In the book Saint Augustine on Christian Teaching, it was interesting how he lists the stages that are like the sequential "rules of success in religion". He lists: fear, holiness, knowledge, fortitude, resolve of compassion, purity of the eye, and wisdom.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. (p.35, a.k.a Psalm 110:10)"
I would like to focus on the first stage: the fear of God. Recently, in class discussion, I made a point about the fear of God being a necessity in the Psalms. Augustine's book certainly parallels this fear (p.33/line 16). In the Psalms this fear was either inspired by nationism or in hopes of living a peaceful life by living the life God intends. The book relates to the "reflection about morality" part, but continues into what the Psalms may have been implying to say about the after-life, but never actually went into detail about it.
Parallels are also made about through this fear of God, ultimate faith must be achieved because there will be times when we "rather ponder and believe that what is written there, even if obscure, is better and truer than any insights that we can gain by our own efforts (p.34/17)." This idea happens continuously in the Psalms, which brings us back to the "broken vending machine" analogy. It took faith! When people had doubts, they would "politely" address God about them, yet they would always go back to saying, but I know you will take care of me in the end and therefore I am patient. The book also addresses the idea of faith and divine intervention in line 20 (p.34) "by constant prayer the encouragement of divine intervention, so that he is not crushed by despair".
Both books emphasize the importance of faith and closeness in people's relationship with God. The scriptures are a continuous inspiration, but there are weak moments and it always goes back to people's relationship/fear of God.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Who's the real enemy?
I find the book of Psalms very layered with hundreds of interpretations. Throughout the Psalms, there is much talk of battles and enemies. Although one could read these passages with one "lens", I would like to think of these passages as a personal battle one must face in order to reach his goal. Remember the goal: when on God's side the nation of Israel can then prosper. I'd like to focus on two types of battles; the "vending machine " battle and the "good vs. bad" battle.
There are many battles in the Psalms, but a common situation is when the people are asking God where he is and why hasn't he been helping them. In class, we came up with the broken vending machine analogy. When putting a coin (or a Psalm) in to the machine (or as a prayer up to heaven), we have faith that that machine will give us food (peace/happiness) in return; even if it is broken, we will bang on it for a very long time because in time, we know it will come out. Psalms 79 is a great example of someone maybe getting impatient, giving God a "motivational speech" as to all the reasons why he should discipline their enemies and help them. He lists the hardships they have endured and their need for rescuing, but also shows his faith in verse 13 "But we are Your people and the flock that You tend. We acclaim You forever". This verse to show that even though life is not fair right now they have faith that God knows what he is doing and they are not trying to question him. They knew they had to have faith because similar to Psalms 37:4, 25-26, these things will work themselves out in the long run "I never have seen a just man forsaken". FAITH.
The other battle I wanted to address was the double meaning of the actual battle in the scriptures. This relates to our discussion: good vs. bad. I still argue that the line in between is crossable depending on the narrator. I believe that the person writing about these physical battles is having a mental battle in their head about whether to do the wrong or right thing according to what God wants. The difference in narration is that the person writing is either a believer or non-believer. With the example of David's crime of adultery, it seems that the believer is able to cross from good, to bad, to good again; but, a non-believer has selfish intentions all the time and therefore becomes labeled as an enemy and deserves to be punished by God (Psalm 10, 28). An example or this physical and mental battle is found in Psalms 31:10-14. These verses give a description of the hardships this person is going through and he puts the blame on his enemies who "slander" and "conspire against [him]". He claims he trusts in God and asks to be rescued, but there is still a battle going on between whether he should give in to the slander and stop fighting for God's cause or to continue on the straight and narrow path and soon (by faith) be rescued by God. This could in fact have been a physical battle, but it is more about if this person chooses to keep fighting or give up that shows true commitment.
There are many battles in the Psalms, but a common situation is when the people are asking God where he is and why hasn't he been helping them. In class, we came up with the broken vending machine analogy. When putting a coin (or a Psalm) in to the machine (or as a prayer up to heaven), we have faith that that machine will give us food (peace/happiness) in return; even if it is broken, we will bang on it for a very long time because in time, we know it will come out. Psalms 79 is a great example of someone maybe getting impatient, giving God a "motivational speech" as to all the reasons why he should discipline their enemies and help them. He lists the hardships they have endured and their need for rescuing, but also shows his faith in verse 13 "But we are Your people and the flock that You tend. We acclaim You forever". This verse to show that even though life is not fair right now they have faith that God knows what he is doing and they are not trying to question him. They knew they had to have faith because similar to Psalms 37:4, 25-26, these things will work themselves out in the long run "I never have seen a just man forsaken". FAITH.
The other battle I wanted to address was the double meaning of the actual battle in the scriptures. This relates to our discussion: good vs. bad. I still argue that the line in between is crossable depending on the narrator. I believe that the person writing about these physical battles is having a mental battle in their head about whether to do the wrong or right thing according to what God wants. The difference in narration is that the person writing is either a believer or non-believer. With the example of David's crime of adultery, it seems that the believer is able to cross from good, to bad, to good again; but, a non-believer has selfish intentions all the time and therefore becomes labeled as an enemy and deserves to be punished by God (Psalm 10, 28). An example or this physical and mental battle is found in Psalms 31:10-14. These verses give a description of the hardships this person is going through and he puts the blame on his enemies who "slander" and "conspire against [him]". He claims he trusts in God and asks to be rescued, but there is still a battle going on between whether he should give in to the slander and stop fighting for God's cause or to continue on the straight and narrow path and soon (by faith) be rescued by God. This could in fact have been a physical battle, but it is more about if this person chooses to keep fighting or give up that shows true commitment.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The book of Psalms' ethical stance
To live ethically, it is mentioned time and time again throughout the Psalms that there must be a healthy fear of God. In Psalms 103:13, it states that "the Lord has compassion for those who fear Him." This Psalm gives a list of reasons why we should worship God and be like him because he is: just, compassionate, righteous, etc. Since God is those things, it is taught that we should therefore try to follow him in order to live peaceful lives (85:9) and stay out of the way of God's wrath.
In Psalms 51, David gives a perspective that is "on the other side" in that because of the sin he's committed he is very fearful and apologetic towards God. This Psalm is an account of how to respond if ethics have been broken blatantly before God.
Psalms 7 shows the type of battle that one can endure and the book portrays them in their time of need. I think the battle that is portrayed is meant for the inner-battle that can sometimes occur according to one's ethics. For example, God is compassionate, for some, that is not an easy task, but it is possible. If you have one the "battle" you have therefore accomplished your ethical goal.
In Judaism, similar to the Psalms, one quickly learns which path is safest to follow in order to avoid God's wrath; which occurs on this Earth. With Christianity, it seems like it's more an after-life affect. I think both religions could consolidate their beliefs and not be missing anything as far as the way to live now that pleases God and therefore the way you will live after this life.
In Psalms 51, David gives a perspective that is "on the other side" in that because of the sin he's committed he is very fearful and apologetic towards God. This Psalm is an account of how to respond if ethics have been broken blatantly before God.
Psalms 7 shows the type of battle that one can endure and the book portrays them in their time of need. I think the battle that is portrayed is meant for the inner-battle that can sometimes occur according to one's ethics. For example, God is compassionate, for some, that is not an easy task, but it is possible. If you have one the "battle" you have therefore accomplished your ethical goal.
In Judaism, similar to the Psalms, one quickly learns which path is safest to follow in order to avoid God's wrath; which occurs on this Earth. With Christianity, it seems like it's more an after-life affect. I think both religions could consolidate their beliefs and not be missing anything as far as the way to live now that pleases God and therefore the way you will live after this life.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Scientology
I was inspired to do some research on Scientology after I saw people protesting against it while I was in downtown Chicago, IL. I am quite unfamiliar with this religion, other than traumas Scientology-related that have been on the news like mass suicides, for example. There is so much controversy attached to this topic! The coined name is L. Ron Hubbard, who created this religion. Scientology's goals are: to have "a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)
These types of goals can be found in other religions as well; it instantly reminded me of the Baha'i religion I recently wrote about. The key is to find out how different religions plan on accomplishing these goals. Just like any other religion, they too go through prosecution, but the question is how radical are their actions and what actions are they taking that's causing this prosecution.
It was amazing to read all the fraud that goes on amongst the politicians also known as the church leaders (yes, one can find this anywhere). It was frightening to read how many people went to jail for stealing or lying in some way. The members are also very aggressive; if you talk down about their beliefs they're not afraid to use threats or physical contact. What is ironic is if you look back to their goals and purpose it talks about being "honest beings" and a living a life "without criminals".
Personally, I would think for having such positive goals, a lot of money, and so many members, there would be positive reviews on the religion; but as I read on, it became very concerning to me what was really going on. It's scary to think that there's a chance that one day a man decided to make up a religion, because he would make good money, and it is now leading people to be against any type of medical assistance, to people being evaluated on how much evil spirit is in them by recording how conductive they are, and to people dedicating their entire being to Scientology and NOTHING else. What's interesting though, is that one could probably make the same argument about any other religion. Although, this religion seems a lot more radical and controversial and I wonder why. I also wonder if Hubbard, as he was creating this religion truly believed in it or was really just in it for the money. The refinement of this religion is very clearly made because every few years Hubbard would change the definition of Scientology as far as it being a religion, a philosophy, or both.
These types of goals can be found in other religions as well; it instantly reminded me of the Baha'i religion I recently wrote about. The key is to find out how different religions plan on accomplishing these goals. Just like any other religion, they too go through prosecution, but the question is how radical are their actions and what actions are they taking that's causing this prosecution.
It was amazing to read all the fraud that goes on amongst the politicians also known as the church leaders (yes, one can find this anywhere). It was frightening to read how many people went to jail for stealing or lying in some way. The members are also very aggressive; if you talk down about their beliefs they're not afraid to use threats or physical contact. What is ironic is if you look back to their goals and purpose it talks about being "honest beings" and a living a life "without criminals".
Personally, I would think for having such positive goals, a lot of money, and so many members, there would be positive reviews on the religion; but as I read on, it became very concerning to me what was really going on. It's scary to think that there's a chance that one day a man decided to make up a religion, because he would make good money, and it is now leading people to be against any type of medical assistance, to people being evaluated on how much evil spirit is in them by recording how conductive they are, and to people dedicating their entire being to Scientology and NOTHING else. What's interesting though, is that one could probably make the same argument about any other religion. Although, this religion seems a lot more radical and controversial and I wonder why. I also wonder if Hubbard, as he was creating this religion truly believed in it or was really just in it for the money. The refinement of this religion is very clearly made because every few years Hubbard would change the definition of Scientology as far as it being a religion, a philosophy, or both.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Baha'i Faith
Over the weekend I had the opportunity to go to one out of the seven Bahai' Temples located around the world. The temple was located in IL and represents the continent of North America. The following site shows the dome area that I sang in: http://www.bahai.us/bahai-temple
I have never heard about this religion prior to my experience over the weekend. Coming from a nondenominational background, I was curious about what I was seeing. I quickly learned the "do's" and "don't" around the temple. We were took into the recital hall that was a circular room shaped like a dome. The director told us that if we stood under the "peak" of the dome and whispered that we would be able to hear our echo. Since I'm a piano major, I was also very interested in the large German-made piano that, later I was told, is the largest piano under that brand in the world! How would a organization like this be able to afford such a thing? Apparently, a man who was one of the first men to follow the Baha'i religion donated it. Considering the price and quality of such a great instrument, it says a lot that a person would have so much faith to donate it!
The temple itself requires everyone to remain quiet. The choir must not be seen when performing in order to create a heavenly, meditative environment. During the service, several scriptures from any religious book you can think of are read aloud and equally chosen throughout the year. After the service, people were led downstairs to the exhibition area where there were signs answering questions about the religion. There was also a presentation being shown (I don't know what they were showing). Since I had never heard of this religion, it was a lot for me to understand.
Nowhere in the service was I reminded of a religious ceremony; instead, it felt more like an ideal. There wasn't the traditional ceremony where the congregation sings and prays, etc. Instead, the religion emphasizes unity and ideas of peace. This is a religion because even to this day, especially in Iran, many people are being prosecuted for their beliefs. It has been around for hundreds of years and is consistently believed by many all over the world.
I'm still wondering why I haven't ever heard of this religion before. It's a very interesting concept. Personally, I feel like their goals for all religions, people, gods, etc. to be unified is impractical. In order to successfully enjoy a service, one must give up parts of their own faith. What I mean by this, is that if I were Jewish, how would I be able to meditate and appreciate a scripture from the New Testament that talks about Jesus' miracles when I don't believe that. This is still a new topic for me and open to learning more, but that was one aspect I just couldn't understand; the acceptance of all religions when religions are constantly butting heads and contradicting each other.
I have never heard about this religion prior to my experience over the weekend. Coming from a nondenominational background, I was curious about what I was seeing. I quickly learned the "do's" and "don't" around the temple. We were took into the recital hall that was a circular room shaped like a dome. The director told us that if we stood under the "peak" of the dome and whispered that we would be able to hear our echo. Since I'm a piano major, I was also very interested in the large German-made piano that, later I was told, is the largest piano under that brand in the world! How would a organization like this be able to afford such a thing? Apparently, a man who was one of the first men to follow the Baha'i religion donated it. Considering the price and quality of such a great instrument, it says a lot that a person would have so much faith to donate it!
The temple itself requires everyone to remain quiet. The choir must not be seen when performing in order to create a heavenly, meditative environment. During the service, several scriptures from any religious book you can think of are read aloud and equally chosen throughout the year. After the service, people were led downstairs to the exhibition area where there were signs answering questions about the religion. There was also a presentation being shown (I don't know what they were showing). Since I had never heard of this religion, it was a lot for me to understand.
Nowhere in the service was I reminded of a religious ceremony; instead, it felt more like an ideal. There wasn't the traditional ceremony where the congregation sings and prays, etc. Instead, the religion emphasizes unity and ideas of peace. This is a religion because even to this day, especially in Iran, many people are being prosecuted for their beliefs. It has been around for hundreds of years and is consistently believed by many all over the world.
I'm still wondering why I haven't ever heard of this religion before. It's a very interesting concept. Personally, I feel like their goals for all religions, people, gods, etc. to be unified is impractical. In order to successfully enjoy a service, one must give up parts of their own faith. What I mean by this, is that if I were Jewish, how would I be able to meditate and appreciate a scripture from the New Testament that talks about Jesus' miracles when I don't believe that. This is still a new topic for me and open to learning more, but that was one aspect I just couldn't understand; the acceptance of all religions when religions are constantly butting heads and contradicting each other.
The Psalms
I instantly noticed description differences among the Psalms. The Alter translation impacted me with his detailed descriptor words, the Bay uses weaker, yet more ornamented words. For example (Alter vs. Bay): tear vs. break; burning anger vs. wrath; smash vs. break; chastened vs. learned; worship vs. serve; exult in trembling vs. rejoice; etc. Although these comparisons differ in emphasis, in 1640, the words could have had more significance in their meaning than they do now. That being said, I still believe these comparisons are significant. I think there is simply ornamenting going on in verse 8 where it says "utmost coasts abroad" instead of "earth". Verse 11 also made me wonder why worship vs. serve and exult in trembling vs. rejoice were used. It is almost as if Bay is watering down its original meaning.
Both Pslams are condemning those who don't follow God and uses various words describe God's wrath. Chapter two is closed with blessings and happiness by both versions encouraging those who "shelter in Him [God]".
I think the colonists might have not approved of the Psalm by Bay due to it not following the Hebrew in format or translation, hence why there were many revisions made to it. They may have thought there were too many embellishments added to it that were unrelated to the original text.
Both Pslams are condemning those who don't follow God and uses various words describe God's wrath. Chapter two is closed with blessings and happiness by both versions encouraging those who "shelter in Him [God]".
I think the colonists might have not approved of the Psalm by Bay due to it not following the Hebrew in format or translation, hence why there were many revisions made to it. They may have thought there were too many embellishments added to it that were unrelated to the original text.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Native American Mounds
According to Geertz' definition of religion, one can claim that the construction of these earth mounds were religiously affiliated. One, because the mounds show progress in construction from the Early and Middle Woodland people to the Late Woodland people, who built larger and more extravagant mounds. Two, because there is symbolism everywhere, grouped in three categories air (upperworld): birds, earth (lowerworld): bears , water (lowerworld) : (water spirits) panthers, lizards, turtles , etc. All these symbols were resources that humans depended on. Thirdly, based on the massive amounts of mounds made, the number of years it took to make a mound, and the number of people it took to make a mound, this effort indicates a shared cultural understanding of the sacred places involved.
Similar to the symbols mentioned above, when discussing the Lascaux Cave, one could claim the same thing that the pictures drawn "were resources that humans depended on." The difference between the cave pictures and the Native American mounds are that there is not enough evidence to claim the cave pictures as religiously affiliated. I believe that the cave pictures simply represented what people were seeing and represented the function of animals in their lives. I also believe that these straightforward drawings could have easily evolved into a religion many years after that due to their dependence on animals and nature. The Native American mounds, however, represented a way of thinking about existence, and "ideology from the earth". They believed that mother earth was working with them, which shows their strong connection to nature, and therefore; their strong attachment to the animals they would kill. The mounds were built to symbolize and ritually maintain balance and harmony with the natural world.
Our use of animals in the name of sports clubs is completely different to the reverence the Native Americans had for animals. For example, the animals they would represent in the earth mounds were animals that they lived among and helped them survive by killing them and using every part of that animal. We eat cows, goats, pigs, deer, but rarely, if ever, do you see these animals as mascots because we are not using animals to represent the respect we have for them because they quench our hunger, but instead, we use animals that represent strength, courage, and power. The point of a sports team is to show who is the strongest and who can persevere. Most of the animals represented on sports teams are not animals we see on a daily basis, maybe in the zoo from time to time.
Similar to the symbols mentioned above, when discussing the Lascaux Cave, one could claim the same thing that the pictures drawn "were resources that humans depended on." The difference between the cave pictures and the Native American mounds are that there is not enough evidence to claim the cave pictures as religiously affiliated. I believe that the cave pictures simply represented what people were seeing and represented the function of animals in their lives. I also believe that these straightforward drawings could have easily evolved into a religion many years after that due to their dependence on animals and nature. The Native American mounds, however, represented a way of thinking about existence, and "ideology from the earth". They believed that mother earth was working with them, which shows their strong connection to nature, and therefore; their strong attachment to the animals they would kill. The mounds were built to symbolize and ritually maintain balance and harmony with the natural world.
Our use of animals in the name of sports clubs is completely different to the reverence the Native Americans had for animals. For example, the animals they would represent in the earth mounds were animals that they lived among and helped them survive by killing them and using every part of that animal. We eat cows, goats, pigs, deer, but rarely, if ever, do you see these animals as mascots because we are not using animals to represent the respect we have for them because they quench our hunger, but instead, we use animals that represent strength, courage, and power. The point of a sports team is to show who is the strongest and who can persevere. Most of the animals represented on sports teams are not animals we see on a daily basis, maybe in the zoo from time to time.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
The Grizzly Man
The discussion in class was very interesting because I could see both sides to the "is he crazy question" and the difference from the boundaries that most people have between humans and animals versus the grizzlyman's boundaries, which were really none at all, instead he did live in an ideal world where there was fluidity between humans and animals.
Although I do think that the grizzlyman is misunderstood in that, who are we (we being the everyday people in society living in houses, driving cars, etc.) to judge a man who was quite skilled and knowledgeable about the wilderness and in particular grizzly bears. Unless any of us has gone out for 13 summers, with no gun, just to be "one" with the animals, we have no idea what "bonding" could happen there. I gained this perspective after observing the foxes who showed a friendship between the grizzlyman and themselves. We are not in a position to judge.
I also enjoyed Bridget's point about the grizzlyman having some rational as far as the danger of the grizzly bears, but he also would fall into this child-like state in which the grizzlyman would forget the different cognitive levels humans have from animals and would begin treating the animals like humans and almost try to play with the animals. At these moments, is when I would question the grizzlyman's mental stability.
One last point, is how the cave drawings, even way back when they were drawn, still showed respect and a clear boundary for the animals.
Although I do think that the grizzlyman is misunderstood in that, who are we (we being the everyday people in society living in houses, driving cars, etc.) to judge a man who was quite skilled and knowledgeable about the wilderness and in particular grizzly bears. Unless any of us has gone out for 13 summers, with no gun, just to be "one" with the animals, we have no idea what "bonding" could happen there. I gained this perspective after observing the foxes who showed a friendship between the grizzlyman and themselves. We are not in a position to judge.
I also enjoyed Bridget's point about the grizzlyman having some rational as far as the danger of the grizzly bears, but he also would fall into this child-like state in which the grizzlyman would forget the different cognitive levels humans have from animals and would begin treating the animals like humans and almost try to play with the animals. At these moments, is when I would question the grizzlyman's mental stability.
One last point, is how the cave drawings, even way back when they were drawn, still showed respect and a clear boundary for the animals.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Religion is . . .
Religion is a belief system which must incorporate a group consensus of those beliefs in order to be maintained and followed. Each religion has its own symbols that has significant meaning to those involved. These symbols hold great power which creates long lasting moods and motivations in men as well as creates the continual spread of that religion.
Religion can create a sort of comfort zone to those who may be having hard times or for those who make religion something that is ingrained in their everyday lives. This comfort zone is created by the ornamented "facts" that are given by that religion. For example, if someone is told that they must endure hardships in order to get to heaven, they find comfort in their hardships because they believe that this pain will eventually lead them to heaven.
Although I'd like to think that religion originated from one, honest place, Geertz is correct in saying that the way our religion tells us to live, is clothed with "facts" that are realistic enough for us to stay true to and believe in, but are in fact not always accurate. Since every religion has its own set of "facts", there are bound to be religions with contradicting "facts"; which proves that these "facts" may be "uniquely realistic", but not necessarily "uniquely true".
Religion can create a sort of comfort zone to those who may be having hard times or for those who make religion something that is ingrained in their everyday lives. This comfort zone is created by the ornamented "facts" that are given by that religion. For example, if someone is told that they must endure hardships in order to get to heaven, they find comfort in their hardships because they believe that this pain will eventually lead them to heaven.
Although I'd like to think that religion originated from one, honest place, Geertz is correct in saying that the way our religion tells us to live, is clothed with "facts" that are realistic enough for us to stay true to and believe in, but are in fact not always accurate. Since every religion has its own set of "facts", there are bound to be religions with contradicting "facts"; which proves that these "facts" may be "uniquely realistic", but not necessarily "uniquely true".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
