hmmmm

Isn't it interesting how God is shown in many different lights throughout the Bible (especially the new testament)? God is described as an omnipotent being who knows all and sees all while simultaneously being accessible to the individual. Furthermore, the God of the old testament is often represented as a force that aids in the conquering of 'other' nations while the new testament states that God's followers are "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language." (Rev 7:9)

Who is the God of the Bible? Gee, it seems that he might be whatever the author wants him to be--or perhaps whatever the author needs him to be. I don't know, is this biased? Maybe. I just can't get over how sillily (I know that's not a word, but it should be) the Bible (old test.+new test.) represents God. I don't think I would feel comfortable having a personal relationship with someone who will smite nations for disagreeing with him.... which brings me to the question: what am I doing in America?

Psalm 18

In this Psalm God is presented as a bringer of justice. According to the author (probably David) God not only protects the faithful but also punishes the wicked. God's justice seems to be carried out through man; David remarks that God has given him a "miraculous bow" and trained him for battle.

In response to the question about elements that are very similar to different religious traditions being problematic...

Problematic for whom? For the readers of the Psalm at the time it was written? No. The similarities were probably used so that the common people would connect to the text in a more immediate fashion. The Psalm is automatically accessible due to those similarities.

Problematic for the modern reader? Not necessarily. Again, these similarities make the text more widely accessible and the reader is able to understand things from multiple viewpoints. But the modern reader will probably not be able to "buy into" the message nearly as easily due to these similarities. A modern reader will be much less keen on a religion that seems to borrow from others instead of being unique. On the other hand, a different modern reader might appreciate the message in a more widespread manner, though I see that as difficult (since the speaker is crushing enemies and ruling over foreigners). The message seems to apply directly to American patriotism. I mean, the image of God that is presented in this chapter is indeed frightening--in any context.







Why do so many Americans worship money? Is it just a side-effect of 'capitalism' (pfft) or is it something else? Who knows.






I find this Gallup Poll pretty interesting. I can't wait until I'm 70+ and can afford to stop worrying about money all the time. Oh, wait--I'm getting a B.A. in Studio Art! I'll never have any money to worry about in the first place!

When I first came to Lawrence I was rather surprised at how rarely money would come up in conversation. Then I started talking about money all the time. I quickly realized that everyone actually does think about money quite often; they just don't like to talk about it--like religion! Most people seem to associate themselves with some type religious group but not a lot of people like to talk about it unless it's brought up by someone else in conversation.

Another silly connection between money and religion... "In God We Trust" is printed on American currency. How ironic.

Mounds

Geertz's definition of religion applies to the effigy mounds that the American Indians created in Wisconsin quite nicely. Geertz says that religion "is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." According to some archaeologists and Native Americans, effigy mounds were often representations of earth, sky, and water spirits. Some were built to specifficaly resemble animals and others used more abstract forms. These effigy mounds established a system of symbols that reinforced beliefs and customs in an effort to unite multiple clans in a general concept of the order of existence. That the mounds were physical representations helped to 'clothe' these conceptions with a unique aura of factuality.

Wow, Geertz... that's genius right there.

eh eh eggs

My housemates were dying eggs for Easter yesterday. Someone walked in and asked, "Do I have to love Jesus to dye an egg?" Someone responded, "We're dying eggs for fun! We're not trying to turn you into a Christian."

This exchange would normally catch my interest, but due to my current enrollment in Intro to Religious Studies, I was enthralled.

Here are the things I found most interesting about this situation:
1. People seem to think that 'loving Jesus' and 'being a Christian' are interchangeable terms. I beg to differ. When someone says "I love Jesus" I hear that person speaking of a very personal relationship--two individuals in relation to each other. One person's love of Jesus could be completely different from another person's love of Jesus. Additionally, an individual can love Jesus without subscribing to a set of beliefs/customs/etc. Being a Christian seems to imply a commitment or affiliation to a set of beliefs/customs/etc. within a social group. That is not to say that there can't be overlap between the two ideas--but their inherent meanings are distinctly different.

2. The custom of egg-dying developed as a Pagan practice. The egg has long been a symbol of new life/rebirth and many cultures have utilized this symbol in celebrations of new years and new life in spring time. Egg-dying was adopted by Christians as a way to celebrate the birth/rebirth (resurrection) of Jesus.

With both of these ideas in mind, one's view of the exchange can potentially change from mildly amusing to problematic.

I am suddenly drawn to include the lyrics of a Modest Mouse song entitled "Jesus Christ was an Only Child" in this post:

Well, Jesus Christ was an only child
He went down to the river
And he drank and smiled
And his dad was oh-so-mad
Should have insured that planet
Before it crashed
Working real hard to make internet cash
Work your fingers to the bone sitting on your ass
I know now what I knew then
But I didn't know then what I know now

Penny found out as her hair was styled
You should hide you kids
While the dogs run wild
Jesus Christ was an only child
He went down to the river
And he drank and smiled
And his dad was oh-so-mad
Should have killed that little fucker
Before he even had

Happy Late Easter, I guess.

Wrapped up in myself lately. Perhaps warmer weather will wean me from my worries.

Hello Operator

The depiction
Inscribed
Upon the underside
Of the shoe
That shielded
His toes from the cold
Was of the same
Design
As the one on the other line



Shallow Breaths and--

Set free the laces
Upon your shoes--
Remove your socks as well

Caught in the Act

Freshly powdered predictability shows
On the mustache, in the eyes
And on the tip of the nose
Not offended, just amused

Paleolithic Art and Religion

This chapter gives the reader a very general view of prehistoric religion and a few different theories behind the study of said religion. Jean Clottes and David Lewis-Williams, the authors, immediately set about defining the terms 'ur-religion' and 'prehistory' before delving into the materiel. They define ur-religion as "the hypothetical 'original' religion and prehistory as the time since the origin of humankind (but also including 'pre-human' hominids such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Prehistoric culture and art are also covered in the first half of the chapter. After spending a large amount of time discussing prehistory Clottes and Lewis-Williams began to relate it to religion. The chapter proceeds to offer an array of corresponding theories from over the years. Clottes and Lewis-Williams focus mainly on giving the reader an educational introduction to the study of prehistoric religion and thus all of theories introduced are not really full explanations, just concise definitions.

This article spends a lot of time theorizing about prehistoric humankind's way of life and is very careful to not make any concrete claims. In fact, the entire chapter reads more like a discussion than an informative essay. This was both interesting and frustrating. The broad-minded view the reader is given is obviously necessary when dealing with prehistoric research (since so little information is really known for sure) but the reader feels rather empty-handed at the end of the reading. A lot of information is offered but no overarching claims are made, which is the point of the article in a sense. Clottes and Lewis-Williams are making sure the reader understands how difficult studying prehistoric culture is due to the passage of time and lack of recorded history. The reader knows that she will appreciate the broad scope in the future and that, at least, is reassurring.

I was very interested in the section called Art for Art's Sake. I found it very curious that the majority of researchers from the beginning of the twentieth century onward automatically accept the idea that prehistoric cultures would not have spent so much time adorning the deep inner recesses of caves without some sort of religious or ceremonial intent. Although I am sure there have been a lot of studies that contribute to this acceptance they are not thoroughly discussed in this article. And so, I am left wondering why, why MUST cave art be undeniably connected to religion/ceremony?

Other than that small note I am left pretty much speechless after this read. I mean, I would have an opinion but it sounds too dangerous to develop so quickly...