Provocative Imagery

If a little risque, this was one of the most provocative images I came across:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whoisthisanyway/2326017667/

This is a very obviously symbolic picture- nothing is really included which is not representative of something. The woman's body- only partially clothed- represents sexuality (human sexuality in general, and not just this woman's, since we do not see her face). The cross clearly represents christianity- but there is meaning embedded in the construction of the cross at well. The black board which lies vertically is symbolic of chastisty and religious repression/protection of sexuality (I see /protection because the board seems placed almost defensively, and itself does not denote a negative attitude towards sexuality). The piece of tape lying horizontally completes the cross while binding it to her- representing the firm grip of faith, and implying an intimate relationship with spirituality. The scissors are where the politics of the photo come more clearly into view- the fastening of the religion to the person carries with it a sense of danger. The scissors are closed, but still clearly representing the potential for harm.

What are these dangers? Perhaps it refers to the emotional/psychological issues that may come with sexual repression. Peraps the tape is not applied by the woman but is making a statement about cultures in which religion is not a choice- and thus this repression is almost always negative. The picture invokes the issue of abortion- one thing that usually comes with religious repression of sexuality is an even greater disapproval of abortion. For some, particularly in non-secular countries, not having the right to choose can be dangerous (when birth complications could be involved) and unfair (in the case of rape). The blog attached to the photo confirms this idea- it is making a statement about Christian efforts (obviously not by all demoninations) to make abortion illegal or difficult, and to in general restrict reproductive rights (including education and healthcare).

Week 5: Augustine is Full of it.

As I found with the Republic, On Christian Teaching contains what I see as logical flaws throughout which make it difficult to accept anything which is built upon previously established concepts. Since his writing is more advice than a proof or argument for how one ought to examine Christianity, the holes in his reasoning don't detract much from the value of his arguments, but they do affect the extent to which I can respect what he says in general. A few instances stuck out to me as I was reading, and for this blog post I shall examine them further.

On page 45, Augustine examines the significance of the fourty-day fast. He claims that the number originates  from the days of creation (7) plus the number of the holy trinity (3), adding up to ten, conveyed to us temporally- as there are four seasons, four sections of the day, etc. the number 10 is multiplied by 4. First of all, the implications of this are entirely unclear (what do the days of creation plus the trinity add up to, why are they conveyed temporally, and how should this affect the way we think of the 40-day fast?). Secondly, the mathematical logic he uses here (and even more so in the examples following) shows that he could likely have made spiritual "sense" out of any random number given. When he continues on to apply these mathematical principles to various stringed instruments- conjecturing that the number of strings should have some spiritual significance- he comes across as being desperate to link everything together even if it was not intended to be. This desperation colors the way I view the rest of his arguments.

He also uses somewhat faulty logic in his condemnation of other schools of thought. Referring to the practice of augury (53), he says "both before and fter making their observations, (they) deliberately avoid seeing birds in flight or hearing their cries, because these signs are null and void unless accompanied by the observers agreement." Is this not reminiscent of the way he supports searching for meaning in text with a meaning already in mind? Also, he has not considered the possibility (not being a participant in augury) that this is a principle of the practice- augury is based on the idea that the predictions are to be made in a specific time frame and from a certain perspective, otherwise every movement of every bird would contain omens of the future.

Week 5: On Christian Teaching

Augustine's first step, in interpreting the psalms, would be to first learn the original Hebrew that the text was written in, so that he could understand it directly without the danger of losing any meaning in translation. Then he would proceed to read and memorize the entirety of the psalms. By reading them, he would get a sense of them as a whole; by memorizing them he would create a network of connections between interrelated and referential psalms, making the later stages of understanding easier.

His first task of analysis would be to find the most obvious and direct passages of the psalms, and interpret them. He could easily disover by this that god punishes the wicked and rewards the just. Next he would attempt to interpret the more unclear passages- when he encountered enemies saying "hurrah hurrah" of the speaker of the prayer, he might be initially confused. But by referencing this to the body of the work, he would find that this is a traditional thing for enemies to say when their foe (the prayer reader) is faltering. Thus it would be clarified that these enemies are not, in fact, counter-intuitively celebrating their enemy.

He would also in this same manner resolve conflicting ideas within the text. For example, when he reads in psalm 60 that god made his people "drink poison wine", or the entirety of psalm 44, he might reference to psalm 66, wherein this phenomenon is explained- "For You tested us, God, You refined us as silver refined". Thus, all instances of god causing suffering for his people can be interpreted as testing and refining.