Response to Imtiaz Metropolis Post

I agree with Imtiaz's comments about Metropolis as a "brilliant science fiction movie, targeted towards the richer people of society" to remind them of the consequences of oppression but in terms of religious interpretation I did not see Joh Fredersen as God. Although the son of Joh Fredersen highly resembled Jesus coming down to the people of the lower class to act as a mediator and give them hope I thought that Joh Fredersen was too 'evil' to be God. He was the ruler of the city but was too neglecting towards the lower class. If the message of the movie was to remind the upper class citizens of the time the dangers of oppression on the lower class and to direct people to act appropriately in society I don't think God would have been represented in such a way as to be shown as the leader of the oppressors and distrusting of his son. I viewed Joh Fredersen as any power hungry sinner who had not yet been saved by Jesus.

Kebra Commandments

In the section of the Kebra Nagast entitled "Concerning the Ten Commandments" I was surprised and reminded of an aspect of religious belief that turns me off and pushes me away:

And thou shalt not take to wife a maiden and her sister so as to make them jealous each of the other, and thou shalt not uncover their shame, nor the same of the one or the other as long as the first sister is alive. Thou shalt not go to a menstrous woman, until she is purified, to uncover her shame whilst she is still unclean. And thou shalt not go to the wife of thy neighbor to lie with her, and thou shalt not let they seed enter her... And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is pollution. And thou shalt not go to a beast and thou shalt not lie with it so as to make thy seed go out upon it... (60)

There are many aspects about this passage that push me away from organized religion and think that it is a joke. For one thing the author is writing to men about what not to do and in this passage is not concerned with women whatsoever other than mentioning that a man should not embarrass a women by sleeping with her sister while she is still alive, he should not sleep with a woman during her menstrual cycle, and he should not sleep with his neighbors wife. Who ever thought of making these ideas a part of the 10 Commandments is obviously infatuated with the idea of these things. I think to say live a morally conscience life and have sex to procreate implies don't do stupid things that will get you into trouble. God did not send an angel down from heaven to tell people these things. I think that too often "angels" are coming down to guide people into battle and doing things in the name of God that will hurt other people to give people a conscience excuse for their wrongdoings.

Leadership

It caught my attention right away in the beginning of the Kebra when the 'fellowship' of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit decided to create man. I was raised Catholic and know very few bible stories but I was always under the impression of one God, the creator. To me the Kebra is a document that serves to keep people within the lines of society, to live in a way that is not disruptive to the greater good, to live morally. It is very powerful to use a document as the foundation of a religion to be something that everyone within the religion will if not interpret literally, will view the document in some way in relation to their own lives. To have the introduction of the Kebra discuss a fellowship directing creation, I think is a strong message towards democracy. Although, throughout the reading God dominates in making decisions about who to punish it still includes the Son and Holy Spirit in the hierarchy of leadership. The Son and the Holy Spirit may be extensions God, or God in different forms, but to suggest that God was not the only one making decisions about how to make the world good is powerful in using this document to establish a government in accordance to the reading.

Framework

From the reading Conceptual Blending and Analogy I see the message of blending different things, ideas, or events in order to set up a framework in which to proceed to do anything whether it be development of a thought or an activity. For me setting up a framework using all of the influences on my life, friends, family, teachers, culture, etc. allows me to create a religion in my life. In using a metaphor towards my religious views, it’s a lot like team building. In team building it is important to check on everyone around you, look out for them, stay in balance, and work toward a common goal. Physically the framework comes together and can be seen like at a ropes course, where 5 people walking across a tight rope at the same time to cross a stream. The 5 people are like all parts of life influencing one another, must keep all parts together and interacting with one another to reach the goal. For me all of the influences upon my life mold together to create a framework for my beliefs in God. There is a constant pushing and pulling from different parts of my life that manipulates the total framework and the pushing and pulling in certain directions can change my ideas. Religion is not the sole focus of my life but this framework of balance between the day-to-day interactions and thought processes that occur within my life shapes everything that I am.

Crow Indians

I thought that in terms of comparing the message of the article on the Crow Indians to the message of hope in Lamentations was interesting but to say that there is hope for the Crow Indians to regain their culture and religion is impossible. Over and over again in the Crow article courage, honor, and bravery of the Crow warriors was said to define the tribe and the families within the tribe, “Girls as well as boys derived their names from a famous man’s exploit. Women danced wearing scalps, derived honor from their husbands’ deeds, publicly exhibited the man’s shield or weapons.” I think that even with strong government help to give the tribe back their land it cannot give back the culture. The tribe cannot go back to living in a hunting and scalping way of life and although the Crow Indians remember their past and may grieve the loss of their culture they will not want to return to their old traditions and leave the luxuries of today’s society. So I think what the article was really doing was shaking its finger at our government for destroying the culture of the Crow people although sadly there is seemingly nothing that can be done about the restoration of the culture.

In Catrina's blog on lamentations she discusses that lamentations is sending a message of hope that God has a higher plan for people in devastating circumstances. I would agree with this interpretation of lamentations and I also think that lamentations shows the undivided following that the people have for God. Today, not everyone would brush off a disastrous situation with "I will let this happen to me and not rebel against it because God will take care of me and everything will be alright." I think the extreme following of God can be seen from this reading because of the apparent process of emotions that is observed; 'I'm angry that you let this happen God, I'm sorry that I've sinned, this is my fault; God you are so wonderful I know you will always be there for me." If there was not such an extreme following of God I think the people would have stopped at why did you let this happen, you did this on purpose, I needed you and you were not there for me, I'm not going to follow you any more.

Lamentations

I thought it was very interesting that through this devastation the people remained firm followers and believers in God. At first God was responsible for what happened and the people were angry with ‘him’, then the people began to accept responsibility for what happened attributing the devastation to their own sins, the people then take comfort that God will take care of them and praise his greatness, and then become impatient with God and wonder if God is still upset with them that he may not be helping them get back to where they were and rebuild their civilization.

Lamentations seems to take on different narrations in the 5 different sections. First narrator is upset with God for the impoverished state of the society. The narrator speaks from a first person point of view and talks about God doing these/letting these terrible things happen to the city. The narrator is very upset and spiteful with God.

The second narrator discusses how God destroyed the city, God’s wrath and gave no protection to the city from their enemies. The narrator speaks to God.

The third narrator talks about God’s wrath and the devastation of the city, questioning “—does the Lord not see it? Who can command and have it done, if the Lord has not ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Why should any who draw breath complain about the punishment of their sins?”
This narrator is saying that the trouble they are experiencing on earth is due to God because God determines good and evil and that the reason they are experiencing their destroyed state is because they are being punished for their sins.
“Let us test and examine our ways, and return to the Lord. Let us lift up our hearts as well as our hands to God in heaven. We have transgressed and rebelled and you have not forgiven.” The people are trying to return to God’s favor and accept responsibility for what happened as their own fault because they sinned. They are moving in a direction that praises and exalts God. “You came bear when I called on you; you said, “Do not fear!” The narrator in this section also speaks to God.

The fourth narrator discusses the state of the ruined city and the people in it, “but my people has become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.” This narrator writes as a warning to other cities with a mocking tone, “Rejoice and be glad, O daughter Edom, you that live in the land of Uz; but to you also the cup shall pass; you shall become drunk and strip yourself bare.”

The fifth narrator speaks to God about poor conditions and a want/pea to restore themselves to God, with a little impatience “Restore us to yourself, O Lord, that we may be restored; renew our days as of old—unless you have utterly rejected us, and are angry with us beyond measure.”

After reading through some blogs I really liked what Alavi Karim had to say pertaining to the reading The Nature of Paleolithic Art Part II. I was also in the biological anthropology class that Alavi mentions and I felt that I could relate to looking to past humans and even primates to explain why we do some of the things we do. I am a biology major and have not been very exposed to creationism. I find creationism fascinating because it is such a different way of thinking about things than I am used to but the way that I see it is we definitely have a tie to basic instinct to survive and some of the tactics that we use to ensure that survival, although we live in a very controlled environment where we all have much more than we need, are much like those of animals.

The end of the construction of effigy mounds as a cultural tradition for Native American peoples of Wisconsin was not unlike an incidence where Native peoples of Australia with a prion disease gave up their reliance on religious views to cure disease for the miracle medicines of the British. In both cases new technologies that could prolong the lives of the peoples replaced earlier cultural practices that had been important in maintaining the identity of the tribe. I believe that the effigy mounds served as important symbolic markers of the status of a tribe in the hierarchical system of the native people, a way of communicating the spiritual beliefs of the tribe, and a way in which the people connected themselves with the land as a part of the earth. The effigy mounds are clear markers of the history and symbolic beliefs of the native tribes of Wisconsin. The loss of the mound-building tradition does not necessarily mark a loss in the strength of their religious beliefs but I think that it does make for a loss in the identity of the tribe. Robert Hall mentioned that doing away with the mound building was due to the ‘concerns for the fertility of the earth’ where agriculture had become a large part of the lives of the native people, was a ‘custom that was no longer needed.’ Although the end of the effigy mounds may have been helpful to produce more yield from the land, but as we look at the land today we can see that the land has been destroyed by agriculture. The loss of the effigy mounds to agricultural practices indicates that when seemingly better forms of technology are introduced to a population more may be at stake to the culture than would be predicted.

Strength in Numbers

From The Nature of Paleolithic Art Part II I gathered that beliefs and religion developed overtime with expanding groups. Belief in a higher power was not always programmed into people. Evidence of this development of religion in later times can be seen by looking at the artwork of the earlier Paleolithic people. The early artwork consisted of drawing things in the natural world in straightforward manner not trying to depict it any differently than it really was where as the later artwork noted in the text, focused on more social aspects and local myths. It is in the nature of all creatures to live in way that best ensures their survival, but when humans began to form larger communities, they gained a sense of power over the earth. They gained this sense of power by cultivating the land and storing materials in order to ensure our survival in a time when we would naturally die out because of lack of resources. Since they didn’t have to worry about their survival as much because of their newfound power over the land, they started to focus their attention on social aspects. The peoples learned that survival was increased when living in a group because it gave protection from the earth (storms, food shortages, wild animals etc.) I think that when the peoples realized the power of the larger group, they were able to focus their attention on staying within the larger group by interacting with others on a more emotional level. The peoples most likely still kept innate feeling of trying to survive, but it was easy to become greedy within the group and to start to manipulate others in the group and form alliances against other groups that were not part of their own. The peoples did not want to share their food because would decrease their own chances of survival so they became enemies with other groups. I think that because they were always trying to ward off other groups, over time a fear became instilled within them that things could be taken away from them and this fear made them discomforted so for reassurance in the ability to hold on to what they had they looked to ‘gods’ for comfort. I think the idea of a god may have been a common idea but defining what the powers of that ‘god’ could do may have developed much like ideas of monsters, or robbers do in the imaginations of little kids having a sleepover. When one kid gets scared or pretends to get scared the other kids also get scared and feed off of one another’s feelings creating a situation that is not real. Not to say that God is necessarily unreal but the parameters in which we define Him may be.

Singing Neanderthals Continued...

Since the Neanderthals didn't advance in their tool making or ways of life it seems to me that they were more or less living mindlessly. Their methods of tool making were passed on exactly and they continued their technologies of the past through imitation so it could be argued that the Neanderthals were surviving by going through the motions of life but without a reason like religion. I think that had the Neanderthals had the mental capabilities of being a religious group more change would have occurred in their lifestyles throughout their life history.