Every week in Catholic Sunday school, our teachers would read a passage from our text books. The passages were interpretations of lessons in the bible, similar to the ones talked about in class today. There wouldn't be more than a few quotes to support the main issue of the story, and looking back I think that was a problem.
Maybe its because we were children that they thought we could not think for ourselves. I knew the Bible existed, of course, but we never read straight from it until about 7th grade. I was shocked when I read about The Great Flood and the Garden of Eden. These were moments where God was absolutely pissed at the humans, and wanted the flood to wash away everything except a male and female of each worthy species, so the world could start fresh. I saw that these stories were not anything like the silly cartoons of cute pigs and giraffe's on a boat smiling. I didn't know that "God purified the earth for you" meant only the good were quarantined. I never knew the reason why those creatures were on the ship, but was told that they just were. The 7th grade classroom was full of "God loves you!" and "Jesus makes me new again!" and here I was with the fear of God in me.
How can you love and trust someone with that much power without constantly fearing for your life? Where is there comfort in obliging to demands, and should you mess up, you could be responsible for the extinction of your species...(makes me wonder what the dinosaurs did... ; ) )
I know God decided the situation was bad and maybe the best solution was to start again. He didn't like the way the world was headed and stopped it before it went any further. Or so I've been told.
My point is that we can't trust one filter, we need many. We need to (if possible) look at the actual information ourselves and draw our own conclusions. When we need help, we need an unbiased expert. It is not necessary that we agree or change our believes, but we must try to understand what is really happening or why some people think a certain interpretation is correct.
The "Jesus" and "God" I was taught seems to be changing into someone else, and I just want to know the truth.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Crossan's Mission
Results can never claim more than probability (Crossan)..."Probability is the very guide of life," (Bishop Butler) --prologue.
There has been a lot of discussion on why further research needs to be done to learn about Jesus if we already have the bible. Isn't it enough that we have four first hand accounts? When read consecutively, they all seem to flow well with similarities, painting a common picture. But when studied individually, there are certain details which do not match up. Was Jesus a carpenter, or was his father? Did Mary and Joseph return to Nazareth?
It would seem there is missing information which was not included when the bible was created. The council of Nicaea was under pressure to complete a basis for Christianity for Constantine, meaning that not everything could be included. There may have been some bargaining (meaning, I'll allow the letter of John to be included if we can include this passage as well) but as Alexandra stated in class, if it made it in, it's because it couldn't be left out.
But what about the lost information. What is it that we don't know? Is it possible we ever will? What about the scriptures which were falsely translated? How do we know if our current beliefs are what our ancestors intended. (Hint: I don't think they are.)
In conclusion, we should not be afraid to search for the truth. For those who strongly believe in God and Jesus, don't be afraid of searching for knowledge and the truth. For example,there is a new translation for the Roman Missal in my church at home. Many of the older folks don't like the new changes because it is different than what they were taught. Yes, it may be more accurate, they say, but the change is such a hassle. No longer can they recite from memory, but everyone reads off or a card. Instead of "Peace be with you... And also with you," we now say "Peace be with you....And with your spirit." On the surface, we seem to be saying the same thing, but sharing peace with another's spirit is more special and more specific.
Knowing Crossan is a Christian himself brings some comfort. He's looking into the history from an academic standpoint, rather than a theological one. Professor Matt reassures that he is not trying to "debunk religion,"rather he has devoted 30+ years to find the truth behind who Jesus is and what it means to be a Christian.
There will always be those who don't like change, but if the change is for the better, then it should be made.
There has been a lot of discussion on why further research needs to be done to learn about Jesus if we already have the bible. Isn't it enough that we have four first hand accounts? When read consecutively, they all seem to flow well with similarities, painting a common picture. But when studied individually, there are certain details which do not match up. Was Jesus a carpenter, or was his father? Did Mary and Joseph return to Nazareth?
It would seem there is missing information which was not included when the bible was created. The council of Nicaea was under pressure to complete a basis for Christianity for Constantine, meaning that not everything could be included. There may have been some bargaining (meaning, I'll allow the letter of John to be included if we can include this passage as well) but as Alexandra stated in class, if it made it in, it's because it couldn't be left out.
But what about the lost information. What is it that we don't know? Is it possible we ever will? What about the scriptures which were falsely translated? How do we know if our current beliefs are what our ancestors intended. (Hint: I don't think they are.)
In conclusion, we should not be afraid to search for the truth. For those who strongly believe in God and Jesus, don't be afraid of searching for knowledge and the truth. For example,there is a new translation for the Roman Missal in my church at home. Many of the older folks don't like the new changes because it is different than what they were taught. Yes, it may be more accurate, they say, but the change is such a hassle. No longer can they recite from memory, but everyone reads off or a card. Instead of "Peace be with you... And also with you," we now say "Peace be with you....And with your spirit." On the surface, we seem to be saying the same thing, but sharing peace with another's spirit is more special and more specific.
Knowing Crossan is a Christian himself brings some comfort. He's looking into the history from an academic standpoint, rather than a theological one. Professor Matt reassures that he is not trying to "debunk religion,"rather he has devoted 30+ years to find the truth behind who Jesus is and what it means to be a Christian.
There will always be those who don't like change, but if the change is for the better, then it should be made.
Friday, February 17, 2012
RE: The natural self doubt
This is a response to Dania's post, The natural self doubt
http://daniaguadalupe1228.blogspot.com/
I know exactly how you feel. I have always wondered whether or not what we read today is what God intended for us to believe. There are so many interpretations, and over time, the original intentions are lost. In my church, some of our prayers and creeds have changed due to recent interpretations. Many of the older folks have recited these prayers since they were young, and now that a new translation has been found, we must all recite it. No longer do they recite with confidence, but they stumble on words as they read from pamphlets. I guess it's better that we now know a more accurate translation, but many are not happy with the change.
In the end, I think it's better that we always keep searching for accuracy. If we just accept things and assume they're right, we're missing out. As for what Christianity is, I think we're still learning. We seem to have a solid base, but as more texts and translations are discovered, we will have more material to make our own judgement.
http://daniaguadalupe1228.blogspot.com/
I know exactly how you feel. I have always wondered whether or not what we read today is what God intended for us to believe. There are so many interpretations, and over time, the original intentions are lost. In my church, some of our prayers and creeds have changed due to recent interpretations. Many of the older folks have recited these prayers since they were young, and now that a new translation has been found, we must all recite it. No longer do they recite with confidence, but they stumble on words as they read from pamphlets. I guess it's better that we now know a more accurate translation, but many are not happy with the change.
In the end, I think it's better that we always keep searching for accuracy. If we just accept things and assume they're right, we're missing out. As for what Christianity is, I think we're still learning. We seem to have a solid base, but as more texts and translations are discovered, we will have more material to make our own judgement.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
All you need is love....and financial stability
Back in an anthropology class I took in high school, I learned about different cultures and marriage traditions from around the world. Thursday's class reminded me of what I learned about arranged marriages. As Matt said, "93% of marriages in India are still arranged," followed by gasps of surprise from some classmates.
Parents choosing their child's date can be one thing, but choosing someone for their child to marry is another.
My initial high school student thoughts: How terrible! Why won't parents let their children choose who they want to spend the rest of their lives with!? What child would willingly go along with this arrangement??
I began to rethink how different our two cultures are. In America, we choose who we want to date and marry. Sometimes parents approve, other times we don't want to hear what our parents think.
We mostly marry because of strong attachments and feelings for each other, and it's no surprise they don't often last. Marriage is associated with a romantic proposal, a dream wedding party and a happily ever after. Few people realize that the purpose of marriage was an eternal union, for better or for worse- romance or not.
In India, parents just want what's best for their children. They pick suitable partners based on who could support their son or daughter. The best way I understood it was searching for a suitable business partner. The decision is made without attraction or infatuation in mind. Marriage is not a next step in a series of "falling in love," but a decision made for a better quality of life. Yes, they are marrying for money, but this isn't considered a shallow trait. Couples should be able to take care of each other and the family. The arranged children grow to care for each other, and should they feel attraction for each other, all the better. But a marriage often won't end just because feelings of lust have past.
Of course, in India, no one has to marry their parent's choice- if you strongly oppose the relationship, most parents will honor their child's wishes. Children do have say, but parents choose who they feel would be the best fit. And yes, I am aware of the medieval practices of dowry and other stipulations, but I just wanted to share with you all why arranged marriages are still very popular, and if you think about it really isn't a crazy idea...
What do you think? Would you marry someone you didn't know? Someone you didn't love? Are you still shocked at the idea of an arranged marriage? Should more Americans arrange their children's marriage?
As my teacher put it, "Marriage should not be base on something as unstable and unpredictable as feelings of love."
Parents choosing their child's date can be one thing, but choosing someone for their child to marry is another.
My initial high school student thoughts: How terrible! Why won't parents let their children choose who they want to spend the rest of their lives with!? What child would willingly go along with this arrangement??
I began to rethink how different our two cultures are. In America, we choose who we want to date and marry. Sometimes parents approve, other times we don't want to hear what our parents think.
We mostly marry because of strong attachments and feelings for each other, and it's no surprise they don't often last. Marriage is associated with a romantic proposal, a dream wedding party and a happily ever after. Few people realize that the purpose of marriage was an eternal union, for better or for worse- romance or not.
In India, parents just want what's best for their children. They pick suitable partners based on who could support their son or daughter. The best way I understood it was searching for a suitable business partner. The decision is made without attraction or infatuation in mind. Marriage is not a next step in a series of "falling in love," but a decision made for a better quality of life. Yes, they are marrying for money, but this isn't considered a shallow trait. Couples should be able to take care of each other and the family. The arranged children grow to care for each other, and should they feel attraction for each other, all the better. But a marriage often won't end just because feelings of lust have past.
Of course, in India, no one has to marry their parent's choice- if you strongly oppose the relationship, most parents will honor their child's wishes. Children do have say, but parents choose who they feel would be the best fit. And yes, I am aware of the medieval practices of dowry and other stipulations, but I just wanted to share with you all why arranged marriages are still very popular, and if you think about it really isn't a crazy idea...
What do you think? Would you marry someone you didn't know? Someone you didn't love? Are you still shocked at the idea of an arranged marriage? Should more Americans arrange their children's marriage?
As my teacher put it, "Marriage should not be base on something as unstable and unpredictable as feelings of love."
Friday, February 10, 2012
RE: Take a chance and see/ WBC
---This post appeared as a comment to Lauren Feeny's post: "Take a chance and see"
Hey Feeney! I listened to the song and I read the lyrics you posed a few days ago. I agree with what you and Brandon were saying about similarities between the lyrics/Krishna and the two religions.
The first verse reminded me of the chapter, the Cosmic Vision. Krishna explains how it is everything in the universe- good, bad, powerful, loving. And to allude to your previous post about the lines, "No fear in life, No guilt in death," I was also reminded of the earlier chapters when Krishna tells Arjuna not to fear death or dying. Because of the promise of an afterlife, there need not be fear
I am happy for you that you find comfort and strength in God. Thank you for posting.
And Avery, I can understand why you do not support WBC. It seems they are very extreme, insensitive, and rude. They seem to follow a different religion entirely. I've never heard of "spreading God's hate" to be a message others would want to follow or be inspired by...
Although Wikepedia is not the most credible source, I've learned a lot about this cult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Something for everyone
While reading the assigned handout, (chapter two of The Hindu View of Life, S. Radhakrishnan, 1973) I really saw how open ended Hinduism was. Hinduism is a symphony of many different beliefs working together in harmony.There is no domination of one idea over the other; old stories from cave men are accepted equally.
"The emotional attitudes attached to the old forms are transferred to the new which is fitted into the background of the old," (29)...."Opinions cannot grow unless traditions are altered," (32).
Because we all come from different locations, it only makes sense that our beliefs should be as different. What a poor, lonely man living near the mountains believes is bound to be different than the ideas of a wealthy man living with his family in the city. But Hinduism says that's okay, and encourages that. This acceptance to interpretation is so different from the Christian beliefs I was raised on.
We were taught that there is one God, and Jesus the savior was his son. Each year in mass we are asked to renew our vows and commit that we believe there is one God, and we hold the parables in the Bible to be true. In Christianity, you either believe or feel like a sinner for not believing.
You can tell a lot about a man based on what he believes in...
"The right way to refine the crude beliefs of any group is to alter the bias of mind. The view of God an individual stresses depends on the kind of man he is. The temperament, training...influence of the environment determine, to a large extent, the character of his religious opinions. Any defect in one's nature or onesidedness in one's experience is inevitably reflected in the view the individuals," (32).
We believe what we need to believe in. Hinduism is one religion that seems to allow its followers the freedom to choose. "Not common in creed, but common in quest," (42). Maybe someday it will, as the author believes, become the universal religion...
We believe what we need to believe in.
"The emotional attitudes attached to the old forms are transferred to the new which is fitted into the background of the old," (29)...."Opinions cannot grow unless traditions are altered," (32).
Because we all come from different locations, it only makes sense that our beliefs should be as different. What a poor, lonely man living near the mountains believes is bound to be different than the ideas of a wealthy man living with his family in the city. But Hinduism says that's okay, and encourages that. This acceptance to interpretation is so different from the Christian beliefs I was raised on.
We were taught that there is one God, and Jesus the savior was his son. Each year in mass we are asked to renew our vows and commit that we believe there is one God, and we hold the parables in the Bible to be true. In Christianity, you either believe or feel like a sinner for not believing.
You can tell a lot about a man based on what he believes in...
"The right way to refine the crude beliefs of any group is to alter the bias of mind. The view of God an individual stresses depends on the kind of man he is. The temperament, training...influence of the environment determine, to a large extent, the character of his religious opinions. Any defect in one's nature or onesidedness in one's experience is inevitably reflected in the view the individuals," (32).
We believe what we need to believe in. Hinduism is one religion that seems to allow its followers the freedom to choose. "Not common in creed, but common in quest," (42). Maybe someday it will, as the author believes, become the universal religion...
We believe what we need to believe in.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Re: Emotional Attachment and the Concept of Moksha
This is a response to Avery Finnivan’s post: Emotional Attachment and the Concept of Moksha
It can seem wrong to join a crowd because it feels like we’re losing our identity and what makes us each special, but I don't think those trying to achieve Moksha see it like this...
When a friend passes, we remember all the times we had with that person. The closer we were, the more the memories mean to us. That person once existed and will continue to exist as long as we keep their memory alive. Their existence or their impact on us won’t just go away because they’re gone.
When a person’s life ends, no one really knows what happens, but for now, let’s use reincarnation and Moksha as examples. The Self or a person’s soul gets to reenter the world in a new shell and start anew. This person is said to carry their past lives inside them, but each life they live is different from the previous one (assuming we aren’t reliving the same life over and over…). Each life is out to achieve something new, something the previous life did not attain, and each experience shapes us individually.
I think the creators did care for one another, as friends or maybe something more. We all want what appears to be the best outcome for one another and we never forget those who impact our lives in some way. By attaining Moksha, we no longer occupy a mortal state. When someone becomes a part of the universe, it is true they must leave their physical presence behind, and yes we miss them, but aren’t we happier knowing they must be somewhere better?
*Imagines attending high school again and again…
We’re sad, but we never forget how unique they were or why they were special to us. Sometimes leaving this world to find a better one/ more fulfilling one elsewhere is their choice, and we must respect their choices because it is their life.
By rejoining the bonfire, we are an infinite number of sparks burning together as something greater than we could ever be on our own. We bring with us all that is our past and all that we once knew and become The Universe.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)