reaction to idols post

I was reading through Daniel's latest blog post and I think he made a really great connection between the different "vignette" type biblical tales that we see in the Kebra Neghast and the discussion of dismissing idols. I agree with Daniel that if we look at the description of an idol literally, the Ark of the Covenent is a structure or object fashioned from materials such as wood, stone or even gold that is meant to be worshipped. In fact, God commands the construction of the Ark upon Moses. Yet the true definition of an idol lies in the intention behind the object's creation, as well as how it is treated by the individual once it has been created. The difference between the Ark and the idols that Pagans worshipped before Abraham denounces them is their function. Pagans worshipped the idols themselves, as if the actual material object was a God itself. The Ark was created with the intent that it would hold God's law, which should be worshipped and followed. The actual ark is not what is important. It is merely a means of holding the religious artifacts. This is what separates it from the creations that figures such as Abraham and the Queen of Sheba look down upon. What the ark represents is indeed religious and very spiritual. Yet God does not command us to pray to the Ark. It only matters what is inside. As Daniel says in his post, "This icon is only valuable when viewed as a symbol, and not as just an object."

Metropolis continued

As I was writing my last post, I began to think of less obvious religious references and metaphors that are embedded into the plot of 'Metropolis'. There is the scene where Maria is preaching to the disgruntled workers in the catacombs under the city. She is surrounded by crosses. There is an obvious religious undertone to this scene. It's almost as if she represents heaven, or god, or some higher power. She keeps telling the workers to be patient and to have hope. She tells them to have faith that there will be a change for them and that their suffering will cease. This sounds very much like the teachings of having faith in God. Even when religious people are going through the hardest of times, they find comfort in believing in that higher power. They put their trust in God and that he will protect and empower them through their suffering. This is very much Maria's role in the lives of the workers. She is trying to remove these innocent workers from the horrific work in the depths, which can also be seen as a metaphor for hell and sin. They are buried beneath the city and they are very hellish conditions to work. I also find it very interesting that Freder's mother and Frederson's wife was named Hel. I'm not sure exactly what the connection is here, but I did think it was really interesting. It could possibly be that Frederson's power trip begins when Hel dies giving birth to Freder. It could signify the start of the downfall of the civilization.

reactions to Metropolis

I found this film to be very ahead of its time in terms of its looks at society, as well as it's predictions of what the future would look like. Made in 1927, the images we see in this silent film are surprisingly close to many of the big "metropolis" areas that we see appearing later in the 20th century. There were several interesting religious references scattered throughout the film. One of the most blatent references is to the story of the Tower of Babel. The story is explained in the movie itself, but we see many connections between the function of societal power in both the biblical story and the setting of 'Metropolis'. The Tower of Babel is conceptualized by the people in power, but they ones in power are not the ones that actually build their tower to heaven. They are known as the "Head" in the metaphor carries through the thematic material of the movie. Instead they enlist thousands of workers to do the job for them. The workers are thought of as the "hands". As Maria preachs to the workers of metropolis, the "head" and "hands" cannot communicate. The leaders and workers try to communicate, yet they literally cannot speak each others language. This can be seen as a metaphor for the discord that was occuring between the upper, elite class and the working class. We see this exact same dissonance between the classes in "Metropolis". Joh Frederson and the other upperclass live a life of luxury at the expense of the mistreated working class who work the "depths" of the city. The story of the Tower of Babel is an allegory for the way societies can fall apart. When the social classes of a city are so sharply divided and when there is not a respect for the hard work of the working class, the society cannot communicate. They will fall just as they did in the Tower of Babel. This is a great example of a biblical tale that can be shifted through a societal lens to apply it more appropriately to the nature of our times.

Zohar

In the first passage in the Zohar excerpt "How to read the Torah", I found many references that I immediately connected to the Augustine reading from Monday. The Zohar uses an expanded metaphor of a garment, which represents the literal Torah story, and the body and soul underneath, which represents the "real" Torah. I think the "real" Torah is the underlying message or meaning that can be found when one looks beyond the immediate story written in the books. The book of enlightenment continues by expanded the metaphor even further. The Zohar states that "there is garment and body and soul and soul of soul. I interpreted this as layers. The Zohar suggests that there are multiple layers that are ever changing when one looks at the readings of the Torah. One could just look at the "garment" or the immediate text, while the "righteous" examine it further the body and soul that exists underneath. I think this is a fantastic metaphor that relates back to Augustine's argument that there are ever changing interpretations of the literal/figurative texts within the Bible. It is the responsibility of the follower of the religion to not only look at the literal text, but also look at it in a figurative light and determine what the writers intention truly was. We also must look deeper into the "layers" as the culture surrounding these religions change over time. Both Augustine and the Zohar suggest that one is "foolish" to read the text and not take the time to interpret it.
I also found a cool double meaning passage in the Zohar reading. In this same "How to read the Torah" section, the last passage states the following:
"As wine must sit in a jar,
so Torah must sit in this garment.
So look at only what is under the garment!
So all those words and all those stories---
they are garments!"

This passage struck me because the writer has used a double metaphor. The Torah is wrapped in a garment as it sits in the "Aron Kodesh" or the Ark. Therefore, the text is literally covered by a garment! The passage then continues by mentioning that not only is the Torah actually wearing a garment, but if you simply look under the garment to find the text, you are only to find more "garments" or stories. If you look into it no further, all you will find is more garments and you'll never get to the true meaning. The writer intertwines the real purpose for the garment and the metaphor they have just taken the time to elaborate on in great detail. Pretty sweet.

Augustine

As I was reading through Augustine's look at the Bible and how it should be read and interpreted, there were several arguments that I thought were particularly pertinent to the discussions we have been having about Religion as a whole. There is often confusion between what should be read literally and what should be looked at allegorically, or in the words of Augustine, "figuratively". Augustine makes a point that we as humans are likely to look at the severity of sin in our society not according to the amount of "lust" it has, but by our own standards. In Augustine's opinion, this goes against the practice of really looking at and analyzing the scriptures of the Bible. I can also see how this would be a potential conflict in the basis of religious belief in Christianity. As we have mentioned in class several times, we see religion through a "religious lens". That lens goes through shifts and changes overtime. I also feel like this lens can change for each individual person, therefore altering their own individual perception of the religious texts. That is why we get so many diverse interpretations of what is considered a sin, what sin is a greater sin...etc. This individual lens is also effected by the social implications of the culture and/or time that they are looking at the text and applying to the world around them. As Augustine says, "men of their own time and place tend to blame and condemn, and regard as commendable and praiseworthy, only such actions as are acceptable within conventions of their own society". I think that this is a very true statement. Many people take the Bible stories and filter them through their societal lens, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I think we definitely need to do this with these biblical texts, especially today when we are so far removed from the lifestyle that existed back then. It can also potentially lead astray, as people can misinterpret and take figurative text for literal text. This is where we see Augustine's lines between love/lust and literal/figurative interpretation. Augustine attempts to take these blurry lines that become apparent when one looks at the text and begins to interpret.

Lamentations

While reading excerpts from "Lamentations" in the Bible, I saw some common themes through the passages. One that stood out me in particular was the idea of comfort and the individuals need and desire for it. The word "comfort" is mentioned several times within the first couple of verses (1.16, 1.17, 1.21). These passages refer to the lack of comfort the people in Jerusalem feel, stating that there is "no one to comfort [them]". The speaker in these passages feels overwhelmed by their situation and feels like there is no one to comfort their suffering since God himself is the one who is causing it. The verses allude to the idea that there is true comfort in no one else but God. When you have abandoned the ways of God and his teachings, then you will soon find that you have no one to turn to for consolement. An individual who has been obedient will find the source of comfort that they are looking for when they need it. I don't know if I necessarily agree with this assertion, but I do think that is one of the underlying messages of these verses.

While reading this excerpt, I also began thinking about our initial discussion of Religion and why we feel the need for it so naturally. One point that I really agreed with was the idea that we as humans want to feel comfortable and in control of our environment. We look for ways to explain the things we can't in order to provide ourselves with this consolement. I think that this relates to the function of "Lamentations" and other books of the bible. The stories told in the Bible give Christians a sense of understanding of the bigger moral picture. It also tells the readers that if they are seeking that sense of comfort in their lives, all they need is to turn to God. God will provide that sense of stability and comfort that you may be looking for. Inversely, I also think that this passage also threatens loss of this comfort against "sinners". If you stray from "the path" of God, you will no longer have this sense of divine comfort that God provides you with.

Response 2

I was really impressed with the high level of inquisitive discussion that our class has achieved. I think we do a good job in both our blogs and the classroom really delving into the questions that are posed in the readings in relation to the existence of religion in our society. In particular, I was interested by the connection between social/culture changes on the religion that exists within a society. In studying the Effigy Mounds that are seen throughout the Midwest, researchers found that they were mostly created between 700 and 1200 A.D. We wonder why there was such a rapid decline in their creation after this period of time? Ted brought up a good point today in class refering to changes in societal focus. It is possible that the Late Woodland tribes' desires to become a more agriculture society may have deferred them from taking the time to create these elaborate burial mounds that clearly took many individuals a lot of effort to create. As community focus shifts over time, the culture's expression of religious beliefs could possibly be affected. I am almost positive that we will see similar shifts in religious belief and expression in more recent societies, such as countries dominated by Christianity (United States, Some European countries), or Islam (Numerous MiddleEastern countries).

It seems that the people of the Late Woodland period were experiencing very "rapid" changes in technology, economy and social structure. In the article, it is suggested that this instability may have been the catalyst for this burial ritual, as well as it's demise. These Native American tribes may have feared change, as suggested in the article, but they were also close-knit societies who's first priority was to find newer and more efficient ways to live on their land. These advances in technology, particularly agricultural, are a very logical answer to the abrupt lack of effigy mounds built after 1200 a.d. I completely agree with Ted's blog entry, which points out several examples of similar religious shifts in modern day religions.

Effigy Mounds

While reading the assigned article, entitled "Effigy Mound Builders", I found myself making several connections to modern day religion. In particular, the Late Woodland group's decorative images on their pottery and their distinction between the "upperworld" and the "lowerworld" stood out to me. The "upperworld" is represented by the creatures of the sky, birds or human beings dressed as birds. The "lowerworld" is depicted through less distinguishable "waterspirits" with long tails and often times horns. These distinct earth and sky divisions are also seen in the various effigy mounds scattered across the Midwest, particularly in Wisconsin. This reoccuring theme of the relationship between Earth(bear, buffalo), Sky(thunderbird, various other birds) and Water (lizards, waterspirits) may reflect a somewhat spiritual mentality of these Native American Tribes. It seems like they may have focused a lot on "maintaining balance and harmony in the world" (pg 116). Late Woodland group's spiritual approach to the delicate balance between all the creatures of the Earth that they coexisted with reminds me of some Eastern philosophies on how one should go about living their life. It reminds me of some of the goals of Eastern religions to maintain a similar type of balance in a person's own everyday world. It may not exactly equate to the balance between animals, but I do feel like some Eastern philosophies such as Taoism and Buddism focus on establishing a balanced and harmonious existence, as did these Midwestern Native American tribes.

I also found it interesting that these Native American cultures believed in this division between the "upper" and "lower" worlds. It reminds me of the division between Heaven and Hell that exists in Christianity. The connotations of these two worlds is mostly different in each respective religious mindset. Yet I find that the fact that there is this common division very fascinating. In the Late Woodland groups, the "lowerworld" creatures were possibly in "dynamic opposition" to the powerful "upperworld" thunderbird creatures. Often time, the "waterspirits" of the "lowerworld" were depicted menacingly, with horns and talons. This strongly reminds me of the common description and illustration of hell's demons and even Satan himself. Yet it seems like these creatures were not considered "evil". They were seen as necessary to keep the world in complete order and balance in the environment around them.

Neanderthals vs. Homo Sapiens

While reading the last two assigned writings, I made some distinct connections between the intelligence of both species and how it relates to religious thought. In class on Friday, we discussed whether or not Neaderthals could have had religious beliefs in their time of existence, and what differentiates humans from this very similar species. The article we read for class on Neaderthals clearly focused on the theory that the species did not have the higher intellectual function that the later homo sapiens relatives seemed to have. Although we have no exact proof that this is true, scientists have found very little evidence of Neaderthals ability for symbolic language. They must have had the ability to communicate, or else they would not have been able to function and survive as a social group for as long as they did. Yet we find no evidence of language, which is a crucial sign of a higher intelligence. We find no evidence of expression (other than potentially vocal music). This brings us to human's mental capability for metaphor. We as humans display an ability to see things for more than what they are expected to be. We are able to use things in a different way than may be initially anticitpated. We have found no proof that Neaderthals had this ability to think innovatively, and that is what seperates them from Homo Sapiens. This metaphorical capabilty is what leads to art, science and religion, none of which Neanderthals seemed to have.

Applying this theory of metaphorical thinking and it's influence on religious thought to the other article we read about Paleolithic art, we see plenty of this evidence in the Paleolithic people of our ancestry. Their art is scattered within caves of Southern Europe, and we see forms of expression in these artifacts that indicate an innovative intelligence. The Paleolithic people also showed innovation and expression in their tools and weapons. Unlike the Neanderthals, Paleolithic people made weapons that not only functioned as hunting tools, but they were also shaped and carved decoratively. They also combined materials such as bone, antlers and stone to make more effective weapons. This shows that they had the ability to think metaphorically. They were able to see materials and use them differently than expected. This is a big difference from the more primative work of the Neaderthals. Based solely on these particular characteristics I mentioned earlier,the Paleolithic people's ability to think in ways that we think today (metaphorically, innovatively) indicates the potential for religious thought to have existed for these communities of people.

Relgious "glasses"

I was recently reading through the blog entries of fellow students, and I am intrigued by the many different and strong opinions of my classmates. As I was reading, I came across the point of the relationship between scientific research, discussion and the existence of faith in a person. As a spiritual person myself, I find discussions of the origins of religion and it's continued existence fascinating. It does not mean that I am disowning my faith and my own personal beliefs. I am simply ready to question the function of different religions in cultures around the world. I am also interested to see how religion has changed over time. I try my hardest to not let my own personal bias affect my objective opinions in class, particularly in discussion. It is definitley a challenge to take everything you have been told since you were a small child and put it on the shelf. Yet I believe that we as human beings are instinctively inquisitive and often search for answers in things we don't completley understand. We have that higher level of intellectual function (as we saw discussed in the articles about Neanderthals). Therefore, I feel like this class is an invitation to explore the realm of the unknown that comes with discussions of religion and it's origins. As I was reading Noelle's blog, she brought up a very interesting point that I totally agreed with. She mentioned looking at the class material through many different "glasses", or points of view. I think that that is the most effective way of learning in this class. We have to be open-minded and ready to take on points of view that we never have before. We have to be malleable in that sense. I think there is so much we can learn from each other, and there are many different ways to look at religious ideals. We may be suprised at the commonalities we find in the basic functions and desires in different relgions that have existed through time and that still prevail today.