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?

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.

Flexible Definitions

In class, we discussed the way in which some important historical and political figures (such as Gandhi or Jesus) have rejected certain words because of their negative connotations.  I wonder, though, how effective this is in the long run and in terms of influencing a population.  If a single person chooses to use the word 'opponent' rather than 'enemy', it will stand out, and people will likely recognize the significance of the choice.  However, if a population decides to follow the example of this person and discard the term 'enemy', using 'opponent' instead, it may be that the meaning of 'opponent' will change over time (possibly a very short time) to match the meaning of 'enemy', thus rendering pointless the original term choice.

Response: Political Traditions

In response to Dania Guadalupe's post "What Would Jesus Do?" (February 23, 2012):

I would agree that Jesus would have supported discrimination on the basis of baptism or anything else.  However, it is helpful to remember that just because Jesus would not have supported it, it is not necessarily bad.  Many religions have changed over time to reflect changing political and social situations, and many of the changes are good things.  This one practice in particular, I think, may not be a good thing, but this is not true of all changes.  In fact, I doubt that Jesus would have wanted people to keep Christianity (or a modified form of Judaism, as it was when he was alive) in a static state just in order to strictly follow what he said; he probably would have recognized that changing times call for changing practices if one hopes to keep a religion alive.

Response: Unverifiability and Religion

In response to Jess Gamari's post "Revolution Through the Filter" (February 23, 2012):

In regards to wanting to know the truth, I think that the Crossan book can be very helpful as far as Jesus is concerned.  Of course, there are still significant parts of Jesus' life which are unchronicled, and which we can only guess at, but on a whole it seems that we can reconstruct a relatively clear picture of who he was and what he did.

God, though, is a different matter.  As God's actions are a matter of theology rather than history, we cannot simply find evidence of them through archeology or careful reading of historical texts.  This unverifiability of God is, I think, one of the most significant issues dividing theists and atheists; as the reality of God has to be taken on faith rather than historical evidence, some people reject the idea, and others support it.  Honestly, though, I think that the way this requires faith is a good thing; if God was a matter of fact rather than conjecture, religion would basically be another science, rather than a matter of belief - which is what makes it interesting to me.

Jesus and Discrimination

So far, Crossan's book has presented a picture of Jesus as an advocate for universal equality.  If this is truly the case, then what might Jesus say about those modern practitioners of Christianity who use the Bible to justify all sorts of discrimination, ranging from racism, to homophobia, to sexism, to discrimination on the basis of religion?  While it appears that Jesus may have been something of a feminist, do we have any idea how he felt about other issues, like race relations or homosexuality?

If he intended to keep his message consistent, it seems likely that Jesus would have supported equality for all of the above minority groups.  Ironically, it seems that in modern society Christianity (as with many religions, actually) has been used more frequently to preach in favour of various forms of discrimination than it has to support universal equality.  It is both amusing and sad that some people appear to have taken Jesus' messages and used them to support exactly the sort of agenda he was most vehemently opposed to.

Morality and Mythology

We spoke about how mythology usually exists as a medium for conveying moral messages.  Almost every ancient culture had a mythology, which could serve to instruct those in the culture about how to live their lives.  In modern culture, however, the number of people who choose to live their lives without the aid of a guiding mythology or religion has been steadily increasing.  Is this a bad thing?  Without the help of mythology, how can people know how to live morally?

I think that mythology is not the only medium for morality.  Those who choose to think about and construct codes of ethics based on philosophical discussion seem to do at least as well, in general, as those who gain their morality from religion or tradition.  It is, I think, simply a difference in type, not quality.  Gaining morals from mythology is comparable to getting morals from fiction; gaining them from philosophical discussion and real life is comparable to getting them from nonfiction.  Both ways are valid, and can be effective.

Better as Fiction

In class, we discussed the idea of reading the Bible as fiction with grains of truth, in the form of messages relevant to real life, running through it.  In addition to preventing the sort of fanatic fundamentalism that has led to such unpleasant organizations as the WBC, I think that interpreting the Bible as fiction can actually provide more instruction to its readers than taking everything it says literally.  After all, much of the Bible is not reasonably applicable to modern life; as a result, most people who are not crazy dismiss those parts which seem unreasonable to them, and mainly ignore them.  If such people read the Bible as fiction, a novel with embedded moral messages rather than an instruction manual, they might instead seek to find the reasons that the Bible's writers included the outdated parts, and update the ideas to apply to modern life while still trying to keep the spirit of the original intentions of the writers.

Response: Mythologizing Historical Figures

In response to JonDavid's post "The Gospels: "Jesus Facts"" (February 16, 2012):

I think the Chuck Norris analogy is a good one - the main difference between Chuck Norris and Jesus, mythologically speaking, is that no one believes that Chuck Norris can actually do those things, whereas some people believe that Jesus really did perform miracles.  However, Jesus is not the only historical personage who has grown over time into a mythological, or perhaps legendary, figure.  Even such relatively recent lives, such as that of George Washington and the other founders of the United States, have become somewhat shrouded in the mists of legend.  That popular story about George Washington and the cherry tree, while not as widely believed as Jesus' miracles, still has a following of people who do not know it is fiction.  It seems that admirable people, despite being sufficiently impressive in reality, tend to take on supernatural attributes after death.

Response: Open-Minded Investigation

In response to Rebecca Ryan's post "The Jesus Biography" (February 11, 2012):
The last sentence in this post - "Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to be close-minded about these things." - made me think quite a bit.  I have not heard close-mindedness referred to in a positive sense before, and it caused me to consider if there is such a thing as being too open-minded.

I concluded that the answer depends on one's definition of open-mindedness.  If one considers it to be a state in which one makes no decisions and develops no opinions, then yes, one could indeed be too open-minded.  If, on the other hand, one defines it as a state in which one thinks about and considers every possibility prior to discarding it, then I believe the answer would be no.  Avoiding thinking about something because one is afraid that doing so will change one's views is not a good thing.  If one thinks fully about something and concludes that it is the right view, then it most likely is.  If one thinks about something and decides that it is not the right view, then at least one can defend one's decision adequately against critics.  Simply ignoring the possibility that one might be wrong can (and has) lead to some of the worst events in human history.  So, in response to your worries, I do not think that reading even something which might be challenging to your views (which I do not think the Crossan book is) is a bad thing - it will either lead to to change your views to better ones, or will reaffirm your belief in the views you already held.

Idea of Benevolent Monarchy - Plato and Arjuna

While the idea of monarchy as a good form of government may seem ridiculous to many members of modern Western cultures, it is not as alien to Western thought as they may initially think.  Arjuna's position as head of a kingdom would not necessarily, or even probably, immediately negate all the positive aspects of his personality, and if he remained as wise and enlightened as he appears to be in the Gita, he might actually do more good for his kingdom (at least during his lifetime) as another form of government like democracy could.

Plato, in his writings on government, actually favored a sort of monarchy over democracy.  He thought that countries should be ruled by 'philosopher-kings' - wise, public-spirited rulers who led their lives by the dictate of reason alone.  Arjuna very nearly fits this picture, albeit in a slightly more religious manner.  As most consider Plato to be an incredibly significant figure in the history of Western thought, it might be worth giving the Gita's views on government a little consideration before dismissing them out of hand.

Focal Points of Religion

As we move on from our study of Hinduism to monotheistic religions like Christianity, I think it is interesting to reflect on the difference in structure between the two types of religion.  Hinduism, while incorporating many deities, is so abstract and idea-centric that it almost seems more like a philosophy than a religion per say.  In stark contrast to this, Christianity (and its close cousins, Islam and Judaism) is focused on a single god more than on any one code of morality.  Hinduism certainly includes elements of deity-centric thinking (as in the Bhagavad Gita's use of Sri Krishna to illustrate various principles - although one can not believe in the existence of Krishna and still very well be part of the religion), and Christianity includes elements of idea-centric thinking (the ten commandments, etc. - although these, too, are somewhat flexible depending upon which branch of Christianity one belongs to) but in general the focus appears to be quite different.  It will be interesting to compare and contrast the two different types of religion.

Response: Over-saturation of Religion

In response to Lauren Feeney's post "Take a Chance and See" (February 8, 2012):
I listened to the song, and did appreciate the instrumentation.  It sounds rather like traditional Celtic music, which is a style I very much enjoy.  The female singer also had a nice voice, and I didn't mind the male singer too much either.

However, I cannot say that I agreed with the lyrics, nor can I see how someone who was not religious could do so easily; the reason for this is that the lyrics were basically completely about Christ.  In fact, I have found this to be the case with most religious music, and that makes it somewhat difficult for me to identify with the music.

This over-saturation of religion is not confined to music; I have noticed it in many other areas as well, such as art, storytelling, and perhaps most annoyingly charitable organizations.  While I appreciate the efforts of these last, and do not personally find the idea of religion (well, most religion; the WBC is an exception) objectionable, it disturbs me that any money I donate to these organizations may not end up helping whatever cause they work for - I could be funding a new church, or even something I do object to, like anti-gay marriage demonstrations.  Religion is not, I believe, a bad thing at all, but it would be nice if it were a little less interwoven with basically everything else.

Response: Westernization of Ideas

In response to Ryan Walters' post "Meditation" (February 6, 2012):
I think this may be a case less of the concept of meditation changing over time, and more one of the concept becoming muddled through the process of Westernization.  While many Eastern civilizations practiced (and practice) meditation, few if any ancient Western societies did the same.  Meditation mainly appeared much later in the west, as an imported idea from Eastern societies such as India and China.  I am not entirely sure what the modern conception of meditation is in more Eastern countries, but I'd guess that it is at least closer to the concept expressed in the Gita than is the currently common Western conception.

Response: Contradictions?

In response to Peter Mitchell's post "Textual Bias" (February 4, 2012):
I don't really see any contradictions here, actually.  The idea of there being different paths that one can take to achieve Moksha is, I think, not exactly what the Bhagavad Gita seems to be saying.  Instead, I think that it advises doing whatever it is you feel is best (which may include several different paths, not just one), and then eventually realising the futility of that pursuit (again, it could be any of the three suggested) and working towards elimination of the ego.

It is true that Sri Krishna appears to advise less strongly against selfless service than the other two paths, but I think that may be because he sees that Arjuna already has little to no interest in pleasure or worldly success.  Thus, he sees that the path Arjuna must follow is the one which leads through selfless service.  Arjuna will have to try serving others until he realises that doing so is not the ultimate goal for him, and then he can move on to achieve Moksha.

I could be totally wrong about this, so if anyone has better ideas about this possible contradiction please feel free to say so.

Satisfaction in the Context of Infinity

In Tuesday's class, Matt Silliman mentioned that he finds the notion of infinite possibilities when playing the guitar at once frustrating and pleasant, because he will never run out of new tunes.  This, as it relates to the idea of worldly success and service for the benefit of others both being impossible to accomplish completely, caused me to think about the idea of being satisfied with something incomplete.

In the case of something like music, one can never achieve complete mastery or knowledge of the subject.  Similarly, one can never have all possible wealth, or make everyone in the world perfectly happy.  Such an inability to reach a goal could indeed be incredibly frustrating.  However, in spite of what the Hindu belief system appears to assert, I do not think it needs to be so.  While I think that in a subject with infinite possibilities it is best to continue attempting to improve or do more, and not be fully satisfied unless one reaches the highest level (which one never will, due to the nature of infinity), one can still be at least somewhat satisfied with reaching a level somewhere in the middle.  This does not say that one should stop improving at any point; but rather than being eternally unsatisfied, one should learn to focus on the satisfaction of what one has achieved - and if one does so, I think that working towards an impossible goal can be a truly enjoyable experience.

Emotional Attachment and the Concept of Moksha

In class on Tuesday, we discussed the various stages of goal-setting that a person might go through according to the Hindu belief system.  The stages were pleasure, worldly success, service for the benefit of others, and then eventual release from the cycle of life and death along with the dissipation of the self as a separate being.  While I do like the ideas of this worldview, there seems to have been at least one important feature of life on Earth which it neglected to mention - that of emotional attachment.

The first category of pleasure includes certain kinds of interpersonal relations, such as sexual relations.  However, relations which are purely emotional (friendship or non-sexual love, for example - the two may or may not be the same thing) seem unlikely to fall under the same category.  Worldly success obviously does not apply to these relationships, as being in them does not usually get one any sort of material benefit, and even if it does it is still not the central reason for having the relationship.  Service to others similarly does not work; friendship is a two-way street (or a more-than-two-way street), so to speak, so being in a relationship of that sort is simultaneously beneficial to both or all people involved.

If one does succeed in escaping the cycle of reincarnation, one will become a fully integrated part of the universe.  However, one will lose everything that made one unique and a separate, self-coherent entity.  This includes personality.  If one had a group of very close friends, whom one loved very much, even if all the friends left the cycle at once at at the same time as one did one would still be 'losing' those friends, so to speak; their personalities, as well as one's own personality, would vanish.  If one liked these friends for their personalities (which is, I would say, the best reason for liking them), one would effectively be losing these friends as soon as one or all of them left the reincarnation cycle.

It occurred to me that the reason the originators of this sort of thinking may have neglected to think of emotional bonds such as the ones mentioned above is that they may not have observed or experienced such bonds.  For most people, friendships are relatively casual relationships; the only sort of really close relationship they experience is romantic.  While a good number of romantic relationships do include incredibly close emotional bonds, on the surface they may appear to be based primarily on sex; so, if the people who came up with the system had not personally been in any romantic relationships (or any peculiarly close friendships/other non-sexual love-based relationships), they might not have realized the intensity of certain types of emotional attachment.

Response: Unnecessary Commandments?

In response to Brandon Gaudet's post "Desensitization: Video Games v. Religion" (January 26, 2012):
I agree with the ideas expressed in the above post - I merely wished to add to some of the points brought up in the last paragraph, particularly those involving the idea of Christians going immediately to heaven upon their deaths.  Historically, Christianity has on more than one occasion endorsed warring against and killing those of differing religious views.  According to the Bible, people who do not worship the Christian God go to hell, or at the very least to purgatory.  Thus, a Christian killing a nonbeliever is not harmless to said nonbeliever - they are not going to a better place upon their demise, in fact they could be said to be going to a much worse place.

A Christian could safely kill another Christian in the knowledge that the person they killed would go straight to heaven.  Yet despite this, Christians have warred against other Christians far less frequently than they have fought with non-Christians.  Furthermore, one of the ten commandments in the Christian faith is "Thou shalt not kill" (or "Thou shalt not commit murder", according to some interpretations).  Judging by the history of religious wars fought by the Christians, this commandment applies less to killing nonbelievers than it does to killing fellow members of the faith.  Why?  Why has God apparently declared it forbidden to kill people who are going straight to heaven anyway?  It seems to me that if dead Christians go to heaven, this commandment should be totally unnecessary, at least in regards to members of the faith.  I could understand refusing to kill nonbelievers to give them a chance to reconsider their religious affiliation, but that is a separate matter.

Response: Individuality vs. The Family

In response to Julia Monturo's post "Search for Self at All Costs" (January 26, 2012):
I do agree that choosing one's own quest for enlightenment over the happiness of one's family and friends appears selfish at first glance, and in many cases (such as seems to be the case with the man in the film we watched on Thursday) it probably is.  I don't object terribly strongly to the idea of one doing it anyway, as I do not feel that a person should consistently place their family over their own personal satisfaction, but the idea does seem to clash with a doctrine which advocates selflessness.

However, I can think of certain motivations which would render this choice less selfish.  For example, if one has assurance that one's family will remain in good living conditions regardless of what one chooses to do, and one wishes to undergo this quest in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment for the purpose of then passing on one's learnings to others, then it is arguable a relatively selfless decision, particularly if making it causes one some sort of emotional pain.  Alternately, if one's family was unpleasant and hostile, then I do not think that abandoning them to live a life of meditation is selfish in the same way as leaving a family who loves one (and who one loves in return) - although it still could be interpreted as selfish in another way, some could argue that living away from hostility is not a selfish choice so much as an inherent right.

Selflessness is Relative

One thing that bothers me about Sri Krishna's advice in the Bhagavad Gita is his advocation and description of 'selfless service' and selflessness in general.  As seems to be the case in many religions or philosophies, this supposed selflessness is not actually selfless; in the case of Krishna's advice to Arjuna, one should practice selfless service because doing so will bring one closer to achieving the ultimate goal of being at peace and possessing "the joy of spiritual awareness" - which is something that one wants for oneself.  One paragraph in particular stood out to me as being especially nonsensical: "Through constant effort over many lifetimes, a person becomes purified of all selfish desires and attains the supreme goal of life" (pg. 145).  The sentiments expressed by this passage appear to be very nearly in exact opposition to one another.  On the one hand, the person referred to by the passage is purified of all selfish desires; on the other, they are attaining something (the supreme goal of life) which they desire.

The Bhagavad Gita is certainly not alone amongst religious and philosophical texts in containing this somewhat hypocritical version of selflessness.  Christianity, with its required obedience to biblical scripture and the will of God, is no better - in fact, it may well be worse, considering that numerous Christians state that those without religion are necessarily immoral.  How, I ask, can someone (let us say an atheist) who does things for the benefit of others alone, because they choose to do so, be less moral than someone who helps others because they believe that they will be granted eternal reward (and exempted from eternal punishment) if they do so?  If anything, I would say the opposite is true; however, I think that the issue is more complicated than that, and while there is no space to go too far into it here I may address it in another post.  For now, I shall merely refrain from stating that religious people cannot be moral (I believe they can be), and instead list a few other religions/philosophies which suffer a similar lack of consistency regarding selflessness - namely Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, and secular belief in 'the golden rule'.