In response to Ryan Walters' post "Why..." (March 1, 2012):
While it is true that religion is not necessary for people to act morally, not every person thinks critically and determines what is right and what is wrong. This is the reason that societies have laws. However, laws are external rules; religion, by tapping into a person's internalised beliefs, can become internal.
Furthermore, this question assumes that religion has no basis in reality, which is a very difficult claim to prove. Some religions, certainly, can be disputed by appealing to empirical evidence which contradicts their doctrines; others, though, take this into account and add the idea of unknowability into the very definition of their deities. Such religions can be neither proven nor disproved.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Response: Safety in Numbers
In response to Lily O'Neill's post "Traveling in Twos" (March 1, 2012):
I think the fact that female disciples traveled only in the company of male disciples had less to do with inequality and more to do with safety. Jesus' time and society were, in fact, patriarchal; so any movement towards equality had to take place within a patriarchal context. As in the main part of society women did not have access to weapons or any sort of self-defense training, they were simply less able to defend themselves from those who might attack a traveling disciple than were the male disciples. Furthermore, again because of the state of most of the society, bandits or other groups of possibly dangerous people on the road would have been more inclined to attack a woman traveling alone than a man. Traveling in twos was among only the first steps on a very long road to gaining equality for women in a society such as Jesus'.
I think the fact that female disciples traveled only in the company of male disciples had less to do with inequality and more to do with safety. Jesus' time and society were, in fact, patriarchal; so any movement towards equality had to take place within a patriarchal context. As in the main part of society women did not have access to weapons or any sort of self-defense training, they were simply less able to defend themselves from those who might attack a traveling disciple than were the male disciples. Furthermore, again because of the state of most of the society, bandits or other groups of possibly dangerous people on the road would have been more inclined to attack a woman traveling alone than a man. Traveling in twos was among only the first steps on a very long road to gaining equality for women in a society such as Jesus'.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Response: Divine Relationships
In response to JonDavid's post "Monotheism, Demigods, and Mary Magdalene" (February 29, 2012):
The idea that Jesus could not have been in a relationship with Mary Magdalene due to his purported divinity is an interesting one. It seems that in many monotheistic religions, deities never engage in romantic relationships. This is in stark contrast to many polytheistic religions, wherein deities develop relationships with one another, but frequently with mortals as well - this is true of fully-fledged gods as well as demigods. Considering the stance that some fairly large denominations of Christianity hold on various sexual orientations - that heterosexuality is the only one approved by God - it seems strange that these same people would believe that Jesus, if he was divine, could not have a sexuality. It is true that numerous groups of Christians believe celibacy is also a valid choice, but some do not share this view, perhaps due to the Bible's advice of "be fruitful, and multiply." If so, then might it not be more in line with God's views if Jesus was in fact married to Mary?
The idea that Jesus could not have been in a relationship with Mary Magdalene due to his purported divinity is an interesting one. It seems that in many monotheistic religions, deities never engage in romantic relationships. This is in stark contrast to many polytheistic religions, wherein deities develop relationships with one another, but frequently with mortals as well - this is true of fully-fledged gods as well as demigods. Considering the stance that some fairly large denominations of Christianity hold on various sexual orientations - that heterosexuality is the only one approved by God - it seems strange that these same people would believe that Jesus, if he was divine, could not have a sexuality. It is true that numerous groups of Christians believe celibacy is also a valid choice, but some do not share this view, perhaps due to the Bible's advice of "be fruitful, and multiply." If so, then might it not be more in line with God's views if Jesus was in fact married to Mary?
Decaying Boundaries and Stigma
Crossan writes about the body as a representation of society. In class on Tuesday, we briefly discussed the modern American attitude towards body modification, which is primarily tolerant. However, this has not always been so. In the relatively recent past, a person who chose to pierce her nose (without cultural or religious justification) was typically seen as a deviant, undesirable in polite company. Even today, some of that stigma endures - if someone applies for a job as a teacher, and has visible tattoos, he will most likely not get the job even if he is otherwise quite well qualified.
One thing that I find particularly interesting about this attitude towards body modification is that it is more negative as a rule in areas which are typically more conservative in a political and social sense. This would strengthen Crossan's assertion that attitudes toward the body represent attitudes in society as a whole; conservative ideology emphasises maintaining traditional values and rejecting outside influence on the structure of society.
However, there are some societies which, while mostly quite conservative, do endorse some manner of body modification. This is not necessarily evidence against Crossan's assertions; such societies usually only approve of very specific types of body modification. In a society wherein, let us say, eyebrow piercing was common and approved of, a person who pierced zir ears might well attract the same negative attention as zhe would in a society which endorsed absolutely no body modification.
One thing that I find particularly interesting about this attitude towards body modification is that it is more negative as a rule in areas which are typically more conservative in a political and social sense. This would strengthen Crossan's assertion that attitudes toward the body represent attitudes in society as a whole; conservative ideology emphasises maintaining traditional values and rejecting outside influence on the structure of society.
However, there are some societies which, while mostly quite conservative, do endorse some manner of body modification. This is not necessarily evidence against Crossan's assertions; such societies usually only approve of very specific types of body modification. In a society wherein, let us say, eyebrow piercing was common and approved of, a person who pierced zir ears might well attract the same negative attention as zhe would in a society which endorsed absolutely no body modification.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)