Belief

I was surfing the web for interesting photos to use in my blog and I came across this quote (pictured on right). It occurred to me how strikingly different the implications of this quote are from the teachings of St. Augustine. St. Augustine, as the type of christian that he is, is very focused on the bible and its interpretation. He is adamant that everything in the bible is truth if interpreted correctly. The bible is his way to understand what God wants. In opposition to this, according to this quote from Buddha, nothing written should be believed unless it is from the heart or reason of the person.This quote is very much encouraging a 'to each his own' interpretation of anything. If we apply this philosophy to the interpretation of the bible we get something much different from that of St. Augustine. This quote would seem to suggest that any interpretation could be just as valid as any other. So instead of a lamb metaphorically meaning Jesus, a lamb could also mean something entirely different as long as it did not go against the reason of the interpreter.
This point of view, while very accepting, could also be considered mildly problematic because the reason and common sense of any individual can vary drastically from that of another. A man who's reason told him to kill another has found something to believe in. Is this OK? Well, from a culturally relativistic perspective, yes. However, this way of thinking has no way to regulate morals, so theoretically, any action could be condoned by this thinking. St. Augustine's more rigid philosophy gives more of a right and wrong to the actions or thinking of people. What would Augustine think of this statement of Buddha's? He would probably be outraged, for, to him there is obviously something to be believed (the bible). However, the two philosophies are not mutually exclusive. If indeed we can believe nothing but that which goes with our reason and common sense, then he bible is a perfectly fine thing to believe because, according to St. Augustine, the entirety of the bible is reason and common sense once interpreted correctly.

Logic and truth

According to St. Augustine, "saying something perfectly true...only points out the truthfulness of it." In reference to the gospel of John which he says is true. His argument for the points of logical thought is based in the 'truth' that Christ did indeed rise (as according to the gospel of John.) This is the mindset of many religions -- that their religion is true in its assumptions and is the only truth -- This interpretation and surety in position can also be seen in the Psalms. The psalms are constantly talking about God as on a side, a protector of some and therefore enemy of others (non-believers and heathens such as the Babylonians). St. Augustine's idea that what is said (truthfully) is not a creation of truth but merely an observation of it is a very powerful statement. If applied to the psalms we can infer that God is indeed a mighty being capable of great strength and a shelter to the peoples in His flock. However, the logic of St. Augustine's argument appears to have a flaw. (I could be completely wrong about this seeing as I am not one of the brighter bulbs in the box when it comes to logical thinking but bear with me). His argument for the statement of truth is based on the assumption that we know what is truthful; that we know for a fact that Christ did rise. Basing an argument on an assumption provides loopholes that have the potential to eventually dissolve the argument.
I do recognize that as a certain type of Christian, St. Augustine (like others in other religions) thought his bible, and his religion, and his communications with God, and whatever else to be absolute truth, he does not address the issue of how truth is known and therefor stands in a bit of an arrogant spot and one that can be chiseled away at with logic. This is not to say that he is wrong or right, just that at this point his position is not as strong as he makes it appear to be.

To broaden the spectrum; for many religions (or branches of religions) there is this high stance that "my way is the only way and it is the right way." What does this perspective to for a religion?
1.) It gives a sense of security. If one believes that they are in the 'right' religion, then (as reflected in the psalms) on can count on God being on their side, fighting for them, or giving them eternal salvation.
2.) It increases the tight sense of belonging. The lines of the group are well drawn such that it is very clear who is or is not part of the 'right' group.
3.) It gives something to strive for and is very clear in its demands. Those who are unsure of their religion, or are not sure that theirs is the only one or the right one sometimes are more likely (and this is not a criticism at all) to question what they believe and thus be conflicted in their spirituality.

I think that the psalms are definitely a representation of this feeling of 'rightness' and that also in St Augustine's teachings this idea is quite apparent. I look forward to the discussion we can have in class about this book!

Lastly, this in not meant as a criticism of any sort of religion, just a few observations on the reading and how it relates to certain aspects of certain things we have touched on in class.

Cool video just for fun

This is an interesting video also. He is a little slow to get going, but some of the points he brings up are worthy of attention. This is not really related to anything and I will try to get it on the side somewhere, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet so here it is for now! Enjoy!

Clay people, Mark Twain, and Satan

I found this creepy cartoon on youtube when I was searching for odd religious references. It is a claymation short (from a longer claymation film titled the Adventures of Mark Twain) about his last unfinished work "the Mysterious Stranger." A story about a mysterious stranger who appears at the door of a print shop and uses heavenly powers to expose the futility of mankind's existence.

Here is the video


I found the story and the cartoon very interesting. It simultaneously goes after the existence of man and how evil and stupid it is, and the idea of religion. Satan, according to the Christians was indeed an angel before he was cast out of heaven for his feudal ways and his anger towards the human race (Gods preferred beings). It also brings in the scientific thought that we may not exist at all. One that, at the time, was a fairly new and unaccepted concept. Another strength of this cartoon is that it does not put a gender on the 'angel.' Both male and female voices and faces are used and there is no way to discern what type of body the being has; this keeps the stranger shrouded in mystery and goes with the theme that nothing can be known. One interesting part that raised some questions for me was the statement by one of the boys that "you murdered them" when the clay figures were crushed. Why was this considered murder? They were just living dirt creatures, not very realistic, were they really people? (for according to law only people can be murdered). What do you suppose this is supposed to mean? both in the small context of the cartoon and the larger context of whatever it is supposed to represent. If Satan is trying to show the kids the futility of human existence, why do the kids make the humans and why are the 'humans' so small and unrealistic? Perhaps this is another portrayal of how unrealistic our existence actually is. We are mere clay creatures with simple features and we are made by children, playthings that don't really matter because "we can always make more."

This cartoon attacks religion by naming the 'angel' Satan. If Satan is the creater and smitor and whatever else of humans in this dream world, Satan is beginning to look alot like God right? What does this mean for the religious? This is telling them that perhaps instead of God they are following a Satan-like creature?

I have always enjoyed the creepy things like this that raise many questions. Pondering our religious views and indeed our very existence; taking a step back to wonder what do I really believe, is something that has always captivated me.

Fire and Brimstone, the Holy Wrath

"Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,
25 and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground." (Genesis 19; 24-25, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah)
It is currently generally accepted that God in the old testament is portrayed as wrathful, while in the new testament God has become (or is simply shown as) more forgiving and mellow. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example of this difference. Perhaps if Sodom had been sinful in the new testament God would have found a way to forgive them. Psalm 18 also appears to be a fairly typical representation of how God's wrath or temper was according to the old testament "The LORD thundered from on high...He let loose his arrows, and scattered them, lightning bolts shot and he panicked them." (Psalm 18; 14-15). What are the implications of such a mighty vengeful God as the one that is followed? I would argue that according to this psalm; this is certainly a very powerful God. However, there is no mention of wrath. The LORD is not acting out of wrath or anger but merely protecting (albeit in a very violent way) on of His important people (supposedly David). This psalm is not one that shows God's wrath such that one needs to fear God. Rather it is a portrayal of the awesome power that this God is capable of using to aid those who cry out to Him. It is one that can make the believer more comforted the think that a God that is so powerful and helpful is near at hand and listens to calls for help.


The issue of the portrayal of what appears to be another religion also appears in Psalm 18 with the image of God riding down from heaven on a Cherub. According to the notes, Cherubs are the steeds of the sky God in Canaanite mythology. This is particularly odd due to the fact that the Canaanites were heathens according to the Hebrews. They were the non-believers (according to the Hebrews) and worshiped many God's such as the one that rode the Cherub. Why is the God of the Hebrews portrayed in the same way that one of the Canaanites might be? Over the years many religions have absorbed others. To do this they use bits of the other religions to appease the newcomers and make their religions similar enough that the converting one would be more likely to convert. The Christmas celebration has been interpreted to be an example of this. The Christians took a pagan rite of worship to their God's and used it in their worship of Jesus so that the pagans would be more likely to follow Christianity. However it is a big leap to assume that merely because of this small passage in one psalm that this was going on. Perhaps a more likely explanation is that the idea of Cherubs was used by the Canaanites and somehow just trickled into the Hebrew ideas through exposure to Canaanite peoples.

Going back to the 'wrath' of God, there are cases in the old testament where God is the forgiving God that appears later (the story of Jonas for example). In fact, there are also cases in the new testament where God is portrayed as more frightening as in the story of the shepherds and the angel "And lo, the angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone upon them and they were terrified" (Luke 2:9) or in Revelations which is all about judgment, punishment and the end of the world. The views of God change and shift and are all about what is read and what is considered important. In Psalm 18, the destruction that God causes takes only a part of the psalm. The rest is about safety and the cradling shelter God provides. How God is seen is not so easy to discern based solely on old or new testament.

Speculations on Church and State

The United States of America prides itself in it's separation between church and state. The first amendment of the constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (U.S. Constitution). This is a strong statement and one that has been found difficult to follow due to the fact that many key moral issues are often intertwined with religions of various sorts. In his speech regarding his religion as it related to presidency, John F. Kennedy proclaimed that he thought religion should not matter in terms of state.

Here is the clip.



However, it has been more difficult to separate the two than many Americans realize. There are many different ways that religion has leaked into public matters. Consider the pledge of allegiance "one nation under god" or the publicly funded boy scouts of America (a christian organization). Religion also shows up on money, remember the "IN GOD WE TRUST" on coins?
Perhaps the most obvious evidence of the encroachment of religion on American rights and everyday life is that of the Gay marriage issue. Homosexuals are not permitted to become married in most of the states. The prevention of same-sex marriages is largely based on the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. My point is not to take sides regarding this issue but instead to acknowledge that it is a huge example of how America has yet to fully separate it's politics from it's religion(s). As another example, people who are not "of God" are not allowed to take political positions of power in many states including Massachusetts and Texas. While this does not discriminate against any religion in particular it certainly respects the establishment of a religion (even though this is against the constitution) and keeps atheists from being in office.
This difficulty in keeping church from state is due to the fact that many morals are based on some sort of religion. While there are many atheists and they also have morals, they are in the minority in America, therefore these many issues such as gay marriage, are being decided with religious bias.
Will it ever be possible to separate Church and state while the religious are in the majority? The lesser aspects such as the God references in the pledge of allegiance and on coins have more potential to be changeable (since they are not as rooted in morals). However, the more important issues are still governed by what people believe, and, since we as a democracy go by majority rules, is it possible to assume that we will not be able to fully separate Church and state until there are more atheists than religious people in America?

Psalm 2, differences in translation

Wanye Leman on the collective blog Better Bibles, posted an entry titled Which son is in psalm 2? about the controversial "Son (or son)" in the psalm. He points out that ""Son," uppercase "S," presumably...indicate[s] divinity, probably of a future Messianic Son." (Wayne Leman). He is by no means on the side that supports that interpretation, but brings it to the table so that he can discuss it; later concluding that translation should not capitalize based on theological interpretation and should instead allow more leniency.
I mentioned this not only because he provides an interesting and convincing point, but also our version for this class and the translation from early America are different in their choice of how to handle the word. The Book of Psalms chose to abstain from capitalization, whereas the earlier translation did indeed capitalize it. It is certainly a difference to ponder. Perhaps the earlier publication went with their choice because in that day it was the more common understanding that the "Son" did indeed stand for something higher (like a messiah) rather than just a regular son such as a king. Though I am not sure whether this has changed at all in the more present years. Christians (as many who look to books for divine revelations) are constantly searching for connections between the earlier books of the Bible and the newer ones depicting Jesus' life; and, while in today's world there are more new-agey denominations who are open to other interpretations, I think that the need to find connection is still quite prevalent and I think many Bibles still choose to keep the S capitalized. However, a more academic book like the one we are using is all about different ways to interpret. It does not necessarily need to relate the psalms to any other reference in the Bible, and instead brings up many ideas: including the more historical context, the idea of a king, historical views, and others.

On a different note, I noticed that the earlier version rhymes! The first time I read it I did not notice, but I did come away from it thinking it sounded more eloquent and poetic than our version. I thought, and still think this was simply because of the older English, but even so, it is a significant difference. Why did they make the psalm rhyme? It does make it more poetic I think, it seems to flow better than the translation we are using, but is this grounds for changing the psalm? For in order to make it rhyme, some of the translations must be shifted. Perhaps the strongest point for keeping it from rhyming is -- as we learned in class --that the original Hebrew does not rhyme. However, the rhyming idea makes the psalm more poetic and perhaps therefore more appealing to the general reader. The Bible is often a complex and difficult to read book, but by making the psalms rhyme they are perhaps easier to read and understand? And they also resemble Christian religious songs (like hymns) better.

The matter of translation and interpretation is much like that of religion. Many people see one thing (like a psalm) and can take it to mean different things. How they translate it effects how it is perceived. Many people will think that their interpretation is the 'right one.' As for me, I think translation should occur as literally as possible while remaining somewhat grammatically correct so that the psalm can be read. From that close translation, then can meaning be gleaned, whatever that meaning might be.

We are the ones who dwell within.

Many religions, believe in one or many omnipotent beings that are considered 'good. just and merciful.' In this belief there are often many less powerful beings that help this 'good' power: angels, devas, elemental spirits, jinn. But with belief in all these good things, also comes the belief in evil ones. There are demons, devils, tricksters, certain animal spirits to name a few. I have to admit, I have always been fascinated by the supernatural and I enjoy horror movies that invoke such otherworldlyness. One of my favorites is The Exorcism of Emily Rose. This film is based on the real-life events surrounding the declared possession of Anneliese Michel.

Here is the Trailer for the film. (WARNING: This is a trailer for a horror movie rated pg-13, it is somewhat scary, please do not feel like you have to watch it if it makes you uncomfortable.)



The reason that the film was so appealing to me is it is not just a horror movie that suggests demons exist, but instead the courtroom trial and the evidence it provides keep the mind guessing. It also keeps to the story of Anneliese Michel fairly well. It is just as possible that Emily (Anneliese) had a disease than that she was possessed.
This raises the issue my post is trying to address by bringing this film up. In many cultures, possession IS classified as a real phenomenon or 'medical' diagnosis. Exorcisms often return the sufferer to a fairly normal, prepossessed state. Western culture often frowns on this belief in possession, finding 'rational' explanations for the afflicted. There are dozens of maladies that could easily be seen as an effect of the supernatural, what one culture calls mono, another might call soullessness. Is either one of these correct? It is true that mono causes lethargy because of some chemical reactions in the body, but one could also argue that these chemical changes are the result of the soul being missing. It is an intriguing thought to ponder that diseases are perhaps the effects of something supernatural. My point is that what one culture explains as one thing, another culture might see differently; and it is interesting to think about the repercussions of that. Since it appears that exorcism (for one) works just as well as medication, should western medicine be pushed upon those who do not think it is the right answer? I do recommend that everyone who can stand it watches The Exorcism of Emily Rose. It provides some interesting food for thought as to religious beliefs and medicine and how they clash or how they work together.

Symbols of religion among the effigy mound building Native Americans

According to most definitions of religion, including the one we are using for our class, symbols play a key role in identifying a following as a religion. A religious symbol is something usually nonverbal within a particular culture, which comes to stand for something other than exactly what it is. For example, a cross in Christianity stands not only for an actual cross but one on which they believe their savior died for them.

Can the earthen effigies built by early Native Americans of what appear to be animals, men, and mixes of the two be considered symbols of a religion? Though we do not know everything about the effigy mounds and certainly don’t know exactly why they were created, much has been learned through excavation and study of these mounds with regard to what they could mean.

There are two major factors that point towards the religious meaning of the many mounds: the majority of them contain human remains, and they appear to be created in the shapes of beings. Do these two factors make them symbols of a religion? Regarding the remains that are interred, many rituals seem to have been done during the duration of the construction of the mound; red ochre was put in, bones were arranged with shells or with items of importance. Most likely the building of these mounds – since it took a while – was quite an event of some sort. This seems to indicate that the mounds are tombstones of a sort, and, the mounds were created in a shape that was seen as a guardian or a religious symbol – much as today graves are marked with angels or stars of David. This indicates that the animals or men of the mounds shape are indeed symbols for a religion; they are not merely animals but symbols of gods or guardians.

The location of these mounds is also poignant. Each shape appears to be located on the landscape in accordance with their form (water beings closer to water, sky beings higher up etc.) This, and the evidence that they are also positioned with the astronomical in mind, perhaps likens these mounds to churches or places of worship. Churches are often built on hills, to be closer to the divine and above the towns; they also have many aspects that also reflect an awareness of the stars or sun (stained glass windows, windows that at certain times of night show certain constellations). Similarly, the mounds are built such that their effigies are closest to their place of life, signifying that these were not just mounds but an attempt to interpret and gain a connection with the gods. This attempt at connection, along with the different shapes as burial places seems to bring them to the level of religious symbols, and therefore, promotes them as signs of religion in the early Native Americans.

Burial

I must admit that I am not a very historically minded person. However, in reading about early man and the Neanderthals I have found new interest in the subject, I have been converted from my previous history-hating self into a person who cannot wait to learn more. What has done this? In reading about early man and the Neanderthals I found that they buried their dead. While this perhaps seems to be a trivial discovery and not one that would change one's mind about the likability of history, it certainly made a difference for me and I wish to attempt to share the wonder that I gleaned from this knowledge.
The burial of the dead is, cross culturally, a significant event. Various cultures perform the task differently, but still the ritual of burial is recognized: some build huge structures to remind people where someone was buried as the ancient Egyptians did, others, such as the Greeks often practice cremation – burning the body to ashes – to be placed in an urn in a special place in the house. The funeral may be a small grieving affair, a joyous procession with music and dancing, or a shrieking wailing group that pound the earth in grief. At this point we do not really know what was involved in terms of ceremony when the Neanderthals buried their dead, but the presence of red ochre and bone tools or jewelry indicates that there was more to it than just dumping a body into a hole.
Burial is perhaps the strongest evidence towards some sort of religion in these prehistoric peoples. That the dead were covered and laid to rest with items or paint-like substances suggests that there was a respect for the dead and perhaps, belief that their souls continued on in an afterlife. To think that so early on, creatures of the earth were contemplating other worlds and spirits or the dead is a wonderful thought; that so early in their development people were expressing wonder and doubt of the absoluteness of their own world makes one think more of them. Instead of seeing early mankind as lower beings or primitive, instead one can see that they were capable of ‘higher’ thought, they perhaps wondered about death and what it meant for the individual. These musings could have lead to belief in some higher being or powers that, while they did not look to the stars to find, they instead sought them out in the heart of the earth.

This does bring to light one question that I have: As far as burial goes, if someone does not believe n life after death or a higher power of any kind, why would they bury their dead with a headstone or anything to mark their body? Can Burial be separated from religion? Or are they mutually related?