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)