Chosen, or Exclusive?

My knowledge of Judaism, particularly modern Judaism, is extremely limited. That said, I believe that there is a "chosen people" mentality through most sects of the religion, particularly the further back you look. You cannot become an orthodox jew by conversion, you have to be born into it (A Jewish friend told me this, he may not be a reliable source). Some are more welcoming, I have a friend with aspirations to become a rabbi, and he is well on his way. When looking at the psalms, my question is whether this mentality is born out of a reflection of the way of the world, which shows that they are the chosen people, or if the religion itself was naturally exclusive- and what effect this has had.
Let’s take a look at some specific psalms. Psalm 33 says “Happy the nation whose god is the LORD, the people He chose as estate for Him”. In psalm 50, God speaks directly to the Israelites “Hear, O My people, that I may speak, Israel, that I witness to you. God your God I am”. This seems to specify the Israelites as god’s chosen people. But if you look at the body of the psalms, you see just as many praising god for treating his people well as asking him to end their suffering. In theory, god favors the Israelites, but in reality the Israelites seem to suffer defeats as often as losses, and individuals experience suffering as often as satisfaction.
The “Chosen People” idea starts to look more like a policy of exclusivity when we look at psalms 55 and 58. Psalm 55 is the first psalm in which specific “enemies” are mentioned- “for many were against me- Ishmael and Jalam and the dweller in the east, who never will change and do not fear god”. Was this true, or did the Israelites decide that these others could not be favored by god? When we look at Psalm 58, which says “the wicked backslide from the very womb, the lie-mongers go astray from birth” we see that the belief in predestination is quite strong. Additionally, there are the many psalms which ask for forgiveness while cursing the enemy for the same sins- thereby indicating a belief that god should prefer the Israelites regardless of action.
How has this influenced their culture throughout history? The “Chosen People” principled has evolved and changed over time, visible now in the strong sense of family and tradition within the Jewish culture. There are obvious benefits to this- it has lent strength to a very persecuted people, who were enslaved by the Egyptians and persecuted by the Nazis- and this persecution only strengthened that cultural solidarity. In some ways, however, this may be a self-perpetuating cycle. A culture which closes itself off (by only marrying within itself, for example) and keeps itself separate integrates much more slowly with other cultures. This lack of integration in Germany may have made it that much easier for the Nazi’s to make the Jews the undeserving scapegoats of Germany’s problems- Hitler and those with him exploited this sense of family and tradition by singling out the Jewish people as “the enemy”. I cannot say whether this is any way historically valid, but it does seem like something the Nazi’s would not have hesitated to twist to their advantage. Either way, it is a thought.
Also interesting are the similarities (though they are obviously different in intention and action) between the original idea of the “chosen people” and the idea of Aryan supremacy. Could the latter perhaps have been a violent reaction to the former? Could they have been connected in some other way?

Week 4: Ethical Dilemma

When reading The Book of Psalms, it is difficult to get a firm grasp on the ethical system behind it. The Psalms refer continually to the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the just, but very infrequently describes how these two are seperated. There are a few clues scattered through the psalms, however. In several psalms we hear evildoers described as deceitful liars (As in 52 and 31, which also refers to arrogance as a negative quality- 31:19). These deceivers often speak falsely against the writer. Also criticized are unfairness in dealings (such as not repaying loans), stealing and adultery (50:18) along with with all other kinds of dishonesty. There seems to be no rule against violence, as violence against one's enemies is often prayed for. In all psalms, the hatred of enemies is described as undeserved, so perhaps violence is to be considered righteous only when you have started. Sympathy for the lowly (whether this be the sick- 35- or the poor- 41) is certainly encouraged. Oppositely, the wealthy are not considered well-off in the eyes of god, for they shall take none of their wealth with them in death.

I don't know how I could judge this ethic to be "livable". I can say that it doesn't seem to make sense- as I pointed out in my last entry, there seems to be little difference in deed between the enemy (who should be destroyed) and the guilt-ridden psalm reader (who should be cleansed and forgiven). The reason for this is perhaps the most significant aspect of the ethic the psalms describe- unswerving faith. When the believer has committed crime, he asks for forgiveness, he seeks out god, and for this reason only is he to be saved. His enemies, proud of their crime, and not seeking god, should be destroyed. This also ties into the idea of humility- god favors those who know themselves to be at his mercy, and who seek his guidance (33:18-19).

In this way I see this ethic as similar to that of christianity. In Christianity, one can be forgiven for a great crime if one is truly penitent and humble before god, and seeks to be forgiven. Both ethics also describe faith through testing times (as in many of the psalms and in the story of Joab) as one of the greatest human qualities.

Hypocrisy and Contradiction

It seems that their is a fair amount of hypocrisy and self-contradiction within most religious texts (the result of many seperate psalms, or stories, or smaller texts being merged into one). This has been a main point of criticism by atheists of many major religions. While hypocrisy does not invalidate a text (as it is up to the reader to determine what is currently applicable and useful in their lives), its presence is worth acknowledging, and it is certainly present in the The Book of Psalms. 

There are two large themes which continue to clash with each other in my mind. First of all, there is the constant request for/reaffirmation of god's destruction of the believer's enemies. These enemies are often described as hateful, unjust, deceitful, etc. and for this reason they must be defeated by god. Almost as frequently, however, the believer admits to crimes which, while unspecific, are described as incredibly heavy, dreaded (Psalm 38) and great (Psalm 25). Why then, is the believer right to ask for complete forgiveness for his sins while his enemies are toppled? In many of the psalms it seems as if the believer has earned the hatred of his enemies through the crimes he has committed- though often enemies are described as bearing false witness to the true extent of the crime (27:12 and 31:19). This hypocrisy may be explained by the believer's faith itself as a justification for better treatment- he asks forgiveness and therefore recieves it.

I discovered another issue of contradiction in Psalm 33:5 "The Lord's kindness fills the earth". This seems a strange thing to say juxtaposed with the many psalms which declare the nation of his followers as the only place which he truly values- and describe the lord as a being whose wrath can be sparked in an instant (Psalm 2). When we look at psalms like psalm 18, we see god as an incredibly war-like and wrathful figure. How then can his kindness "fill the earth?" this seems to me a difficult contradiction to explain satisfactorily.

Week 3: Down By The Bay Psalm

I think it is fair to trust the Alter translation as a more rigorous and unbiased interpretation of the original Hebrew psalm, as the structure of the book clearly shows that for every line of interpretation there is a great deal more research behind it. Every phrase is compared to it's other uses in the psalms, and whenever Alter is uncertain of line, he includes this in his citation. It is fairly safe to see that the Bay Psalm was interpreted much less scientifically, so I see the differences mainly as misinterpretations by the Bay Psalm translator.

The greatest difference is the change in who the psalm is referring to. The word "nation" is translated in the Bay Psalm as "Heathen", changing the feel of the psalm from it's original self-chastising (it seems to be reflecting on the attitudes of the powerful) to righteous (reflecting on the behavior of a different non-believing people. There is also an alteration to line 3- in the original psalm this line is spoken by the kings or princes as a renouncement of god, in the Bay psalm it is a call to action to cast off the cords of the "Heathen". Another significant change is the replacement of "with purity be armed" to "kiss ye the sonne". This seems to be a deliberate alteration.

There are obvious implications that these changes would have for the colonists. "Kiss ye the sonne" ties the psalm with the christian beliefs of the colonist, making the rest of it more relevant. The main material of the psalm then seems to describe a sort of manifest destiny- since the heathens (or Native Americans) "set themselves against the lord", it is only right that the lord should mock them and then grant the settlers all of their previous holdings- "the utmost coasts abroad". The general message of humility at the end, while worded differently, keeps most of its original meaning.

The Humanization of God

The difference between the Lascaux cave paintings and the Wisconsin effigy mounds led me to a idea, which while not heavily supported, is perhaps still worth sharing. My thought was this- it seems to me that the earlier the roots of a religion are, the greater the separation between humans and the god or gods who created them is. Take the Lascaux cave paintings. Though this is mostly conjecture, there seems to be a (potentially spiritual) focus on the natural world, the animals which surround this early culture, while there is no depiction of a deity. This indicates that the culture may not have had a deity, or that (since the paintings to me reflect "conceptions of a general order of existence") their idea of a creator was not depictable, and therefore somewhat unrelatable. Fast forward to the effigy mounds of Wisconsin, and we see the natural world being used now in the abstract, as a way perhaps of interacting with greater spiritual beings (we know that there was most likely a creator in the beliefs of the late woodlanders). Not only do they have a more concrete conception of a spiritual entity/entities (such as thunderbirds), they also believe they can influence the world with their creations- as opposed to simply reflecting.

I see patterns like this in much of religious history. Religions with early beginnings seem to have gods which are much less human- some see the sun as a god, and many have gods which are super-human in some way (like the half-animal gods of the Ancient Egyptians and Hindus). Even early judaism, which has a more human god, keeps a great distance between god and man; god is something to be feared and unquestioned. In contrast, modern christianity looks to a spiritual entity who is extremely human (though still far beyond human) in that he began as one. Several eastern religions are based on the teachings of philosophers (such as buddhism and confucianism) rather than on the interpretation of the will of a god.

In this way, man seems to have come closer to god in general. In many religions any individual can have a personal connection with god without going through a church- this trend can be traced historically to the actions of those such as Martin Luther. Individual prayer is common- a much more direct way of attempting to influence the spiritual world than the building of effigy mounds or human sacrifice. Individuals are more often seen as deities themselves, though usually as representations of deities, the exceptions being what we refer to as "cults".

I see this line of religious evolution as a generally good thing- because it implies that the self-esteem of the human race is rising, we are beginning to believe in the worth of our humanity. If we continue down this path, we may see religions develop which are focused more on the spiritual qualities within ourselves, perhaps god will be though of as the collective consciousness of mankind, or perhaps as an ideal of humanity- what we are trying to become rather than something beyond our reach. Either way, I think the closing of the gap between god and man bodes well for socially, as a more relaxed relationship with your theology means inter-theological conflict will be less likely.

On Effigy Mounds, and their Implications

There are a few crucial differences between the effigy mounds of america and the paintings found in the lascaux caves. The effigy mounds took an obvious community effort to create, something which may have been true of the paintings, though they seem more likely to be the collective personal works of various individuals. There is also a large difference in detail between the two- probably due in part to the vast scale on which the effigy mounds were created- but in general the mounds seem to be abstractions of the animals and humans they represent, whereas the paintings are fairly detailed.

The intentions behind these works is what I find most interesting. The cave paintings seem to me to be a way of reflecting nature, possibly a way of trying to understand it (or contribute to an understanding of it). The paintings also seem highly personal- artwork changes from section to section, and there is no evidence of community within the caves- though our knowledge of the caves at that time is very limited. In contrast, the effigy mounds, as is explained in the book, were probably created ritualistically, as a method of balancing and renewing nature- the late woodlanders believed they could affect the world through their creations. A more direct relationship with the spiritual world is also implied, as the mounds do not seem to have been constructed for human eyes only.

The importance of animals is a fairly common theme in religion historically. The egyptians had their animal-headed gods, and Hindus consider cows to be holy creatures which may not be harmed. Modern religious cultures in general, however, do not treat animals as sacred (and deities, similarly, have become increasingly human). We still use animals to name sports teams, but this is hardly reflective of any reverence for them, it is simply a convenient way of giving teams a way to identify themselves (the Miami Dolphins sounds much better than the blue-and-orange team, and animals give games a sense of living conflict).

White Cheddar Cheez-Its Are Delicious and Other Personal Views

As we've just gotten started with this class, I'm going to use this first free-writing opportunity to discuss what I have already determined, for myself, about religion. More specifically, my personal connection with it. I am not sure whether you'd call my beliefs religious or purely philosophical. Certainly I am not part of a religion, as I do not formally share my views with anyone, though I'm sure others have similar thoughts on the world.

I think there is a great deal of arrogance in most religions. The idea that people honestly believe that we, as human beings, can have any certain knowledge regarding the story behind and around existence is quite boggling to me. Now, this is not to say that this arrogance is always a bad thing- if conviction helps you to be a better person, the factuality of your views is largely irrelevant. The twelve steps to recovery from addiction are based in faith in a higher power- and for many this faith is the only thing which keeps them from sinking back into substance abuse. If having a god makes you stronger, perhaps you should have one.

I do not believe in a god, but I do not deny the possibility of one's existence. How could I? Even if science explains everything, could there still not be a watchmaker somewhere behind and beyond it all? I could go on and on about what might be true (after all, if there were some order to the universe, wouldn't it make sense for that order to be revealed, by a creator or by some natural process?) but in the end I still have to come to grips with the fact that I could still be completely wrong.

I hold only one real belief when it comes to spirituality or a lack thereof- that the most important thing we can do is wonder, and remind ourselves that we are still wondering. Why is there this obsession with finding answers to questions which are so far beyond us? Why are we so uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do we need to give a name to the forces of the universe in order to draw strength from them? Or is this strength within ourselves? Perhaps most people need to solidify their beliefs in order to benefit from them, but there is a cost to this- by finding a destination you lose sight of the spiritual journey. It is all too easy then to forget the journey, and to lose the ability to understand those still on the journey or those who have gotten off at a different station- and this often leads to conflict.

I am content to wonder, becuase either way we'll find out in the end- or we'll cease to be. Which is just as good, really. Besides, being in the dark is more exciting, I think.

Geertz

Geertz essentially says that religion is a means (ritual, symbols, concepts, etc.) by which people are infused with what they will believe to be truth- whether or not it is- to an extent beyond most non-religious beliefs those people hold.

When considering Clifford Geertz' definition of religion, I think we must look at it as a definition of the function of religion, and not as the essence of the concept. It is not even a definition for the intended function of religion. Most spiritual leaders, I think, would think of the symbols and rituals of their religions as means of revelation, ways in which to open the eyes of the naturally unknowing to the fundamental truths of the cosmos (i.e. "moods and motivation"). This is the intended function of religion, but given the fact that the truths of these various belief systems generally conflict with each other, most of them can not (in any traditional paradigm) be actually functioning as such, in which case they most likely fit in with Geertz' definition- though the two definitions are not mutually exclusive; a religion can certainly formulate and clothe conceptions which are in fact true.

As for the real function of religion- I think Geertz pretty much captures it. I'm not sure if the moods and motivations established are always "powerful and pervasive", as some religions it seems to me have somewhat more relaxed ideas about things- they describe a truth, but the truth is designed to work for you, and not you for it. This is how I wish all religion functioned, but unfortunately we see very little of that because, logically, the religions with the most forceful truths are most likely to survive (forgive me for viewing religion here through the lens of evolution). In any case, I do not see his definition as entirely accurate here- though I prefer his specificity to overcautiousness.

Can the actual essence of the concept, then, be defined? Not really, no. One can certainly draw connections and find common ground between religions- but there will almost always be exceptions to any definition which is specific enough to be useful. It's like trying to define the sandwich. Dictionary.com defines it as "Two or more slices of bread with filling such as meat or cheese placed between them". Interesting. So is a gyro a sandwich? a hamburger? One pizza flipped onto another pizza? But there is another definition listed as well- "Something resembling a sandwich". Thank you, dictionary.com. I think you've really nailed the issue here.