Final Blogs.

The neighborhoods of cities in the 19th century show how race/ethnicity and economic status are divisive forces in how people live.  The income maps that were given show how although there are subtle differences in income within some neighborhoods, there they are pretty much at the same income level, with no real high income people nor poverty-stricken people near them.  And when compared to the race/ethnicity maps, the neighborhoods line up quite well, with the income and racial divisions almost being at the same place.  

Because of the massive amounts of people that were moving to urban areas in the 19th century, especially immigrants moving into low income housing, there was low amounts of public space to go out and meet other ethnicities.  This is why many ethnicities then kept to themselves, and true mixing only occured where it just happened to occur, like where one group has to walk past another to get to their own neighborhood.

The Addams' Motivations

Wow, long break between posts.  So much for turning over a new leaf...

The religious/spiritual nature of the work that Addams did is one of the more common themes in Christianity of "helping your neighbor".  Addams came from a time when Christianity was prevelant, and I believe that it was said that she was a Quaker.  I believe that she took much of that to heart when she decided on opening up her houses.  And I think that combining her devotion and the almost literal translation from one of the core tenets of Christianity, it is hard to make the case that she wouldn't be religiously motivated.  

The Closing of Week 8

So ends Eighth Week.  And what better way to start Ninth week than with a day off tomorrow?

We are also ending our study of the Rastas.  I'm not going to lie, I really enjoyed reading about them.  Rastafarianism is such a new religion, that we can really see how it evolved, without the centuries of theology and politicking that shaped much of the Western religions.  We can see where they came from, what started it all, and how things have evolved (like from a "back to Africa" to a "free from mental slavery").  We can see how, like all symbols with religious origins, reggae got co-opted by secular institutions.  And, on a more personal level, I actually learned about the the beliefs of the Rastafari, which was a lot more interesting than I originally thought, with my superficial knowledge of what Rastafari was.

Rastas! Rastas! Rastas!

Man, I should really try and get these up earlier.  Sorry.

I'm quite happy with what I saw in the video.  It shows much of what we learned about Rastas in class.  From the dreads under their red (big color!) turbans, to houses painted in the colors of Ethiopia.  Even the how there is only a small amount of houses around goes back to what was said in the book about how they live in small communities.  And overall, they are all in an isolated spot, showing how they want to separate themselves.  And it is very easy to see how spiritual they are, from all of the Bibles, and how they seem to be constantly worshipping.  This is very much what I was expecting to see after our study of the Rastas.

Alright, now, on to the free blog!

We are Rastafari!

So begins the live CD of Bob Marley that I currently am enjoying.  We were talking late during the Friday class of how reggae music, even as a secular music for, still has  very close ties to the ideas of the Rastafari.  I think that it is such a nice change of pace, because of the way that I am used to hearing religious music co-opting as many genres as possible, like how we discussed christian music.  And when I went to church, I realized that many of the hymns were other songs, with just the lyrics changed.  So not only does Christian music take (or borrow from, whichever term you would like) the genre, but they sometimes even straight up take the songs of other genres.  So it's refreshing to know that they have their own sound, and that no matter who else borrows it, it will still always have a hint of Rastafarianism in it, no matter how drastically you change the lyrics.

Alright, I'm gonna go and enjoy the music some more, safe in the knowledge that its message is permanent.

Is Seven Lucky? Probably for Blogs.

Hey there, friends.  How has your weekend been so far?   Don't worry, it'll get better.  I mean, you're about to read my blog, how can it not?

The Kebra Negast paints a picture of an Ethiopia that is prosperous and great nation.  That it's empire was extended past where its borders had ever been pushed.  This contrasts greatly to how Ethiopia is nowadays.  In the PowerPoint, we saw a barren and rough terrain, and that Ethiopia has lost much of the power that it had once held.  And while it still has some respect, because of the rumor of the Ark of the Covenant is held there.  But while this is important, it does not do much to curb the third-world nature of the country.  The story, while to be taken with a grain of salt, of the Queen's ability to get Solomon to give her a son to rule Ethiopia, is able to hold Ethiopians together, and keep them going on.  

So that is that.  Peace out, hombres.  

Systems of Symbols

Good morning.  How has everyone's weekend been?  Good.  On to my blog:

159983649_3d9e25d3d4.jpg

While there are lots of pictures within Christianity that can be considered to show a "system of symbols", I think that none does it better than that of the Rosary.  It is a symbol on both the physical and mental level.  The first distinguishing feature on the Rosary is the crucifix on the bottom.  Not only is it an symbol of Christianity (Catholicism in particular), it also is a reminder of the Catholic belief in Christ's suffering for the rest of humanity.  And then within the context of the Rosary, it means the "Act of Contrition" prayer.  The next most interesting part of it is the centerpiece, which can have a variety of engravings on it, all of which are symbols for different things.  Usually it has a Virgin Mary or a saint on it, to remind the owner of the qualities reflected in Mary or the saint.  Also, it means the "Apostles Creed" prayer in the Rosary.  Finally, each bead means a prayer within the Rosary, making the entire Rosary itself as a symbol of a pious person.

As an interesting post-script, I beat Ocarina of Time earlier this weekend.  Why is it that playing a game that's 10 years old is still more satisfying that playing most of the new ones?

Christianity, and Theology, and Philosophy, oh my!

Okay, here's the second post.  You can have it.  I didn't even want it anymore.  So there.

Reading On Christian Teaching has gotten me a lot more interested in the idea of theology over a core idea.  It's interesting how all religions have gained a theology, when there really is no need for it.  And what Augustine creates is a theology, for, as far as I know, a theology is a Religion (Christianity) plus a Philosophy (Platonism).  In the immortal words of John Dreher, "Augustine baptized Plato".  

I think it's safe to assume that Plato didn't take his ideas from Egypt, but that Augustine had probably read The Republic in the time after his conversation (or before it, but he didn't seem like that kind of guy).  And it's really not too hard to see how well Platonism and Christianity work together.  But my question is this:  Why does a religion need a theology like this?  Why does religion need to have a say in every aspect of life, as opposed to just the personal, spiritual part that it used to.  Don't get me wrong, and think I'm anti-religion.  I'm not.  What I'm against is the need for a theology.  It is the specific doctrines that a theology makes that breeds all of the hatred and fighting.  No where in the Koran does it say to hate Israel, no where in the Bible does it say to persecute non-believers, because neither of those are the important ideas of those books.  But when you create a theology, and use it to define your entire life, those unimportant ideas can be brought to the forefront.  And that's never really any fun.

That's all.  See you all on Wednesday.

Miller on St. Augustine On Christian Teaching

We'll just dive right in won't we?  I'd love to stay and chat, but I'm at the Water Temple in Ocarina of Time, and you know how that is right?  Ganondorf can eat it.

On page 55 and 56 of On Christian Teaching, St. Augustine talks about the importance of a knowledge of history, and that it is needed to fully understand the Bible.  He brings up the two examples of Christ's age, and the accusation by the Platonic scholars.  He says that their ignorance to history had people thinking that Christ was 46 years old, and that he had taken his ideas from Plato.  He says that anyone who thinks this does not have the correct context, and stresses the importance of knowing what they would be talking about back then.

This point is extremely important when it comes to the Psalms.  So important, in fact, that we made sure to use it when we studied the Psalms.  We made sure that we knew what was going on when the Psalms were written, so as to know why specific Psalms were being written.  And while now we can pretty much just choose an interpretation and fit it to a Psalm, when they were written there was something in mind that they were commenting on.  And while our interpretations now may be a lot more eloquent and nice, without knowing the original meaning, you lose a core idea within the psalm.

Now, if you would excuse me, I have some Sages to awaken.

This week's free blog.

Good morning!  I'm just gonna dive right into the post today, so yeah.

One thing that I am seeing in class is the lack of some people to realize that back during David's time, there was no freedom of religion.  There was no, as Professor Smith put it, "smorgasbord" to pick and choose from.  And doubly so for the Israelites.  And I think it's hard to talk about religion back then, with people really knowing that what religion you were made ALL the difference.

The idea is that a common belief gives the group strength.  And let's be honest, after the Israelites trounced the Canaanites, they've been pretty much shafted as a group.  It is through their common faith that the Israelites have been able to hold themselves together, and stay alive.  And with that in mind, you can't have any kind of non-believers.  All that would do is create weak points within the group, and the society would collapse, either from external means or on its own.  So joining into the ranks of the Jews was not a choice, it might not have been exactly right, and sure there may have been some doubters.  But with such a strong religious link to their culture, there was no room for it.

Alright, I'm done.

First blog for week four/ About ethics in the Psalms/ Ten Commandments, right?

Yes, the title is in haiku.  So what?  I still think it's an effective title.

It's hard to place exactly what the ethic is.  I'd like to think it was the Ten Commandments, but I never saw certain commandments within the psalms.  So clearly, the psalms are emphasizing certain commandments over others.  I do think that this question is an especially tough one, because I remember last week in class, we talked about the ethics, and how they aren't in the psalms themselves  The psalms make references to a code of ethics, but never explicitly state them.  But you don't have to explicitly state things to get your point across.

The first commandment is "you will have no other God before me".  And you can clearly see that in the fact that there is a book of psalms, praising God.  And the fact that most of the psalms were written with the intention of being first-person plural, a "we", makes it clear that the Israelites were a group with not only a strong connection as a group, but strong connections to God as a group.  And in Psalm 14, it's written "The scoundrel has said in his heart,/ 'There is no God.'  They corrupt, they make loathsome their acts./  There is none who does good."  Clearly, non-believers were held in high esteem, to say there least.

Both Psalms 5 and 12 make references to the the wickedness of liars, a relation to the 9th commandment of "do not bear false witness".  In Psalm 5, it is written that "You destroy the pronouncer of lies,/ a man of blood and deceit the Lord loathes" (7) and in Psalm 12, he writes "Falsehood every man speaks to his fellow/ smooth talk, with two hearts they speak.  The Lord will cut off all smooth-talking lips,/ the tongue that speaks of big things" (3-4).  Obviously, any form of lying, whether a full "false witness" in court, to "smooth-talking", is not taken lightly, and it appears that lying is one of the worse offenses.

But probably the best example of a code of ethics in the psalms is Psalm 15, which literally opens with the question of "who will dwell on Your holy mountain?"; who is righteous in the eyes of God?  And then the Psalm goes on to explain who is.  He who "does justice/ and speaks the truth" (2), doesn't do evil against other men, and honors his family (Fourth Commandment?!), and doesn't extort money from others.  The Psalm ends with the line "He who does these/ will never stumble" (5).  If that's not an ending for a code of how to live, I don't know what is.

This is definitely a livable ethic.  It's been lived by for thousands of years, by good Christians and Jews alike.  It's quite clear, between the 4-syllable sentences of the Ten Commandments, to the upfront-ness of Psalm 15.  I do wish that they had mentioned the Sixth Commandment, but that might have conflicted too much with all of the violence in the other psalms.  But for the most part, the Psalms are straight-up Judaic (and later, Judeo-Christian) ethics.

Man, I'm just not up for my usual conclusions this early in the morning, sans cigarette.  Peace.

"Psalm" New Post This Is

Again with the pun-titles.  And I can't even feign apologies.  Puns are, in fact, too good.  Also, a happy April 20th to all of you.  I think that is as much as I need.  So, POST:

During our time reading the psalms, I can't help but think of why we aren't reading the usual translation.  I do understand the ideas behind it, like the having a clearer understanding of how it would have sounded, and to get away from loaded words, but THOSE translations are the ones used to build Christianity in Europe.  I feel like by not studying the original translations, we are somehow cheapening them, by saying how these others are how the psalms "should have sounded".  I think that maybe we should have to try looking past those loaded words, and get a sense of the normal translations, if only for the weight that they carry historically, in their original (translated) form.

At the least, I feel like we should have taken more psalms than one, and looked at them side-by-side.  Because again, while the psalms do keep the same meanings between translators, they end up different in most other regards.  So it's all well and good now, in class, but when actually hearing the psalms, they sound so different, that its like their not even the same base psalm.  Without the frame of reference that is the "normal" translation, it is easy to get lost.

On a complete and utter digression, I got a whole big box of new contacts, and I feel like a king.  Yes, those statements are codependent.

fin.

"Psalm"ing It Up

I apologize for that horrible pun in the title.  Well, I do half-heartedly, anyway.  This is the first post in a while, isn't it?  Man, already slacking.  Time to pick it up, so on to the meat of the post.

One of the major differences I notice between the Bay Psalm Book translation and ours was the absence of the use of the "statement and reply" style of Poetry.  It's like instead of translating each line individually, they translated the entire double line, and then put that into English, giving us a very eloquent, but very different psalm.

While the meat of the lines didn't change much, and at the time, their translation didn't change much about the psalms, but by them translating them like this, and what happened in the 1600's to religion, we ended up with the loaded words that we have today.  It wasn't the translation itself that changed it from the original, it was what happened to the actual faithful that ended up loading the words.

And so without much more fanfare, this post ends.

I raise my glass for him.

First and foremost, as I type this I received an e-mail informing me of the passing of Dave Golub.  My sympathys go to all his friends and family.  My prayers are with you.

(moment of silence)

I think that the differences between the Indian mounds and the Lascaux cave shows an important distinction we have to make:  art is not always religious.  While much of the old art is religious in nature, there is a fine line we have to walk.  While the art in Lascaux cave is very much commemorating something, it is not overtly religious, whereas the Indian mounds are obviously symbolic for something of larger importance.  Collin said it well when he said "These could be drawings/paintings of an example like Mickey Mouse: they could be just pictures, no real significance.".  There are many symbols that are important, but not religious.  The Lascaux caves would have to fall in to that category.

I'm not even sure how the argument that the Lascaux caves are religious can even be made.  Using the definition of religion that we came up with in class, it doesn't really meet any of the criteria.  One of the biggest things we came up with was that religion was a social thing, and Lascaux doesn't have that.  The only psuedo-religious picture in the caves was in a room that was scarcely used.  Also, there is no set of symbols.  There is one picture.  No repeated patterns, no nothing.  Finally, and most tellingly, there is no evidence of a system of belief that gave them a view of the world.  And even if they did have the other two things, if the third part is not in there, then it is not a religion.  Lascaux can't really account for any of the major things needed to be a religion.

And so we conclude the fourth posting.  It's not so difficult to write, once you really know what you're writing.  On a side note, I'm quite curious as to how many people read this.  But, eh, I doesn't really matter.

Have a pleasant end to your weekend.

Onward, to a glorious Third Post

Welcome back.  I hope your weekend was as restful as mine.  If it wasn't, well that's quite a shame, as I feel quite refreshed.  But enough idle small talk, I know you all just want to hear my opinion on those effigy mounds, and I won't delay you any longer.

The effigy mounds are some of the most peculiar, and coolest, things in the United States.  From the earliest time Europeans arrived, the mounds had already been built, and the builders dead, but the questions surrounding them lives on, like, who built them? what was their purpose?  etc....  I, personally, really do like these mounds, and I think that these mounds distinguish themselves from the Lascaux caves quite easily.  Whereas the Lascaux cave paintings were in a dark, dingy, isolated room, and the paintings themselves quite ambiguous, the effigy mounds are built around the best hunting spots.   While many people believe that the effigy mounds have multiple uses, for burials, dances, and multitudes of other ceremonies, no one really knows what exactly went on in that room in Lascaux, and so were left clingly eagerly to the belief that there is religion in the paintings when clearly, we just have no idea as to what's going on in Lacaux.

I do think that the effigy mounds differ greatly from our usage of animals as sports teams names (though I was always the Melonheads in Backyard Baseball).  When we name a sports team something, we are naming it because either A) the animal has strong competitive qualities, like the Chicago Bears or Philadelphia Eagles, or B) because the animal is indigenous to the area, i.e. the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.  But the effigy mounds don't fit into that.  The effigy mounds are used to celebrate the earth, with the animals not actually meaning animals, but different parts of the earth:  birds mean air, land creatures mean earth, and wavy lines and such mean water.  The effigy mounds aren't even clear animals, so we couldn't tell whether they were building it for any specific kind of animal, or if the person who died has qualities of the animal.

Yet, there are religious connotations that you just can't deny.  Sure, we don't know for sure what the true meaning behind the effigies are, but between their symbolism, and the fact that many people gathered at these mounds, they fit within our definition of a religion as a cultural phenomenon.  And I think that we can assume a certain amount of spirituality in the people who made the mounds, because of no only what they symbolize, but because of the ceremonies, like burials, that went on at the mounds.

That about wraps up my third post; a glorious mix of mounds, caves, religion, and opinion.  I ask you, can it get any better?!

The Second Post (NOW WITH BEARS!)

It's interesting that when we were talking about the definition of a religion, even though we all agreed that devotion is an important component, it wasn't what made a religion a religion.  I think that that says something about what has become of the faiths of the world.  That actual belief isn't the defining characteristic.  What has become the defining characteristic are the symbols of a religion, whether or not you believe in it.  Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I do not know.

On an almost entirely unrelated note, I found almost nothing worthwhile in "GrizzlyMan".  I understood the point of asking "were we ever 'one' with animals?", but I don't think that watching half an hour of a half-crazed man flip out over bears with a heavily accented narrator was the way to go.  The most worthwhile part of the movie (especially for what we were talking about), came when the Alaskan man talked about how there has always been a boundary between the bears and man.  But I guess that's just how it is, you gotta wade through the junk to find the good stuff, eh?

And so this concludes the second post (and first week), of the blog.  Anyone actually read this?

The Geertz Definition

A toast to the new blog.  To enough updates for a passing grade!

(clink)

As for Geertz's definition, a paraphrase is:

Religion is a collection of items and traditions that can evoke a particular mood and behavior in people.  These items and traditions do this by creating answers to the unexplainable, and that while there can be many different sets of items and traditions, each can believe that their answers are the correct ones.

I like and I dislike Geertz's definition.  I dislike the trivialization of religion that he appears to do, but at the same time, it's accurate to the point where any religion can fit under it.   As much as I hate to admit it though, I have to agree with his putting of "symbols" before actual belief, because I think that now its the aura of being religious that is important, not any actual devotion to a faith.  Because of that, it would be more important to have the symbols of faith (a Crucifix, a Star of David, etc...) than to actually follow it.  And I know, I know, that YOU are quite devout.  This is for all of those other heathens.

And that's it for the first post.