Feedback on Ellen's Response

This post is intended to clarify my original post, as well as respond to Ellen's post on the possible split in the Catholic church.

My statement that added interpretation and doctrine "slowly chips off sections of the conservative base." Was not meant to imply that the base of every religion is 'conservative' or that the sections that leave are conservative. I simply was stating that, in the case of the Catholic Church, the Vatican's move towards a more liberal stance on several key doctrines (along with a sizable portion of the individual parishes), will lead to splinters off of the base of the conservative Catholic movement.

Each religious split is different, but they primarily have similar causes. Sometimes a liberal move by a group is unable to carry along the base of the religion and therefore, the liberal wing separates from the conservative (and the opposite is also positive).

Ethiopia

I would like to start this post by saying how much I have enjoyed reading the Kebra Negast. It really is a good example of how religion can be used to form a protective shell around a community. I see a great deal of resemblance between the people of Ethiopia and the people of Israel, both examples clearly show how well this shell can protect their community from annihilation.

In the modern world, the Ethiopians and Israelis are in fairly similar geographic situations--surrounded by Muslim countries. This creates tremendous pressure on these groups of people, but somehow they are able to maintain a strong enough union to survive as independent religious groups in a sea of Islam.

When viewing their histories, several more parallels can be drawn between these two people groups. The Ethiopians, while a Christian nation, were isolated from the rest of Christendom, and therefore had to (1) fend for themselves and (2) create doctrine and interpretation of Scripture on an independent track than the rest of Christianity. Similarly, when the Jews were scattered throughout the world following the Roman attack, each small Jewish community was left with the same responsibilities as the Ethiopians. While they were not isolated in the form of doctrine to a great extent, many choose to revert to a more conservative interpretation of Jewish belief to counteract the great distance between the groups.

It is interesting to see the similarities between how the Kebra Negast paints the picture of God's favor being moved with not only the Arc, but also the lineage of divine kings (Adam, Seth, etc.) to Ethiopia, and the commands given to the people of Israel when God's favor was given to them. The perks that come with the favor of God are similar to those given to Abraham, and to his descendants during the exodus from Egypt. The Solomonic Ethiopia was given a sizable territory, from the Nile to India (53). In addition came the command that the new King David must himself follow God, and so must his people--or curses will rain down upon them from heaven--much like the command of the people of Israel (54-55).

The similar histories and similar mandate from God, as well as their ability to maintain cultural independence clearly shows that religion can be a tool for the protection of a community, even when great stress is placed on that community. This example can be related back to one of our first readings, "Why Do We Believe," to show how beneficial a common religious belief can fuse a community together with almost unbreakable bonds.

Response to Myself

Having reexamined my earlier post entitled "Understanding the Bible," I have concluded that it isn't entirely clear what I was getting at. Besides the fact that I (and I presume most people) will see Jesus as a central figure in the Bible, my point that love and lust are the lens with which the Bible is intended to be interpreted goes beyond the fact that he held this position.

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, and, despite his lack of leading presence in the Old Testament it was included in the Holy Bible as a reference tool. This tool has proven useful for understanding the development of the religion, and is referenced in the New Testament in both metaphorical and literal instances. In other words, besides the historical context which is provided through the literal passages of the Old Testament, it paints pictures which help us to better understand the New Testament teachings of Christ and his Apostles.

I understand where some (maybe even a lot of Christians) like to look at the two Testaments as equally influential in mainstream Christian doctrine, but they are not. The Old Testament has a very important purpose of not only providing Christians with an ever present reminder of the importance of examining the history of their faith, but, when viewed through the Lens of Christ, can give us greater understanding of how to apply the lessons of Jesus.

Response to a Response

This post will be responding to a post by J.B. as well as similar comments made in class today. J.B. seems to connect the fact that lots of young Christians violate the rule against premarital sex as proof that few actually believe in what the Bible says is right and wrong. I would disagree based on one simple point.

Taking an action in contradiction to a religious command does not necessarily mean that a person does not believe that that command is just or "right." I assume that there is a general conscientious among the people of our class that lying, coveting, stealing, and a whole host of other things that individuals do every day are not "good" things to be doing. One of the fundamental points in the Bible is that everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23a), but this fact does not mean that everyone does not believe in what the Bible says about sin (that it is generally not a good thing).

As I have mentioned several times in class, it is important to make sure that we do not confuse similar concepts when discussing something as complex as modern religious thought. Literalism is not the only form of belief in the Scripture as absolute Truth, as well as Belief can not always be demonstrated by short-term actions.

Sam Harris

I know this is going to be a wildly unpopular post, and that I may never hear an end to criticism for what I am about to write, I will do so anyway.

I would like to first state that I have no problem with Muslims (and really people of any religious persuasion). I simply plan on highlighting some of the most interesting points that Mr. Harris makes in this reading.

I believe that Mr. Harris' overall conclusions show an overall ignorance and contempt for modern religious thought, but in his argument there are several interesting and definitely discussion worthy points.

1) I believe that Harris has hit the nail on the head when he points to the difference between Islam and the other "People of the Book"--the inflammatory tradition that accompanies the Qur'an (the Hadith). I would be hard pressed to find similar commands in any modern written tradition of either Christianity or Judaism. While the Christians definitely had violent tendencies during the period of the Crusades, such egregious flaws in judgement and perversions of the Bible for individual gain have since dissipated into relative non-existence (yes there are still ministers on TV selling holy water and green handkerchiefs, but I think we can all agree these individuals do not compare to the widespread violence and selfishness which permitted what Harris calls "theocratic Christendom". This misconception of the "true" nature of Islam is purely the result of a seemingly widespread tradition that encourages a violent interpretation of the Qur'an.

2) A second point, which fits nicely with the first, can be derived when reading some of Harris' examples. I believe that the following quote from the Qur'an demonstrates that the official text of the religion is not the violent, "kill everyone" reality that Harris is trying to portray.
Avoid the pagans. Had God please, they would not have worshipped idols...they would still not believe, unless god willed otherwise...Therefore leave them to their own inventions...
(6:107-112)
This is reminiscent of Christianity according to John Calvin (an influential, yet relatively unknown, leader in the Protestant reformation), where the doctrine of predestination was the chosen interpretation of the Bible. This idea that God has selected Muslims to be Muslims and that they take a somewhat "hands off approach" to the infidels doesn't jive with the examples that Harris has provided, but it defiantly lends itself to the possibility that this is the predominate message in the Qur'an (which I am lead to believe not only from my contact with Muslim people, but also with my limited reading of the Qur'an). The real danger, as discussed in my first point, is in the tradition that follows the text (the lens through which it is interpreted).

When Christianity got to the point where 100% of the interpretation rested upon one organization (the Roman Catholic Church--this is not meant to be anti-Catholic in any way), a lot of injustices and lies crept into the prevailing doctrine. That is why one of the main tenants of the Protestant Reformation was to give the people a Bible in their own language so that they could balance the Church interpretation.

So to summarize this rather lengthy rant... Sam Harris is a strange character who's conclusions show ignorance, but an examination of his argument demonstrates the importance of interpretation. The lens through which all religions view their Scriptures through can severely alter the lives and actions of those who regard themselves as pious.

The Ever Dividing catholic Church of Christ

I used the under case catholic in the title to emphasize that I am not, in fact, going to be limiting my post to the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the catholic Church in the sense that there is a Universal Christian Church.

Our discussion in class about the ever expanding interpretive rings that are added to a religion as it develops brought to light a very interesting example of what has/is happening in the World-wide Christian Church today.

There are a plethora of examples, but I will just share a few to further illustrate my point.

The Anglican/Episcopal Church is having problems with the adjustment made in America on the issue of homosexuality. Following the first ordination of an openly gay minister in the United States, tensions have been building to the point of almost certain split between the Anglican Church in North America and the World wide Anglican Church. (site) This potential split is a result of exactly the same problem of piling to much onto the truck, except instead of the splinter group getting a new truck to start over, they may be kicked out of the truck with all of their "new" beliefs.

Another, slightly more historic, church split worth looking at is the "Great Schism" which divided the Western Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church. While there were power politics involved in this split, the primary theological rational was the Catholic's addition of what is known as the filioque clause (which added "and the Son" following the statement that the Holy Spirit... proceeds from the father and the Son.). This is another example of how the addition of more commentary slowly chips off sections of the conservative base of a religion (eventually leading to splits).


These two examples, and our discussion in class lead me to one conclusions. That the Vatican's persistence on bringing together all of the World's religions through compromising actions and beliefs will result in another major split in Catholicism.

Understanding the Bible

After reading St. Augustine, I tend to agree with his analysis that the Bible boils down to love and lust. Love is the greatest gift of creation according to the Bible and the teachings of Christ clearly center around what is in the mind (or what motives are present) when committing a sin, not just the action taking place. Mathew 5:28 seems to support this 'sin is in the mindset' approach to understanding the Bible:

"Bu I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
NKJV

I also think that his decision to choose love and lust are neither arbitrary nor controversial. Any true student of Jesus' teachings would easily see that his central message was love. At least four times in the Gospel of John alone does Jesus command his disciples to love one another. Even without this seemingly important trend, Mark 12:30-31 lays it out:

"'An you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
NKJV

I think that these ideas expressed by St. Augustine are not as contrary to mainstream Christianity as most would think. While he may be more direct, or even more conscious, of this filtering of information through the lens of Christ's primary message, most denominations that I have come in contact with (which there have been plenty), seem to take a similar approach in determining their doctrine.

Response to Alex

I was just reading over some posts and came across a string of posts by Alex (1,2,3). These posts bring up some specific questions which I think I can help clear up, and also make some points that I would like to (in a respectful fashion) rebut.


1)The book of Lamentations was written by the prophet Jeremiah (or the "weeping prophet"). It tells the story of how the people if Israel turned away from the teachings of God (as they do throughout the Old Testament), and how God turned his back on them--allowing judgement in the form of Babylonian invasion and imprisonment. It contrasts the great city that was Jerusalem and the potential that it had while the people followed God, but as they turned away it has become subject to foreign powers. In the minds of many Christian churches today, Lamentations is meant to express the heart of God as he is forced (in his perfect justice) to allow judgement to come upon them.

2) I don't know if I fully understand this next post on the ascetic lifestyle of Origen, but I will give it my best shot. It is clear throughout the Bible (especially in the New Testament) that a Christian is not called to a materialistic lifestyle. One evidence of this can be found in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6 verses 19-21 -
"19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." KJV

3) Christianity revolves around a singular Godhead made up of three distinct personalities (the Father, Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit). Each of these "characters" as one might say plays a different role- for instance the Holy Spirit is often referred to as the 'comforter' and works in the hearts and lives of mankind.

I would just like to say that I understand your confusion coming from a non-christian background, but when you express your inability to understand the history and theology behind Christianity as inherent flaws in the religion itself, it is offensive. I apologize if this post has been to pointed, but my real intent is just to answer the questions posed (even if they were rhetorical) and to let you know what I was thinking while I read your posts.

Grizzly Man

While watching the clip of Grizzly Man in class I became fascinated with the story of Tim Treadwell. So interested in fact, that I went out and rented the movie so I could see the entire thing. My comments in this post will not be isolated to the 30 minutes that we saw in class, so I apologize to all of you in the dark-- you should go rent it.

One of the most interesting observations that was made in the movie, in class, and on the blogs is the fact that this was "his religion." Wanting to be a bear has been seen as carrying a spiritual value, which, in my estimation, is seriously lacking some of the fundamental building blocks of what a religion is.

Timothy had a true love for the bears, and this love was created in his ability to overcome his own demons by using his perceptions on the lives of the bears as his inspiration (no matter how accurate his perceptions may have been). I respect his dedication to a cause that he believed in, but this love is no more spiritual than an individual truly dedicated to any other cause or group (whether animal or human --- yes, I put that distinction in there).

Tim's actions seem to indicate that he wanted to, as he himself wrote, "mutate" into a wild animal. This transformation, however was out of necessity to survive the conditions, not out of some delusional desire to be a bear.

One of the more entertaining scenes in the film shows Tim's true human nature (as we learned about in one of our earliest readings), where he, out of desperation, "prays" to God, 'Jesus-boy', Allah, and the "Hindu floaty thing" for rain to come. This reversion to the human nature to believe in something beyond their control, despite his admittance that he understands the scientific nature of weather, is similar to the author of the New York Times Magazine article describing how, whether believer or atheist, we all have these tendencies. What is more interesting is that, when the rain does come, Tim shouts and rejoices how it is a miracle (and attributes this rain to one of the many deities he has just prayed to). As evidence he points to the fact that his radio has announced that it is only raining in his location, not anywhere else nearby.

I do not see Timothy's story as religious in nature. He did have a profound love for the animals, but this love does not justify a religion. He, very interestingly, used the expression of this love to make him feel more comfortable with his place in several mainstream religions- at one point discussing how he believes, if there is a God, that he would be very pleased with him because he is working hard for someone (actually something) else that he sees as in need of his protection.

RLST 100 The Easy Way

Hey Guys,

I know this post has no relevance to the reading (or lack there of ) for Monday's class, but I made an interesting find. Catrina had asked earlier in the term if there was an easier way to find out if there were new posts on the various blogs--well there is! It is Google Reader (https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLogin?nui=1&service=reader). Just log in with the same name/address that you log into your blog with and then "subscribe" to all the blogs in our class. It acts as an "inbox" for all the updates on whatever sites you subscribe to...

-Oliver

Wisconsin

While reading the "Indian Mound" assignment for our next class I saw several connections to an observation that were made in Monday's class about the possibility of paleolithic religion being similar to that of Native American nature-based spirituality. While I am not entirely convinced that there is evidence for religion in the drawings on the the walls of the French caves, I can imagine a situation where these drawings show us the very beginning of the evolutionary path that nature-based religion took (and continued to developed largely in a vacuum from the great monotheisms in the "old world") in the Western Hemisphere.

Looking at the images from the caves that many have seen as evidence for a shaman like personality in Paleolithic society, (if this understanding is indeed correct) a similarity can be drawn to those drawings of the mound builders. The expression of a human in either bird form or a bird costume seems to be a theme that ties these two human groups together (albeit through centuries of history and development). Not only has the art become more elaborate, but also the form of the bird is now not solely isolated to the head of the individual, but has encompassed his entire body.

What might have influenced this more visible expression of "religion" in the Native Americans as opposed to the paleolithic people? Besides the parallel development that the ancestors of the Native Americans shares with the ancestors of those who eventually developed the three great monotheisms that have come to dominate modern society, the Native American people (especially in the Midwestern, Great Lakes region) had a much greater connection to the "unknown" in regards to what lies beneath the water.

Not only is Minnesota the land of 10,000 lakes, Wisconsin has approximately 15,000 lakes of its own (this all besides the fact that the Great Lakes are right next door). This may have contributed to the fact that many of the "spirits" or supernatural creatures that were created by these early Native Americans were centered around these overwhelming abundant bodies of water.This picture in particular reminded me of the stories of Nessie (the Loch Ness Monster). Attempts to explain strange objects sticking out of the water can lead to many fantastical stories (even in modern society), which is probably the same reason for the rise of water spirits and monsters in the religion of the mound builders.

While I am not arguing that these links are rock solid, they do provide a continuation of the story that so many "experts" have taken from the Paleolithic cave paintings (despite the fact that our class, as evidenced by our discussion, disputes their conclusions).

Group Identity

While reading over a few of the other blogs I was reminded of an interesting discussion that has taken place in class, on the blogs, and also was mentioned in the reading. It is the idea that this lack of symbolic art in the paleolithic cave paintings does not necessarily indicate a lack of religion.

Religious symbols serve two main purpose in modern society. Those purposes are 1) to identify and separate individual members of that religion from the rest of the world and 2) to provide an object of reflection for the follower.

The latter of the two could, possibly, be explained by the fact that this religion could very well have been based on objects found in nature (providing a greater explanation for the empirical art found in the caves).

The first reason requires a bit more in the way of explanation. These early human beings lived in small bands of roughly 30-40 individuals, and these groups were spread out throughout Africa and Europe. These groups had very limited interaction with one another and, as a result, tended to be very homogeneous in nature.

If we consider the groups relative similarity and isolation along with the first purpose of religious symbols, a very simple conclusion can be reached. If there was a common religion among all members of this band, symbols would lack a practical use as an identification marker. This lack of utility would likely provide more than enough reason for the paleolithic people, who probably spent most of their time working on providing their basic needs, not to expend the energy in their creation.

I know there is no way to know the religious nature of these ancient people, but I am merely arguing that the lack of evidence in this area is not conclusive and could have an alternative explanation that is reasonable other than the assertion that they lacked any form of religious belief.

Fireworks of Religion

During our discussion in class today about the origin of religion I had an interesting thought.

While Professor Smith was being hounded by those who argued that it is ridiculous to take the fragments of a society that existed long ago and try to build a picture of what that society may have had in the way of religious thought and expression, I was reflecting on their statements. In this reflection I analyzed the diagram Professor Smith had drawn on the board of what I would term the axis of religions.

The center of this axis is the fundamental concepts of religion as a whole, and the spokes all lead out to the specific "windows" (religions) that are present in modern human societies. Our exploration of the paleolithic people is in hopes of finding some idea of what this center is composed of, without the interference of the plethora of culturally produced religious variations present in the modern world.

Besides the physical similarity to the image of a firework, this metaphor can be taken one step further. Religion is similar to a firework in that it starts as one ball which contains all of the essentials to forming the rays of burning, colored debris (this stage is in the early stages of human development). Once this ball is launched into the air and explodes we get a great variation of colors and directions that this debris has chosen to take (modern times). An examination of the debris once it has dispersed so greatly will most likely not be effective in distinguishing what had originally made up the ball of fundamentals.

However, if you were able to find a section of the original ball (that had likely been blown into many fragments), you would be able to examine more closely, and infer more accurately as to the original composition of the ball. I am not necessarily saying that we can understand the entire culture of the paleolithic people from the fragment of evidence we have in their cave paintings, but this is probably the best method in our search for the contents of the fundamental firework of religion.