over view and some fun

For my last post I wanted to post something interesting and after reading Catrina’s post on the hands of God it reminded me of a few things. The first thing that sprung into my head was something on Ebay about biding on a grill cheese sandwich with the face of the Virgin Mary on it. The sandwich ended up selling for about $18,000 which seems kind of preposterous to me. The only thing it made me think of was that someone had to be on drugs or very rich. Then I remembered some instances when I was on curtain substances and I most definitely saw images, if they were the Virgin Mary or not can’t say. These images seemed very real at the time and I still today think they truly were there. I would like to add to Chris’s post about his trip on salvia, he say images of a wolf den and ran and hid just as Catrina had mentioned should happen.

I learned a lot from this class and enjoyed a different approach to the traditional arguing over religion. I also thought it was great to have a diverse population of religions in the class to get more points of view. Over all great class and lots of individual ideas tossed around that were logical. See Link for Salvia Trip.

The Quote “The Tomb in Palestine is not the porch of spirits lingering. It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay” from the poem struck me at first as a mockery of Jesus and his final resting place. Because I am catholic I took offence to this and thought it was wrong. I then thought that this is just one example of a holy place that he doesn’t believe is spiritual. Many religions have holy or sacred places, were major events have happened, that are praised.

I took notice that I personally as a catholic shouldn’t be the only person upset when I heir this because he is dismissing all holy places of all time. All religions have a starting place and at that location is usually kept sacred and made into a homage point. For example Muslims have to make the homage to Mecca once in there life time. This is characteristic of almost all religions; Christians and Jews to Jerusalem … The list could go on and on for holy sites around the world.

Many wars have been fought over places such as these that Stevens explains as simply just anther place on our beautiful earth. After thinking about it for a while Stevens makes more sense than I had first thought. I don’t agree with him completely that religion should be dismissed altogether but these specific holy places are kept very high on many peoples priority list which isn’t rite. I don’t believe this is rite because God is in every thing and can be seen anywhere; he is not only present at Jesus’ tomb but in all places.

Response to Oliver

After considering Oliver’s new view on religion I thought some of his points have legitimacy. I do agree that religion is a set of ideas and beliefs within an individual that they think are “right” or correct. Oliver states that “religious institutions are communities that are formed around similar sets of religious beliefs in individuals” which I don’t believe is correct. Oliver omits the fact that most individuals learned the beliefs from the Religious community around them not the other way around. I do agree that most individuals in the community share the same or close to the same beliefs which lead him to make the point about the “avid group of Packer Fans.” This statement is not strong because we spent a lot of time in class talking about how many other groups and organizations have the same natural basic human components that compose Religion. Lastly I think there still is some confusion about the large arch. The same problems that arose in class are still there and I don’t think that going with the individual theory has to necessarily eliminate the largest arch.

Abstract

The class on Wednesday consisted of talking about what we thought the paintings are and how they can mean things to different people. This was the same topic in my Gender Studies class and we also came to the conclusion that art, especially abstract, can be interpreted in many ways that are individual. This idea was turned around when I read the quote “It is our function as artists to make the spectator see our way, not his.” This struck me as surprising because abstract art doesn’t have a strict path that it leads you to think about like other art. I thought the point of abstract art was to make the mind wonder and have personal meaning that everyone would interpret it differently. This statement from the painter himself kind of ruins what abstract art was for me.

Tattoos

I thought it was interesting that a tattoo was inspiration and indirectly related to one of his paintings. This struck me because we studied about tattoos and what they represent in Gender Studies. The article states “The Haida tattoo of the woman in the moon used by Jung, for example, relates indirectly to Moon Woman Cuts the Circle. He also discussed the Hiawatcha legend at length. Hiawatha, for Jung an archetype of the mythical hero, had a grandmother who had lived in the moon.” This shows that the tattoo that was of inspiration to him has mythical decent and is based on some sort of religion. Religion, as we learned in gender studies, is a major theme for the bases of many tattoos. Many kinds of crosses and praying hands can be found in tattooing along with devils and other symbols showing the rejection of religion or faith. I took special interest in the tattoo theme because I myself have a tattoo and incorporated religion into it. A first look at my tattoo would not show any religious meaning but to me a three leaf clover is a symbol of the holy trinity of the Christian faith that will be with me forever. Many others have the same thought about having their faith with them at all times and for eternity. There are even many websites and things about religious tattoos, check the link out.

Weekly Worship

I found it interesting that the Hull House sets one day aside and “give it up to music, dancing, conversation, games and reading aloud.” This struck me as coming from a religious background because most religions including Jewish, Catholic, and Muslim have one specific day a week to worship. During weekly worship many religions include such things as music, conversation, and reading aloud. The only differences between the weekly gatherings is the games and dancing which are used by the Hull House as a means of getting people to come to these events. The reason church’s don’t encompass theses acts is because they already have loyalty.

Reading aloud is the most important thing that connects the religious services to the Saturday’s at Hull House. Reading aloud on a Saturday night struck me as surprising because the other aspects of the night seem to be more for the sake of social entertainment. The reading aloud seems to be more of a teaching method within the community gathering just like readings in religion are used.

Other aspects of the Hull night are also seen in religion such as music and conversation. Almost all religions have a music component to their weekly services and some, as Oliver mentioned in class, are concentrated mostly on music. Conversation is also intertwined into services because before and after gatherings members have conversations among themselves. The conversations are not limited to religion but just as the members of the Hull community they talk about any similarities that they may share. Any group of people needs to gather on a regular basis overtime to build community and to get things accomplished.

Quiet Response

After reading about silence in Cate Frazier Cate Frazier's Blog I thought about my experiences in nature, especially hunting. I know it sounds opposite to what she was talking about, but don’t worry I am a bad hunter and don’t accomplish the goal of the sport very often. Even though I don’t take much meat home I still go out in the woods for the hunt but not for the specific reason of killing a deer but for the same sort of thing that Cate felt in the green house. The silence and wonders of how nature works and continues without our human input is what keeps me interested. I feel a strong connection to God in the silence of nature and this is the reason I now take time to go out in the woods or by the river to escape reality and experience God in prayer.

One more thing hit me after reading “we feel less than life when we feel unimportant, unaccomplished, and depressed.” This thought made me think of what non-religious people would do in a situation where they feel unimportant or depressed, and figured most would talk or go to their significant other. Then I remembered the saying you know you have a good relationship when you can sit for hours with your significant other and not say a word. This is the same idea with the higher power or God; we talk or pray when we have problems and just sit in silence and feel completely comfortable other times. This all just shows that what we said in class, religion doesn’t have presences in everything but religion is just another simple cognitive output to fill voids in our live, is true.

Adult Educattion

Everyone knows the famous quote “learn something new everyday” that applies strongly to the Hull house objectives. Even though they started with a day care they quickly learned that “it was absurd to suppose that grown people would not respond to opportunities for education and social life.” This is a common theme for many organizations including religions.

Most religions start teaching their specific religion to young kids at an early age to provide a strong base. Creating a strong base was the first goal of the House that worked very well for the children and community. After the base was set they realized that adults also needed to be educated and provided basic information that they have ether forgotten or never learned. The same sort of situation happens with religion; after a period of time people loose there connection to the church so the church has to reeducate them.

One simple example of this is adult bible study groups that many Christian religions and churches conduct. Other religions such as Judaism also stress the importance of adult education (see link). The adult education groups aren’t only a place to continually learn but also to discuses individual knowledge with others. These occurrences where the focal point in the education of the adults that went to Hull House when everyone worked together.

Meditation

After the experiment and discussion in class today I found there are three specific things need for an effective meditation session. I concluded a bias response because the way Catholic’s pray or self meditate in church is very effective.

The first thing need for excellent meditation or prayer is to have a calm quite atmosphere. It can’t be too quite and completely motionless because most people get board, just as we witnessed in class. Mr. Smith discussed the same sort of problem when he mentioned that some Quaker members became detached and uninterested during gatherings. During the Catholic mass the two times of personal refection are directly in between standing and knelling which keeps one moving and engaged.

The second part of a meditation that makes it successful is to have an idea or thought to ponder and wonder about. We saw the lack of this in class when we were instructed to just sit and do anything we wanted; the session was not focused. The Quakers we talked about have a moderate focal point to contemplate which is their inner light. This leads to random thoughts and insights but not a continual thought. The Catholic Church gives its followers a different Homily to consider each week which keeps things focused.

The last thing needed in a session of meditation would be a time period adequate for the intended goal. Class accomplished this well because if one was truly contemplating something they had just enough time to clarify an idea and then determine something about it. I believe this can not be measured with the Quakers because they don’t have one specific idea to ponder. Again Catholics do this well by first clarifying an idea for you and then giving someone a shorter period of time to relate it to thier personal life.

Over all the three things needed for a solid meditation are calm and quite, a thought, and a particular time line. I believe that Catholics do this well and the test in class encompassed some of the ideas well as were the Quakers meditate poorly. Because it is difficult to be in the situation the Quakers expect meditation to occur they don’t have a vary large group of followers. Lastly meditation is an important part of any religion.

Women souldn't speak

This article seems to be at the same level of Sam Harris in credibility. Just as Harris does Fell only uses parts of the bible and not the overall idea to support her argument that women should be allowed to speak in church. Further more, some of the points she makes such as “and thus the spirit of truth, and the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, hath been quite lost among them” only state that men are not good so women should be allowed to talk. Fell also uses things such as “he appeared first unto Mary Magdalene” trying to show that the Power of Jesus was bestowed to a women. It does prove Jesus trusted women but how does it have anything to do with being able to talk in the church. I just want to mention that I do think women should be able to talk in church (and other wise) but the way it was put across was not the best way to go about things. And the title was just to intise some readers in the class.

Dreadlocks

The dreadlocks of the Rastafarians may seem unique, unclean, or most commonly known as a sign for smoking ganja but are truly representative of the Rastafarian religion. Like many religions the dreadlocks are part of a physical appearance to distinguish themselves from others. Physical characteristics, mostly shown on the head or face, have been used by religions for many years, each religion using them for similar reasons.

The first and most clear reason for the members of a certain religion to have a unique appearance is to distinguish themselves from other religions. The Rasta’s expression “was to contrast the kinky hair of black men with the straighter hair of whites.” Other religions, like Judaism, have “peyos,” or sideburn curls, to signify “Jewish Identification”(Rabbi Simmons). Another example seen in our class of a religious marking (that distinguishes Ethiopians) is to have a tattoo of a cross on the forehead to represent Christianity.

Another common reason for religious followers to grow hair or show a symbol of their faith is to prove the strength of their faith. The Rasta’s dreads, and more importantly the length of the dreads, serve as a “measure of wisdom, maturity, and knowledge in that it can indicate not only the Rasta's age, but also his time as a Rasta.” In accordance, the Jews grow “peyos long as a way of emphasizing the commitment”(Rabbi Simmons). Physical representation is a central way of showing commitment to a religion or group. The concept of physical representation can also be applied beyond religion to any social group of people with the same identity, such as a gang who gets tattoos in order to distinguish members from non-members.

With the concept of commitment, we must also remember that not all Jews have peyos and not all Rasta’s support dreadlocks. It is necessary to keep in mind that this way of showing commitment is not exclusive, and that specifically the Rasta’s teach that “it is not deemed necessary for, or equivalent to, true faith.” Other religions have the belief that spiritual representation through physicality that is not the only way to demonstrate true faith.

“It is taught that patience is the key to growing dreadlocks, a journey of the mind, soul and spirituality.” Lastly, a lesson drawn form an action, such as the pain of getting a tattoo or the patience of growing dreadlocks, is a reason a group or religion would show a unique appearance. The processes of gaining a certain physical appearance may also draw group members closer and contribute to stronger unity. The Rasta’s are not the only religion to be proud of their faith or to use physical appearance to enhance their religious experience.

Tabernacle

“The Tabernacle of the Law of God” was a major theme in the second part of the Kebra. This symbol of Ethiopian faith was a physical symbol, as needed in all religions. Religions are mostly based on non tangible things, or ideas, that can only be imagined or believed in. For this reason they make physical symbols such as “The Tabernacle of the Law of God”, the Holy Cross, or the Star of David to represent and remind us of unearthly things. This reading points out not only how important the spiritual meaning behind these objects is, but also the physical objects them selves. Every time the Tabernacle is mentioned it has the phrase “of the Law of God” proceeding it, which shows that it isn’t just physically important symbol but also a representation of God and his Commandments.

Another part of the reading that illustrates the important ideas behind the Tabernacle is; most of the instances where we see the Tabernacle something like “Our Lady, they holy, heavenly Zion” directly precedes it (85). This is to constantly remind the people that it isn’t only the physical Tabernacle that is being written about or emphasized. Although the Kebra emphasizes the Tabernacle, it also mentioned the symbols and gods associated with other religions such as those of Egypt. It stated, when Solomon went looking for the Tabernacle he asked the Egyptians if they had seen the Tabernacle and they said “when these men came into the land of Egypt , our gods and the gods of the King fell down, and were dashed in pieces, and the tower of the idols were likewise broken into fragments (89) .” This again shows the power of the Tabernacle but also emphasizes that other Religions have idols or symbols that are equally important to them. This statement suggests that because the Egyptians didn’t only mention the idols being broken but also mentioned that the gods they represented had also fallen.

The last part of the Kebra strengthened the importance of the symbol because King Solomon followed the Ethiopians and Tabernacle because of the physical importance to his people. More importantly, the people from Israel realized that they were not just following an object but an idea. The idea of God, is what they were striving to recover but already had in themselves. They then realized that this object would give many others an opportunity to experience God through the Tabernacle. Even though one of their most important symbols was lost they could go back to the Holy land which in itself was a very important symbol.

Response to God and his rules.

In response to Cate F.; First Catholics do believe in one God, but he is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all in one. I also do agree that it is powerful to use a document of religion as law and guide not only individual lives but also a nation. All nations must have some set written down group of rules, and if these rules happen to be religious all the better because more times than not religious books will be morally stronger than government books. On the other hand, at this time I do believe that these people were meant to take the Kebra literally and did. The stories and the expiation of former kings gives light to tis idea that it should be taken latterly because it is there past and their beliefs. It is hard for us now to see this because of its obvious stretches of the truth, but at that time they took it latterly and fallowed it strictly. Over all the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all in the same, as God, can and will continue to make decisions on how to use his people to make rules and polocies to make the world good.

God's Riches

A large section of the Kebra Negast is just a listing of rulers of the time something like “And Adam died, and Seth reigned in righteousness. And Seth died, and Henos reigned. And Henos died, and Kaynan Rigned…” I found this listing very boring and uneventful until I came across one specific sequence. Under the sections of Concerning Isaac and Jacob, and Concerning Robel I found that it was more that just a listing, but also little insertions about how they ruled well and got great worldly things for it. One specific supplement that caught my eye was “and his possessions became numerous, and his children were many; and God blessed him and he died in honor.” This was interesting because it is contrary to modern catholic beliefs. In my Catholic background we do not believe that God gives us physical gifts in life such as possessions, wealth, children, or any objects for doing good deeds and following God. We believe that if we fallow Jesus and live a good respectful life we will be given spiritual gifts such as salvation and eternal life. The topic of God giving wealth and worldly things comes up multiple times in the text such as “And his seed was blessed, and his kingdom flourished, and his sons were blessed.” The multiple insertions in between listings of rulers makes one believe that wealth and physical things are a gift from God and proved that this is what they are supposed to strive for instead of just doing it for God. This thought has recently been a big discussion within modern religions. I have written a paper on the topic of “Does God Want You to be Rich” which was the name of a Time article. The article exemplifies debates between Christian religions and major pastors. I found it interesting that a text from a thousand years ago mentions topics that are profoundly discussed and debated about today. The link to the article is on the side of my Blogg and if you truly want to read my paper just let me know.

Response to Survey

In response to cCarissa Keith (link Carissa Keith ); I think she misunderstood what the surveys about the suicide bombers were meant to convey. She says that the 2.8 million people in America are perfectly peaceful witch is true but what the survey was trying to say is that even though they may be peaceful they still support the bombings as the article states. Another point that she makes is that the surveys asks if they believe the acts are justifiable and says this could be in retaliation to maybe an attack on them. Although this true the survey also states in the question that the bombings are against civilian targets. This to me shows that they think it is ok for civilians to die because someone has attacked them. I don’t believe many people of other faiths think that killing civilians in any case even in retaliation is ok. This was proven after the nuclear strikes in the World War when millions of civilians were killed or injured. Anther point she makes is that some of the responses were sometimes or rarely justified and that is ok. If these suicide bombers were attacking militarily posts or buildings yes this response is ok but when we are talking about civilians dieing I along with many others don’t believe that it is justified at all even rarely. The major point of the story and survey is that these results are very shocking and unbelievable but still very real at the same time witch I do believe that Carissa agrees with.

The Trinity

I found it very interesting how the idea of the trinity comes up in the Wikipedia article on Zohar two separate times. I thought the trinity was specific to the Christen religion and that it was the only faith to believe in it or any thing similar and use it in practice. I thought the father, the sun, and Holy Spirit was unique to the Christen faith for a few reasons and found it surprising to appear in a Jewish document. The part that talked about the trinity in Zohar that was mentioned was "The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. ^[[These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing'

I was mostly surprised about its presence because of the fact that one part of the trinity, the Sun, refers the Jesus. As most know Jewish people don’t believe that Jesus was the sun of god or had any holy powers. On the other hand Catholics believe that Jesus was not only the sun of God but also part of him as the trinity shows. The one of the Jewish archetypes that resembles remarkable well to Jesus is “first”. This may be a stretch but the son Jesus was the first truly living sign of God on earth, the first son of God, and the first part or start of the Catholic faith. Over all Jesus was the first of many things witch leads us to believe he could be the “first” witch is mentioned in the Jewish Archetypes.

The second part of the archetypes was “secret” which can be related to the part of the Catholic trinity called the Holy Spirit. Given, the Holy Spirit is not a secret and all Christians know about it is very similar to a secret. Secrets are told from one person to another and after it has been through a few people it may be completely distorted and not understandable. Just as a secret one can not completely grasp the idea of the Holy Spirit. Another interesting part of this idea is that one definitions of secret is “beyond ordinary human understanding” which is the Holy Spirit. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secret).

Lastly “wisdom” comes up witch must compare with the father. After the first two comparisons one would think that these two also compare surprising well, which they do. The father in the Catholic trinity refers to God as the father of all things including his son Jesus. Catholics also believe that God the father is all knowing and has all wisdom of the world. This is the most direct comparison of the tree parts of the trinity witch relates wisdom to wisdom.

The article also mentions the trinity in the statement “As the "primeval inner light" spreads throughout the hidden root two other lights are kindled, called or mezuhzah and or zah ("sparkling light"). It is stressed that these three lights constitute one essence and one root.” This was the first thing from the article that struck me as shockingly similar to the Catholic trinity. The trinity is thought of as one being; the father, son, and Holy Spirit are all one called God. This idea that three are one, including three lights as only one light, is hard to grasp and conceptualize for most people including Catholics. This is why when the theory of three in one showed up a second time in a separate document I didn’t think it was just chance, but hade meaning behind it. The similarity in the uncommon belief that three things are truly only one is the last and strongest tying factor that ultimately closely relates the trinity and archetypes of the Jews.

Religious change and interpretations

In class we talked about how Augustine interpreted the bible using the base of Love vs. Lust and described how this is one of many ways to look at a religious text and interpret it. The discussion turned into a debate that everyone can not just interpret the bible or other texts as they want but need a general theme to compare to. I thought this was interesting because of the three branches of Christianity there are over 50 different denominations that view the bible in different ways. Some of these denominations regard the bible strictly others use it as a reference but all of them have different interpretations that link back to one central idea that they believe. Along with this idea is the thought of how much of the bible is allegory and how much is literal. Each of these denominations has different ideas on this.

One specific example of how the Bible interpretation has changed in just one branch is Catholics. After Vatican II the church changed a lot of its ways and focused its homilies on more traditional ideas and practices. Even though this change occurred the Catholic view on the bible hasn’t changed and the main themes are still thought but the individual interpretations have changed.

Another little thing that I have noticed in church as a Catholic is the even at just different churches with different priests passages are interpreted and conveyed differently. I have gone to two mass on the same weekend at churches and have listened to two completely different homilies from the same scripture passages. Not to say that either is wrong but both different.

I just wanted to note that I know individual people shouldn’t interpret the bible to their own liking but churches do this collectively quite often. It is true that my faith, the Catholic faith, believes that “The church's interpretation of the Bible was final. Any Christian who substituted his or her own interpretation was a heretic.” Which is from Council of Trent during the reformation.

Other Stuff

In my last class of Gender studies I found it interesting at how many of the short stories were about convents and religious rules. Much of what was talked about in class was how the authors were trying to defy religion or expose their practices. I found this interesting because in today’s society most writers, famous ones, don’t write about religious ideas at all. Out of the top 35 best selling books only three or four have any religious thoughts in them. In class our major topic we talk about is how religions change over time and in my last class of Gender studies this was the topic of discussion. We talk in class about how technology influences the progression of religion as time goes on religion becomes more prominent. Along those same lines what does religion affect the progression of? To me it is quite clear that gender roles in society were greatly impacted by religious ideas. In many religions women have very little freedom and little role in religious activities wile in others women have just as many rights, but this is influenced mostly on how developed the religions have become over time. I then wondered how many other things are influenced by the advancement of religion. One other thing major aspect of society that can be influenced by religion is government. Some less advanced societies, hence less advanced religions, are still run by the religion that is present there. It is interesting to think how different our lives would be if there was no such thing as separate religion and state. If these two major aspects of society are linked to the advancement of religion how much else is dependent of it?

Grizzly Man

The movie brought one man, grizzly man, closer to bears and the natural world, which in the movie was interpreted as spirituality. I think, for this one man, nature was his way of expressing religion. This religion worked for him and gave him a sense of closure, and reasoning for life. These are the only reasons I accept the fact that nature in this special case is a religion. In my life, Christianity is what helps me through things and lets me accept death as nature does for Treadwell.

In the history of Catholicism many people have died for their faith and were called martyrs. I think this is a big step in any person’s personal faith and don’t know if I honestly could say that I would die even though I am a strong Christen. In the movie we witnessed a man willing to die for something he believed in and believed was his religion. I don’t know if this constitutes religion, but to me willing to die for some supernatural belief is truly religious.

Anther point I found that suggested Treadwell’s “nature religion” was truly spiritual and religious is that he believed it is what saved him. He says that nature and the bears are the only things that helped him with his drug addition and other proplems. I know for many people there faith or religious beliefs are what get them through though times such as a drug addition or death. The only way this is possible is with the thought that there is a supernatural essence helping you; to Treadwell it was the bears and for me Catholicism.

The idea that nature can be a religion also follows our survey of religious evolution. As we discussed in class, Treadwell was not like the Neanderthals because he interacted with the bears as his film has shown. He also was not like the Paleolithic people because they only saw the bears and nature as they were without tying a meaning to them even though they respected them. On the other hand, Treadwell had the choice and interacted with the bears in a more supernatural way. I think that Treadwell was even more religious then the Native Americans because they were forced to live with nature and animals which led them to respect and worship them unlike Treadwell. By choice, Treadwell became one with nature and made it a truly religious experience.

Effigy Mound Builders

“Ho-Chunk people told Radin that the Warrior clan is paired with the Hawk clan, but could be symbolized by the depiction of human being. The lower division is represented by clans of the earth and water.”

“An interesting alternative to the two-division model was given to Radin by some Ho-Chunk: the clans are divided into three groups headed by the thunderbird, bear, and water spirit.”

Even though these two quotes contradict one another they are from the same descendents of the mound builders. I found it interesting that people from the same tribe have different ideas on how things were in the day of mound builders and that Birmingham and Eisenberg would include this information in there article. Later they also go forward and take the side of the second members of the Ho-Chunk witch I found interesting. The reason they agreed with the second group was because it made more sense in what they were discovering in the mounds. But who is to say that they were correct and the other descendents are wrong. The first descendents might have the more correct answer and therefore a more complicated way of interpreting the mounds. I think that it was not the best idea to include both interpretations on how the tribes worked around the time of the mound builders. They base the rest of there arguments and interpretations only with the assumption that one group was write and the other completely wrong.

Response to Alavi Karim on Paleolithic Art pt.2

I began to ponder some of the similarities that humans have with animals after reading her post. The comment by Guthrie that she used was, “sharing creates obligations that can be, and usually are, called on later.” (pg 414). I thought of this and realized that obligations are what our entire society is about. Money first of all was designed and based of this idea because the only use for money is to “call up on a obligation”; it could be an obligation to the credit card company or your employers obligation for the work you did for them. Money is only a piece of paper saying that someone owes you something and when you want to “call on it later” you just give whoever you need something from the money that someone gave you for a service. As we all know money is what our lives are based on, so paying up for past obligations is and has to be part of our every day life. The famous saying “It’s not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” just exemplifies the idea of owing something to someone including your country is so present in our culture. I think this is just a complex extension of the same sorts of things that families of the Holocene Eurasians might have done to repay some obligation. Some obligations such as a male would bring back food to eat, so his brother or children collected wood and would have the fire started. I believe religious aspects of the Holocene’s were just as basic and similar to obligations. They had a basic idea of religion and of a supernatural essence, and maybe a higher power. The only difference is that, just as in the idea of obligations, we have a much more sophisticated set of beliefs and ideas that are linked to complicated religions such as Christens, Muslims, and Jews. A separate point that I wanted to mention about Alavi’s blog was that I don’t believe her point “human behavioral pattern may resemble to that of certain animals, can be disturbing to some because according to Genesis mankind was created as superior to all other beings. Is it or is it not derogatory that there are similarities between human and animal behavior can be a debatable topic.” I think this might be true but I don’t think that other animals having similarities to human’s means that we might not be superior to them; we still have symbolic thought and are much more complex then even the most similar animals.

Paleolithic Art 1

Even though the article dismisses the idea that religion is the reason for the Paleolithic Art I think it was still present. I agree mostly with the statement “It is not that the many rock art researchers who see art as magic and mystical are totally wrong; it is rather that they have taken good observations on mystical components of Paleolithic art and extended them universally to the entire art.”(10) I think that the lives of these people were partially devoted to religion and that it was depicted in art. I don’t believe that the cave art, more precisely the art deep in the caves, had many religious ties (the art on the walls under the rock abris at the entrance of caves also was linked more to religion). I think the other art such as ivory, antler, and mud sculptures found in open air sights can be linked more to religious ideas than the cave art.

Paleolithic demographics of more young than adults have been found to hold true in most cases. I linked this back to the mammoth story in Hot Springs where only the remains of “unsavvy, risk-taking young bulls”(44) were found because they were the only ones to venture down to and try eat the good greenery and tasty minerals. I then remembered a part earlier in the article that talked about how “most early peoples steered clear of caves.”(35) This whole concept put together reminded me of teens and graffiti in places such as under bridges and under overhangs and in places such as caves where most people wouldn’t see it. This made even more sense when I looked at what was on the walls of the caves. Things such as naked women, killing animals, and sometimes even men with erections were depicted on the walls. The things drawn on the walls were of common interest of teenage boys of that time just as they are now. So over all I think that it was young teen males such as ourselves that ventured down into the deep caves and created the “art made by beginning drawers.”(45)

Neanderthals

The article on the Singing Neanderthals was very interesting and informative but after reading it once I didn’t get any sense of religion at all. I mostly read if for the facts and was waiting for religious ideas to be mentioned. When the topic of religion didn’t pop up in the text I was sort of shocked and disappointed that I just read this for religion and didn’t see any sign of it. I then looked over it again for the major concepts and to my surprise found quite a few connections to religion. The majority of the article is about the ‘Hmmmmm’ and I was trying to relate it back to religion some how and all I could think of was the singing I as a Christen do in church. I then ran across the quote “’Hmmmmm’ music-making not only when their groups were challenged by death and injury, but also during the ‘good times’ of Neanderthal life.” This made reread the part about Neanderthal burial and connect it to most religions of today, and of all time, that burial is a major part of all of them. I found it interesting that these beings have no symbolic logic yet they buried there dead. I found it reasonable that they could have done if for some of the same reasons Catholics, Egyptians, Muslims, or almost all religions that bury for purely religious reasons. I then tough about the opposite of death, birth, or one good times of the Neanderthals, and found some similar connections. They sang to there babies just as is done by mothers now and in rituals such as baptism. It is also said that they used gestures and other movements to communicate as Catholic parents no make gestures such as having the holy cross up in the child’s room or other religious gifts given to them by godparents or other relatives. I still have some of the crosses and other religious gifts from when was born just as I remember my parents prying next to the child’s bed every night. I could imagine some of the Neanderthals had some similar practices even if more related to nature such as the Native Americans. I then came across the part about the empty space for performance out side of the cave and could it not have been a religious building for worship such as churches, synagogues, pyramids, and other religious buildings.

Why Do WE Believe?/Genesis

The article by Robin Henig was very interesting from my view point. I was brought up Catholic and never questioned why religion was and has been around for hundreds of years. I never wondered why it was first created because for me it was just as it was. My religion nether hindered my survival nor facilitated it, it was just kind of another thing I did ever Sunday. But reading this article made me think about it more and question why things are the way the are. It seemed right that there the reason religion stated was to help survival. This is when I became interested and then, other scientific reasoning proposed made a lot of sense. On the other hand I still wanted to believe as I did before. This is when the whole article came together for me and said “ Why wouldn’t God design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural.”(Barett 78) This made complete sense to me and gave closer to the article but then it made me think back about Gennesis which I have just read.

When I grew up I just accepted things such as Genesis and the other stories and listened to Gospels about them connecting them to life now but never dealt with the truthfulness or symbolic nature of them at all. I always just took the stories as they were even though in the back of my head I didn’t truly believe their entirety. The is no way the being as scientist such as my self could just believe that God created ever thing in six days. But looking at it the way that Justin Barett does it would make sense that God created the world using the big bang and he is behind all of the scientific reasoning that we have today. The question for me now is, is there true science or is God just letting us in on the way he has created the world and made things work previously.