear. It undermines the authority of ruler. For instance, if a ruler is loved, it is possible people might begin to do what they are not supposed to do because they believe that their ruler is soft and will forgive them. If a ruler is feared, people will obey him and they will make sure to never go against his orders. I do not believe Machiavelli was writing in a satirical manner (Fordham, 1532).

References

Fordham. (1532). Medieval Sourcebook: Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527): The Prince, 1513. Retrieved from https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/machiavelli-prince.asp

NPR. (2012). 'Color Of Christ': A Story Of Race And Religion In America. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2012/11/19/165473220/color-of-christ-a-story-of-race-and-religion-in-america