On Memorial Religious Seeing in Judaism

On Memorial Religious Seeing in Judaism

Idolatry, as discussed in the article, is either “an improper form of worship” or “the improper god being worshiped”. Icon is a medium bridging the past and the present while idol is the object for worship.  [1](Plate, 240) In that sense, I can see the three memorials not as memory itself but as medium that remind people of the past memories, though they are somewhat somehow created intentionally to resemble the real objects of the past---like the poet carved on the railcar, the special smell of oil, which might mislead people to believe them to be the real “idol” thus generating the practice of worship. 

For the three memorials, these artworks express certain personal or cultural values of artists but whether the interpretation is religious or not can be determined by the viewers through their personal values and whether they see them as icons to reminisce or idols to worship. Thus to make some religious, for one thing, the displayed should be the real object and for another, the viewers t should take it as generator for worship---the religious practice. For example, the three memorials invoke the heavy memory of the past and the call for peace and love from the Judaism. However, if the viewers take the displayed railcar as the real ones used during war time, acknowledge all they see to be part of the history and stand in awe at them---which could be the practice of worship, then the “seeing” becomes religious seeing and the act becomes idolatry.

To answer the last question, art, as I see it, is something of aesthetic and various cultural values which could embody religious value. In Judaism, to worship, or rather say---to be in awe of anything else more than God can be idolatry. That could be part of the contradiction brought by those art forms related to Judaism.

---

[1] Plate, S. Religion, Art and Visual Culture. 1st ed. NYC,N.Y.: Palgrave, 2002. 240. Print.

On Eusebius' Church History

What makes this book interesting most for me is the identity of the author of this book. As a historian as well as a Christian---not only a Christian but also an important one), the role he was playing is interestingly shown in his history book. He is recording the history while being part of the history; he is studying the group while being one member of the group; he was praying for the power of God to assist in writing the history work of God. His illustration reads very attractive.

Besides,  it becomes even more interesting to read the comment of the later historians' comments on the old while reading the old. Now spirit moving and brain working, we, as the latest or newest at this time this moment, come up with the latest thoughts and ideas. It's just interesting to compare these three.

On the value of Hinduism

I agree with what Rebekah has said---Hindu art focus on pleasing their gods. As they believe the actual presence of gods/goddesses, every time the appearance of a certain god, though of artistic form, is sacred as a real presence and because of the frequent presence of gods, the sacred worship becomes part of their daily life. Thus I think the value of Hinduism lies in the truthfulness. Beside, this kind of value is expressed by seeing. They values the truthfulness of seeing---which is related to Dashan.


Related link: http://theideasofart.blogspot.com/2011/04/values-of-hinduism.html

On the film Baraka

There was a plethora of images, locations, and religions presented throughout. My questions are: What was the film about? What is the message? Why was there no talking? What does the film say about religion? What does it convey concerning value in religion?

The film is a documentary without story and even talks, but it is also one with abundant stories that can hardly be described by words. These are stories of the present and also the past. These are the common and the difference of the ancient and the modern. These are question marks of development or recession of the human species.

About the theme,I'd rather conclude it as Time.They find something in common in the less developed area and developed areas and connected the scenes---like the repetition work in beating drums and raising chickens.  

About religion, I think the director is also finding the way to show some common practice of worship shared by different religions and also their similar ultimate goal----to find out how and why to live and to die.

I believe the director wants to show us just pictures and music and encourages us to find the anwer of our own. To avoid the intervene of the external guidance might be another reason that the film has no words in it.

On the Apocrypha---The Gospel of Mary

Q: What is your evaluation of this book? Is it a book to die for? Does it seem to you useful and/or interesting? Or is it a book you wouldn't mind seeing burned by government officials? Why?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html


BG: RETRIEVED FROM http://www.gnosis.org/library/GMary-King-Intro.html

From the Introduction to:

The Gospel of Mary of Magdala:
Jesus and the First Woman Apostle

by Karen L. Kin

 Yet these scant pages provide an intriguing glimpse into a kind of Christianity lost for almost fifteen hundred years. This astonishingly brief narrative presents a radical interpretation of Jesus' teachings as a path to inner spiritual knowledge; it rejects his suffering and death as the path to eternal life; it exposes the erroneous view that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute for what it is-a piece of theological fiction; it presents the most straightforward and convincing argument in any early Christian writing for the legitimacy of women's leadership; it offers a sharp critique of illegitimate power and a utopian vision of spiritual perfection; it challenges our rather romantic views about the harmony and unanimity of the first Christians; and it asks us to rethink the basis for church authority. All written in the name of a woman.

The Gospel of Mary was written when Christianity, still in its nascent stages, was made up of communities widely dispersed around the Eastern Mediterranean, communities which were often relatively iso­lated from one other and probably each small enough to meet in someone's home without attracting too much notice.

Comment:

The first several chapters---the words the Savior said---sound to me like a collection from the other gospels. Several examples of comparison with other gospels as listed.
1)Mary4:29 He who has a mind to understand, let him understand.32,he who has ears to hear, let him hear
Matthew 11:15 He who has ears, let him hear.
Mark4:9 Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
2)Mary 5:9 Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.
Matthew6:21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Luke12:34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
3) Mary 4:34 Beware that no one lead you astray saying Lo here or lo there! For the Son of Man is within you.
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.(KJV)
4)Mary 4: 36 Those who seek Him will find Him.
Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Luke 11:9 So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

Those listed above can all be found in the canons which is part of Jesus' teaching of different times. Thus it just feels so strange that at the end of the chapter 4, it writes "When He said this He departed." It seems it all came from preaching at one time.

Second, chapter 8 is the most interesting of all, the dialogue among desires, soul and ignorance, and the visions of the different powers of wrath like the seven sins. This is really beyond my poor understanding. Especially what the soul said in Mary 8:21: "What binds me has been slain, and what turns me about has been overcome," Does it mean the struggle of soul to get rid of the bind of body and be submissive to the spirit? Anyway, it's a little bit theatrical.

Third, the last argument in chapter9. It is not in accordance with that age, like an intentional writing arguing for women's rights, the modern verion story based on the ancient teaching.

I don't think this book worth one's life to protect it, at least we've the four gospels there.

On Tertullan's Apology

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm

The words from this apology is quite different than the other two I've read. It sounds more harsh and direct without any cover or better to say, fear.

For example, in chapter 1, "if in this case alone you are afraid or ashamed to exercise your authority in making public inquiry with the carefulness which becomes justice." It's more of a bold criticism.

Tertullan stated clearly their position and the gods of the pagans including the emperor's "no existence"as in Chapter 27. "Enough has been said in these remarks to confute the charge of treason against your religion: for we cannot be held to do harm to that which has no existence. When we are called therefore to sacrifice, we resolutely refuse, relying on the knowledge we possess, by which we are well assured of the real objects to whom these services are offered, under profaning of images and the deification of human names." It might looks like a serious humiliation for one who is empowered with all.

The chapter 50 is even more clear and sincere. "No one indeed suffers willingly, since suffering necessarily implies fear and danger." He stated boldly. I believe readers can read the sincerity and honesty of the author, and can read his character through the paper---maybe the embodiment of Christians' character, too.

For a wise emperor, this apology is sincere advise that he might think twice; a stupid one, a thread that would irritate him. I think I would like to be a wise one...but i am not sure how I would react if I was really put into that situation because I remember how I laughed at Christian God years ago. At least, to challenge something somebody firmly believes in is very difficult as well as dangerous, unless the Spirit of God works on the stubborn human hearts.

On Athenagoras' "Plea for the Christians"

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm

 The letter is started as voice from activists arguing for equal rights, with strong emotion---which is fit for the title "plea".

In chapter one, the author firstly gave examples of people sacrificing and worshiping their gods in different places and explained the necessity to have some gods to worship. Then he argued for the equal right of Christians to worship their God too.

"On the one hand, that to believe in no god at all is impious and wicked, and on the other, that it is necessary for each man to worship the gods he prefers, in order that through fear of the deity, men may be kept from wrong-doing. But why— for do not, like the multitude, be led astray by hearsay— why is a mere name odious to you? Names are not deserving of hatred: it is the unjust act that calls for penalty and punishment. "

 When reading these part, I feel it is like a well-orginized persuasion speech which arouse people's sympathy, as he stated that "the whole empire, under your intelligent sway, enjoys profound peace. But for us who are called Christians you have not in like manner cared; but although we commit no wrong...." He euphemistically condemmed the unjustness by  praising the peaceful and intelligent governing. This it something that may works.