Response: Peace and Progress

In response to Elena Noummano's post "If Everyone was Buddhist" (March 31, 2012):

While I agree that the world would likely be much more peaceful if all people practiced Buddhism, I think that there could also be negative effects of the situation. Most problematically, I think that universal Buddhism might well slow progress in many areas, from science to technological development to space exploration. This is because Buddhism advocates a life of self-reflection and meditation. While it is true that such a life can lead to increased happiness for the individual, it also causes stagnation in the progress of society as a whole.

Perhaps Buddhism does not have to be this extreme in such an ideal society; certainly, not all practitioners of current Buddhism are particularly strict. It certainly seems as though Buddhism is less likely to cause conflict than many other religions.

Mortality Rate and Attachment

Buddhism is not the only religion or philosophy which advocates eliminating attachment from one's life in order to minimise suffering.  Many philosophies which developed in ancient times advised their followers to either attempt to love without attachment (a difficult accomplishment to be sure) or to restrict themselves entirely from developing emotional bonds with people, animals, or objects.

This type of thinking seems quite strange in the context of contemporary society, where attachment is not only commonplace, but often viewed as an admirable display of trust in another person (in interpersonal relationships, that is, not in person-to-object relationships).  What has changed between then and now?

One of the most significant factors, I think, might be the difference in mortality rates.  In many ancient societies, the mortality rate was comparatively high; death was commonplace, a part of life for effectively everyone.  As such, loss was frequent, and eliminating attachment might indeed have been the best way to maintain a healthy psyche.  In modern society, the mortality rate is much lower, so loss has become a relatively rare occurrence for most people.  Thus, attachment is a much smaller risk, and so has become more popular and less dangerous.

Response: Inevitable Boredom?

In response to Brandon Gaudet's post "Life and Death: Two Sides of the Same Coin?" (March 29, 2012):

So far as humanity has discovered, no immortal, sentient entities exist at the current moment.  However, the popularity of the concept of immortality in literature has exhibited that human perception of the idea tends to take on one of two general views.  The first of these is that immortality only takes place in ideal settings (heaven, etc.) or as a form of eternal punishment (i.e. hell), and in the context of divine power.  This is likely a simple manifestation of humanity's virtually unanimous fear of death, by incorporating a lack of death into any ideal reality.  The second view is that immortality, while initially pleasant, eventually becomes tedious, and immortal beings end up seeking a way to terminate their existences.

Whether this latter view would hold true in reality is less than clear - after all, as humans do not have any experience with immortal beings, any human views on the subject (no matter how common) are purely hypothetical.  It seems possible that, as the universe is constantly in a state of change, an immortal being would not become fatally bored.  This is not to say that such a being might not decide to terminate their existence for some other reason - frustration with other beings, continual grief over the deaths of other beings, curiosity about the possibility of an afterlife - but merely that boredom alone might well not be enough to cause such a decision.

Karma and the Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil is a long-debated obstacle to many religions' rationality.  In short, it asks how, if a god is both all-good and all-powerful, evil can exist in the world.  In the case of Christianity, of many similar monotheistic religions (Judaism and Islam, for example) the only viable solution so far appears to be that an all-powerful god might have plans that are beyond human comprehension, and as such allow the seeming impossibility of evil to exist.  Some variations on the concept of karma (or on the concept of divine justice), however, circumvent the entire problem by claiming that people bring evil on themselves by their own immoral actions.

This outlook, unfortunately, can lead to many problems.  For example, when a natural disaster occurs, leaving many people injured or otherwise in need of assistance, anyone who possesses such an outlook might well say that the victims deserve their fates, and refuse to assist them.

Response: Doubts Are Not Bad

In response to Jess Gamari's post "Knowledge is Not a Sin" (March 23, 2012):

I agree that expecting people to accept religious doctrines on 'blind faith' is unreasonable.  Furthermore, I think it is actually bad, and can lead to deterioration of actual belief.  If one's belief is built solely on stubborn, blind acceptance of things one's teachers, parents, or other authority figures taught one, without any real understanding, that belief is easy to undermine by a simple change in circumstances.  It also will not bend or fail when perhaps it should.

Doubting one's religious beliefs, investigating them, and deciding whether or not to continue with them based on real information can lead to a firmer, more confident type of belief without niggling doubts or discomfort.  If one finds out all one can about Christianity, and makes an informed decision that they will believe in that particular religion, then one can rationally defend one's choice against critics - as opposed to stumble around blindly and end up looking like a stubborn fool who refuses to accept an alternative belief system in spite of overwhelming evidence in its favour.  I do think that following Christian doctrine, or indeed almost any religious doctrine, can be just as rational a choice as atheism or agnosticism - but that it rarely seems so because people are afraid to doubt or question their beliefs.

Past Changes?

After reading Crossan's book, I think the idea that Christians must adapt the Bible to suit a new era is a very good one.  It also seems as though Jesus interpreted the Old Testament in somewhat nontraditional ways in order to suit the era in which he lived.  Furthermore, this concept of interpreting religious texts appears to have been far more accepted in the past.

Learning all of this has caused me to wonder if Jews who lived prior to Jesus' time actually revised the Old Testament textually.  As new situations arose, it seems as though rewriting outdated sections of the Old Testament would have been very useful for the ancient Jews.  While it may be impossible to prove whether or not such adaptation of text occurred, hypothesising about the possibility is interesting and may help some to understand the flexible and metaphorical nature of the Bible today.

Response: Multiple Options

In response to Martha Bruso's post on March 23, 2012:

I think that belief in God is not required in order to believe in Jesus' social views, although obviously the two often go together.  One can support Jesus' vision of an egalitarian society without being religious at all, or one can believe that he was a (human) revolutionary with very strong and valid religious faith, or one can believe he was actually the son of God.  God was certainly not just a feature of the story added in by later historians; Jesus himself was Jewish, and the Jews of his time did believe that God existed.  Whether or not one believes in God, the fact that many people in Jesus' time (most probably including Jesus) did believe is hard to dispute.  However, the idea of Jesus being the son of God was likely added in later.  While of course I cannot prove this, I seriously doubt that Jesus himself thought that he was the son of God (unless, of course, he actually was.)

Response: No Absolutes

In response to Lily O'Neill's post "Tearing the Family Apart" (March 22, 2012):

In Jesus' time, the structure of the family was not the same as it typically is in modern-day America.  The hierarchy was far more pronounced, in keeping with the patriarchal nature of the society.  As such, the relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and between siblings were far less amiable than they may have been in the families of many of us bloggers.  Furthermore, there was little or no legal regulation on how to treat family members; as such, when abuse of power occurred, the victimised party or parties would have had much less ability to change their situations.

Even today, abuse of power within family structure persists, albeit in a rather stealthier form, due to the laws affecting treatment of family members.  Without a far more substantial sample than simply one's own experiences with family structure, it is probably unwise to support the sort of hierarchy that even modern families usually contain.  Jesus was almost certainly aware that not all heads of families abused their power; his objection to family structures was therefore likely based on the potential for such abuse.  By destroying the framework that made the problems possible, he probably hoped to eliminate the problems.  If it is still difficult to understand his rationale, consider; no matter how good a job your parents or parent may have done at raising you, what would have happened if they had used their authority (as sanctioned by society and, to some extent, by the law) to treat you in an overall negative fashion?

Response: Reputation Build-Up

In response to Julia Monturo's post "There Is, There Is Not a God" (March 10, 2012):

I absolutely agree that stubborn atheism and stubborn theism can be equally bad.  However, it seems that stubborn theism has a worse reputation in general among agnostics and others who choose not to take sides; its reputation also seems to be based more in its dogmaticism than in its 'blasphemous nature' or other spiritual flaws.  When dogmatic atheists criticise theists, the criticism seems to be primarily towards the theists' supposed idiocy and blind faith, whereas when dogmatic theists criticise atheists, the criticism seems to be directed more at the atheists' evil or ungodly world-views.  The latter sort of criticism is, I think, relatively easy to dismiss if one adopts a viewpoint of religious relativity; the former is more difficult to dispel.  However, I think that the former can also be applied to stubborn atheists; as such, even if we cannot dismiss it, we can at least distribute our criticism more fairly.  I would guess that the currently common idea that only theists can be guilty of faulty, blind dogma comes from the fact that there have been, historically, many more wars and other tragedies due to theistic blind dogma than to atheistic blind dogma, but that is not due to atheism's inherently greater rationality (which does not, I think, exist); it is instead due to atheism's far smaller historical following.

Response: Not Religious???

In response to Dania Guadalupe's post "Is There Something Wrong Here?" (March 3, 2012):

I can't say that I quite understand how this chap can say that he hates religion.  It seems quite, quite clear that his assertions about Jesus fall under the category of religion - in fact, he even mentions his belief that various supernatural happenings involved Jesus literally occurred.  It seems to me that his objection is not against religion, but rather against some particular religious denomination, or perhaps against organised religion in general.  Religion, however, does not have to be organised, and his freestyle sort of belief in Jesus does fit the description of religion rather nicely.

Skewed Perspectives

When, in Thursday's class, we briefly discussed Ganhi and his apparently brutally honest autobiography, I thought about the nature of actual honesty.  In modern society, 'honesty' seems to imply admitting your faults to others, exposing the darkest parts of your history and nature for public perusal.  People who admit their lack of proficiency at various activities, tell stories about the unpleasant or immoral things they have done in the past, and generally act in a manner usually considered modest or self-effacing are often lauded as being brutally honest.

However, being modest is not the same thing as being honest.  Going on about all of one's failings while neglecting to mention, or perhaps denying the worth of, one's achievements is no more truthful than focusing only on the good side of things.  While I haven't read Gandhi's autobiography and as such am in no position to gauge how honest or dishonest he might have been about his life, I do know that putting oneself down and focusing only on one's negative traits seems to be far more admired than is probably wise.  In order to be fully and actually honest, people must focus on their negative and positive traits to the same degree, exhibiting an impartial attitude dedicated only to the truth.

Future Interpretations?

Since beginning the Crossan book, we have discussed numerous times the concept of the gospels being metaphorical in nature rather than literal.  If one takes the stories in the Bible as just that, stories, one can draw meanings and messages from within them rather than simply understanding them at surface value.

However, in recent times especially, many people have begun to interpret the Bible literally, probably due to the primarily literal, scientific nature of modern society.  Clearly this is a problem unique to our era, as people who lived around Jesus' time were familiar with the idea of mythology providing non-literal guidelines.

If this is so, then how might people in the future interpret the Bible?  As we do not currently know the future configuration of society, this is hard to predict.  However, we can guess based on current trends.  At the moment, many of the more progressive countries have been losing touch with religion and focusing instead on technology and the environment.  As such, I would guess that in the future either religion will die out (which, I think, would not destroy society, but would be a great shame) or it will adapt dramatically to meet the needs of a new society.  It seems likely that such an adaptation would lead to people interpreting religion in a more metaphorical way - so Christianity might end up being much closer to what it was supposed to be in the years directly following Jesus' death.

Response: Enabling Society

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.

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'.

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.