commonplacebooks

[commonplacebooks]

Reflection

Before this class, I had never actually sat down and read the Bible all the way through. I know that technically, there are still a few books I have not delved into, and I obviously do not claim to have all knowledge about the Bible now, but I am definitely much more knowledgeable about the Bible than I used to be. I always knew the Bible was unclear, but from a literary standpoint, it is fascinating how it utilizes literary tools, such as analogies and imagery, to tell biblical stories in a way that allows for them to truly become unique to each reader, as well as become more holy in themselves. 

Writing this Commonplace book allowed me to reflect on the way in which the Bible presents its information, as well as the way in which humanity receives it. I especially enjoyed looking at the artistic representations of biblical scenes. So much of the Bible is not literal, and yet, one of, if not the, most common ways of depicting biblical information is through visual artistic means. This means that humanity constantly attempts to constrain the intricacies of the Bible through literal means, trying to perhaps soften it in a way that allows it to be easier to understand. This could be because during older times, it was not possible for everyone to read the Bible, as literacy was not yet a common skill. Still wanting the word of Christ and the stories of the Bible to be spread, people have spent years figuring out ways to depict something that by all means should not be capable of being depicted in such a simple way. 

The way in which humans interpret the Bible fascinates me as well. In class at one point we discussed the way in which the reader is more privileged than the regular people within the Bible, as we know what Jesus is communicating, what God is communicating, and we are capable of understanding it, but the characters within the Bible could only comprehend through the parables and difficult communications from other characters. It is interesting to see how we as readers take this privilege. Do we believe we are better than the characters within the Bible who are said to not deserve the whole clear truth? Also, who are we to take the word of God and of Jesus and attempt to discern meaning? Truly, if God wanted us to comprehend the knowledge within the Bible, would it not be clear? Are we, by trying to simplify biblical passages, committing a type of heresy? Still though, without finding meaning within the Bible, we would not even be able to know if it is heresy, so therefore we are stuck in a paradox of sorts.

Throughout reading the Bible, I found it fascinating how family is depicted. The idea of a ‘traditional’ family is very well-known. People tend to reference the Bible all the time in order to push their ideas of traditional family values. However, when I actually read the Bible, I did not come away with the same sentiments. Though the Bible focuses around family, and around the genealogical lines that lead to certain characters, family is not set in a positive manner, for the most part. In fact, most large disagreements and issues within the Bible are caused between family members. The most famous death, the first killing, was between Abel and Cain, two brothers. The foundation of what some use to defend slavery was due to a curse from father to son, from Noah to Ham. The idea of a younger sibling triumphing over an older one is seen time and time again, from Jacob and Esau to Solomon and his older brother. The Bible depicts family in this tumultuous way time and time again, pitting siblings against each other, creating strife between those who should be closest. Though the familial ties in the Bible seem to be mostly negative, perhaps this is why people find themselves recognizing family as an important biblical theme. Despite being negative, the storylines created by families are strong, compelling. The most heartbreaking and iconic of stories focus around families. Due to this, it is easy to see how people would latch onto family as a theme, even if it is not quite the best view of family. 

One thing that stood out to me the most in the Bible was the language used within it. As a linguistics major, and linguistics enthusiast, I am always fascinated by the ways in which literature overcomes its boundaries of being textual, and becomes something more through the use of linguistic methods. For instance, the Bible pluralizes God many times throughout its books. Defining God as not a singular he, but as a plural we, creates this idea of God being more than just a being, being so overwhelmingly unfathomable to humanity that though he may be one, it is actually easier to represent him as many. The translations between language add a layer of depth to the Bible, causing it to become even more complex than it could have originally been. Using statements and descriptions to actually only have metaphorical meanings, jumping between dreams and reality, letting the reader decide at which point things are real and fake, it all creates this holy, untouchable idea of the Bible itself. It is beyond literature, though it itself is indeed just literature. 

I had never made a Commonplace book before, but I greatly enjoyed making this one. It allowed me to connect my readings and ideas with items I find in my everyday life. The Bible is so universal, whether it is being used as a tool, or a guideline, or just a story. It exists within so many things in life, that I genuinely think being able to write these Commonplace entries, to find the Bible within our regular lives, to delve into the connections and questions we have, was the best possible way to interact with the material given. The Bible is not a static object. Its meaning, references, stories, and ideas are constantly in flux, changing depending on how they are interpreted, who is reading them, and how they are communicated. Due to this, I do not believe we will ever be done studying the Bible. It recreates itself every second of every day within the minds of the people who read it, or know of it, or study it. It is so ingrained in culture, in life, in history, that there is truly no way to separate ourselves and our ideas from the influence of this powerful book. Regardless of religion, culture, or country, the effects of the Bible certainly exist within all people.

12/9/21

[commonplacebooks]

Realism and Imagery in Revelation

Throughout the final book in the New Testament, we are given many descriptions of characters, creatures, and scenes that are very detailed. A lot of this detailing is usually taken not as simple description, but instead as imagery used to give meaning to these items. For this entry, I wanted to analyze some of the more vivid descriptions in Revelation.

The first description we receive in this book is actually that of Jesus Christ himself, in Revelation 1:13-16. Jesus is described as entering in a ring of seven candlesticks, seven being one of the biblical numbers, and candlesticks being signified as holy. He is wearing a long garment, which depicts him as having the means to wear proper clothes, no longer torn threads, with a gold girdle, or sash, around his waist, which shows holiness as well. His hair is described as white like wool, like snow. This could give meaning to texture, saying it was thick and course, as well as white in color meaning both age and purity. His eyes were "a flame of fire". This could be literal, as he is Jesus, but could also show the wrath and destruction that is to come through the look in his eyes. His feet are darkened, as fine brass burned in a furnace, referencing skin color and perhaps the way in which he walks upon earth now, walks upon something that is less holy than him, near the end of times, burning his feet. His voice the sound of many waters: full, flowing, roaring. His voice is strong, powerful.

When the Lamb of God is described in Revelation 5, it is described as being in the middle of four beasts. The four beasts, described in the chapter prior, are a lion, a calf, a man, and an eagle. These beasts are most likely metaphorical depictions of the four evangelists, with the lion being Mark, the calf Luke, the man Matthew, and the eagle John. The lamb between these beasts shows its holiness. It says he saw the Lamb “as it had been slain”, referencing its sacrificial nature. The Lamb has seven eyes and seven horns, which is a biblical number, and is said to be the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the Earth. 

The last description I will delve into here is that of the Beast with seven heads. The beast is described in Revelation 13, thirteen itself being a supposedly cursed number, perhaps giving meaning to the beast being shown within this chapter. In the description of the beast, many animals are mentioned. This could be due to actual physical appearance, or as metaphors for aspects of the beast. The beast is described like a leopard, giving it power and agility. The feet are of a bear, giving it stability, strength, and raw untethered power. His mouth is that of a lion, able to roar, the most well-known sound of power in nature, as well as being known as the “king” of their environment, the jungle. The beast has seven heads, but 10 crowns. Perhaps meaning that three of the seven heads have two crowns, three and seven both being biblical numbers. One of the beast’s heads are wounded, but it is immediately repaired. This, though possibly another storyline filler, could be in meaning to how the beast is wholly powerful, able to have even the most deadly of wounds healed, unbeatable. 

Using this imagery in the book describing the end of times allows the reader to feel a sense of awe, having these mythological, abstract creatures and figures exist, aiding in the sense of wonderment that Revelation is meant to bring.

12/3/21

[commonplacebooks]

Language (and its complexities)

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek, then to English. Similarly, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, then translated to English for our consumption.

Due to these translations, many passages in the Bible contain phrasing or diction that may seem strange, or seemingly make little to no sense to us. This could, of course, also be somewhat in part due to the intrinsic depth and complexity of the Bible itself, as well.

One word choice commonly used throughout the Bible is the word "breath", with it being used literally, as a metaphor for spirit, or a combination of the two. In the very beginning of Genesis, we read that "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:2). This is a translation, originally written as the breath of God. Here we see it translated into Spirit to better depict the scene.

Later in Genesis, we see breath used as in "breath of life" (Genesis 2:7). Here, it insinuates that God literally breathed into man to give him life, possibly giving him a spirit as well? The double meaning can definitely be used here.

The Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost is referred to many times throughout the Bible, specifically in Acts. The Greek word used for this is pneuma, with means breath. The study of the Holy Ghost, as well, is referred to as pneumatology. The Book of John uses the word spirit quite commonly, which is actually pneuma in the Greek version.

On the day of Pentecost in Acts, we are told that the Holy Ghost fills men and allows them to speak in tongues. This, though most definitely not done purposefully, is fascinating, as the language translation issues around the term "Holy Ghost" are very complex, so having the Holy Ghost allow men to speak in tongues, which is complex language, is almost an post-ironic look at the linguistic situation in the Bible.

Having this triple meaning for Holy Ghost, spirit, and breath, allows the Bible to sort of partake in this irony, as well as puns, in a way. It definitely adds to the complexity, as using both meanings of a word in one is definitely an interesting way to further complicate, or even simplify, certain parts of the Bible. Language is very fluid, so it can be imagined that in the future, the linguistic meanings of the Bible would be even more complex, and much more research and studying could be done upon them.

12/1/21

[commonplacebooks]

Nativity Scenes

In the New Testament, we see scenes of Jesus's birth, or the nativity scenes, in both the Book of Matthew and the Book of Luke. These scenes have many differences, most of which tend to be combined in modern retellings of the nativity story.

I wanted to look at a few depictions of the nativity scene and see if they take reference from Matthew, Luke, or a combination of the two.

In this first scene, we see Mary and Joseph with Jesus in a manger and another child beside them. There are three sheep and three men standing there as well. The men clearly are meant to represent the three wise men, thought the Bible actually never states that there were three of these men. Since three is such an important biblical number, however, it is commonly used here. There is a star directly above the scene. The wise men and the star are from the book of Matthew, however; Baby Jesus is in a manger, which is from the book of Luke. Here we see a combination of the two nativity stories, as is common in most depictions.

This nativity depiction takes moreso after the Book of Luke. The scene is set outside, with Jesus in a manger, as is in Luke. There are three men, not including Joseph, in this depiction, but instead of representing the wise men, or kings, they appear to be just shepherds. This also takes after the Luke depiction, though there are still three of them, which is never mentioned in the Bible. The angels above are also from Luke, as is the light shone down on them (Luke 2:9).

This art is a bit more abstract, using silhouettes and lighting to depict the scene. Here we see Joseph and Mary in a small house, with just a manger containing Jesus. They are both praying to the child. The manger is a reference to Luke, which seems to be in every depiction of Jesus's birth. Gold light floods the house, most likely showing the warmth and holiness of Jesus. Angels are above the house, as in Luke, and the light shines from below them. There is also, however, a star between them, referencing the star of Bethlehem in Matthew. Two silhouettes are to the right of the house, with animals, depicting the shepherds from Luke. In the back left, however, we also see three men riding towards the house on camels, these most likely being the three wise men from Matthew.

It is interesting seeing how different depictions of the nativity stories choose what pieces to take from both Matthew and Luke. Neither is ever confined to itself in its entirety, it seems, with some aspects from each seeping in. The manger from Luke appears to be universally used, regardless of which story is primarily focused upon. The use of three people, whether it be kings or shepherds, is also very common.

11/12/21

[commonplacebooks]

What is Love? (Baby Don't Hurt Me)

In class last week, Professor Hamlin began class by asking "Who here believes in love?"

It's a difficult question, if I'm honest. I didn't raise my hand for this, did not say that I do believe in love.

Love is complex, we discussed this. Is it a feeling? Is love something you experience as a feeling, feeling so strongly for someone you want to stay by them constantly? To some degree, maybe it is. Maybe love is, in part, feeling so strongly for a person that you would do anything for them.

But then you ask, what if love is a commitment? Love is choosing someone, time and time again, even when it gets rough, even when that initial "feeling" fades. Is this love? Then, could love exist without the feeling, and only the commitment? Must you feel love in order to experience love?

I believe, love is a combination of these. Love is not something you can choose to feel, but eventually in a relationship (whatever the type), you must choose love. I do not truly know if I believe in everlasting love. I have never been witness to any type of relationship that has existed, relatively happily, for longer than 10 years. But people say love is permanent, so how could this be? Is love simply yet another temporary emotion, gone in the blink of an eye? Do we overstate the importance of love?

Most of these questions I cannot answer completely, but this last one I believe I can. Love is important to existence. After all, what more is being alive than constantly searching for love? And in this sense, I am not speaking solely of romantic love. Searching for a job you love, for a friend group you love, for a home you love, animals you love, activities you love: That is the base of being alive, is it not? Love is intrinsic to life, but romantic love, in modern society, is supposedly meant to be able to fill all of these positions, which simply is not possible.

Due to the nature of modern society, the nuclear family has grown into a fundamental aspect of life. This places importance on one simple idea: The purpose of life is to fall in love, marry, and have children. Modern ideals discard the ideas of platonic and familial love, stating that romantic love must be enough instead. Due to this, most people are raised with one focus: to fall in love. Girls are raised being told how they must act to get a husband, boys are raised being told how to find the perfect girl. This emphasis on romantic love causes us to seek it constantly. In a way, we begin searching so brazenly for romantic love, we tend to invent it ourselves.

I believe that if actual, enduring romantic love exists, it is rare. Not everyone is going to find someone they can love, who loves them in return, who works with them and with their love. But we are told that everyone will, and because of this, people begin forcing love. Everyone wants so badly to fall in love, they find love where there is none. How can we tell what kind of love is true, if we are all so desperate to find it? Does this negate the reality of love? Since we all create love daily, is actual love even possible anymore? Or, in this sense, has the definition of love just morphed?

Maybe love is not as special or intense as this. Maybe love is just that- something we create daily, something we stumble upon and lose just as easily. We can choose to stay, to create an enduring love, or we can choose to let love go, to move past the feeling. Once again, I'm not strictly speaking of romantic love here, I am regarding love as a whole, all types of it. Romantic love may be overdone, may be overemphasized, but all love holds the same importance, in the end.

The Song of Solomon is written about love. The flowery language allows us, the readers, to imagine the love that the author feels for everything in life. With loving a woman, the way she is described, we can experience the attraction that comes with love. When speaking of his garden, his home, nature, the language allows us to see this comfort, this beauty that comes with love. With his spices, we get to experience the indulgence that comes with love. Love in the Song of Solomon is engrained into every word, every phrase. It is not solely about romantic love, it is about the love and joys of life, the ways in which we can love everything around us.

11/5/21

[commonplacebooks]

Metaphors and Similes of Natural Universals

In class today, we talked about the usage of literary devices in the Psalms, specifically analogies.

Many chapters in the Psalms use natural imagery to create these analogies, comparing man to a tree (Psalms 1:3), or to a worm (Psalms 22:6), or other nature to each other.

Why do the Psalms use imagery as such? Why is nature such a prevalent theme? In Psalms 22:14 it says,

"I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."

Using this comparison to water, anyone reading this verse could easily comprehend what the author is attempting to say. I am poured out like water, easily, fluidly, without hesitance or resistance. Water is a universal, something able to be understood by people all around the world. Using it in this comparison allows the reader to have a sense of connection with the passage. It is not being compared to some liquid with which the reader has no familiarity, it is being compared to water, the most basic of necessities, known well worldwide.

This use of nature as a tool of comprehension can be seen going back in many different books in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelations. After reading a bit of Proverbs, it is evident that nature is an important theme in these as well. Modern proverbs almost always center around some type of nature:

"The early bird gets the worm."

Uses well-known animals to set a base for an occurrence that people in all of history are common with: Birds being awake early, birds eating worms.

"A rolling stone gathers no moss."

A classic example of natural imagery. This is a universal statement that holds true regardless of time period or location. Using more specific or modern words for the analogies would make this proverb less applicable to all people. It is possible to roll a stone anytime, anywhere.

Nature is used so much in poetry and analogies due to its ability to be understood by anyone. Nature is a universal, we all grow with nature, must exist with nature, must work with nature. Even now, I see trees outside my dorm window, reminding me of all the uses of trees in these analogous phrases.

Though some natural terms are obviously not universal, as not every man has raised cattle (Psalms 104:14), nor has every man visited the sea (Psalms 114:3). However, the use of nature here can have an even more important role, as instead of solely being for universal application, nature shows the existence of something eternal, something inherent. God is not man made, so therefore analogies referencing him should not be either. God exists as the water in the sea, the mountains on the land. He exists without the aid of man, persevering through all time, existing before man could fathom him. He, as nature, is above humanity, forever creating the basis of life.

10/27/21

[commonplacebooks]

While listening back to one of my Spotify playlists from around 3 years ago, I found this song. Back when I originally liked this song, I did not actually know the tale of David and Goliath.

The first chorus of the song references these figures with the lines:

"And you will go toe to toe,

Like David and Goliath.

Who will be Goliath?

And will you throw the stone?"

The song itself is about struggling with power imbalances, life, the authenticity of living, and possibly the relationship between yourself and religion. The first verse opens with:

"Someday you will grow up and learn to lie,

Just like your daddy did when he told you no one ever really dies."

This insinuates that the subject of the song (the "you") is confronting the lies of his father about life. "No one ever really dies" could easily be referring to an afterlife, or in this case, the "lie" of one.

The rest of that verse continues:

"I hope that I'm not there when you realize,

That those with their nose in the air will never look you in the eyes."

The end of this verse goes straight into the first chorus, and here is where we see our first reference to David and Goliath. "Those with their nose in the air" references snobbiness, possibly people with more power than you. This could be the first reference to Goliath, as he is a much more powerful being who would never "look you in the eyes", or even consider lower lifeforms like humanity.

Streetlight Manifesto continues by saying that you will go toe to toe, as in face and fight, like David and Goliath. They ask who will be the Goliath, the power-hungry warmonger, and who will throw the stone, or be the one to end it and lay down weapons. Later choruses replace these last two lines with:

"They will be Goliath,

and you will throw the stone."

Saying that you must be the person to end this, to not give in to constant war between yourself and the others that look down upon you, though they may try and keep fighting. This, in reference to the earlier theme, could also be implying that the Goliath's are people who are set in their religion and look down upon others who are not, while the David struggles with religious identity and not quite believing.

Later in the song, this idea is cemented, while also contrasting the original story of David and Goliath with these lyrics:

"I don't care

What you do with the little time everyone gets

As long as you

Do the math, choose a path, that'll never hurt anyone else."

The speaker states that in the end, it does not matter what you do as long as you do not harm others. You cannot be the Goliath, you cannot start wars. You should end them, as in throwing the stone, but simultaneously this is simply a metaphor for ending them, not actually doing harm or killing others.

This song uses David and Goliath as a means of depicting the struggle of life, of interacting and fighting with others. The speaker asks of you to not be the causer of these fights, since life is short, and we must attempt to live now, in peace, without harming one another. It is an interesting use of the story, as David throwing the stone was an act of divine influence, so perhaps it is using this divinity as a means of saying you must overcome these trivial battles, use your inner strength (which for David was the strength of God) to end these wars.

10/22/21

[commonplacebooks]

Depicted here is the fight between David (bottom left) and Goliath (top right).

The story of David and Goliath is one very widely known and referenced in many different types of media. Depictions of David and Goliath remain extremely common, and the moral of the story, that with the blessing of God, with a blessing in general, a person of even minimal strength or size can overcome anything, including a giant, is one that is repeated millions of times to people, especially kids. 

I wanted to find an image that I believe properly depicts the fight, and I think this one does it decently well. There are many aspects of this painting that display different characteristics about the battle that I believe are important. 

For instance, David is in the foreground of the picture and is the first thing our eyes are drawn to. This reflects how David, despite his size relative to the giants, is the main character of this incident and is the one the viewer should be focusing on. He is near the bottom of the image, most likely depicting his immediate disadvantage in the fight. Our eyes are drawn from the small shape of David, upward to the giant, Goliath, that appears to be towering over him. This in most instances would immediately give the impression that the giant is going to destroy David, as he is much smaller and weaker. However, as we know from the Bible, this is not the case. The situation is meant to be set up this way, in order to properly show how God’s blessing here is what allowed David to win the fight, not his own will or strength. 

God’s blessing is actually shown in this image through coloring. Most of the picture is bland, muted, showing the lack of heavenly focus on the giants. David, however, has golden hair, shining bright against the dull background. His hair draws our eyes, and due to our natural association with God and light, most likely dating back to Genesis as God creates light, we see that David has nearly a heavenly glow to him. 

Goliath stands tall, laughing, showing that Goliath has full confidence he would squash David. David, however, is swinging back his sling with a strong stance and bold movement. David has no doubt that he is winning this fight. This dichotomy creates the understanding that one of these characters does not actually fully know what is going on. As David is the main character here, we are led to believe that against all odds, we should believe in his confidence, not Goliath’s. The reasoning for this is that God has blessed David, and because God’s blessing is wholly absolute and overpowering, Goliath stands no chance against David.

I think this painting, with all of its depth and storytelling through composition and color, does a very good job at showing the complexities behind the fight of David and Goliath. It was not a straightforward “strong hero kills big beast”, but is instead rooted in the religious aspects of blessings and God’s will over physical strength.

10/16/21

EDIT (10/20/21): This picture ended up being shown in class! I wish we spent more time talking about it though, as a lot of the intricacies of the art were sort of glanced over, but they have a lot of meaning packed into so little substance, which is very similar in a way to how the Bible is written as well. Social anxiety may keep me from bringing this up in class but hey! At least I can talk about it here :)

[commonplacebooks]

Syntax and Language in Ruth

The style of writing and diction in the Book of Ruth is ever so slightly different from other passages in the Bible, so I wanted to take this entry to highlight some quotations and phrases that stood out to me in this Book, and why.

- "And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons." (Ruth 1:3)

This quotation is near the very beginning of Ruth and sets the tone as to how a focus on women in this book changes the way in which the Bible is written. Until this point, women in the Bible were nearly always referred to in terms of their husband, stating them as "so-and-so's wife" instead of as their own person, perhaps as a means of referencing the way in which Eve belonged to Adam, and displaying the patriarchal stance of the Bible. This quote, however, identifies Elimelech as Naomi's husband, even though this was already set up earlier in the passage and did not need repeating. By doing this, the Bible is labelling Naomi as more important a character, and Elimelech as belonging to her story instead of vice-versa. An interesting comment on this, however, is that despite using terminology implying Naomi's literary superiority, Elimelech is still named first. This could possibly be once again an instance of patriarchal society shining through, despite the book leaning more towards female characters and away from the usual patriarchal style.

- "And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge(...)" (Ruth 1:16)

Ruth clearly cares deeply for Naomi, and Naomi for Ruth. Earlier in the passage, Naomi orders the girls, her daughters-in-law, to return home, and they weep as they do not wish to leave her, but she orders it since it is better for them. This type of mother-daughter relationship is relatively new to the Bible, as most relationships so far have been between fathers and sons or the rare occurrence of mother and son. Naomi and Ruth, however, have a very close relationship that is shown time and time again through dialogue and language. Ruth says that wherever Naomi goes, so shall she, and later states that where Naomi dies, she will as well. This type of language and speaking is depicting absolute love, not something for show or something false, but true undying care for each other. They do not intend on abandoning each other at any point, which is extremely heartwarming and very refreshing to see this type of relationship.

- "Then she fell on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, and said unto him, Why have I found grace in thine eyes, that thou shouldest take knowledge of me, seeing I am a stranger?" (Ruth 2:10)

Once again, the wording here is fascinating. Ruth says she found grace is Boaz's eyes, insinuating that the way she is feeling towards him is due to his kindness, that she sees him as someone who cares. The Book of Ruth is full of these bits of language that seem, overall, more genuine than what is in most other passages in the Bible. Ruth does not fall for Boaz because he is "Ready of face", like others in the Bible, but because he has grace and kindness in his heart.

- "And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, hath born him" (Ruth 4:15)

Nearing the end of the book here, this quote summarizes the love and emotion that the Book of Ruth depicts. Boaz and Ruth's child is identified as a restorer of Naomi's life, a nourisher of her when she reaches old age because Ruth birthed him. Ruth is immediately identified not just as her daughter in law, but as her daughter in law who loves her. This quotation really just depicts the full meaning behind this Book, that it is full of love and warmth, care and kindness, and is unlike the other books in the Bible.

10/6/21

[commonplacebooks]

Morality and Religion

In my favorite television show of all time, Community (2009), there is one character who is an atheist, Britta, and another who is a devout Christian, Shirley. Throughout the series, they have many moments where they argue over religion, but while re-watching some of my favorite episodes the other day, I discovered what I believe to be the best interaction between the two that pertains to something we discussed in class recently.

In Season 3 Episode 7, Studies in Modern Movement, Britta and Shirley begin having an argument over morality, as Shirley states that “someone has to be this group’s moral compass”, and Britta fires back that Shirley is saying that since she is Christian, and therefore thinks she is the only one with a sense of morality. The two argue about this for awhile, with the argument only ending when Britta, in an attempt to prove that she can do good, even as an atheist, picks up a hitchhiker who ends up being extraordinarily creepy, and the two end up bonding over the experience.

In class last week, we went over the Ten Commandments as told in Exodus. Some of the commandments state things that are specific to religion, such as not worshipping any other gods, etc., but other commandments are pretty general moral laws, such as ordering people not to kill. This brought up the question of whether or not this was already a cultural rule before now, or if morality just simply did not exist before God commanded his people to act morally right. 

The debate over morality and religion has always interested me, as I greatly enjoy the study of ethics, and I was raised as Catholic but am no longer religious. Many people, such as Shirley in Community, state that to have a sense of morality, you must be religious. I’ve always found this ridiculous, but it is interesting how it seems to have foundations in God’s creation of moral laws. 

Adam and Eve, for instance, had no sense of right or wrong before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, which God provided, insinuating that morality is not inherent to man, but is instead only something that can be taught and learned, specifically through religious means.

By setting up such basic moral boundaries in the commandments, the Bible insinuates that morality does actually just come along with religion, and it is due to religion that people attempt to follow these moral codes. If someone were an atheist and did not follow the Ten Commandments, they technically would have no law (outside of political) ordering them not to commit murder. 

I do not personally believe that morality only exists in the face of religion, but the Bible certainly implies that morality and religion are very closely tied, and many people, as well as T.V. shows, seem to mirror this opinion.

Though I, as someone who is not Christian, do not follow the Ten Commandments, I believe it is wrong to murder. This does call into question whether or not I have this belief solely because I have a religious background, or because it is inherent to being human. I honestly cannot tell the true answer to this, as religion and Christianity are so closely tied into modern American culture that it is near impossible to separate what is a religious custom from what is simply human.

I do believe that moral customs are relative, and if there existed such a religion that stated that murder is fine, perhaps that could become the new norm. Until then, I really do not know for sure. Cultural relativism is hard to decipher, especially attempting to separate cultural customs from human nature, so moral relativism does exist, but it is difficult to tell whether or not religion plays more of a role than just culture, or if the two are too closely tied to ever really be separated. 

10/1/21

[commonplacebooks]

Theme of Humanity over God in the movie Noah

For this entry I wanted to further explore something interesting I noticed while writing my Film Analysis, for which I watched and reviewed the movie Noah, made in 2014 by Darren Aronofsky. 

This movie was a fascinating take on the story of Noah as told in the Bible, for many reasons, but one reason in particular stuck out to me. Many movies and adaptations of biblical stories are told in a way that glorifies the actions of God and other biblical characters. Of course, it is difficult to do this when in reference to the story of Noah’s Ark, as it is a decently morally gray story. 

The movie does not stray from assessing the morality of the acts of God in this story. In the Bible, there is no mention of the emotion or ethical reactions to God’s flooding of the Earth and wiping out of all life, as life is deemed wicked at this time.

The movie Noah, however, approaches this topic differently, and I find it exceedingly interesting since it verges on even criticizing God’s actions.

Instead of blindly following the storyline and adhering to the biblical method of removing emotion, backstory, and individual opinion from God’s actions, Noah uses its two hours to focus on the more human aspect of the story. It depicts not only the wickedness of man, but the goodness and sadness of man as well, making the viewer feel pity for humanity and question God’s intent behind just wiping out humanity.

It felt odd to see an adaptation of this story that paints the Flood in such a negative light, as growing up we were always taught that God had to cleanse the Earth, and that the act was black and white. The movie does not frame it in this way, though, and instead made me analyze the further implications of what ‘wiping out all life on Earth’ would be. Is it not cruel for God to feel so little for the creatures he created? Not all men on Earth at this time were wicked, so this means God is capable of also performing some type of evil. 

This is actually similar to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where God destroyed the cities despite there existing innocent people within. No, he did not find any righteous, but that does not mean each man was sinful. God seems to solely view humanity in terms of religious righteousness and not consider any other factors behind the actions and goodness of humans. 

It was actually refreshing to see a take on this biblical story that calls God’s motives and actions into question, as that is usually a rare occurrence when dealing with popular adaptations of biblical stories, but the movie managed to do it in a way that doesn’t necessarily paint God himself in a negative light, but simply casts doubt on some of his actions, which is in itself an extraordinary feat in my opinion.  

9/22/21

[commonplacebooks]

This is a painting depicting the Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. I wanted to make this entry about the comparison that can be drawn between this myth and the fate of Lot’s wife at Sodom and Gomorrah.

When God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s wife looks back to see the cities being destroyed, and is instantly turned into a pillar of salt.

In the Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice, Orpheus is told not to look back to see Eurydice, but he does, and she vanishes. 

Both these instances have some sort of extremely negative consequence for looking back. This implies quite a bit about the simple act of looking back, that it is bad in itself. Looking back at something can be taken in a few different ways. 

For one, it could be that looking back at something implies that you needed some reassurance, that you were doubting something and needed to look back to be sure. In Orpheus’s case, he would be doubting that Eurydice was still following him. In Lot’s wife’s case, it could be seen as an act of doubting God himself. Another meaning behind it could be that you look back due to missing whatever is behind you, wanting to see it again. In Orpheus’s case, he hadn’t seen his wife in a long time and definitely did miss her. In Lot’s wife’s case, this could be taken as her missing the cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, that God just destroyed. It is easy to see how God would take issue with this, as Sodom and Gomorrah were deemed to be wicked, so Lot’s wife should not miss it in any way. Also, her missing the cities could imply that she doubts what God did was right, which is another instance of doubting God, something you should not do.

9/15/21

[commonplacebooks]

"And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

There is no way to tell here in what way Ham saw his father's nakedness. Ham was severely punished after this incident, with his entire genealogical line being cursed, essentially, to be servants forever. So this begs the question, what did Ham do? Could it be that the Bible is implying something more by "saw the nakedness of his father", as in Ham committing some atrocious act? Or, did Noah simply overreact in this moment. Perhaps the Bible just needed a reason to have Ham's bloodline be cursed, so threw in this moment. Or, is it in the way that Ham told his brethren that made him be treated in this way? It could be that he mocked, perhaps belittled his father's nakedness, and therefore was faulted for his lack of respect and kindness.

Ham's brothers were rewarded, at the same time, for refusing to look upon Noah and covering his nakedness. The punishment for Ham could possibly be to complete the contrast between him and his brother's consequences. A lot of the Bible is metaphorical, so this just be another example of some sort of split/divide within the Bible. The Bible also focuses on the sanctity of family, but repeatedly has moments similar to this one where family is entirely disregarded and family members hurt each other. Why does this sort of weird hypocrisy exist? Christianity is known for harboring the idea that family comes before all else, but this story is one of many that seems to contrast against that idea.

9/10/21

[commonplacebooks]

"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness"

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;"

Repeatedly throughout Genesis 1, the Bible uses the term "divide" while explaining God creating life. Though this section is all about creation, division is shown to play a major role. God separates light from darkness, he separates the waters from above and below, he separates the day from the night.

Why does this theme of division exist so prevalently in creation? Why must there be so much division in order to create life?

I find it fascinating that division is focused upon, as it honestly sets the precedent for the rest of the Bible. There is no creation without separation. In division, you obviously cannot have singularity as you cannot separate something from itself. This is a recurring theme throughout the Bible, as many times, things must come in pairs. Like the animals on Noah's ark, or Adam and Eve, or Cain and Abel, there must first exist two for anything to exist on its own. The darkness and light must exist together in order for God to divide the two. The waters must be one before they can be separated. The day and night do not exist separately, as they are created as one until God splits them. It's extremely interesting to see this theme repeat itself in this way.

9/3/21

[commonplacebooks]

Jesus did not speak Greek, but spoke Aramaic and possibly some Hebrew.

The New Testament was written entirely by people who spoke and wrote in Greek. This means that every item quoted from Jesus was already translated immediately into Greek to begin with, and we do not have any instances of direct quotations from Jesus. For a portion of history, and to this day, people have been interested in finding the most original Bible, one without translations, where they can read the proper word of God and Jesus. However, since Jesus himself did not even speak Greek, there exists no such untranslated Bible.

The implications of this are exceedingly interesting, as there is no true way to follow Jesus's word exactly as he spoke it. Every translation comes with small changes to the meaning of the quotes, be it because the two languages have different meanings and connotations for words, or that the writers of the translation have some implicit bias that shows through in their translation. Therefore, there is no possible way to fully comprehend what Jesus must have originally written and intended, and it is impossible to follow Jesus's original words.

8/27/21