Ambrosina Pancorbo
A Critical Analysis of the Viability of Religions for the 21st Century
Christianity and Islam hold some beliefs in common. Both agree that there is one God who created the universe and is the supreme ruler. God is the source of morality and justice. God dispenses final justice via life after death in heaven or hell. Christians and Muslims both consider pornography and other immoral acts as cancerous to society. A primary criticism of western civilization, in fact, that many Muslims point to is the influence of such practices they attribute as spreading from the west.
Islam, at its core, is a peaceful religion. However, should one wish to commit violence, he can find ample support for doing so throughout the Kuran. Acknowledging that violence in the Kuran is sometimes for self-defense; at other times it is unclear. Several passages in the Kuran urge Muslims to “kill infidels wherever they find them.”
In a video tape from late 2001, Usama bin Laden stated that he was “ordered to fight the people until they say Allah is the only god, and Mohammed is his prophet,” echoing the language of the Kuran.
Note, however, that the Kuran is not the sole basis for violence in Islam. Found in the pages of the accounts of Muhammad’s life, the hadiths, Muhammad himself, later in life, laid the foundation for violence through his own actions. Following the first thirteen years of his ministry in the city of Mecca, marked by peaceful teachings, Muhammad became a political leader in the city of Medina. Accompanying this new political power, Muhammad’s behavior became more aggressive, using violence to spread his religion and to attack pagan travelers. Holy War, or jihad, is mentioned throughtout the Hadiths and is a traditional part of Islam.
Of course, to be fair, the Bible contains its share of violence as well, particularly in the Old Testament. These calls to violence, however, are arguably distinguishable from the violence condoned or, moreover, encouraged in the Islamic religion. The Kuran contains general commands to destroy enemies of Islam – a stark contrast.
Moving beyond the Old Testament, the message of the New Testament regarding Jesus was unmistakably one of non-violence. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be anything akin to the Christian concept of “love your enemies” in Islam. Where Christians are called to “love your neighbor as yourself,” the Koran instructs not to have Jews or Christians as friends.
Christianity and Islam differ significantly with respect to the concept of charity. Muslims, to ensure that a benefactor’s wealth remains pure, are discouraged from giving to non Muslims. Jesus, in contrast, told followers to help those outside the faith.
Islam is a religion focused on power and glory. Muslims may find it difficult to comprehend that Christians could worship Jesus, a man having had no interest in political power and above all, does nothing to resist his defeat by authorities. By contrast, Islam is more than religion; it is an ideology that from news clips over the last several years, especially, seems to include a sociopolitical agenda. There is no such thing as separation of church and state in Islam. Freedom of religion does not exist in Muslim countries, evidence perhaps that Islam wishes to gain power through political control.
For Muslims, there are three reasons given for justifiable homicide: murder, adultery, or leaving Islam. Moreover, Pakistan, for example, has a blasphemy law such that insults directed at Muhammad are punishable by death.
Islam claims to be the final “graduated” religion. If so, it seems odd to call upon violence no less than that of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible.
Of course, for the sake of a more interesting and pointed comparison, throughout I have been referring in both the case of the Christians and of the Muslims to those members who would identify themselves as fundamentalist. Note that a religious fundamentalist, generally, is one faithful to the tenets of the religion. Based on the preceding paragraphs about violence, within each religion, then, the upshot is that Muslims committing violent acts are likely to be acting consistently with fundamentalist Islam while a Christian who commits a violent act would quite likely be acting contrary to fundamentalist Christian beliefs.
There are also significant differences between Islam and Christianity with respect to how each religion views the nature of God. Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity (i.e., one God revealed in three persons as the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit). Islam, by contrast, denies the Trinity (because Jesus was merely a man) and views the idea of the Trinity as blasphemous. Islam does hold Jesus in high regard. It does not, however, lend any credence to Jesus as the son of God.
To Muslims, versus Christians, God is comparatively distant and unknowable, having a master/slave type of relationship with man. Christians have a personal relationship with God. The God of the Bible is described as being love itself, one that would go out of his way to search for a lost sheep. The God of the Bible welcomes man with open arms to offer comfort and assurance, as a father would with his children.
Another difference between these religions concerns the views of the nature of man. Christianity insists that man is fallen from grace and is not worthy of standing up to a holy and righteous God. On the other hand, Islam says that man is not fallen but, rather, that man is weak but not fallen. Islam teaches that man is capable of righteousness. Seems, on its face, a simple enough statement, however, its implications are meaningful. Namely, the Islamic view does not recognize the sinfulness of man as does Christianity. For Islam, then, if man is corrupted by society, then those in power can work to create a perfect society merely by strictly enforcing Islamic law.
This difference between Christianity and Islam on the nature of man is an important one because it paves the way towards the next distinction – salvation. Given man’s sinful nature and the rift it creates between imperfect man and a perfect God, Christianity holds that man is not capable of earning salvation. Christians hold that the only way to bridge that gap is through a savior. Salvation, then, is attainable only through Jesus and his sacrifice for man through his death and resurrection – the essence of Christianity.
Islam, on the other hand, holds that man may reach heaven through his works such that he may earn his way into heaven. A Muslim expects to gain entrance into heaven through his works in addition to his faith. A Christian, conversely, believes that entrance into heaven is not attainable by good works but only through belief in Christ such that rejection of Christ dooms man to eternal punishment. This may seem patently unfair; however Christians view this as the utmost in fairness. A holy God, through Jesus, provided a way for woefully sinful man who, alone, falls helplessly short of righteousness, a “free” all-access path to him/heaven – simply espouse faith in Jesus as your savior and salvation is yours with nothing else required.
Where Christians believe that salvation is assured through faith, Muslims are not assured of salvation (except perhaps through martyrdom in a jihad) until Allah weighs a Muslim’s good works against his bad works. If the good works, on balance, outweigh the bad, you get in. Even then, however, entrance is not assured because Allah may admit anyone he chooses.
The views of heaven differ between the two religions as well. Heaven to a Muslim entails the concept of a paradise that is a carnal, sensual place – the VIP room of Scores. Heaven is opulent and, while alcohol is forbidden on earth, a Muslim may drink from rivers of wine in paradise. Men, as is often noted, also will make love to dozens of virgins.
Christians view heaven as something altogether different. Heaven would not be marred by carnal things. People would not be married but angel-like. And while heaven to Muslims is focused primarily on what Muslim men can expect to enjoy, heaven for Christians is a perfect place of contentment for men, women, and children alike.
How does Hinduism square with either of these monotheistic religions? Hinduism, unlike practically every other religion, is not prophet-centric. Rather, Hinduism is a God-centric religion. The Hindu concept is that each soul is moving ever closer to God over many lives and that when a soul reaches sufficient spiritual maturity, it awakens a conscious desire to know God as its inmost essence, to experience Truth personally.
Continuously striving to attain the soul’s release from the body (and, thereby, breaking the endless cycle of reincarnation) is a central tenet for all Hindus, though few Hindus actively seek this ideal. Central to Hindu teachings is the universal desire to satisfy the human striving for peace of mind (Shanti) and not to reach Heaven, per se.
With respect to how Hinduism stacks up to Christianity or Islam regarding religious conversion, Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion. The many Hindus that view Hinduism primarily as a philosophy or a way of life would likely be accepting of one desirous of conversion. A person presumably can convert simply by incorporating Hindu beliefs and by considering oneself a Hindu. Interestingly, most Hindu sects do not recruit converts. Rather, most Hindus believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, so long as it is practiced in earnest. As a kind of meta-religion, Hinduism is perhaps a nice overlay on most any religion in that it could compliment rather than conflict with the monotheistic religions.
How does a secular view compare to these religions? Interestingly and, perhaps, ironically, a secular view of the world is in a few instances consistent with certain religious views. In the attempt to reach Heaven, Muslims employ the good works versus bad works balancing test administered by Allah himself. This is not far a field from a secular form of government know as communism. Communism is based upon a similar precept that man is at base good, or at least can be perfected by government. In the case of Islam, perfecting Muslims through Islam is essentially equivalent to stating that you are perfecting them through government because, as noted above, religion and government with respect to Islam are inseparably intertwined.
With respect to secular beliefs versus religions, particularly the examples of faith-based religions, Christianity and Islam, that have been the focus of this paper, the upshot is rather simple and any resulting discussion, naturally, reflects this simplicity through its brevity. Namely, faith, particularly in the instance of Christianity, is the core belief of the religion. Secular beliefs look to science to prove/disprove religious tenets. A Christian, for example, holds that proof is not required as part of his belief, rather, what is required is, in fact, the absence of proof (i.e., faith).
Faith, therefore, is why, in spite of all the exposure to various religions, I am steadfast in my comfort with my religion of choice, Christianity. It is my faith that allows me to learn of other ways of thinking/other religions without concern that, in doing so, I may be overcome with self doubt. To accomplish this, I have learned over the years that my faith must be properly placed. That is, my faith must not be limited to blind faith placed upon the church, its leaders, etc. Rather, my faith must rest upon the fact that, as a Christian, Jesus is my savior.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Religions of China and Japan – Comparison to Each Other and Modern Life
Jeff Bourbeau
3/26/07
Gustafson
Mini-Paper 3
Religions of China and Japan – Comparison to Each Other and Modern Life
To be able to discuss the religions of China and Japan, one must first establish what these are and distinguish the differences between a broad spiritual religion or just a simple philosophical outlook. In China and Japan the things westerners would consider a religion are Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. The other ideas these countries carry, those of the Bushido, the Japanese ultimate reality, and others these would fall more under the ideas of philosophical ideas and outlooks. Now that the religions of China and Japan according to a western mind have been established, we can begin to understand which are possible to integrate into our lives. In order to do this though, we must extract the strengths and weaknesses of each religion after which we can discuss the potential for such ideas to have a home a western mind.
Confucianism profits from a countries desire to be unified. When people desire the others around them to be honorable, when they want the others around them to be good and moral, and when they want them to do their jobs, Confucianism is spread from neighbor to neighbor to promote such behavior. The Confucian term of “Li” is something most people can identify with. It means the idea of ritual, manners and etiquette(Carmody 166). Taoism and Buddhism do not have ideas for these things. To have structured ideas of what is proper and right is a terribly important thing to have established for a normal society. Another Confucian term, that of “Yi,” which means duty, and responsibility, focuses on further structurally integral aspects of human life. The first ideas of Confucianism were developed the same way most religions were, by a single man after living a life of hardship. Confucianism is a religion for a productive society that wishes to produce much and stay strong together. Its ideas are formed around respecting one another and doing ones part to accomplish what ones bosses asks for. Such a religion may lead to a life of hardship, but society on the whole will accomplish great things. Opposed to this way of great structure in life is Taoism.
Taoism focuses on nature and the flow of life. It doesn't ask for people to be responsible or for people to follow a patriarchal ideal, but rather it asks for people to do “nothing.” Nothing in this case is actually everything though, because that is what Taoism is. According to the Tao of Pooh, a book written by author Benjamin Hoff to explain Taoism through short stories of Winnie the Pooh, as well as philosophical explanations, the point of Taoism is to follow the path of “Wuwei” or “the uncarved block.” Wuwei is often written also as wei wu wei, which means action without action which means that one can act without also ways acting; wu wei can also mean effortless action. What Wuwei means to people can be broken down in a metaphor; suppose you lost your car keys and you could not find them no matter how much you searched. You ran around to every corner of your house searching, under couch and table, and the hours passed with you searching for your keys. You had an appointment soon and your heart is racing because you really had to leave, but you cannot without your keys. Finally, it is time for you to leave, but you are still key-less, so you sit down frustrated and sad that you cannot go out, and suddenly a jingle comes from your pocket as you land on the couch because your keys were in your pocket the entire time-this is Wuwei. In the “Tao of Pooh” it is explained as the opposite of being a busy body. The point is to follow the path of nature and let things flow to work themselves out.
Buddhism, unlike Confucianism and Taoism, focuses on philosophical truths it establishes as essential to life. Where Confucianism proclaims certainties of what one must do in order to live a proper and just life, and where Taoism says life is good through acts of compassion and letting things flow, Buddhism contradicts all saying life itself is a great world of eternal suffering. All those living must suffer, according to Buddhism, and only through Buddhism's “noble eight-fold path can one escape this suffering.”(http:\\www.wikipedia.org) The Eightfold path was developed by the founder of Buddhism, the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama. The Eightfold path states ways in which a man or woman can escape the life of suffering we all are born into, age through, and die with. With the eight-fold path we can escape the cycle of rebirth that Buddhism states all men and woman are trapped in, where all people are reincarnated back into the world of suffering according to their karma. It is a pretty complicated thing to understand, karma, and something that westerners have adapted to mean many things, most far from its true meaning. In many modern T.V. Shows one can see someone slip on the floor and jokingly another character will say it is karma, but this isn't the true meaning of karma. What karma actually means, according to the book “Modern East Asia” by Conrad Schirokaur and Donald Clark, is the intent, or the mental spirit, of ones own actions. The karma of these actions is this reflected upon someone when they die and they are reincarnated based upon their actions. This has been called karmatic justice. But what does this mean in comparison to the other East Asian religions?
Buddhism and Confucianism seem to be on opposite sides of a spiritual coin. Buddhism speaks of reincarnation and suffering, while Confucianism doesn't even touch on this aspect of shared human pain. Confucianism focuses on problems all men face economically and ethically. It asks for people to follow certain ideals in order to function as a successful society. Do Buddhism or Taoism touch this topic though? Of course they don't. Taoism and Buddhism are religions of the spirit that focus on the after life, the inner self, and the potential for happiness. Confucianism focuses on sociological aspects of religion, it manipulates people to be productive and functional according to the people governing them, and to treat one another in kindness so there are no errors in the society's workings. On the other hand, Buddhism and Taoism are more similar in their spiritual guidance. Confucianism just falls short on speaking to a persons spiritual needs.
Buddhism and Taoism are still far from being in line with one another. Buddhism calls life a world of suffering, but Taoism says the opposite, that if one follows the way of nature then one can be ultimately happy. Perhaps it is both, and Buddhism is just confused. Maybe Buddhism's eight-fold path is similar to “the path” or “Wuwei,” and in actuality these religions are identical. Both are somewhat interpretive. It is possible that Taoism, rather than calling all life suffering, simply focuses on what is right rather than what is wrong, and merely says “this is how to be free and happy,” and to avoid certain things that are bad. In the case of Buddhism though the Buddha only could see the suffering and could not see that happiness was the potential around him with the eight fold path, and so the Buddha said life is suffering and we must escape rather than seeing life and saying, life has the potential for happiness through the path we can be free, which is what Taoism says with its own path, that of Wuwei. In this way both religions are not so dissimilar.
But what does this mean for the modern Westerner whose mind is bombarded with ideas of Jesus Christ every day, and other Christian philosophies and ideas. Well, in actuality the principles of the Buddha and those of Taoism are not far from the teachings of Christ. If we look at the eight-fold path, it asks for moderation in most actions we commit ourselves to in life, and should we pick up a Bible, similar tales are asked of those who follow Christ. Should we look to Taoism for guidance, we are taught to give ultimate compassion and to follow nature, yet the ideas of a Western Christianity teach the same, for it is Jesus himself who is taught as the most compassionate of all men.
But where does Confucianism fall within these parameters? Confucianism can be a very useful philosophy for a society wishing to grow economically. Unfortunately though, Confucianism is extremely stifling if inflicted upon a already grown society. If one looks at China during the early 1900s one can see how this is the case. China was at a breaking point stifling under Confucianism with the growth of artistry and women within its society, a society that begged to burst forth into the world as a productive juggernaut, but only thanks to Confucianism was the creation of such a society even possible, therefor Confucianism is to be learned from surly, but one must be careful with such teachings. To the west, a world already fully grown, with ethical teachings a norm and principles of responsibility firmly in place, far from an ancient world that needed such structure, Confucianism is pretty useless. The ideas that Confucianism teaches are very important to countries that lack significant intelligent leadership, and the things it proposes were key for China's development, however today the ideas of “Yi” and “Li” seem abstract and pointless to a people who have been taught since birth the Constitution of the United States, which itself proposes similar ideas of respect and responsibility.
The western world is fully grown, therefor Confucianism has no place in it outside of perhaps teaching the young ideas of structure, should they not identify with similar ideas from other concepts. Buddhism and Taoism, on the other hand, can serve a great role in the western world, filling the gaps in the westerner's mind left by Christianity and other popular western religions. Through Taoism are methods of relaxation and compassion available to us in our extremely busy and uptight world, and through Buddhism are alternatives to a spiritual identity and foundation of the self possible.
Through these two religions, westerners, myself included, can find ways to approaching philosophy, ethics, and life in general in new and helpful ways that can break down the barriers put around us by the walls of popular, western, moral, religious ideals that have been taught to us since birth. Most of us have been told the Ten Commandments, maybe even seen the movie a couple of times, and are very comfortable with the ideas of Christianity. We understand the life of Christ, the idea of the miracle, and the idea of heaven, but most people do not truly understand what compassion means, what suffering means, or what paths through personal philosophy can bring us to happiness. It is through Taoism and Buddhism that the western mind can be brought these new ideas, and I for one welcome them.
3/26/07
Gustafson
Mini-Paper 3
Religions of China and Japan – Comparison to Each Other and Modern Life
To be able to discuss the religions of China and Japan, one must first establish what these are and distinguish the differences between a broad spiritual religion or just a simple philosophical outlook. In China and Japan the things westerners would consider a religion are Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. The other ideas these countries carry, those of the Bushido, the Japanese ultimate reality, and others these would fall more under the ideas of philosophical ideas and outlooks. Now that the religions of China and Japan according to a western mind have been established, we can begin to understand which are possible to integrate into our lives. In order to do this though, we must extract the strengths and weaknesses of each religion after which we can discuss the potential for such ideas to have a home a western mind.
Confucianism profits from a countries desire to be unified. When people desire the others around them to be honorable, when they want the others around them to be good and moral, and when they want them to do their jobs, Confucianism is spread from neighbor to neighbor to promote such behavior. The Confucian term of “Li” is something most people can identify with. It means the idea of ritual, manners and etiquette(Carmody 166). Taoism and Buddhism do not have ideas for these things. To have structured ideas of what is proper and right is a terribly important thing to have established for a normal society. Another Confucian term, that of “Yi,” which means duty, and responsibility, focuses on further structurally integral aspects of human life. The first ideas of Confucianism were developed the same way most religions were, by a single man after living a life of hardship. Confucianism is a religion for a productive society that wishes to produce much and stay strong together. Its ideas are formed around respecting one another and doing ones part to accomplish what ones bosses asks for. Such a religion may lead to a life of hardship, but society on the whole will accomplish great things. Opposed to this way of great structure in life is Taoism.
Taoism focuses on nature and the flow of life. It doesn't ask for people to be responsible or for people to follow a patriarchal ideal, but rather it asks for people to do “nothing.” Nothing in this case is actually everything though, because that is what Taoism is. According to the Tao of Pooh, a book written by author Benjamin Hoff to explain Taoism through short stories of Winnie the Pooh, as well as philosophical explanations, the point of Taoism is to follow the path of “Wuwei” or “the uncarved block.” Wuwei is often written also as wei wu wei, which means action without action which means that one can act without also ways acting; wu wei can also mean effortless action. What Wuwei means to people can be broken down in a metaphor; suppose you lost your car keys and you could not find them no matter how much you searched. You ran around to every corner of your house searching, under couch and table, and the hours passed with you searching for your keys. You had an appointment soon and your heart is racing because you really had to leave, but you cannot without your keys. Finally, it is time for you to leave, but you are still key-less, so you sit down frustrated and sad that you cannot go out, and suddenly a jingle comes from your pocket as you land on the couch because your keys were in your pocket the entire time-this is Wuwei. In the “Tao of Pooh” it is explained as the opposite of being a busy body. The point is to follow the path of nature and let things flow to work themselves out.
Buddhism, unlike Confucianism and Taoism, focuses on philosophical truths it establishes as essential to life. Where Confucianism proclaims certainties of what one must do in order to live a proper and just life, and where Taoism says life is good through acts of compassion and letting things flow, Buddhism contradicts all saying life itself is a great world of eternal suffering. All those living must suffer, according to Buddhism, and only through Buddhism's “noble eight-fold path can one escape this suffering.”(http:\\www.wikipedia.org) The Eightfold path was developed by the founder of Buddhism, the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama. The Eightfold path states ways in which a man or woman can escape the life of suffering we all are born into, age through, and die with. With the eight-fold path we can escape the cycle of rebirth that Buddhism states all men and woman are trapped in, where all people are reincarnated back into the world of suffering according to their karma. It is a pretty complicated thing to understand, karma, and something that westerners have adapted to mean many things, most far from its true meaning. In many modern T.V. Shows one can see someone slip on the floor and jokingly another character will say it is karma, but this isn't the true meaning of karma. What karma actually means, according to the book “Modern East Asia” by Conrad Schirokaur and Donald Clark, is the intent, or the mental spirit, of ones own actions. The karma of these actions is this reflected upon someone when they die and they are reincarnated based upon their actions. This has been called karmatic justice. But what does this mean in comparison to the other East Asian religions?
Buddhism and Confucianism seem to be on opposite sides of a spiritual coin. Buddhism speaks of reincarnation and suffering, while Confucianism doesn't even touch on this aspect of shared human pain. Confucianism focuses on problems all men face economically and ethically. It asks for people to follow certain ideals in order to function as a successful society. Do Buddhism or Taoism touch this topic though? Of course they don't. Taoism and Buddhism are religions of the spirit that focus on the after life, the inner self, and the potential for happiness. Confucianism focuses on sociological aspects of religion, it manipulates people to be productive and functional according to the people governing them, and to treat one another in kindness so there are no errors in the society's workings. On the other hand, Buddhism and Taoism are more similar in their spiritual guidance. Confucianism just falls short on speaking to a persons spiritual needs.
Buddhism and Taoism are still far from being in line with one another. Buddhism calls life a world of suffering, but Taoism says the opposite, that if one follows the way of nature then one can be ultimately happy. Perhaps it is both, and Buddhism is just confused. Maybe Buddhism's eight-fold path is similar to “the path” or “Wuwei,” and in actuality these religions are identical. Both are somewhat interpretive. It is possible that Taoism, rather than calling all life suffering, simply focuses on what is right rather than what is wrong, and merely says “this is how to be free and happy,” and to avoid certain things that are bad. In the case of Buddhism though the Buddha only could see the suffering and could not see that happiness was the potential around him with the eight fold path, and so the Buddha said life is suffering and we must escape rather than seeing life and saying, life has the potential for happiness through the path we can be free, which is what Taoism says with its own path, that of Wuwei. In this way both religions are not so dissimilar.
But what does this mean for the modern Westerner whose mind is bombarded with ideas of Jesus Christ every day, and other Christian philosophies and ideas. Well, in actuality the principles of the Buddha and those of Taoism are not far from the teachings of Christ. If we look at the eight-fold path, it asks for moderation in most actions we commit ourselves to in life, and should we pick up a Bible, similar tales are asked of those who follow Christ. Should we look to Taoism for guidance, we are taught to give ultimate compassion and to follow nature, yet the ideas of a Western Christianity teach the same, for it is Jesus himself who is taught as the most compassionate of all men.
But where does Confucianism fall within these parameters? Confucianism can be a very useful philosophy for a society wishing to grow economically. Unfortunately though, Confucianism is extremely stifling if inflicted upon a already grown society. If one looks at China during the early 1900s one can see how this is the case. China was at a breaking point stifling under Confucianism with the growth of artistry and women within its society, a society that begged to burst forth into the world as a productive juggernaut, but only thanks to Confucianism was the creation of such a society even possible, therefor Confucianism is to be learned from surly, but one must be careful with such teachings. To the west, a world already fully grown, with ethical teachings a norm and principles of responsibility firmly in place, far from an ancient world that needed such structure, Confucianism is pretty useless. The ideas that Confucianism teaches are very important to countries that lack significant intelligent leadership, and the things it proposes were key for China's development, however today the ideas of “Yi” and “Li” seem abstract and pointless to a people who have been taught since birth the Constitution of the United States, which itself proposes similar ideas of respect and responsibility.
The western world is fully grown, therefor Confucianism has no place in it outside of perhaps teaching the young ideas of structure, should they not identify with similar ideas from other concepts. Buddhism and Taoism, on the other hand, can serve a great role in the western world, filling the gaps in the westerner's mind left by Christianity and other popular western religions. Through Taoism are methods of relaxation and compassion available to us in our extremely busy and uptight world, and through Buddhism are alternatives to a spiritual identity and foundation of the self possible.
Through these two religions, westerners, myself included, can find ways to approaching philosophy, ethics, and life in general in new and helpful ways that can break down the barriers put around us by the walls of popular, western, moral, religious ideals that have been taught to us since birth. Most of us have been told the Ten Commandments, maybe even seen the movie a couple of times, and are very comfortable with the ideas of Christianity. We understand the life of Christ, the idea of the miracle, and the idea of heaven, but most people do not truly understand what compassion means, what suffering means, or what paths through personal philosophy can bring us to happiness. It is through Taoism and Buddhism that the western mind can be brought these new ideas, and I for one welcome them.
Chinese and Japanese Religions
Rachel Welsh
Mini-Paper 3:Chinese and Japanese Religions
After reading chapter 6, I feel like I have a much better understanding about Chinese and Japanese religions. I honestly didn’t know very much about these religions and was surprised to learn how important family and values were to Chinese and Japanese families. These religions seem to have a completely different background then any of the other religions we have studied because they seem to be the most realistic to me. They don’t worship many different gods, and they don’t seem to rely on spirits or signs from a higher power. What I thought was very interesting was how dedicated the Chinese are too their families. After reading about how they invested all their time and money towards either their oldest or most intelligent son so that he could succeed when he took exams, I realized we sort of do that today. Families invest in their children’s futures with the hopes of their children becoming a success, and what family doesn’t want a doctor or lawyer, someone who makes lots of money and could support everyone, to actually be in their family? When a child succeeded in the Chinese religion, the family hoped to be very well off, and very well respected in the community for many years. I think that this is a prime example of religion and politics working together very closely, because once a family was given political power, they used it to benefit their family in any way.
Another thing I noticed was that the Chinese and Japanese religions seemed to focus more heavily on the future and trying to restore what once was, but with a newer, clearer mind. One example of this is how Confucius knew that nature had some order, and that a society should adapt to that order. He knew this because of ancestors, and instead of trying to just teach everyone about the past, things began to progress, and they adapted based on their current situation. Confucius was very well educated, and knew a lot about values and how to be a successful society, but he didn’t consider himself anything special really. I think now a days we sometimes get blinded by how things are ‘suppose to be’ as opposed to how things really are. We need to sometimes adapt more to our society instead of expecting our society to adapt to us. We need more people like Confucius who care more about just making the world a better place, as opposed to someone trying to take credit for starting a movement or trying to change society. We need more honesty, and more heart behind the way we chose to live our lives.
After doing some research online, I learned that Shinto and Buddhism are the 2 major religions practiced in Japan now a days. I know these religions have been popular for ages, but I discovered that religion doesn’t play a very big role in their lives today, which is the complete opposite of what we read in out text books. What I want to know is why the people of Japan lost touch with their religion? Why do they only really celebrate it at birth, weddings, and funerals? However, after learning that, I think our society relates very closely to their in modern times, because there are many people who only step foot into churches for things like weddings and funerals. We seem to only turn to religion when great things are happening in our lives, but really, we should be turning to our faith when times are hard, or tough. I sort of grew up in the church, and was raised a Christian, but I stopped going to church a few years ago. I continued to stay close with God, but I made some really big mistakes, and lost faith a little bit, but recently, I have returned to church, and it feels great to be there. I actually look forward to going to church now because I have a completely different attitude about God and my faith, then I did a few years ago. It is very easy for me to understand why people only turn to religion to celebrate, but once I realized that I needed something to believe in while I was at my lowest points, I felt a million times better. I think turning to religion only to celebrate is a common mistake that many different religions experience. It’s actually acceptable, and very common for people to not give thanks, or praise a higher power, frequently.
One good thing I read in our text book was that Japanese people were not forced into religion, and they were able to freely choose what they believe in. It’s nice to see that people could make their own choices about their beliefs, and that people often considered themselves to be a few different religions. This sort of reminds me of our society today because I don’t feel like we are forced to believe in anything. Many people have very mixed feelings about religion, and that is ok.
I think that out of all the religions we have studied so far, the Japanese and Chinese religions seem to be the most modern, and the most able to work in a society like ours today. Sure, the mythology and woman being considered a lower citizen aren’t something that would work in our society, but there are many things I think could work, or at least remind me of life today. I enjoyed learning about these religions, and I actually did learn a lot, because before this course, I thought Chinese and Japanese religion was all about Buddha and rituals, and weird shrines, but I feel like I learned a heck of a lot more after reading the textbook and doing some research on line.
Resources
1. Ways to the Center Sixth Edition, Carmody, Denise L., Brink, T.L., Thomson Wadsworth, 2006.
2. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e629.html
Mini-Paper 3:Chinese and Japanese Religions
After reading chapter 6, I feel like I have a much better understanding about Chinese and Japanese religions. I honestly didn’t know very much about these religions and was surprised to learn how important family and values were to Chinese and Japanese families. These religions seem to have a completely different background then any of the other religions we have studied because they seem to be the most realistic to me. They don’t worship many different gods, and they don’t seem to rely on spirits or signs from a higher power. What I thought was very interesting was how dedicated the Chinese are too their families. After reading about how they invested all their time and money towards either their oldest or most intelligent son so that he could succeed when he took exams, I realized we sort of do that today. Families invest in their children’s futures with the hopes of their children becoming a success, and what family doesn’t want a doctor or lawyer, someone who makes lots of money and could support everyone, to actually be in their family? When a child succeeded in the Chinese religion, the family hoped to be very well off, and very well respected in the community for many years. I think that this is a prime example of religion and politics working together very closely, because once a family was given political power, they used it to benefit their family in any way.
Another thing I noticed was that the Chinese and Japanese religions seemed to focus more heavily on the future and trying to restore what once was, but with a newer, clearer mind. One example of this is how Confucius knew that nature had some order, and that a society should adapt to that order. He knew this because of ancestors, and instead of trying to just teach everyone about the past, things began to progress, and they adapted based on their current situation. Confucius was very well educated, and knew a lot about values and how to be a successful society, but he didn’t consider himself anything special really. I think now a days we sometimes get blinded by how things are ‘suppose to be’ as opposed to how things really are. We need to sometimes adapt more to our society instead of expecting our society to adapt to us. We need more people like Confucius who care more about just making the world a better place, as opposed to someone trying to take credit for starting a movement or trying to change society. We need more honesty, and more heart behind the way we chose to live our lives.
After doing some research online, I learned that Shinto and Buddhism are the 2 major religions practiced in Japan now a days. I know these religions have been popular for ages, but I discovered that religion doesn’t play a very big role in their lives today, which is the complete opposite of what we read in out text books. What I want to know is why the people of Japan lost touch with their religion? Why do they only really celebrate it at birth, weddings, and funerals? However, after learning that, I think our society relates very closely to their in modern times, because there are many people who only step foot into churches for things like weddings and funerals. We seem to only turn to religion when great things are happening in our lives, but really, we should be turning to our faith when times are hard, or tough. I sort of grew up in the church, and was raised a Christian, but I stopped going to church a few years ago. I continued to stay close with God, but I made some really big mistakes, and lost faith a little bit, but recently, I have returned to church, and it feels great to be there. I actually look forward to going to church now because I have a completely different attitude about God and my faith, then I did a few years ago. It is very easy for me to understand why people only turn to religion to celebrate, but once I realized that I needed something to believe in while I was at my lowest points, I felt a million times better. I think turning to religion only to celebrate is a common mistake that many different religions experience. It’s actually acceptable, and very common for people to not give thanks, or praise a higher power, frequently.
One good thing I read in our text book was that Japanese people were not forced into religion, and they were able to freely choose what they believe in. It’s nice to see that people could make their own choices about their beliefs, and that people often considered themselves to be a few different religions. This sort of reminds me of our society today because I don’t feel like we are forced to believe in anything. Many people have very mixed feelings about religion, and that is ok.
I think that out of all the religions we have studied so far, the Japanese and Chinese religions seem to be the most modern, and the most able to work in a society like ours today. Sure, the mythology and woman being considered a lower citizen aren’t something that would work in our society, but there are many things I think could work, or at least remind me of life today. I enjoyed learning about these religions, and I actually did learn a lot, because before this course, I thought Chinese and Japanese religion was all about Buddha and rituals, and weird shrines, but I feel like I learned a heck of a lot more after reading the textbook and doing some research on line.
Resources
1. Ways to the Center Sixth Edition, Carmody, Denise L., Brink, T.L., Thomson Wadsworth, 2006.
2. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e629.html
Japan and China
Renée Yelle
March 27, 2007
Mini Paper 3
Japan and China
As one looks through the book called Ways to the Center which is written by Denise Carmody and T.L Brink, it becomes obvious as to what kind of book this is. It is about mostly every major religion that there is or was. Going through chapter six, it becomes apparent that Japan and China have a lot of the same similarities.
China has basically two key parts that work within the Chinese boundaries. They are nature and people (160). That is what the Chinese foundation is based upon. Ying and Yang is also important. One does not out do the other; it is to find a nature balance between the two. The balance of the five elements is also important, which are water, fire, wood, metal and earth (107).
Japan is similar in this aspect. Since the beginning Japanese religion has been based upon nature. Kami is also the nature forces (194). China and Japan rely on nature and its effects on them, such as devastation and flooding. But also the greatness that it gives, such as growing things, and seeing the beauty of it.
As for the women’s status within both, women really had no say in anything. They were there to bear children and to take care of the members in her family. There was no real say for women; they did as they were told. The Japanese in the earlier days, there are evidence that women were very much respected, and they had some powerful attributes that made them high up on the scale. The Chinese really didn’t have this. Both religions adapted to the Confucianism ways, which is why women were not highly regarded.
As far as the self goes, Chinese felt that everyone has something to share, to bring to the table sort of speak. Everyone has a mutual understanding of others, therefore creating a mutual respect (184). If someone could act reasonably through the inner mind, then they can act civilized and in harmony. Ren and li play an important role in the Chinese religion. It is symbolized with goodness and propriety (184).
Japanese self outlook is a little different. When Confucianism took over, their self worth was the same as the Chinese. But before that, individualism wasn’t really big back then. Fulfillment comes from the balancing of nature and society, not really responsibility. During the medieval times, the master had basically full control over the peasant or serf. Death wasn’t necessarily anything important; it mostly had to do with the loyalty to the master.
The ultimate reality for the Chinese depends on nature and the balance between the two. Also the five key elements and ying and yang play a key part as well. The physical world is a sacred thing, and that is very important to them. The ceremonies that they held were to acknowledge the realness of its ancestors (186).
The Japanese way of the ultimate is somewhat like the Chinese. Nature and its forces are very important as well. Their shrines that they have are not necessarily to hold ceremonies or anything. The shrines are there for people to pray if they wanted. It is for them to go and visit, and get some peace while they are there. They can make some offering to kami as well, if they wanted.
I would not personally follow either of them. I feel that just their bases on the women aspect are enough for me to say no way. I would not be able to look up to or follow something that thought of women like that. There is no room for that in my life. I like how their bases on the balancing of the five elements and the balancing of nature really intrigue me. I feel that aspect is very appealing, and I would like to read more about it, but the women aspect somewhat ruins it for me.
The two religions are very similar in a lot of ways. The bases of important things for the religion are mostly the same, having to do with nature in some way. The balancing of everything in their life has to do with a lot as well. It plays a key part in each religion, being others basing life’s outlook on them. Either way they are both great religions in some way or another, but they are not for me.
March 27, 2007
Mini Paper 3
Japan and China
As one looks through the book called Ways to the Center which is written by Denise Carmody and T.L Brink, it becomes obvious as to what kind of book this is. It is about mostly every major religion that there is or was. Going through chapter six, it becomes apparent that Japan and China have a lot of the same similarities.
China has basically two key parts that work within the Chinese boundaries. They are nature and people (160). That is what the Chinese foundation is based upon. Ying and Yang is also important. One does not out do the other; it is to find a nature balance between the two. The balance of the five elements is also important, which are water, fire, wood, metal and earth (107).
Japan is similar in this aspect. Since the beginning Japanese religion has been based upon nature. Kami is also the nature forces (194). China and Japan rely on nature and its effects on them, such as devastation and flooding. But also the greatness that it gives, such as growing things, and seeing the beauty of it.
As for the women’s status within both, women really had no say in anything. They were there to bear children and to take care of the members in her family. There was no real say for women; they did as they were told. The Japanese in the earlier days, there are evidence that women were very much respected, and they had some powerful attributes that made them high up on the scale. The Chinese really didn’t have this. Both religions adapted to the Confucianism ways, which is why women were not highly regarded.
As far as the self goes, Chinese felt that everyone has something to share, to bring to the table sort of speak. Everyone has a mutual understanding of others, therefore creating a mutual respect (184). If someone could act reasonably through the inner mind, then they can act civilized and in harmony. Ren and li play an important role in the Chinese religion. It is symbolized with goodness and propriety (184).
Japanese self outlook is a little different. When Confucianism took over, their self worth was the same as the Chinese. But before that, individualism wasn’t really big back then. Fulfillment comes from the balancing of nature and society, not really responsibility. During the medieval times, the master had basically full control over the peasant or serf. Death wasn’t necessarily anything important; it mostly had to do with the loyalty to the master.
The ultimate reality for the Chinese depends on nature and the balance between the two. Also the five key elements and ying and yang play a key part as well. The physical world is a sacred thing, and that is very important to them. The ceremonies that they held were to acknowledge the realness of its ancestors (186).
The Japanese way of the ultimate is somewhat like the Chinese. Nature and its forces are very important as well. Their shrines that they have are not necessarily to hold ceremonies or anything. The shrines are there for people to pray if they wanted. It is for them to go and visit, and get some peace while they are there. They can make some offering to kami as well, if they wanted.
I would not personally follow either of them. I feel that just their bases on the women aspect are enough for me to say no way. I would not be able to look up to or follow something that thought of women like that. There is no room for that in my life. I like how their bases on the balancing of the five elements and the balancing of nature really intrigue me. I feel that aspect is very appealing, and I would like to read more about it, but the women aspect somewhat ruins it for me.
The two religions are very similar in a lot of ways. The bases of important things for the religion are mostly the same, having to do with nature in some way. The balancing of everything in their life has to do with a lot as well. It plays a key part in each religion, being others basing life’s outlook on them. Either way they are both great religions in some way or another, but they are not for me.
Determining Validity: Religions of China and Japan
Nicolette Williams
World Religions: Mini Paper 3
China and Japan
3/24/07
Determining Validity: Religions of China and Japan
In China and Japan there are three major religions that are highly prominent and very viable as major religions in their respective countries. These three are: Buddhism in both China and Japan; Daoism in China; and Shinto in Japan. These three religions are highly viable religions in their respective countries, but this does not necessarily mean that these religions are universally viable. All three religions have stood the test of time and will likely continue to do so in the Eastern World. It is very probable that these religions will never gain a true stronghold in the Western world or replace the religions that the Western world accepts. However, religion is not a choice that should be made based strictly on how popular a religion is in the area that one resides. Many factors can affect why a person follows one religion over another, such as cultural and familial backgrounds and how a religion fits into a person’s lifestyle. We will explore both Daoism and Shinto, the two religions that are native to China and Japan, and how viable they would be in the Western world, using information from Ways to the Center by Denise L. Carmody and T.L. Brink, sixth edition. Though Buddhism is a major religion in both China and Japan, it is not native to either country, and as it has been discussed in a previous paper it will not be examined in this essay.
The main religion in China that will be examined is Daoism. One of the most basic concepts of Daoism is the Yin and Yang, which each represent one side of the dual nature of life. Yin, the female, represents death, winter, darkness, and earth. Yang, the male, represents life, summer, light, and heaven. Neither of these forces however are “good” or “evil”; they are merely two different sides to one nature. There must be a balance of Yin and Yang, and it is only an imbalance that is considered to be bad. This is very different from the concepts of Western world, where everything is categorized to the extreme as being either “good” or “bad” but never in the middle. One of the largest aspects of Daoism that has survived the centuries is ancestor worship. Ancestors were worshiped by their offspring and descendants, and worship included such duties as caring for their graves and, in later times providing food, clothes and money to the spirits of the ancestors. This concept would be very difficult for the Western world, especially America, to accept in the present because we have become a very mobile society, and children have a tendency to move a large distance away from their parents, returning only for short visits. There is a breaking down of the extended familial structure in America that would not lend itself to ancestor worship. Aside from the problem of distance, most Americans would have a very hard time spending their money on clothes or food to burn so that the deceased might enjoy the spiritual equivalents. Part of Chinese ancestor worship involves performing all necessary obligations to the ancestor and never dishonoring them, or risk the vengeance of the ancestor. This is another concept that would not work in America because it is against our scientific nature to believe that we are being punished by the spirits of our ancestors when things in our lives are not going well. In Chinese culture there are six schools of religious thought: Divination, Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism, Mohism and the School of Names. Unlike in Western culture where a person would be a follower of only one school of religious thought in Chinese culture people follow any number of schools to varying degrees. In the school of Divination the future can be read by determining what imbalances exist in the Yin and Yang forces and working to reset these forces back into balance. Divination would likely not be accepted into western culture because it relies too heavily on external forces to determine a person’s course of actions. Confucianism, the second school, involves becoming closer to the original order of the natural world. This process involved knowing oneself, learning from ones oldest ancestors, sacrificial rites and finding ones role in life. In Confucianism there is no equality of roles, which would make it very difficult to translate in western culture. One aspect of Confucianism that the western world could learn much from is the golden mean, the concept of moderation in all aspects of life. Another large part of the Confucianist school of thought is familial duty. In Confucianism if all relationships with ones family were correct then all other relationships a person developed would also be correct. This would be hard to achieve in America, because of the social disintegration of the familial structure as less emphasis is put on familial relations. The third school of religious thought in China is Daoism, which is devoted to following the ways of nature and discarding social conventions. Within Daoism there are three main movements: the hedonistic, the mystical, and the alchemical. In the hedonistic path all social and familial obligations are put aside and an isolationist mentality that drove the hedonists to become hermits. The second path of Daoism is the mystical, whose followers also lived as hermits. This mystical Daoism delved into the natural Way and how one could align their self with it without accepting the conventional values of union with Dao (the way) implied. In mystical Daoism followers shape the world in small, subtle movements rather than in grand gestures. The third path of Daoism is the alchemical path, which blended Daoism with alchemy experiments and yogic techniques. Instead of seeking a way to create gold however, alchemic Daoists sought to create a path that would lead to immortality. Two of the main practices employed by alchemic Daoists were breathing exercises that would allow them to slow the use of their vital force and retention of semen during intercourse to rechannel its vital energy to the brain to increase one’s powers and life span. These three paths of Daoism would most likely not be accepted in American culture because hedonistic and mystical Daoism promote isolationism, hedonistic Daoism promotes the abandoning of all social obligations, mystical Daoism call for a subtlety that is not present in American society, and alchemical Daoism proposes ways for attaining immortality that have no scientific backing. Legalism is the fourth school of religious thought in China, and takes a very strict view of human nature. Legalists believe that human nature is basically evil, and that human motivation is personal gain and pleasure. Legalism advocates strong and harsh laws to keep human nature in check, and brutal punishments for those who give into the basic evil human nature. This is a school of thought that would not survive in America where we prefer to believe that people are intrinsically good and deserve second chances to correct their mistakes. Mohism is the fifth school, and takes an opposing view of human nature to that of the Legalists, that humans are basically good. Mohism advocates universal love to solve the problems of the world and believed in a creator that was both loving and righteous. The concepts of Mohism are close to some of the religions that are accepted in the western world, such as the concept of a loving and righteous god, which is present in many prominent western religions. The final school of religious thought in China is the School of Names, which is concerned with language, knowledge and conceptual schemes. This school has not evolved into a true religion because it died out due to lack of rituals, ethics, symbols, myths and focus on any deities. This is a school of thought that is most likely accepted in the western world by a small number of people, though it does not constitute a full religious view. In the end, Chinese religion is not divided into sects, but schools that are blended to form a rich and diverse religion.
Shinto is the main indigenous religion in Japan. In the Shinto religion there are three planes of existence. The highest plane is Kami, the heavenly dwelling place of nature and clan spirit deities that is worshiped by humans. The middle plane is the human plane, where the living reside, in which humans may exert a measure of control over their surroundings and destinies. The lowest plane is Yomi, which is inhabited by the spirits of the dead, a filthy and condemned place. The Kami held knowledge that was key to human destinies, and it was very important that humans had a way to communicate with Kami. Communication with the Kami spirits occurred through a miko, who was a shaman and priestess. Mikos served as mediums for contact with the dead, as oracles and diviners, and as healers. Shinto is defined by a blending of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism that occurred in the seventh century, creating a religion that worships nature with an emphasis on averting pollution. Unlike Chinese religions, Shinto views death and the dead as a pollutant, to be dealt with ritualistically and cause for purification of oneself to remove the contamination of the dead. Though women are considered somewhat lower than men they were also the prime path for communication with the Kami and the spirits of the dead, and were key to maintaining the sense of clanship. Shinto ethics have a large influence on the professional lives of its followers that tie in very closely with Shinto concepts of honor. In modern day Japan the honor of the group or corporation is valued over the honor of the individual. Professional success is attributed to a group’s leader, and group members are expected to assume any failure that might occur to prevent any dishonor to taint the corporation. Due to the stress of upholding the honor of ones workplace business people frequently participate in recreation with their coworkers rather than their family. This emphasis on the collective unit, rather than on the individual, does not allow for personal responsibility for ones actions or encourage free thought. In Shinto there is no real definition of moral “good” or “bad” but rather a concern with the pollution of oneself. This pollution can come from many things such as spilling blood or contact with the dead, thus the polluted person was not responsible for their pollution nor were they obligated to repent and renew their morality. Shinto places emphasis on cleanliness, order, and nature and is not focused on morality as many western religions are, making Shinto a nature-oriented, flowing, fluid, graceful ascetic religion. Though Shinto is a major Eastern religion, it is hard to imagine it gaining strength in the Western world. The idea of not being given credit for one’s professional success, of having to absorb the dishonor of professional failure, and the lack of personal responsibility for “pollution" are not ideas that could translate very well into American society. It is also hard to imagine American society shifting its views so drastically to move social emphasis from personal possessions and success to nature.
The Chinese syncretism of Daoism, Confucianism, Legalism and Mohism and its ability to adapt have made it a major religion in the Eastern world. The Japanese religion of Shinto has survived many periods in which other religions have taken emphasis away from Shinto to be a major modern world religion. Both are beautiful religions, the products of hundreds of years of refinement and syncretism that have withstood the test of time. Though these are both viable religions in the Eastern World they do not have the viability necessary to be feasible religions in the western culture.
World Religions: Mini Paper 3
China and Japan
3/24/07
Determining Validity: Religions of China and Japan
In China and Japan there are three major religions that are highly prominent and very viable as major religions in their respective countries. These three are: Buddhism in both China and Japan; Daoism in China; and Shinto in Japan. These three religions are highly viable religions in their respective countries, but this does not necessarily mean that these religions are universally viable. All three religions have stood the test of time and will likely continue to do so in the Eastern World. It is very probable that these religions will never gain a true stronghold in the Western world or replace the religions that the Western world accepts. However, religion is not a choice that should be made based strictly on how popular a religion is in the area that one resides. Many factors can affect why a person follows one religion over another, such as cultural and familial backgrounds and how a religion fits into a person’s lifestyle. We will explore both Daoism and Shinto, the two religions that are native to China and Japan, and how viable they would be in the Western world, using information from Ways to the Center by Denise L. Carmody and T.L. Brink, sixth edition. Though Buddhism is a major religion in both China and Japan, it is not native to either country, and as it has been discussed in a previous paper it will not be examined in this essay.
The main religion in China that will be examined is Daoism. One of the most basic concepts of Daoism is the Yin and Yang, which each represent one side of the dual nature of life. Yin, the female, represents death, winter, darkness, and earth. Yang, the male, represents life, summer, light, and heaven. Neither of these forces however are “good” or “evil”; they are merely two different sides to one nature. There must be a balance of Yin and Yang, and it is only an imbalance that is considered to be bad. This is very different from the concepts of Western world, where everything is categorized to the extreme as being either “good” or “bad” but never in the middle. One of the largest aspects of Daoism that has survived the centuries is ancestor worship. Ancestors were worshiped by their offspring and descendants, and worship included such duties as caring for their graves and, in later times providing food, clothes and money to the spirits of the ancestors. This concept would be very difficult for the Western world, especially America, to accept in the present because we have become a very mobile society, and children have a tendency to move a large distance away from their parents, returning only for short visits. There is a breaking down of the extended familial structure in America that would not lend itself to ancestor worship. Aside from the problem of distance, most Americans would have a very hard time spending their money on clothes or food to burn so that the deceased might enjoy the spiritual equivalents. Part of Chinese ancestor worship involves performing all necessary obligations to the ancestor and never dishonoring them, or risk the vengeance of the ancestor. This is another concept that would not work in America because it is against our scientific nature to believe that we are being punished by the spirits of our ancestors when things in our lives are not going well. In Chinese culture there are six schools of religious thought: Divination, Confucianism, Daoism, Legalism, Mohism and the School of Names. Unlike in Western culture where a person would be a follower of only one school of religious thought in Chinese culture people follow any number of schools to varying degrees. In the school of Divination the future can be read by determining what imbalances exist in the Yin and Yang forces and working to reset these forces back into balance. Divination would likely not be accepted into western culture because it relies too heavily on external forces to determine a person’s course of actions. Confucianism, the second school, involves becoming closer to the original order of the natural world. This process involved knowing oneself, learning from ones oldest ancestors, sacrificial rites and finding ones role in life. In Confucianism there is no equality of roles, which would make it very difficult to translate in western culture. One aspect of Confucianism that the western world could learn much from is the golden mean, the concept of moderation in all aspects of life. Another large part of the Confucianist school of thought is familial duty. In Confucianism if all relationships with ones family were correct then all other relationships a person developed would also be correct. This would be hard to achieve in America, because of the social disintegration of the familial structure as less emphasis is put on familial relations. The third school of religious thought in China is Daoism, which is devoted to following the ways of nature and discarding social conventions. Within Daoism there are three main movements: the hedonistic, the mystical, and the alchemical. In the hedonistic path all social and familial obligations are put aside and an isolationist mentality that drove the hedonists to become hermits. The second path of Daoism is the mystical, whose followers also lived as hermits. This mystical Daoism delved into the natural Way and how one could align their self with it without accepting the conventional values of union with Dao (the way) implied. In mystical Daoism followers shape the world in small, subtle movements rather than in grand gestures. The third path of Daoism is the alchemical path, which blended Daoism with alchemy experiments and yogic techniques. Instead of seeking a way to create gold however, alchemic Daoists sought to create a path that would lead to immortality. Two of the main practices employed by alchemic Daoists were breathing exercises that would allow them to slow the use of their vital force and retention of semen during intercourse to rechannel its vital energy to the brain to increase one’s powers and life span. These three paths of Daoism would most likely not be accepted in American culture because hedonistic and mystical Daoism promote isolationism, hedonistic Daoism promotes the abandoning of all social obligations, mystical Daoism call for a subtlety that is not present in American society, and alchemical Daoism proposes ways for attaining immortality that have no scientific backing. Legalism is the fourth school of religious thought in China, and takes a very strict view of human nature. Legalists believe that human nature is basically evil, and that human motivation is personal gain and pleasure. Legalism advocates strong and harsh laws to keep human nature in check, and brutal punishments for those who give into the basic evil human nature. This is a school of thought that would not survive in America where we prefer to believe that people are intrinsically good and deserve second chances to correct their mistakes. Mohism is the fifth school, and takes an opposing view of human nature to that of the Legalists, that humans are basically good. Mohism advocates universal love to solve the problems of the world and believed in a creator that was both loving and righteous. The concepts of Mohism are close to some of the religions that are accepted in the western world, such as the concept of a loving and righteous god, which is present in many prominent western religions. The final school of religious thought in China is the School of Names, which is concerned with language, knowledge and conceptual schemes. This school has not evolved into a true religion because it died out due to lack of rituals, ethics, symbols, myths and focus on any deities. This is a school of thought that is most likely accepted in the western world by a small number of people, though it does not constitute a full religious view. In the end, Chinese religion is not divided into sects, but schools that are blended to form a rich and diverse religion.
Shinto is the main indigenous religion in Japan. In the Shinto religion there are three planes of existence. The highest plane is Kami, the heavenly dwelling place of nature and clan spirit deities that is worshiped by humans. The middle plane is the human plane, where the living reside, in which humans may exert a measure of control over their surroundings and destinies. The lowest plane is Yomi, which is inhabited by the spirits of the dead, a filthy and condemned place. The Kami held knowledge that was key to human destinies, and it was very important that humans had a way to communicate with Kami. Communication with the Kami spirits occurred through a miko, who was a shaman and priestess. Mikos served as mediums for contact with the dead, as oracles and diviners, and as healers. Shinto is defined by a blending of Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism that occurred in the seventh century, creating a religion that worships nature with an emphasis on averting pollution. Unlike Chinese religions, Shinto views death and the dead as a pollutant, to be dealt with ritualistically and cause for purification of oneself to remove the contamination of the dead. Though women are considered somewhat lower than men they were also the prime path for communication with the Kami and the spirits of the dead, and were key to maintaining the sense of clanship. Shinto ethics have a large influence on the professional lives of its followers that tie in very closely with Shinto concepts of honor. In modern day Japan the honor of the group or corporation is valued over the honor of the individual. Professional success is attributed to a group’s leader, and group members are expected to assume any failure that might occur to prevent any dishonor to taint the corporation. Due to the stress of upholding the honor of ones workplace business people frequently participate in recreation with their coworkers rather than their family. This emphasis on the collective unit, rather than on the individual, does not allow for personal responsibility for ones actions or encourage free thought. In Shinto there is no real definition of moral “good” or “bad” but rather a concern with the pollution of oneself. This pollution can come from many things such as spilling blood or contact with the dead, thus the polluted person was not responsible for their pollution nor were they obligated to repent and renew their morality. Shinto places emphasis on cleanliness, order, and nature and is not focused on morality as many western religions are, making Shinto a nature-oriented, flowing, fluid, graceful ascetic religion. Though Shinto is a major Eastern religion, it is hard to imagine it gaining strength in the Western world. The idea of not being given credit for one’s professional success, of having to absorb the dishonor of professional failure, and the lack of personal responsibility for “pollution" are not ideas that could translate very well into American society. It is also hard to imagine American society shifting its views so drastically to move social emphasis from personal possessions and success to nature.
The Chinese syncretism of Daoism, Confucianism, Legalism and Mohism and its ability to adapt have made it a major religion in the Eastern world. The Japanese religion of Shinto has survived many periods in which other religions have taken emphasis away from Shinto to be a major modern world religion. Both are beautiful religions, the products of hundreds of years of refinement and syncretism that have withstood the test of time. Though these are both viable religions in the Eastern World they do not have the viability necessary to be feasible religions in the western culture.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Comments on Hinduism and Buddhism
Paula Pancorbo
Mini-Paper II
World Religion - Online
Would Hinduism be adoptable by my peers?
Hinduism, unlike practically every other religion, is not prophet-centric. Rather, Hinduism is a God-centric religion. The Hindu concept is that each soul is moving ever closer to God over many lives and that when a soul reaches sufficient spiritual maturity, it awakens a conscious desire to know God as its inmost essence, to experience Truth personally.
Continuously striving to attain the soul’s release from the body (and, thereby, breaking the endless cycle of reincarnation) is a central tenant for all Hindus, though few Hindus actively seek this ideal.
Central to Hindu teachings is the universal desire to satisfy the human striving for peace of mind (Shanti).
So, assuming Hinduism is appealing, would Hinduism accept me or my friends? Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion. The many Hindus that view Hinduism primarily as a philosophy or a way of life would likely be accepting of one desirous of conversion. A person presumably can convert simply by incorporating Hindu beliefs and by considering oneself a Hindu. Interestingly, most Hindu sects do not recruit converts. Rather, most Hindus believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, so long as it is practiced in earnest.
Buddhism, like most religions, is prophet-centric, based upon the teachings of, strangely enough, a Hindu, Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha). Generally, Buddhists believe that individuals are composed of five “bundles.” Many Buddhists believe that any individual can attempt to reach the stage of perfect enlightenment (“Nirvana”). Unfortunately, only monks can attain Nirvana.
So, assuming one of my friends became interested in Buddhism, could that person become one? Well, it depends. It depends on just how far you are interested in taking it. Buddhism, yes, feel free to walk right in but to reach Nirvana, one must be a monk. Not a monk? Do not despair, through many reincarnations, the most average of Buddhist can be reborn as a monk (unless, unfortunately, you friend is female).
Between the two, personally Hinduism is more appealing. As a kind of meta-religion, Hinduism is a nice overlay on most any religion in that it compliments rather than conflicts and, in that respect, should be a central focus of any idealistic thought of a universal religion. Buddhism, although an offshoot of sorts of the older Hindu religion is, comparatively conservative and loses significant credibility with its views towards women.
Mini-Paper II
World Religion - Online
Would Hinduism be adoptable by my peers?
Hinduism, unlike practically every other religion, is not prophet-centric. Rather, Hinduism is a God-centric religion. The Hindu concept is that each soul is moving ever closer to God over many lives and that when a soul reaches sufficient spiritual maturity, it awakens a conscious desire to know God as its inmost essence, to experience Truth personally.
Continuously striving to attain the soul’s release from the body (and, thereby, breaking the endless cycle of reincarnation) is a central tenant for all Hindus, though few Hindus actively seek this ideal.
Central to Hindu teachings is the universal desire to satisfy the human striving for peace of mind (Shanti).
So, assuming Hinduism is appealing, would Hinduism accept me or my friends? Hindu scriptures are essentially silent on the issue of religious conversion. The many Hindus that view Hinduism primarily as a philosophy or a way of life would likely be accepting of one desirous of conversion. A person presumably can convert simply by incorporating Hindu beliefs and by considering oneself a Hindu. Interestingly, most Hindu sects do not recruit converts. Rather, most Hindus believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion, so long as it is practiced in earnest.
Buddhism, like most religions, is prophet-centric, based upon the teachings of, strangely enough, a Hindu, Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha). Generally, Buddhists believe that individuals are composed of five “bundles.” Many Buddhists believe that any individual can attempt to reach the stage of perfect enlightenment (“Nirvana”). Unfortunately, only monks can attain Nirvana.
So, assuming one of my friends became interested in Buddhism, could that person become one? Well, it depends. It depends on just how far you are interested in taking it. Buddhism, yes, feel free to walk right in but to reach Nirvana, one must be a monk. Not a monk? Do not despair, through many reincarnations, the most average of Buddhist can be reborn as a monk (unless, unfortunately, you friend is female).
Between the two, personally Hinduism is more appealing. As a kind of meta-religion, Hinduism is a nice overlay on most any religion in that it compliments rather than conflicts and, in that respect, should be a central focus of any idealistic thought of a universal religion. Buddhism, although an offshoot of sorts of the older Hindu religion is, comparatively conservative and loses significant credibility with its views towards women.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Heresy by Eric Kyalo, Scott Theological College, Kenya
Heresy: “Sincere but Sincerely Wrong.”
By
Eric Kyalo Mutisya
GEN 413 Topics in History
30th June 2006.
Outline
Thesis statement: Since heresies were therefore associated with great theologians and leaders in the Church, this paper would like to establish from a general approach that most heretics were “sincere but sincerely wrong.”
Introduction:
I. Definition
A. Heresy
B. Relationship of Heresy and Schism
II. Some Particular Heresies in History
A. Gnosticism
B. Arianism
C. Nestorianism
D. Eutychianism
E. Pelagianism
III. Causes Attributed to this Major Controversies
A. Greek Culture
B. Controversial Topics
1. The Doctrine of Trinity
2. The Deity and Person of Jesus Christ
C. Not adhering to Hermeneutical Principles
D. Dogmatism
IV. Lessons for Contemporary Church.
A. TodayÂ’s Church Owes History
B. Laxity as the Cause of Heretical teachings
C. No New Heresy
Conclusion
Reference List
Heresy: “Sincere but Sincerely Wrong.”
In the history of the church there are several issues which attract the attention of the student who seeks to investigate on certain topics in history. Within this topics heresy or heresies has attracted the attention of many scholars and much has been written down on heresies in history. History will prove that some heresies have received more emphasis than others; where else some of these controversies have been going on for a long time. From this understanding there are facts which can be established as far as heresy and its history is concerned. History of heresy has great lessons for contemporaries since the way in which heresies and heretics were handled in ancient history to some extend was a good way of solving the problems, which could have otherwise brought great effects. Dealing with heresy was not a small deal since those involved, in most cases were great theologians and philosophers, and hence here laid the reason for most heresies. Since heresies were therefore associated with great theologians and leaders in the Church, this paper seeks to establish from a general approach that most heretics were “sincere but sincerely wrong.”
Before establishing this understanding it is vital to define the term heresy. It is not very clear how the term can be understood since either of those involved can refer to the other as having committed heresy. Therefore, heresy for the sake of this paper will consider several definitions as outlined by different writers.
The New Webster’s Dictionary, 1981 defines heresy as “a belief at variance with the accepted doctrine of a church.” This brings out the idea of introduction of something different from what has been accepted previously.
According to Collier’s Encyclopedia, heresy is what has been pronounced “by official church councils, ecumenical or denominational, to be in contradiction to church dogmas” (Collier’s Encyclopedia, Vol. 10). Here the idea about heresy is what has been designated by the authority as false. If the council comes together and confers that the issue before them is contrary to what the church teaches then the person who is responsible would be declared heretical by that authority.
The observation made from these definitions is that the church body was vital to establish whether a certain teaching was heretical or not. In defining heresy the Encyclopedia Britannica states that it is a “theological doctrine or system rejected by the ecclesiastical authority” (New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th Ed).
Another understanding of heresy is that, it comes from a Greek word for “choice,” bringing in the idea of choosing to follow a different direction from what the church believes, and as a result one begins another fellowship (Pelikan 1978, 17). This leads to schisms- Webster’s Dictionary, defines schism as separation from a church or religious body, on account of opinion with regard to matters of faith or discipline (New Webster’s Dictionary, 1981). This can be outlined as one of the consequences of heresy, but for the purpose of this paper, the emphasis is on heresy.
After defining heresy, and more specific having said that it is a variance from the doctrines of the ecclesiastical church, one would want to go further and analyze the doctrines in order to have what it takes to declare a certain teaching as heretical. Since most of the church leaders were great theologians, and had acquired great knowledge of what sound doctrine should entail, were able to detect anything else which was inconsistent with Christian doctrine.
However, it has been noted that it is not any other individuals who violated the doctrine of the church but it is these great theologians who ended up teaching heresies. It is impossible to clearly say that these heretics were doing so deliberately. Philosophies propagated by Greek culture contributed to a larger extend to these main heresies of history. In their efforts to establish understanding on some issues especially on the deity of Christ and the controversial topic of the doctrine of trinity, they were declared heretics and condemned by the Councils. Several reasons for such heresies may therefore be outlined.
Prior to establishing these reasons an analysis of the heresies and the individual heretics it is important. At least five great heresies have hit history and termed most controversial almost destroying the view of God in the church if they had won.
One of these earliest heresies was Gnosticism. It is one of the false teachings which Paul the apostle addressed to his contemporaries. Gnostics believed that the body was evil and only the spirit was good. They emphasized that salvation was only possible when the body was subjected to hardship. This teaching questioned the deity of Christ in his human form since having a body to them was associated with evil, something they found hard to believe as far as the divinity of Christ was concerned. They said, “…the Spirit Christ is the savior, but the human Jesus is only a shell” (Jeffrey 2002, 40). It is not until around A.D 180 when Irenaeus wrote five books against heresies that were threatening his people, the most prevalent heresy being Gnosticism that a solution began to appear (Jeffrey 2002, 37).
The other heretical teaching which shucks history is Arianism. The heretic behind this heresy is Arius who denied the deity of Jesus Christ. He argued from Proverbs 8:22 that the Son is not eternal with the Father but was created. He was a presbyter in Alexandria (Jeffrey 2002, 46). This has been considered to be the biggest controversy in history. It brought together 318 Bishops in the first Council at Nicea. Contrary to Arius who used the term homoiousios for Christ, meaning He was of like substance with the Father, Athanasias instead used the word homoousios for Christ meaning that he was of the same substance with the Father (Allison 1994, 86). Therefore the council condemned and anathematized him.
The other heresy is Nestorianism which came from the controversy arising from the two natures of Christ. The heretic was Nestorius (popular preacher and bishop of Constantinople in 428). Lane states that in his preaching at Constantinople, he denied that the Virgin Mary was theotokos (‘God-bearer’). He insisted that it was Jesus the man who was born of Mary, not God the Word (Lane 1984, 44). It therefore followed that the Council at Ephesus in 431 condemned and despised him for Emphasizing that Christ was of two natures.
Another heresy concerning the nature of Christ was Eutychianism, pioneered by Eutyches. He mixed the two natures of Christ into one, “a tertium quid or ‘third something,’ which is neither God nor man but a sort of mongrel” (Lane 1984, 47). Due to this he was condemned for confusing the two natures of Christ in A.D. 448 by bishop Flavian (Lane 1984, 47).
The last heresy, for the sake of this paper is Pelagianism, by Pelagius. He believed that,
“A Christian could lead a life without sin, with no more help f rom God than his teaching and the example of Jesus Christ. He did not believe that Adams fall had done more than introduce death and the example of sin- it did not make sin inevitable” (Lane 1984, 42).
As a result Augustine came out strongly to oppose it and said,
“sin wrought such ravages in man that he cannot save himself… no man can really love God or believe in Him savingly until the grace of God comes to him” (Renwick 2004, 58).
Having given an explanation of these major heresies, their causes can now be established. The aim is not to give a sound theological understanding and teaching about them, but to examine the circumstances under which they thrived. History has already declared them as heresies and any further investigation on them will prove the same.
When we embark on the characteristics of these ‘great heretics’ one will find out that they were key people in the church before committing this serious heresies. This is an issue which should catch the attention of many and seek to establish why only them and not other theologians outside the Church. There are several reasons which may be established.
First of all, the Greek culture has been accused of ‘blinding’ these great theologians. The Greek culture was one which was devoted to finding explanation of ‘everything.’ Lane states,
“Tertullian was strongly critical of Greek philosophy, viewing it as the parent of heresy. He emphasized the paradoxical nature of faith and the contrast between Christianity and philosophy” (Lane 1984, 18)
The issues rising great controversy over the centuries have been thos e concerning the doctrine of trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. Under this two, many were declared heretics after seeking to understand them, something which Lane says is “incomprehensible and inscrutable” (Lane 1984, 36). Athanasias who was opposed to Arius is termed by Allison as more a pastor than a theologian. He says that he did not begin with philosophical or theological concerns but with a passion for human souls (Allison 1994, 89). With such an understanding it is clear that the Greek culture of Philosophy contributed to a larger extend to these heresies.
Also since most of these heretics were great theologians, the more they ventured in trying to understand some issues, the more prone to heresy they were, probably unconsciously. It is true they had a good knowledge about God and their commitment in studying God’s word cannot be underestimated, and furthermore the controversial issues are not small. This therefore can be seen as what led to high rate of brooding heresies especially on the deity of Christ and that of Trinity. For example Eutyches who was accused of mixing the two natures of Christ was said to have been “confused or muddled, rather than willfully heretical” (Lane 1984, 47).
In addition, within there sincerity, most of these heretics tended to take scriptures out of context and did not compare with other passages of scripture. Arius for example based his teaching about the creation of Jesus Christ by the Father from Proverbs 8:22. It was evident that by referring to creation of wisdom as creation of Christ was wrong interpretation. Allison states,
“Heretics have sometimes been exceedingly selfless and sincere in their beliefs, often with a tenacious grasp of the partial truth within their teaching while blind to its context or its wider implications” (Allison 1994, 17).
However, having said that about heretics I do not nullify the fact that they were stubborn in their teachings even after having been condemned by the Councils. Therefore, the Councils gave us a clear picture of the role they played during this great controversies of ancient history which threatened to divide the church. Lane says that their aim was to protect the doctrine from denial but not to explain it in such a way as to eliminate the mystery (Lane 1984, 36).
It is therefore commendable how heresies were dealt with in ancient times. The Councils helped to maintain right teachings and correct interpretation of Scripture. It could have been otherwise if the church had been left to face these great heretics who sounded very “sincere, but sincerely wrong.” And that is why Lane stated that if any of the four heresies had won the day it would have been a distorted picture of Jesus Christ that would have been handed down to us (Lane 1984, 36).
From what has been established this far, it is quite clear that today’s contemporaries owe much to the tradition and history of the church. There is much for today’s ‘bishops’ to learn from history. There is a likelihood of falling away from right teachings of faith ignorantly and therefore the need to evaluate the prevailing teachings and see if for sure they go hand in hand with what is sound doctrine.
Martin Luther is known today as the great leader of reformation causing the separation of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants. This controversy will be argued out that, the Roman Catholic Church which was at one time the only church and was very careful to detect any heresy, was now accused of heretical teachings. They accused Luther for being heretical and asked him to recant his statements against the Pope. Renwick states, “The spirit of Martin Luther was stirred to depths. On All Saints Day, 1517, he nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg where vast crowds congregated” (Renwick 2002, 109).
It is startling that after the historical church began well with emphasis on sound biblical teachings it deviated and began to follow words of men. When people failed to have proper hermeneutical principles and went just for what appealed to them, is when they committed heresy. Ignoring traditions they tolerated heretical teachings. Laursen states, “The nineteenth and twentieth centuries completed the process of changing our attitudes such that many people know little or nothing about the great traditions of heresy and persecution” (Laursen 2002, 5).
Although the Orthodoxy accused the Protestants for dividing the Church, they themselves had failed to retain that sensitivity in protecting the doctrine. The main problem being stated as misusing the term ‘faith’ to refer only to doctrine at the cost of holiness of life. But they urged that, practice by itself was not sufficient for salvation and th at both doctrine and morality were necessary” (Pelikan 1989, 151-2).
For the contemporaries we realize that there is no new heresy. Some of the controversial issues in ancient times are also the one causing much problem today. Allison says. “Scarcely any ancient heresy can be found that does not have a modern expression; scarcely is there a modern heresy that we have not seen before” (Allison 1994, 17).
It is astonishing that heretics use the Bible to make their teachings seem right. Due to negligence and increased number of Bible interpreters with theological teaching and also those who have no theological training, Bible interpretation has been misused and misapplied. Like Gnostic theology, many have employed the language of Christianity and misused the Scriptures of Christianity to develop their own system of belief (Bingham 2002, 40).
For example, today’s greatest heresy which is preached and emphasized is the Prosperity Gospel, which is a lie but incorporated with Scriptures to make it seem right. This teaching has been associated with Docentrisim which denied “Christ’s full humanity and his actual suffering was no more academic mistake of mind but the cringing withdrawal of the human spirit from the implications, risks, and responsibilities of incarnate love” (Allison 1994, 39). This understanding of Christian life as a life of prosperity and not one of suffering is a duplication of this old heresy of Docentrisim.
Heresy has expressed “cruelty” (Allison 1994, 17) in the sense that it elevates humanity. Heresies have also given a wrong representation of God distorting his character and glory.
Protestant churches cannot boast of having the right doctrinal faith and practice. They can actually be cited as to have propagated heretical teachings due to laxity and lack of a strict strategy of dealing with heresy.
“Most of them started with the assumption that their own particular doctrines embodied the final statement of Christian truth and were thus prepared to denounce as heretics those who differed with them. But with the gradual growth of toleration and the 2oth – Century ecumenical movement most protestant Churches have drastically revised the notion of heresy as understood in the pre-reformation church” (Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed).
It is therefore necessary for todayÂ’s contemporaries to seek to establish strategies on how to eradicate any form of false teaching which may be thriving in the church. Increased carelessness has been encouraged on televisions, radios and everywhere on town streets. The Church should emulate th e ancient church in formation of Councils to deal with heresy. This Councils should in turn be free from selfish agendas and emphasize on proper biblical interpretation since this is the main cause of heresy, proving that most heretics and especially in our days are lacking theological training and therefore being stubborn on what in itself is wrong sincerity.
Reference List:
Allison, Fitzsimons C. The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy. Morehouse Publishing, 1994.
Bingham, Jeffrey. Pocket History of the Church. Downers Grove, Illinois; Intervarsity Press, 2002.
CollierÂ’s Encyclopedia Vol 10. New York; Collier & Son Division of the Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, 1952.
Lane, Tony. The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought. Lion Publishing. England, 1984.
Laursen, John C. Histories of Heresy in Early Modern Europe: For, Against, and Beyond Persecution and Toleration. New York; Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
New Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 5 15th ed. Chicago; Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1990.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (Since 1700). Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). London; The University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Renwick, M. A & A. M. Harman. The Story of the Church 3rd ed. Intervarsity Press, 2004.
By
Eric Kyalo Mutisya
GEN 413 Topics in History
30th June 2006.
Outline
Thesis statement: Since heresies were therefore associated with great theologians and leaders in the Church, this paper would like to establish from a general approach that most heretics were “sincere but sincerely wrong.”
Introduction:
I. Definition
A. Heresy
B. Relationship of Heresy and Schism
II. Some Particular Heresies in History
A. Gnosticism
B. Arianism
C. Nestorianism
D. Eutychianism
E. Pelagianism
III. Causes Attributed to this Major Controversies
A. Greek Culture
B. Controversial Topics
1. The Doctrine of Trinity
2. The Deity and Person of Jesus Christ
C. Not adhering to Hermeneutical Principles
D. Dogmatism
IV. Lessons for Contemporary Church.
A. TodayÂ’s Church Owes History
B. Laxity as the Cause of Heretical teachings
C. No New Heresy
Conclusion
Reference List
Heresy: “Sincere but Sincerely Wrong.”
In the history of the church there are several issues which attract the attention of the student who seeks to investigate on certain topics in history. Within this topics heresy or heresies has attracted the attention of many scholars and much has been written down on heresies in history. History will prove that some heresies have received more emphasis than others; where else some of these controversies have been going on for a long time. From this understanding there are facts which can be established as far as heresy and its history is concerned. History of heresy has great lessons for contemporaries since the way in which heresies and heretics were handled in ancient history to some extend was a good way of solving the problems, which could have otherwise brought great effects. Dealing with heresy was not a small deal since those involved, in most cases were great theologians and philosophers, and hence here laid the reason for most heresies. Since heresies were therefore associated with great theologians and leaders in the Church, this paper seeks to establish from a general approach that most heretics were “sincere but sincerely wrong.”
Before establishing this understanding it is vital to define the term heresy. It is not very clear how the term can be understood since either of those involved can refer to the other as having committed heresy. Therefore, heresy for the sake of this paper will consider several definitions as outlined by different writers.
The New Webster’s Dictionary, 1981 defines heresy as “a belief at variance with the accepted doctrine of a church.” This brings out the idea of introduction of something different from what has been accepted previously.
According to Collier’s Encyclopedia, heresy is what has been pronounced “by official church councils, ecumenical or denominational, to be in contradiction to church dogmas” (Collier’s Encyclopedia, Vol. 10). Here the idea about heresy is what has been designated by the authority as false. If the council comes together and confers that the issue before them is contrary to what the church teaches then the person who is responsible would be declared heretical by that authority.
The observation made from these definitions is that the church body was vital to establish whether a certain teaching was heretical or not. In defining heresy the Encyclopedia Britannica states that it is a “theological doctrine or system rejected by the ecclesiastical authority” (New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th Ed).
Another understanding of heresy is that, it comes from a Greek word for “choice,” bringing in the idea of choosing to follow a different direction from what the church believes, and as a result one begins another fellowship (Pelikan 1978, 17). This leads to schisms- Webster’s Dictionary, defines schism as separation from a church or religious body, on account of opinion with regard to matters of faith or discipline (New Webster’s Dictionary, 1981). This can be outlined as one of the consequences of heresy, but for the purpose of this paper, the emphasis is on heresy.
After defining heresy, and more specific having said that it is a variance from the doctrines of the ecclesiastical church, one would want to go further and analyze the doctrines in order to have what it takes to declare a certain teaching as heretical. Since most of the church leaders were great theologians, and had acquired great knowledge of what sound doctrine should entail, were able to detect anything else which was inconsistent with Christian doctrine.
However, it has been noted that it is not any other individuals who violated the doctrine of the church but it is these great theologians who ended up teaching heresies. It is impossible to clearly say that these heretics were doing so deliberately. Philosophies propagated by Greek culture contributed to a larger extend to these main heresies of history. In their efforts to establish understanding on some issues especially on the deity of Christ and the controversial topic of the doctrine of trinity, they were declared heretics and condemned by the Councils. Several reasons for such heresies may therefore be outlined.
Prior to establishing these reasons an analysis of the heresies and the individual heretics it is important. At least five great heresies have hit history and termed most controversial almost destroying the view of God in the church if they had won.
One of these earliest heresies was Gnosticism. It is one of the false teachings which Paul the apostle addressed to his contemporaries. Gnostics believed that the body was evil and only the spirit was good. They emphasized that salvation was only possible when the body was subjected to hardship. This teaching questioned the deity of Christ in his human form since having a body to them was associated with evil, something they found hard to believe as far as the divinity of Christ was concerned. They said, “…the Spirit Christ is the savior, but the human Jesus is only a shell” (Jeffrey 2002, 40). It is not until around A.D 180 when Irenaeus wrote five books against heresies that were threatening his people, the most prevalent heresy being Gnosticism that a solution began to appear (Jeffrey 2002, 37).
The other heretical teaching which shucks history is Arianism. The heretic behind this heresy is Arius who denied the deity of Jesus Christ. He argued from Proverbs 8:22 that the Son is not eternal with the Father but was created. He was a presbyter in Alexandria (Jeffrey 2002, 46). This has been considered to be the biggest controversy in history. It brought together 318 Bishops in the first Council at Nicea. Contrary to Arius who used the term homoiousios for Christ, meaning He was of like substance with the Father, Athanasias instead used the word homoousios for Christ meaning that he was of the same substance with the Father (Allison 1994, 86). Therefore the council condemned and anathematized him.
The other heresy is Nestorianism which came from the controversy arising from the two natures of Christ. The heretic was Nestorius (popular preacher and bishop of Constantinople in 428). Lane states that in his preaching at Constantinople, he denied that the Virgin Mary was theotokos (‘God-bearer’). He insisted that it was Jesus the man who was born of Mary, not God the Word (Lane 1984, 44). It therefore followed that the Council at Ephesus in 431 condemned and despised him for Emphasizing that Christ was of two natures.
Another heresy concerning the nature of Christ was Eutychianism, pioneered by Eutyches. He mixed the two natures of Christ into one, “a tertium quid or ‘third something,’ which is neither God nor man but a sort of mongrel” (Lane 1984, 47). Due to this he was condemned for confusing the two natures of Christ in A.D. 448 by bishop Flavian (Lane 1984, 47).
The last heresy, for the sake of this paper is Pelagianism, by Pelagius. He believed that,
“A Christian could lead a life without sin, with no more help f rom God than his teaching and the example of Jesus Christ. He did not believe that Adams fall had done more than introduce death and the example of sin- it did not make sin inevitable” (Lane 1984, 42).
As a result Augustine came out strongly to oppose it and said,
“sin wrought such ravages in man that he cannot save himself… no man can really love God or believe in Him savingly until the grace of God comes to him” (Renwick 2004, 58).
Having given an explanation of these major heresies, their causes can now be established. The aim is not to give a sound theological understanding and teaching about them, but to examine the circumstances under which they thrived. History has already declared them as heresies and any further investigation on them will prove the same.
When we embark on the characteristics of these ‘great heretics’ one will find out that they were key people in the church before committing this serious heresies. This is an issue which should catch the attention of many and seek to establish why only them and not other theologians outside the Church. There are several reasons which may be established.
First of all, the Greek culture has been accused of ‘blinding’ these great theologians. The Greek culture was one which was devoted to finding explanation of ‘everything.’ Lane states,
“Tertullian was strongly critical of Greek philosophy, viewing it as the parent of heresy. He emphasized the paradoxical nature of faith and the contrast between Christianity and philosophy” (Lane 1984, 18)
The issues rising great controversy over the centuries have been thos e concerning the doctrine of trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. Under this two, many were declared heretics after seeking to understand them, something which Lane says is “incomprehensible and inscrutable” (Lane 1984, 36). Athanasias who was opposed to Arius is termed by Allison as more a pastor than a theologian. He says that he did not begin with philosophical or theological concerns but with a passion for human souls (Allison 1994, 89). With such an understanding it is clear that the Greek culture of Philosophy contributed to a larger extend to these heresies.
Also since most of these heretics were great theologians, the more they ventured in trying to understand some issues, the more prone to heresy they were, probably unconsciously. It is true they had a good knowledge about God and their commitment in studying God’s word cannot be underestimated, and furthermore the controversial issues are not small. This therefore can be seen as what led to high rate of brooding heresies especially on the deity of Christ and that of Trinity. For example Eutyches who was accused of mixing the two natures of Christ was said to have been “confused or muddled, rather than willfully heretical” (Lane 1984, 47).
In addition, within there sincerity, most of these heretics tended to take scriptures out of context and did not compare with other passages of scripture. Arius for example based his teaching about the creation of Jesus Christ by the Father from Proverbs 8:22. It was evident that by referring to creation of wisdom as creation of Christ was wrong interpretation. Allison states,
“Heretics have sometimes been exceedingly selfless and sincere in their beliefs, often with a tenacious grasp of the partial truth within their teaching while blind to its context or its wider implications” (Allison 1994, 17).
However, having said that about heretics I do not nullify the fact that they were stubborn in their teachings even after having been condemned by the Councils. Therefore, the Councils gave us a clear picture of the role they played during this great controversies of ancient history which threatened to divide the church. Lane says that their aim was to protect the doctrine from denial but not to explain it in such a way as to eliminate the mystery (Lane 1984, 36).
It is therefore commendable how heresies were dealt with in ancient times. The Councils helped to maintain right teachings and correct interpretation of Scripture. It could have been otherwise if the church had been left to face these great heretics who sounded very “sincere, but sincerely wrong.” And that is why Lane stated that if any of the four heresies had won the day it would have been a distorted picture of Jesus Christ that would have been handed down to us (Lane 1984, 36).
From what has been established this far, it is quite clear that today’s contemporaries owe much to the tradition and history of the church. There is much for today’s ‘bishops’ to learn from history. There is a likelihood of falling away from right teachings of faith ignorantly and therefore the need to evaluate the prevailing teachings and see if for sure they go hand in hand with what is sound doctrine.
Martin Luther is known today as the great leader of reformation causing the separation of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants. This controversy will be argued out that, the Roman Catholic Church which was at one time the only church and was very careful to detect any heresy, was now accused of heretical teachings. They accused Luther for being heretical and asked him to recant his statements against the Pope. Renwick states, “The spirit of Martin Luther was stirred to depths. On All Saints Day, 1517, he nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg where vast crowds congregated” (Renwick 2002, 109).
It is startling that after the historical church began well with emphasis on sound biblical teachings it deviated and began to follow words of men. When people failed to have proper hermeneutical principles and went just for what appealed to them, is when they committed heresy. Ignoring traditions they tolerated heretical teachings. Laursen states, “The nineteenth and twentieth centuries completed the process of changing our attitudes such that many people know little or nothing about the great traditions of heresy and persecution” (Laursen 2002, 5).
Although the Orthodoxy accused the Protestants for dividing the Church, they themselves had failed to retain that sensitivity in protecting the doctrine. The main problem being stated as misusing the term ‘faith’ to refer only to doctrine at the cost of holiness of life. But they urged that, practice by itself was not sufficient for salvation and th at both doctrine and morality were necessary” (Pelikan 1989, 151-2).
For the contemporaries we realize that there is no new heresy. Some of the controversial issues in ancient times are also the one causing much problem today. Allison says. “Scarcely any ancient heresy can be found that does not have a modern expression; scarcely is there a modern heresy that we have not seen before” (Allison 1994, 17).
It is astonishing that heretics use the Bible to make their teachings seem right. Due to negligence and increased number of Bible interpreters with theological teaching and also those who have no theological training, Bible interpretation has been misused and misapplied. Like Gnostic theology, many have employed the language of Christianity and misused the Scriptures of Christianity to develop their own system of belief (Bingham 2002, 40).
For example, today’s greatest heresy which is preached and emphasized is the Prosperity Gospel, which is a lie but incorporated with Scriptures to make it seem right. This teaching has been associated with Docentrisim which denied “Christ’s full humanity and his actual suffering was no more academic mistake of mind but the cringing withdrawal of the human spirit from the implications, risks, and responsibilities of incarnate love” (Allison 1994, 39). This understanding of Christian life as a life of prosperity and not one of suffering is a duplication of this old heresy of Docentrisim.
Heresy has expressed “cruelty” (Allison 1994, 17) in the sense that it elevates humanity. Heresies have also given a wrong representation of God distorting his character and glory.
Protestant churches cannot boast of having the right doctrinal faith and practice. They can actually be cited as to have propagated heretical teachings due to laxity and lack of a strict strategy of dealing with heresy.
“Most of them started with the assumption that their own particular doctrines embodied the final statement of Christian truth and were thus prepared to denounce as heretics those who differed with them. But with the gradual growth of toleration and the 2oth – Century ecumenical movement most protestant Churches have drastically revised the notion of heresy as understood in the pre-reformation church” (Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed).
It is therefore necessary for todayÂ’s contemporaries to seek to establish strategies on how to eradicate any form of false teaching which may be thriving in the church. Increased carelessness has been encouraged on televisions, radios and everywhere on town streets. The Church should emulate th e ancient church in formation of Councils to deal with heresy. This Councils should in turn be free from selfish agendas and emphasize on proper biblical interpretation since this is the main cause of heresy, proving that most heretics and especially in our days are lacking theological training and therefore being stubborn on what in itself is wrong sincerity.
Reference List:
Allison, Fitzsimons C. The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy. Morehouse Publishing, 1994.
Bingham, Jeffrey. Pocket History of the Church. Downers Grove, Illinois; Intervarsity Press, 2002.
CollierÂ’s Encyclopedia Vol 10. New York; Collier & Son Division of the Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, 1952.
Lane, Tony. The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought. Lion Publishing. England, 1984.
Laursen, John C. Histories of Heresy in Early Modern Europe: For, Against, and Beyond Persecution and Toleration. New York; Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
New Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 5 15th ed. Chicago; Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1990.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (Since 1700). Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). London; The University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Renwick, M. A & A. M. Harman. The Story of the Church 3rd ed. Intervarsity Press, 2004.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Mini-paper on Tribal and Ancient Religioins by Karen Bucyk
Mini-paper I
Tribal and Ancient Religions
REL101 World Religions
Karen Bucyk
Tribal Religions
The tribe was the social organization of the time. These people were all equal. The men were all hunters and women all gatherers. They provided enough for their clan and that was it. The shaman seemed to be the only person distinct from the others. The shaman could lead the others through the various rituals and ceremonies necessary. It would seem on the surface that the shaman was perhaps the most intellectual of the clan. Maybe not, maybe he just stands out to me because of his position to lead the clan.
In reading about the beginnings of tribal religions, I can understand their reasoning for some of the aspects common to most tribal religions. Prehistoric life, with no written language, would leave a person from our time with lots of questions. The creation myths and taboos common of most tribal religions seem to leave no room for the people of that time to pose questions. They just followed along, believing if they lived their lives this way they would be ok. There was so much that they didn’t know or understand at that time. They accepted the explanations given and didn’t question validity of them.
Their rituals revolved around the rites of passage. They initiated new born babies into the clan. They celebrated puberty passages and marriages. And they held funeral rites to help the deceased soul to find its new afterworld. Today we do celebrate some of these same milestones in my own religion. The rituals of my religion also celebrate birth and initiation, coming into adulthood, marriage and funeral rites.
I can’t imagine joining such a religion in this day and age. My own religion relies so much on the rich written accounts of the bible. Not having anything written to back up what someone retells seems ridiculous to me. I could not blindly trust in the way that these tribal gatherers did. I like to have the concrete, black and white stories to refer back to and read over again. I also like the fact that I can learn about other religions to add to my background knowledge base. The tribal people did not come into contact with other religious groups very often. They didn’t have the diversity that we have today.
What if someone was trying to lead the tribe in one direction for his own personal good? I might liken it so some kind of cult. The members live together and pool resources to sustain the group as a whole. There have been plenty of recent instances where the leader of the cult turns out to be using the followers as a tool for this leaders own benefit.
Ancient Religions
The early civilizations did have writing. They started to have their own written laws put into place. The people of this time had more diversity that the tribes. Different job roles supported different aspects of the society. Hunting and gathering was less relied on. The people began to depend on trading their surplus to get other things they wanted or needed. They began to go to cities for their trading and worshiping. Temples, Oracles and pyramids were built to house their religious ceremonies and rituals.
These people held strong beliefs in the afterlife. They would be rewarded in this afterlife for doing their duty to the society. This was a change from the tribal beliefs that in the afterlife the spirit of the deceased could be reincarnated in some form, perhaps a new child ancestor. My own belief of what heaven will be like is more in line with the ancient civilizations than with the tribes. I have hopes that I will spend eternity in heaven after living a life according to the Commandments.
The Greek religion has the greatest number of deities of these subject religions. The tales of these anthropomorphic deities seem too over exaggerated for me to truly believe. I do find the stories fascinating and enjoy hearing about them. I would have a hard time taking this religion as my own and have to believe them. I also feel the same way about some of the creation myths of the tribal peoples. In the tribal myths, the characters tend to be animal in form. Nice stories, but the logical part of me doesn’t truly believe. I think the purpose of both is to probably connect the people with their earlier ancestors. Telling and reading the stories to future generations serves to solidify the continuation of their beliefs, to show the lengthy histories. I enjoy knowing that my religion has passed the test of time.
I know that I am where I am in my religious life because others before me have paved the way. I think I take for granted that my religion is accepted wherever I go. This was not always the case I know. Others before me struggled to define and bring it to where it is today. I do also think that over time the religion evolves to the times. I think that some tribal religions and ancient religions could bring followers today, with some alterations to today’s lifestyles. In our country we seem to be accepting of all religions as long as we keep them out of the government and they don’t proselytize too loudly.
Tribal and Ancient Religions
REL101 World Religions
Karen Bucyk
Tribal Religions
The tribe was the social organization of the time. These people were all equal. The men were all hunters and women all gatherers. They provided enough for their clan and that was it. The shaman seemed to be the only person distinct from the others. The shaman could lead the others through the various rituals and ceremonies necessary. It would seem on the surface that the shaman was perhaps the most intellectual of the clan. Maybe not, maybe he just stands out to me because of his position to lead the clan.
In reading about the beginnings of tribal religions, I can understand their reasoning for some of the aspects common to most tribal religions. Prehistoric life, with no written language, would leave a person from our time with lots of questions. The creation myths and taboos common of most tribal religions seem to leave no room for the people of that time to pose questions. They just followed along, believing if they lived their lives this way they would be ok. There was so much that they didn’t know or understand at that time. They accepted the explanations given and didn’t question validity of them.
Their rituals revolved around the rites of passage. They initiated new born babies into the clan. They celebrated puberty passages and marriages. And they held funeral rites to help the deceased soul to find its new afterworld. Today we do celebrate some of these same milestones in my own religion. The rituals of my religion also celebrate birth and initiation, coming into adulthood, marriage and funeral rites.
I can’t imagine joining such a religion in this day and age. My own religion relies so much on the rich written accounts of the bible. Not having anything written to back up what someone retells seems ridiculous to me. I could not blindly trust in the way that these tribal gatherers did. I like to have the concrete, black and white stories to refer back to and read over again. I also like the fact that I can learn about other religions to add to my background knowledge base. The tribal people did not come into contact with other religious groups very often. They didn’t have the diversity that we have today.
What if someone was trying to lead the tribe in one direction for his own personal good? I might liken it so some kind of cult. The members live together and pool resources to sustain the group as a whole. There have been plenty of recent instances where the leader of the cult turns out to be using the followers as a tool for this leaders own benefit.
Ancient Religions
The early civilizations did have writing. They started to have their own written laws put into place. The people of this time had more diversity that the tribes. Different job roles supported different aspects of the society. Hunting and gathering was less relied on. The people began to depend on trading their surplus to get other things they wanted or needed. They began to go to cities for their trading and worshiping. Temples, Oracles and pyramids were built to house their religious ceremonies and rituals.
These people held strong beliefs in the afterlife. They would be rewarded in this afterlife for doing their duty to the society. This was a change from the tribal beliefs that in the afterlife the spirit of the deceased could be reincarnated in some form, perhaps a new child ancestor. My own belief of what heaven will be like is more in line with the ancient civilizations than with the tribes. I have hopes that I will spend eternity in heaven after living a life according to the Commandments.
The Greek religion has the greatest number of deities of these subject religions. The tales of these anthropomorphic deities seem too over exaggerated for me to truly believe. I do find the stories fascinating and enjoy hearing about them. I would have a hard time taking this religion as my own and have to believe them. I also feel the same way about some of the creation myths of the tribal peoples. In the tribal myths, the characters tend to be animal in form. Nice stories, but the logical part of me doesn’t truly believe. I think the purpose of both is to probably connect the people with their earlier ancestors. Telling and reading the stories to future generations serves to solidify the continuation of their beliefs, to show the lengthy histories. I enjoy knowing that my religion has passed the test of time.
I know that I am where I am in my religious life because others before me have paved the way. I think I take for granted that my religion is accepted wherever I go. This was not always the case I know. Others before me struggled to define and bring it to where it is today. I do also think that over time the religion evolves to the times. I think that some tribal religions and ancient religions could bring followers today, with some alterations to today’s lifestyles. In our country we seem to be accepting of all religions as long as we keep them out of the government and they don’t proselytize too loudly.
Mini-paper on Tribal and Ancient Religions by Rose Prescott
Rose Prescott
World Religions
Mini Paper #1
February 19, 2007
The origins of religion stretch back to a time before there were any written records of history. In these prehistoric civilizations, events and ways of life were passed on orally. These prehistoric people are also referred to as tribal. “Tribal refers to the form of social organization used by these peoples: small groups of hunters and gatherers in an extended family or clan” (Carmody and Brink, page 27). These tribal people placed a great emphasis on such things as fertility, death, nature, and food. Their main concern was survival. This concern was reflected in their relationship with the world around them. To these tribal people, there was no distinction between the ‘human world’ and nature; there was a strong sense of co-existence. Because of this great sense of connection to the world around them, “Much of the religion of early humanity, much of its worship, probably focused on generative powers and the Great Mother” (Carmody and Brink, page 28). The Great Mother was often depicted as a pregnant woman, showing the great concern of life and fertility of these early people. The Great Mother was the beginning of the concept of a female deity.
Tribal religion also incorporated the ideas of the sacred and the profane, the belief that some things in life were holy and more significant than ordinary elements of life and that there were also things opposite the sacred. We see this attitude repeated in our time as well, a religious building might be considered sacred where an ordinary building may not. Most communities practicing tribal religion believed that all things have a soul, including plants and animals as well as humans. This belief is known as animism.
Another important figure in the lives of these tribal people was that of a Master of the Animals. The very survival of these people depended on the success of the hunt. The Master of the Animals was looked to as a deity that watched over the animals, and had the power to decide whether the hunt was going to be successful or not. Many sacrifices were made to this deity, in attempts to please him and to ensure a fruitful hunt.
Due to the fact that modern society is no longer made up of hunting and gathering groups, this is no longer a sensible form of religion. In this day and age, this intimate connection with nature does not, to a great extent, exist, and our survival is not dependant on hunting therefore there is no longer any need to please the deities of earth and animals.
The structure of early religion would change considerably with the shift from hunting and gathering to an agricultural society. These two ways of life would come together to form a newer set of beliefs. As contact with other peoples and cultures became more prevalent, traditions and beliefs were intermingled. Many of the values of earlier hunter-gatherer tribal religions were incorporated into agricultural societies. “Many of the agricultural societies of the Mediterranean and Middle East had Great Mother goddesses who governed the fertility cycle of plants and domesticated animals” (Carmody and Brink, page 61). As stronger societies began to conquer and take control of smaller, weaker communities, an increase in powerful masculine deities was seen. With the introduction of kings and rulers within these societies came the rise of human kings to divine status. These deities all worked together in an ordered manner.
Like the beliefs of hunting and gathering peoples, there is little room for this type of religion in modern America. One of the most obvious reasons would be the fact that we are no longer concerned with conquering our neighbors. We also do not have a king whom we consider a god. We look to the President of the United States and other government officials to make important decisions concerning our well being, but we understand that they have no supernatural powers.
The Hellenistic religions of Greece and Rome have much in common with the early religions of tribal peoples. Similar to the Great Mother deity who concerned herself with nature and fertility, we see the tradition of a goddess linked to fertility and the rule of animals. There were also earth spirits who were linked to fertility and the rule of the dead (Carmody and Brink, page 202). There were powerful male gods of war and of creation and goddesses of the hunt and of love. These deities parallel the common concerns of all these early societies. Throughout all of these religions, themes of survival such as fertility, death, agriculture and nature can be seen.
While these religious traditions worked well for the people of these civilizations, they are not practically applicable in modern day society. The challenges that we face today are very different from past experience. We no longer depend on hunting and gathering or agriculture, the nutrition that we depend on can be found in a local grocery store. While we still respect the environment and the world around us, there is no longer that strong sense of connectedness and dependence on nature. Personally, I cannot see myself placing faith in any of these beliefs. The deities that these people placed their trust in do not stand for anything that holds meaning or directly effects my life.
World Religions
Mini Paper #1
February 19, 2007
The origins of religion stretch back to a time before there were any written records of history. In these prehistoric civilizations, events and ways of life were passed on orally. These prehistoric people are also referred to as tribal. “Tribal refers to the form of social organization used by these peoples: small groups of hunters and gatherers in an extended family or clan” (Carmody and Brink, page 27). These tribal people placed a great emphasis on such things as fertility, death, nature, and food. Their main concern was survival. This concern was reflected in their relationship with the world around them. To these tribal people, there was no distinction between the ‘human world’ and nature; there was a strong sense of co-existence. Because of this great sense of connection to the world around them, “Much of the religion of early humanity, much of its worship, probably focused on generative powers and the Great Mother” (Carmody and Brink, page 28). The Great Mother was often depicted as a pregnant woman, showing the great concern of life and fertility of these early people. The Great Mother was the beginning of the concept of a female deity.
Tribal religion also incorporated the ideas of the sacred and the profane, the belief that some things in life were holy and more significant than ordinary elements of life and that there were also things opposite the sacred. We see this attitude repeated in our time as well, a religious building might be considered sacred where an ordinary building may not. Most communities practicing tribal religion believed that all things have a soul, including plants and animals as well as humans. This belief is known as animism.
Another important figure in the lives of these tribal people was that of a Master of the Animals. The very survival of these people depended on the success of the hunt. The Master of the Animals was looked to as a deity that watched over the animals, and had the power to decide whether the hunt was going to be successful or not. Many sacrifices were made to this deity, in attempts to please him and to ensure a fruitful hunt.
Due to the fact that modern society is no longer made up of hunting and gathering groups, this is no longer a sensible form of religion. In this day and age, this intimate connection with nature does not, to a great extent, exist, and our survival is not dependant on hunting therefore there is no longer any need to please the deities of earth and animals.
The structure of early religion would change considerably with the shift from hunting and gathering to an agricultural society. These two ways of life would come together to form a newer set of beliefs. As contact with other peoples and cultures became more prevalent, traditions and beliefs were intermingled. Many of the values of earlier hunter-gatherer tribal religions were incorporated into agricultural societies. “Many of the agricultural societies of the Mediterranean and Middle East had Great Mother goddesses who governed the fertility cycle of plants and domesticated animals” (Carmody and Brink, page 61). As stronger societies began to conquer and take control of smaller, weaker communities, an increase in powerful masculine deities was seen. With the introduction of kings and rulers within these societies came the rise of human kings to divine status. These deities all worked together in an ordered manner.
Like the beliefs of hunting and gathering peoples, there is little room for this type of religion in modern America. One of the most obvious reasons would be the fact that we are no longer concerned with conquering our neighbors. We also do not have a king whom we consider a god. We look to the President of the United States and other government officials to make important decisions concerning our well being, but we understand that they have no supernatural powers.
The Hellenistic religions of Greece and Rome have much in common with the early religions of tribal peoples. Similar to the Great Mother deity who concerned herself with nature and fertility, we see the tradition of a goddess linked to fertility and the rule of animals. There were also earth spirits who were linked to fertility and the rule of the dead (Carmody and Brink, page 202). There were powerful male gods of war and of creation and goddesses of the hunt and of love. These deities parallel the common concerns of all these early societies. Throughout all of these religions, themes of survival such as fertility, death, agriculture and nature can be seen.
While these religious traditions worked well for the people of these civilizations, they are not practically applicable in modern day society. The challenges that we face today are very different from past experience. We no longer depend on hunting and gathering or agriculture, the nutrition that we depend on can be found in a local grocery store. While we still respect the environment and the world around us, there is no longer that strong sense of connectedness and dependence on nature. Personally, I cannot see myself placing faith in any of these beliefs. The deities that these people placed their trust in do not stand for anything that holds meaning or directly effects my life.
Mini-paper on Tribal and Ancient Religions by Renée Yelle
Renée Yelle
February 19, 2007
Mini Paper 1
Tribal and Ancient Religions
When asked to assess these religions, would one actually believe in and strictly follow them, in the year 2007? I am not too sure of that. When focusing in on the tribal religions, there are some definite aspects that could be used today and probably still are being used. There is some strength that I find extraordinary, and there are also some weaknesses within the religious structure, that could be done with out them.
On the tribal front, their strengths for sure would be their ability to survive. The way that they spilt up gatherers and hunters and how they noticed the different seasons. They were very nature friendly and they respected what they were given or how they needed to get what they needed. They would try to predict events and were successful at it. Also their afterlife focus is fascinating. They were very thoughtful when it came down to being buried and their thoughts on it. Mostly everything these people did was well thought up and had deep sincerity with everything they did.
Some of the weaknesses were the magic aspect to it. Maybe it’s just me but sorcerers and witches and all of that just doesn’t seem to fit in this religion. The way that I look at it is they have myths and shamans totems and high Gods and whatever else, but I feel that there are too many ‘religions’ all in one. I feel that since they were one of the first to be around, maybe they were playing around a bit with all these different ideas and just seeing how each fit into their lives. I don’t feel that they used and did all that was talked about in the book. They probably did at one time, but by the end of the tribal period, they probably had it narrowed down to a high God and the myths, or the trickster and the witch.
I think that their meaning of life is sacred and they take great pride in that. Their meaning of life is way different than our meaning of life in the year 2007. Their focus was on surviving, and agriculture, and their Gods. Our life is money, jobs, home, families and cars. If everyone was to convert to the tribal religions then it would do us a great deal in 07. But for just a community or even a state was to convert, they would have a hard time surviving in this world.
There is no way I would be able to be apart of this religion now a days. I feel that it’s not reality. If I used it to deal with my family situation, work situation or any situation, I would only be hurting myself. Way back then I feel that their religious beliefs kept them alive. It worked for back then when they only had to focus on what they were going to eat next. Life right now at this time is way too complicated for this religion to survive. I respect and could honestly believe in most of it a great deal, like their views on life but in general as a whole, it would not work for this time period or work for me.
From the ancient religion part, there are some definite changes between the tribal front and the ancient religions part.
Some of their strengths would be that they are more civilized (from the year 2007 standard) than the tribal people were. They didn’t just do the bare minimum to stay alive. They went beyond that. Just from looking at page 59 in “Ways to the Center” one would see just by looking at the chart that being compared to the tribal front, they took it a step or two more than the others did. They were evolving as a community, as being civilized.
Everyone had a job in the ancient times. Unlike the tribal which had hunters and gatherers, the ancient civilizations had multiple jobs for multiple people. So in that aspect they were very organized and attentive. They knew what needed to get done, and who and how they were going to do it. As for religious places, at first it was go trade and then while you’re there worship. By the end of this ancient period, people were traveling just to worship then trade. The tables turned on instead of trading, following the law codes and doing anything that a newly civilized group would do, eventually the worshiping came into play. The ‘government’ and the religion went hand in hand during these times. They also developed some type of writing which is called cuneiform.
Some weaknesses are the myths which include Gilgamesh and Enkidu. I understand that during that time, they really believed in and got into it. But some of the stories between these two I just can’t fathom. I would never believe in something to that extreme, as they did. Their stories about how things came about seem much exaggerated. As well as in the Greek times, when they had so many Gods I wouldn’t even be able to name them all. How are people supposed to be worshipping these Gods when there is so much going on between the Gods? Let’s put this into perspective. Let’s say there were about 5 Gods and Goddesses. How am I supposed to look up to for guidance and help when 2 of the Gods are physically fighting each other, one God’s wife is having an affair with his father who is really his brother. See where I’m going with this? There ultimately is too much going on, and too much to follow, while trying to get guidance at the same time.
To be honest I don’t really know what these religions could offer me with the meaning of life or their world views even, I think that that it is too Jerry Springer for me. It’s also unrealistic for me as well. I would not be able to follow this and have it apply to my every day ordeals within myself, and others. I feel bad being so negative within in this religion but there is nothing really that sticks out as great, besides the civilized part. There is religion in here as well, but I feel for the most part it was just the tribal religions becoming more civilized and less religious.
If I were to pick one or the other, I would go with the tribal religions. I feel that they are more believable and more reassuring. I would be able to apply some of their knowledge and beliefs to some situations but for the ancient religions I really don’t know if I could apply anything to my life now.
February 19, 2007
Mini Paper 1
Tribal and Ancient Religions
When asked to assess these religions, would one actually believe in and strictly follow them, in the year 2007? I am not too sure of that. When focusing in on the tribal religions, there are some definite aspects that could be used today and probably still are being used. There is some strength that I find extraordinary, and there are also some weaknesses within the religious structure, that could be done with out them.
On the tribal front, their strengths for sure would be their ability to survive. The way that they spilt up gatherers and hunters and how they noticed the different seasons. They were very nature friendly and they respected what they were given or how they needed to get what they needed. They would try to predict events and were successful at it. Also their afterlife focus is fascinating. They were very thoughtful when it came down to being buried and their thoughts on it. Mostly everything these people did was well thought up and had deep sincerity with everything they did.
Some of the weaknesses were the magic aspect to it. Maybe it’s just me but sorcerers and witches and all of that just doesn’t seem to fit in this religion. The way that I look at it is they have myths and shamans totems and high Gods and whatever else, but I feel that there are too many ‘religions’ all in one. I feel that since they were one of the first to be around, maybe they were playing around a bit with all these different ideas and just seeing how each fit into their lives. I don’t feel that they used and did all that was talked about in the book. They probably did at one time, but by the end of the tribal period, they probably had it narrowed down to a high God and the myths, or the trickster and the witch.
I think that their meaning of life is sacred and they take great pride in that. Their meaning of life is way different than our meaning of life in the year 2007. Their focus was on surviving, and agriculture, and their Gods. Our life is money, jobs, home, families and cars. If everyone was to convert to the tribal religions then it would do us a great deal in 07. But for just a community or even a state was to convert, they would have a hard time surviving in this world.
There is no way I would be able to be apart of this religion now a days. I feel that it’s not reality. If I used it to deal with my family situation, work situation or any situation, I would only be hurting myself. Way back then I feel that their religious beliefs kept them alive. It worked for back then when they only had to focus on what they were going to eat next. Life right now at this time is way too complicated for this religion to survive. I respect and could honestly believe in most of it a great deal, like their views on life but in general as a whole, it would not work for this time period or work for me.
From the ancient religion part, there are some definite changes between the tribal front and the ancient religions part.
Some of their strengths would be that they are more civilized (from the year 2007 standard) than the tribal people were. They didn’t just do the bare minimum to stay alive. They went beyond that. Just from looking at page 59 in “Ways to the Center” one would see just by looking at the chart that being compared to the tribal front, they took it a step or two more than the others did. They were evolving as a community, as being civilized.
Everyone had a job in the ancient times. Unlike the tribal which had hunters and gatherers, the ancient civilizations had multiple jobs for multiple people. So in that aspect they were very organized and attentive. They knew what needed to get done, and who and how they were going to do it. As for religious places, at first it was go trade and then while you’re there worship. By the end of this ancient period, people were traveling just to worship then trade. The tables turned on instead of trading, following the law codes and doing anything that a newly civilized group would do, eventually the worshiping came into play. The ‘government’ and the religion went hand in hand during these times. They also developed some type of writing which is called cuneiform.
Some weaknesses are the myths which include Gilgamesh and Enkidu. I understand that during that time, they really believed in and got into it. But some of the stories between these two I just can’t fathom. I would never believe in something to that extreme, as they did. Their stories about how things came about seem much exaggerated. As well as in the Greek times, when they had so many Gods I wouldn’t even be able to name them all. How are people supposed to be worshipping these Gods when there is so much going on between the Gods? Let’s put this into perspective. Let’s say there were about 5 Gods and Goddesses. How am I supposed to look up to for guidance and help when 2 of the Gods are physically fighting each other, one God’s wife is having an affair with his father who is really his brother. See where I’m going with this? There ultimately is too much going on, and too much to follow, while trying to get guidance at the same time.
To be honest I don’t really know what these religions could offer me with the meaning of life or their world views even, I think that that it is too Jerry Springer for me. It’s also unrealistic for me as well. I would not be able to follow this and have it apply to my every day ordeals within myself, and others. I feel bad being so negative within in this religion but there is nothing really that sticks out as great, besides the civilized part. There is religion in here as well, but I feel for the most part it was just the tribal religions becoming more civilized and less religious.
If I were to pick one or the other, I would go with the tribal religions. I feel that they are more believable and more reassuring. I would be able to apply some of their knowledge and beliefs to some situations but for the ancient religions I really don’t know if I could apply anything to my life now.
Mini-paper on Tribal and Ancient Religions by Rachel Welsh
Rachel Welsh
Mini Paper 1
In my opinion, tribal and ancient religions still very much exist today, only not very much so in America. After doing some research online, I found that many countries still practice tribal religions, including Africa and India. I didn’t however, find much about the Hellenistic religions still being practiced today, but I did learn that Hellenistic religion supposedly helped shape Christianity into what it is today.
While doing my research on tribal religions, I got a better understand for what it actually meant to be part of a tribal religion. I found out that there are specialists, who basically interpret signs from nature, gods, and spirits that convey approval or disapproval for huge issues, such as war or moving a village. In comparing these sort of ways to how we deal with things today, if we were to be contemplating going to war, I do not think we would be looking for a sign from God, or a spirit. Looking for ‘a sign’ usually means being superstitious, or we sometimes even make it into a joke now a days. Most people do not wait around to see if God, or nature will tell them how to make a decision, they just make it themselves. I think God does play a huge roll in you making that decision, but some people think they are given a sign from God, when really, they are just lucky.
I also learned that if you are not born into a tribal religion, they do not encourage you to join one. If you are not born into it, then those who are part of the tribal religion think that you won’t understand, or have the same strong beliefs they have. It is actually discouraged for anyone to ‘convert’ to a tribal religion. Today though, it seems like it is nothing to want to convert to a different religion, or change your beliefs. I think what people ‘believe in’ is very broad, and converting to another Faith almost seems silly, because unless you practice your Faith VERY strongly, why should you convert to another religion? If you are Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, and you want to convert to another religion, it should be expected that you leave all your old beliefs behind and embrace only your new ones, but I think that some people change religions as much as they change their shoes these days! Most people really can’t tell you exactly what they believe in, or why, all they can say is, ‘Yeah, I’m a Christian.’ But what does that even mean? Does it even mean anything to anybody these days? I completely understand why those who are part of a tribal religion don’t encourage people to convert because their beliefs are instilled in them from the day they are born! To be in a tribal religion, you have to practice and believe EVERYDAY! You can’t just convert and then not practice what you are being shown or told, you have to sort of make an effort to prove you should be there, which takes me on to my next topic, some of the themes of the tribal religions.
While I was reading the text book, there were definitely some things that stood out to me as things we still do today, only we don’t really have names for them. The one thing that really stood out to me was Rites of Passage. The book states that Rites of Passage are when you take a step from one stage to another, including birth, puberty, marriage, and death (pg. 31). Today, these are all huge steps in a persons life, but we also celebrate things like sweet 16’s, and turning 18-becoming an adult, or turning 21. We celebrate things like graduations, and births of our children, and job promotions. I think we have a lot more to celebrate, or congratulate today, so we have many more Rites of Passages, but it really is based on the same idea, taking a step towards a new life.
Another aspect of tribal religions that we still practice today but it doesn’t have anything to do with religion really, is healing. They use herbs and massages to treat people, and while we are lucky to have technology and medicine to help treat people now a days, some people do still believe in using herbs and massages. Usually if someone is using herbs, it means they are using them spiritually, but just because you use something spiritually doesn’t mean it has anything to do with religion. They say certain scents help take away stress, or some herbs help get rid of headaches, but even if I were to try things like that, it has nothing to do with my beliefs, or Faith.
When looking back at ancient religions, one thing that stands out to me, and continues to still be significant today, are sacred sites. Those temples and pyramids that are still here today that were sacred back then, are still sacred now, and mean a lot to both past and present civilizations. Also, while tribal religions only sacrificed animals, ancient religions sacrificed grain, animals, but most surprising, humans! Maybe there are some cultures that still do this today, but even sacrificing an animal seems very drastic to me.
Religion today doesn’t seem to rely on too many real things that you can see, but it seems to be more based on beliefs. People don’t need to actually see God to believe in Him, they just need to have Faith. People of other religions don’t need to actually see something to believe, or have faith, or have some sort of explanation why things happened the way they did. The way I look at religion is sort of like a child looks at Santa Clause, or the tooth fairy, or even the Easter Rabbit. Sure, every kid believes in them, but no child can explain how Santa makes it to millions of houses in one night! If you believe in something, that’s all that matters. Yes, we grow out of the Santa and Easter Bunny stage, but with religion, the more you grow up and the more you learn, the better you can understand it, and the better you can make your own decisions based on your Faith. Your religion and your faith is what you make of it. People will always have different beliefs, and different ways of worshipping, or practicing what they are preached, it’s been like that since the dawn of time, but no matter what happens, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and no one is wrong. Sacrificing a human sounds absolutely crazy to me, but in some cultures, it’s expected of you; it’s a way of life.
Works Cited
1. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_type_tribal.htm
2. http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/india/tribal.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_religion
4. Ways to the Center, Denise L. Carmody &T.L.Brink, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2006. Pgs. 31, 59.
Mini Paper 1
In my opinion, tribal and ancient religions still very much exist today, only not very much so in America. After doing some research online, I found that many countries still practice tribal religions, including Africa and India. I didn’t however, find much about the Hellenistic religions still being practiced today, but I did learn that Hellenistic religion supposedly helped shape Christianity into what it is today.
While doing my research on tribal religions, I got a better understand for what it actually meant to be part of a tribal religion. I found out that there are specialists, who basically interpret signs from nature, gods, and spirits that convey approval or disapproval for huge issues, such as war or moving a village. In comparing these sort of ways to how we deal with things today, if we were to be contemplating going to war, I do not think we would be looking for a sign from God, or a spirit. Looking for ‘a sign’ usually means being superstitious, or we sometimes even make it into a joke now a days. Most people do not wait around to see if God, or nature will tell them how to make a decision, they just make it themselves. I think God does play a huge roll in you making that decision, but some people think they are given a sign from God, when really, they are just lucky.
I also learned that if you are not born into a tribal religion, they do not encourage you to join one. If you are not born into it, then those who are part of the tribal religion think that you won’t understand, or have the same strong beliefs they have. It is actually discouraged for anyone to ‘convert’ to a tribal religion. Today though, it seems like it is nothing to want to convert to a different religion, or change your beliefs. I think what people ‘believe in’ is very broad, and converting to another Faith almost seems silly, because unless you practice your Faith VERY strongly, why should you convert to another religion? If you are Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, and you want to convert to another religion, it should be expected that you leave all your old beliefs behind and embrace only your new ones, but I think that some people change religions as much as they change their shoes these days! Most people really can’t tell you exactly what they believe in, or why, all they can say is, ‘Yeah, I’m a Christian.’ But what does that even mean? Does it even mean anything to anybody these days? I completely understand why those who are part of a tribal religion don’t encourage people to convert because their beliefs are instilled in them from the day they are born! To be in a tribal religion, you have to practice and believe EVERYDAY! You can’t just convert and then not practice what you are being shown or told, you have to sort of make an effort to prove you should be there, which takes me on to my next topic, some of the themes of the tribal religions.
While I was reading the text book, there were definitely some things that stood out to me as things we still do today, only we don’t really have names for them. The one thing that really stood out to me was Rites of Passage. The book states that Rites of Passage are when you take a step from one stage to another, including birth, puberty, marriage, and death (pg. 31). Today, these are all huge steps in a persons life, but we also celebrate things like sweet 16’s, and turning 18-becoming an adult, or turning 21. We celebrate things like graduations, and births of our children, and job promotions. I think we have a lot more to celebrate, or congratulate today, so we have many more Rites of Passages, but it really is based on the same idea, taking a step towards a new life.
Another aspect of tribal religions that we still practice today but it doesn’t have anything to do with religion really, is healing. They use herbs and massages to treat people, and while we are lucky to have technology and medicine to help treat people now a days, some people do still believe in using herbs and massages. Usually if someone is using herbs, it means they are using them spiritually, but just because you use something spiritually doesn’t mean it has anything to do with religion. They say certain scents help take away stress, or some herbs help get rid of headaches, but even if I were to try things like that, it has nothing to do with my beliefs, or Faith.
When looking back at ancient religions, one thing that stands out to me, and continues to still be significant today, are sacred sites. Those temples and pyramids that are still here today that were sacred back then, are still sacred now, and mean a lot to both past and present civilizations. Also, while tribal religions only sacrificed animals, ancient religions sacrificed grain, animals, but most surprising, humans! Maybe there are some cultures that still do this today, but even sacrificing an animal seems very drastic to me.
Religion today doesn’t seem to rely on too many real things that you can see, but it seems to be more based on beliefs. People don’t need to actually see God to believe in Him, they just need to have Faith. People of other religions don’t need to actually see something to believe, or have faith, or have some sort of explanation why things happened the way they did. The way I look at religion is sort of like a child looks at Santa Clause, or the tooth fairy, or even the Easter Rabbit. Sure, every kid believes in them, but no child can explain how Santa makes it to millions of houses in one night! If you believe in something, that’s all that matters. Yes, we grow out of the Santa and Easter Bunny stage, but with religion, the more you grow up and the more you learn, the better you can understand it, and the better you can make your own decisions based on your Faith. Your religion and your faith is what you make of it. People will always have different beliefs, and different ways of worshipping, or practicing what they are preached, it’s been like that since the dawn of time, but no matter what happens, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and no one is wrong. Sacrificing a human sounds absolutely crazy to me, but in some cultures, it’s expected of you; it’s a way of life.
Works Cited
1. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_type_tribal.htm
2. http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/india/tribal.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_religion
4. Ways to the Center, Denise L. Carmody &T.L.Brink, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 2006. Pgs. 31, 59.
Mini-paper on Tribal and Acient Religions by Jeff Bourbeau
Jeff Bourbeau
2/14/07
Gustafson
Mini-Paper 1
Ancient and Tribal Man: Safety and Development
Modern society today practices many forms of religious practices. Across the world people perform rituals and prayer ceremonies. Not everyday in modern life though are people witness to the ghost dances, animal sacrifices, and shamanic practices of ancient and tribal man. Today people practice religion in safer manners, mostly in their homes on their own by their own rules and interpretations of the the philosophies their religions have provided.
During periods of ancient and tribal man it was common to find a community practicing things people in today would consider barbaric. Often ancient man worshiping the “Great Mother” would offer animal sacrifices and carve things onto cave walls. Today the term great mother, even the idea of fertility worship is thought of as almost shocking. In American society nudity itself is seen as lewd and censored in almost all forms of media in one way or another, yet during the times of prehistoric and ancient man dolls to a fertility deity displaying large naked breasts, or sometimes a phallic piece of art would be constructed and added to the decor of someone's home. This of course would be unacceptable in most homes today. These pieces of art would be seen as unsightly and possibly disrespectful towards women despite that these pieces are actually worshiping them. It is possible that modern life would benefit from a greater understanding of its own body, fertility, and sexuality. A celebration of these things in the way that tribal and ancient man did could even benefit society in that it would release people from many of their anxieties and social stigmas brought upon by their self-conscious fears. It is hard to imagine ancient man fearing their nudity or having scary dreams of going to school naked. Perhaps then modern society it is safe to say that modern society would benefit from mother worship.
Another way modern worship differs from tribal man is the people it has teach it's religion. In the times of tribal man religion was taught by druids, shamans, and witches. Today most churches have educated people who have attended schools with degrees in philosophy or religion teaching their congregation. Now one cannot say that tribal man's religious leaders were not educated, but we can say there is a vast difference between a college educated man leading a prayer and a man from a mud hit casting spells. Is there any benefit modern man could draw from these ancient practices? Very little could be drawn from them. The ways that old religions were have evolved and come to what they are now for a reason. People put much of their trust and faith in their priests, rabbis, and ect. To live in a society where a man, that is possibly completely uneducated without the references of schools, misleading it's people with superstition is a dangerous place to be. Religions have progressed to this point creating it's leaders in much the same way political leaders are built for this reason. The people underneath them being led need to know their leaders are safe to follow. Ancient religions have no such guarantees.
Ancient religions also caused many health concerns which would of course hurt it's people more than help. Many religions of the past practiced animal sacrificing and strange burial practices. This would lead to dangerous health conditions, that in the densely populated centers people live in today, would cause society to suffer from constant disease. Of course prehistoric and tribal man suffered from the same problems but their own superstitions caused them to continue with their unhealthy practices, that and their lack of scientific knowledge. Today we have science and a contemporary understanding of disease and the human body, because of this then such practices are not only impracticable, they are unreasonable.
Most practices of ancient and tribal man have progressed and evolved to being no longer useful to people today. Though the differences between the types of religions for their times are somewhat vast they all share similar qualities that are unsafe and no longer necessary. This is the case for not only the mental health of modern people but the mental development and safety of it's people. It is obvious then why these practices no longer exist. If something is no longer safe or reasonable it would evolve and change, most likely into the practices we have today.
2/14/07
Gustafson
Mini-Paper 1
Ancient and Tribal Man: Safety and Development
Modern society today practices many forms of religious practices. Across the world people perform rituals and prayer ceremonies. Not everyday in modern life though are people witness to the ghost dances, animal sacrifices, and shamanic practices of ancient and tribal man. Today people practice religion in safer manners, mostly in their homes on their own by their own rules and interpretations of the the philosophies their religions have provided.
During periods of ancient and tribal man it was common to find a community practicing things people in today would consider barbaric. Often ancient man worshiping the “Great Mother” would offer animal sacrifices and carve things onto cave walls. Today the term great mother, even the idea of fertility worship is thought of as almost shocking. In American society nudity itself is seen as lewd and censored in almost all forms of media in one way or another, yet during the times of prehistoric and ancient man dolls to a fertility deity displaying large naked breasts, or sometimes a phallic piece of art would be constructed and added to the decor of someone's home. This of course would be unacceptable in most homes today. These pieces of art would be seen as unsightly and possibly disrespectful towards women despite that these pieces are actually worshiping them. It is possible that modern life would benefit from a greater understanding of its own body, fertility, and sexuality. A celebration of these things in the way that tribal and ancient man did could even benefit society in that it would release people from many of their anxieties and social stigmas brought upon by their self-conscious fears. It is hard to imagine ancient man fearing their nudity or having scary dreams of going to school naked. Perhaps then modern society it is safe to say that modern society would benefit from mother worship.
Another way modern worship differs from tribal man is the people it has teach it's religion. In the times of tribal man religion was taught by druids, shamans, and witches. Today most churches have educated people who have attended schools with degrees in philosophy or religion teaching their congregation. Now one cannot say that tribal man's religious leaders were not educated, but we can say there is a vast difference between a college educated man leading a prayer and a man from a mud hit casting spells. Is there any benefit modern man could draw from these ancient practices? Very little could be drawn from them. The ways that old religions were have evolved and come to what they are now for a reason. People put much of their trust and faith in their priests, rabbis, and ect. To live in a society where a man, that is possibly completely uneducated without the references of schools, misleading it's people with superstition is a dangerous place to be. Religions have progressed to this point creating it's leaders in much the same way political leaders are built for this reason. The people underneath them being led need to know their leaders are safe to follow. Ancient religions have no such guarantees.
Ancient religions also caused many health concerns which would of course hurt it's people more than help. Many religions of the past practiced animal sacrificing and strange burial practices. This would lead to dangerous health conditions, that in the densely populated centers people live in today, would cause society to suffer from constant disease. Of course prehistoric and tribal man suffered from the same problems but their own superstitions caused them to continue with their unhealthy practices, that and their lack of scientific knowledge. Today we have science and a contemporary understanding of disease and the human body, because of this then such practices are not only impracticable, they are unreasonable.
Most practices of ancient and tribal man have progressed and evolved to being no longer useful to people today. Though the differences between the types of religions for their times are somewhat vast they all share similar qualities that are unsafe and no longer necessary. This is the case for not only the mental health of modern people but the mental development and safety of it's people. It is obvious then why these practices no longer exist. If something is no longer safe or reasonable it would evolve and change, most likely into the practices we have today.
Mini-paper on Tribal and Acient Religions by Jeff Bourbeau
Jeff Bourbeau
2/14/07
Gustafson
Mini-Paper 1
Ancient and Tribal Man: Safety and Development
Modern society today practices many forms of religious practices. Across the world people perform rituals and prayer ceremonies. Not everyday in modern life though are people witness to the ghost dances, animal sacrifices, and shamanic practices of ancient and tribal man. Today people practice religion in safer manners, mostly in their homes on their own by their own rules and interpretations of the the philosophies their religions have provided.
During periods of ancient and tribal man it was common to find a community practicing things people in today would consider barbaric. Often ancient man worshiping the “Great Mother” would offer animal sacrifices and carve things onto cave walls. Today the term great mother, even the idea of fertility worship is thought of as almost shocking. In American society nudity itself is seen as lewd and censored in almost all forms of media in one way or another, yet during the times of prehistoric and ancient man dolls to a fertility deity displaying large naked breasts, or sometimes a phallic piece of art would be constructed and added to the decor of someone's home. This of course would be unacceptable in most homes today. These pieces of art would be seen as unsightly and possibly disrespectful towards women despite that these pieces are actually worshiping them. It is possible that modern life would benefit from a greater understanding of its own body, fertility, and sexuality. A celebration of these things in the way that tribal and ancient man did could even benefit society in that it would release people from many of their anxieties and social stigmas brought upon by their self-conscious fears. It is hard to imagine ancient man fearing their nudity or having scary dreams of going to school naked. Perhaps then modern society it is safe to say that modern society would benefit from mother worship.
Another way modern worship differs from tribal man is the people it has teach it's religion. In the times of tribal man religion was taught by druids, shamans, and witches. Today most churches have educated people who have attended schools with degrees in philosophy or religion teaching their congregation. Now one cannot say that tribal man's religious leaders were not educated, but we can say there is a vast difference between a college educated man leading a prayer and a man from a mud hit casting spells. Is there any benefit modern man could draw from these ancient practices? Very little could be drawn from them. The ways that old religions were have evolved and come to what they are now for a reason. People put much of their trust and faith in their priests, rabbis, and ect. To live in a society where a man, that is possibly completely uneducated without the references of schools, misleading it's people with superstition is a dangerous place to be. Religions have progressed to this point creating it's leaders in much the same way political leaders are built for this reason. The people underneath them being led need to know their leaders are safe to follow. Ancient religions have no such guarantees.
Ancient religions also caused many health concerns which would of course hurt it's people more than help. Many religions of the past practiced animal sacrificing and strange burial practices. This would lead to dangerous health conditions, that in the densely populated centers people live in today, would cause society to suffer from constant disease. Of course prehistoric and tribal man suffered from the same problems but their own superstitions caused them to continue with their unhealthy practices, that and their lack of scientific knowledge. Today we have science and a contemporary understanding of disease and the human body, because of this then such practices are not only impracticable, they are unreasonable.
Most practices of ancient and tribal man have progressed and evolved to being no longer useful to people today. Though the differences between the types of religions for their times are somewhat vast they all share similar qualities that are unsafe and no longer necessary. This is the case for not only the mental health of modern people but the mental development and safety of it's people. It is obvious then why these practices no longer exist. If something is no longer safe or reasonable it would evolve and change, most likely into the practices we have today.
2/14/07
Gustafson
Mini-Paper 1
Ancient and Tribal Man: Safety and Development
Modern society today practices many forms of religious practices. Across the world people perform rituals and prayer ceremonies. Not everyday in modern life though are people witness to the ghost dances, animal sacrifices, and shamanic practices of ancient and tribal man. Today people practice religion in safer manners, mostly in their homes on their own by their own rules and interpretations of the the philosophies their religions have provided.
During periods of ancient and tribal man it was common to find a community practicing things people in today would consider barbaric. Often ancient man worshiping the “Great Mother” would offer animal sacrifices and carve things onto cave walls. Today the term great mother, even the idea of fertility worship is thought of as almost shocking. In American society nudity itself is seen as lewd and censored in almost all forms of media in one way or another, yet during the times of prehistoric and ancient man dolls to a fertility deity displaying large naked breasts, or sometimes a phallic piece of art would be constructed and added to the decor of someone's home. This of course would be unacceptable in most homes today. These pieces of art would be seen as unsightly and possibly disrespectful towards women despite that these pieces are actually worshiping them. It is possible that modern life would benefit from a greater understanding of its own body, fertility, and sexuality. A celebration of these things in the way that tribal and ancient man did could even benefit society in that it would release people from many of their anxieties and social stigmas brought upon by their self-conscious fears. It is hard to imagine ancient man fearing their nudity or having scary dreams of going to school naked. Perhaps then modern society it is safe to say that modern society would benefit from mother worship.
Another way modern worship differs from tribal man is the people it has teach it's religion. In the times of tribal man religion was taught by druids, shamans, and witches. Today most churches have educated people who have attended schools with degrees in philosophy or religion teaching their congregation. Now one cannot say that tribal man's religious leaders were not educated, but we can say there is a vast difference between a college educated man leading a prayer and a man from a mud hit casting spells. Is there any benefit modern man could draw from these ancient practices? Very little could be drawn from them. The ways that old religions were have evolved and come to what they are now for a reason. People put much of their trust and faith in their priests, rabbis, and ect. To live in a society where a man, that is possibly completely uneducated without the references of schools, misleading it's people with superstition is a dangerous place to be. Religions have progressed to this point creating it's leaders in much the same way political leaders are built for this reason. The people underneath them being led need to know their leaders are safe to follow. Ancient religions have no such guarantees.
Ancient religions also caused many health concerns which would of course hurt it's people more than help. Many religions of the past practiced animal sacrificing and strange burial practices. This would lead to dangerous health conditions, that in the densely populated centers people live in today, would cause society to suffer from constant disease. Of course prehistoric and tribal man suffered from the same problems but their own superstitions caused them to continue with their unhealthy practices, that and their lack of scientific knowledge. Today we have science and a contemporary understanding of disease and the human body, because of this then such practices are not only impracticable, they are unreasonable.
Most practices of ancient and tribal man have progressed and evolved to being no longer useful to people today. Though the differences between the types of religions for their times are somewhat vast they all share similar qualities that are unsafe and no longer necessary. This is the case for not only the mental health of modern people but the mental development and safety of it's people. It is obvious then why these practices no longer exist. If something is no longer safe or reasonable it would evolve and change, most likely into the practices we have today.
Mini-paper on Tribal and Ancient Religions by Evelin Viera
Evelin Viera
02/12/07
Tribal vs. Ancient Religions
To be able to understand the concept of weighing the pros and cons among tribal and ancient religions, we must first understand the terms individually, as this will allow for broader understanding historically. Let’s begin, for instance, with the more primitive term of the two, tribal, which implies a form of “social organization/group,” directly associated with prehistoric human existence (C & B 27). Primitive, secondary to the preliterate historical era of life as we know it today, however, evidence has validated that indeed religion can be traced as far back to our tribal ancestors. Thought to be uncivilized in behaviors, but rationale they were, and such remains as cave paintings and rock incisions lead us to conclude that they were thoroughly absorbed in making religious sense in their condition (C & B, 27). It’s almost as though religion, to our primates, was a form of civilization during their existence, as we know it today, an Old World that couldn’t even conceive of the term and its significance to modern day humanity.
Some common tribal religion traits that existed prehistorically continue to exist in today’s day and age. To be sacred, or things that are holy, is a theme I myself can relate to, as I perceive my church’s infrastructure to be sacred. Another is profanity, which depicts things that are not sacred; example would be things that are not perceived as holy whether human or inanimate. I have had the opportunity to surround myself with different beliefs and doctrines, but similarly I have found that animism continues to live amid the various denominations. For me, both humans and animals have souls, but inanimate objects were not among those present on the day that God granted souls. Magic, exorcism, and healing, are among other themes that that are very familiar to current Western civilization. Many make a profit off of the three, promising to provide a solution or cure to those that resort to them for answers. As a clinician myself, alternative medicine is practiced throughout my work place, and many patients swear they are better off as a result, so needless to say seeing I’m a believer. Culturally, a birth, a first birthday, a presentation onto God, a sweet 15, a high school graduation, a marriage, and a death is considered a rite of passage. Similarly, other cultures today practice their own, though tailored to their religious beliefs, race, upbringing, or geographic location. Sacrifices and shamans, among the Ainu, Aborigines, Indians, and Eskimo’s was and still is, being practice today, as this holds true to their commitment towards their deities/doctrines. A sacrifice can be as simple as fasting, a new year’s resolution, or a promise to not endanger one’s health, which is much less brutal than that of the extreme sacrificing of animals and humans, primitively. The same holds true for the remaining themes, divination, totemism, high god, ancestors, tricksters, and megaliths (Egyptians and Aztecs).
Features of some specific tribal traditions, such as their leaders, shamans, and their doctrines and myths example; high god, Dreamtime, taboo, and afterlife, have persisted in hopes of keeping their religions still alive today. Tribal religions, therefore, serve as a representation for the collected wisdom, history, and beliefs of that tribe (i.e. Melanesians). Their religion depicts for them why they are there and what place they have in the world surrounding them.
Additionally, religions of ancient or early civilization, otherwise know as, the agriculturalist/literate, also come to play. In comparison to the tribal religions, things that made the ancient civilization more favorable to that of the tribal religions, in my view, included their ability to herd, produce agriculture, create pottery, fabricate metals, carry out trading, as well as conquest, and of coarse, their writing skills. Conversely, in light of having many deities, ancient civilizations also had many myths as a basis of their religion/civilization. With polytheism, came syncretism, and the new revolution of religion was born. One form of syncretism involves incorporating a symbol, myth, ritual, or ethical principle from one tradition into another (C & B 61). An example of this is Halloween, Christmas, and Easter practiced by the Teutonic and the Celtics (C &B 61). Additionally, another marker of ancient religion was the extreme concern with the afterlife. Furthermore, in order to avoid being barred or condemned from the afterlife, one not only had to worship the ancient deities, but also live by “codes of law,” as this would be held against you after you had passed on to the other side. Consequently, mummification was embedded into some of the ancient religions as a reassurance of being prepared for the afterlife. Retrospectively, a system of values was important for social order, just as it is today, thus primitively and anciently one had to abide by their religion to comply with social norms and standards as means to maintain a virtuous life, hence the term Hellenistic.
Given the opportunity to live in both of the eras depicted, I can definitely see myself and my family following the doctrines and the disciplines associated with the social standards, however, thankfully for the Eastern and later the Western civilization we no longer are obliged to practice in any specific faith or belief. Moreover, religion, whether tribal or ancient in nature, in my view, provides the foundation for every “virtuous” human character in our present day society.
02/12/07
Tribal vs. Ancient Religions
To be able to understand the concept of weighing the pros and cons among tribal and ancient religions, we must first understand the terms individually, as this will allow for broader understanding historically. Let’s begin, for instance, with the more primitive term of the two, tribal, which implies a form of “social organization/group,” directly associated with prehistoric human existence (C & B 27). Primitive, secondary to the preliterate historical era of life as we know it today, however, evidence has validated that indeed religion can be traced as far back to our tribal ancestors. Thought to be uncivilized in behaviors, but rationale they were, and such remains as cave paintings and rock incisions lead us to conclude that they were thoroughly absorbed in making religious sense in their condition (C & B, 27). It’s almost as though religion, to our primates, was a form of civilization during their existence, as we know it today, an Old World that couldn’t even conceive of the term and its significance to modern day humanity.
Some common tribal religion traits that existed prehistorically continue to exist in today’s day and age. To be sacred, or things that are holy, is a theme I myself can relate to, as I perceive my church’s infrastructure to be sacred. Another is profanity, which depicts things that are not sacred; example would be things that are not perceived as holy whether human or inanimate. I have had the opportunity to surround myself with different beliefs and doctrines, but similarly I have found that animism continues to live amid the various denominations. For me, both humans and animals have souls, but inanimate objects were not among those present on the day that God granted souls. Magic, exorcism, and healing, are among other themes that that are very familiar to current Western civilization. Many make a profit off of the three, promising to provide a solution or cure to those that resort to them for answers. As a clinician myself, alternative medicine is practiced throughout my work place, and many patients swear they are better off as a result, so needless to say seeing I’m a believer. Culturally, a birth, a first birthday, a presentation onto God, a sweet 15, a high school graduation, a marriage, and a death is considered a rite of passage. Similarly, other cultures today practice their own, though tailored to their religious beliefs, race, upbringing, or geographic location. Sacrifices and shamans, among the Ainu, Aborigines, Indians, and Eskimo’s was and still is, being practice today, as this holds true to their commitment towards their deities/doctrines. A sacrifice can be as simple as fasting, a new year’s resolution, or a promise to not endanger one’s health, which is much less brutal than that of the extreme sacrificing of animals and humans, primitively. The same holds true for the remaining themes, divination, totemism, high god, ancestors, tricksters, and megaliths (Egyptians and Aztecs).
Features of some specific tribal traditions, such as their leaders, shamans, and their doctrines and myths example; high god, Dreamtime, taboo, and afterlife, have persisted in hopes of keeping their religions still alive today. Tribal religions, therefore, serve as a representation for the collected wisdom, history, and beliefs of that tribe (i.e. Melanesians). Their religion depicts for them why they are there and what place they have in the world surrounding them.
Additionally, religions of ancient or early civilization, otherwise know as, the agriculturalist/literate, also come to play. In comparison to the tribal religions, things that made the ancient civilization more favorable to that of the tribal religions, in my view, included their ability to herd, produce agriculture, create pottery, fabricate metals, carry out trading, as well as conquest, and of coarse, their writing skills. Conversely, in light of having many deities, ancient civilizations also had many myths as a basis of their religion/civilization. With polytheism, came syncretism, and the new revolution of religion was born. One form of syncretism involves incorporating a symbol, myth, ritual, or ethical principle from one tradition into another (C & B 61). An example of this is Halloween, Christmas, and Easter practiced by the Teutonic and the Celtics (C &B 61). Additionally, another marker of ancient religion was the extreme concern with the afterlife. Furthermore, in order to avoid being barred or condemned from the afterlife, one not only had to worship the ancient deities, but also live by “codes of law,” as this would be held against you after you had passed on to the other side. Consequently, mummification was embedded into some of the ancient religions as a reassurance of being prepared for the afterlife. Retrospectively, a system of values was important for social order, just as it is today, thus primitively and anciently one had to abide by their religion to comply with social norms and standards as means to maintain a virtuous life, hence the term Hellenistic.
Given the opportunity to live in both of the eras depicted, I can definitely see myself and my family following the doctrines and the disciplines associated with the social standards, however, thankfully for the Eastern and later the Western civilization we no longer are obliged to practice in any specific faith or belief. Moreover, religion, whether tribal or ancient in nature, in my view, provides the foundation for every “virtuous” human character in our present day society.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
