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.