David Thornton - Religious Educational Bias

“A good many historians of religions are so absorbed in their special studies that they know little more about the Greek or Egyptian mythologies, or the Buddha’s teaching, or the Taoist or shamanic techniques, than any amateur who has known how to direct his reading. Most of them are really familiar with only one poor little sector of the immense domain of religious history.” (Eliade's Images and Symbols page 27)

-Eliade shows the insightful point that many historians or people who think they have an understanding of religion by knowing of the religion they believe in, are narrowly educated in the realm of historical religious studies. Greater understanding of one’s own religion comes from a comparative view of man’s religious history. Deemphasizing mythological history whether because of it’s “pagan” or “heretical” attributes only presents the individual with a narrow minded view of the religion in its relation to other people’s and culture’s beliefs. Eliade goes on in his writing to discuss the effect this has on the modern individual’s deciphering of historical mythology. If a person’s “religious education” is so narrowly pursued, then their interpretation of other mythologies and theologies will in turn be somewhat biased due to educational inclination and past focus. I have certainly experienced this which is why I find Eliade so insightful because I grew up in a reformed PCA church in which my parents required me to attend. This religious background before I came to college inhibited a clear understanding of different mythologies and their significance because I had only been educated from a Christian religious perspective in which ancient Greeks or Egyptians mythologies were heretical and inherently misleading to the modern Christian individual. Whether it be polytheistic views of ancients of ideas of mysticism, I was basically brought up to denounce these things. This class has not led me to accept them as truth, but it has given me a greater perspective towards appreciating and understanding the historical beginnings of my own beliefs.

David Thornton - Mythology

“Modern man is free to despise mythologies and theologies, but that will not prevent his continuing to feed upon decayed myths and degraded images.” (Eliade's Images and Symbols page 19)

-I think it is interesting how the modernization of man has caused such a misunderstanding and apathetic view of the power of mythology and theology. Mythology throughout human history has been of major religious importance for different cultures and has given meaning to many people’s lives. The literature produced in mythological writings and the ideas presented are imperatively significant to modern understanding of the Divine and its possible interactions with humanity. Ancient myths influence religious beginnings like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam because they were the beginnings of how people began to contemplate and try to understand the Sacred in whom they believed in. Whether polytheistic or monotheistic, understanding mythologically where the idea of myth comes from is extremely useful in understanding modern religious and theological ideals. I think is it sweet how Eliade says the modern is free to despise mythologies and theologies because that is what a lot of people choose to do. In contrast, it is almost to the point of hypocrisy though because mythology is basically the foundation of human contrivance in the realm of understanding the Sacred. Also, regardless of the myths being decayed and images being degraded, they still will have an affect on modern man’s understanding of his own religion or communication with the Sacred. Even for someone in our modern time to denounce the presence of an ultimate being, they must have some understanding of past human efforts in trying to understand or communicate with the Sacred before coming to that conclusion themselves.

My experience with Loch Ness- BeeJay Chapman

I thought i'd share a piece from my paper on the spiritual pilgrimage in Scotland...it's about my experience with Loch Ness:

"That evening, we set up camp in the rain, which had been following us for a solid day. The next morning we awoke to more rain, and after approximately two wet miles we found ourselves upon the shores of- none other than- the fabulous Loch Ness. Once inside the town known as “Drum,” or the Loch Ness Monster tourist trap, we settled into the Loch Ness Monster Museum and Gift Shop, seeking artificial refuge from the rain. That evening we hiked another five miles or so up a mountain aside the great loch and finally pitched our tents on a rock cliff overlooking the loch. Although the previous rain had conjured up a great fog which allowed us to see only several feet in front of us, we knew that somewhere beneath all that fog was an enormous body of water: The magnificent Loch Ness. Although not visible from our perch up in the sky, the eerie presence of the loch was tangible and assured that there was something huge and mysterious on the other side of that fog: Loch Ness. “As darkness began to settle over the Great Glen I began to realize what a strange place I had come into. After sunset, Loch Ness is not a water by which to linger. The feeling is hard to define and impossible to explain. But there are reasons for all things and true that the soul of man was not forged in a day…After dark, I felt that Loch Ness was better left alone (The Great Orm of Loch Ness, p.8).” ..... It was, however, that very night in which something magical happened. With the dark came a breath of cool air which invaded the glen and moved all the wet weather out, leaving nothing but clear air. When we awoke the sight took our breath away. The layer of haze had peeled itself back to reveal a brilliant, shimmering Loch Ness down below. As we ate our breakfast atop that rock ledge, we realized just how lucky we were to enjoy such a view. It was truly a one-in-a-million glimpse, a view to inspire even the most cynical at heart. Surely this was one of the more intense faces of water that I had yet experienced."

"People Speaking Silently to Themselves" #1

After having read this article, I was very happy that the author Martin Ball confronted Keith Basso's essay. It probably did not even dawn on Basso that he could not logically impose a philosophical framework upon the Apache culture that does not necessarily share an understanding of subject and object. In the excerpt of Basso's essay, he has the nerve to refer to the Apache as, "those of people speaking silently speaking to themselves."

On Muir's LANDSCAPES OF THE SACRED- BeeJay Chapman

In the chapter entitled "Mystic Landscapes: The ordinary as Mask for the Holy" Muir points out one of the many many misconceptions of the human race. It is SO in our nature to misconstrue waht's ordinary and what's extraordinary.

Common modern opinion:

What's Ordinary? "a snail's strange life"
What's extraordinary? i don't know, he doesn't give an example. But if I had to
guess, he'd probably say something like "flying through the air in a huge
piece of metal while sipping on bourbon and coke..."

Muir's opinion:

Vice-versa


I've often pondered similar thoughts, especially lately. I think it started when I was recently watching a fireworks display- or it might not have been recently, time is but an idea to me anymore but that's another subject all together- anyhoo, fireworks display. There they were: Enormous bursts of color, crashing impossibly in near-ecstatic bouts; thousands of dollars going up in air and exploding before my very eyes. WOW. That is, momentary wow...UNTIL I noticed something behind the fireworks: A thunderstorm brewing. For every burst of artificial blue gunpowder, there was an even larger burst in answer- twice as vivid and twice as loud. It was a thunderstorm, and it was amazing. It was then that I realized there is nothing that WE can do better; We can set movement to a metal robot (remarkable), but we cannot create life.
All I know is that thunderstorm went on loooong after the fireworks were over.

And it always will.....

Martin Buber's "I and Thou" and Immediate Communication

Martin Buber's concept of "I and thou" and "I and it" is very interesting. An I-thou encounter (or I-you) refers to the interaction between two beings, wholistically, they connect. I-it on they other hand refers to the opposite interaction. In I-thou interaction, considers the other being as more than an object, and responds to it and treats it accordingly. Buber suggests that this relationship does not necessarily apply only to humans but also to human interactions with other living beings, so long as there is some form of encounter or exchange. Furthermore, Buber argues that this is the only means by which to seek and communitate with God or a Supernatural.

A precursor of this is an immediate communication, meaning that the two entities must atleast be capable of connecting without necessarily transfering information. In doing so they enter into a communion. While the two may or may not be able to communicate with each other or have a mediated discourse, they at the most basic level must be able to immediately communicate. It seems fair to say that all I-thou relationships require the possibility of immediate communication.

For example I could talk to a table. There would be no transference of information, because a table cannot listen and comprehend what i am saying, we cannot communicate with each other. It is safe to say that I cannot also, enter into a communion with said table. However when you consider the relationship between two individuals, you know that because you can enter into a communion with each other that you can then also enter into communication with one another. If you were on a deserted island, and happend upon one individual, you would know, at intial contact, without having said a word that you can eventually communicate with this individual, and the individual knows the same of you, immediate communication.

Therefore, it seems that in order to ever communicate with an entity, it must first be possible that you can enter into communion with them. This is the qualifying factor for Buber's I-Thou relationship.

"The Resurrection of the Dead"

These two passages are really interesting to read when considering the importance of writing and texts in sacred communication, and the role that they plays as a prompt for ritual behavior. The first passage ponders life without the resurrection of Christ. The second passage negates the first, in claiming that Christ has in fact been raised from the dead, and for this reason, those that seek and follow him and the Word of God may find life in Christ once they have reached mortal death. In short it outlines the life a follower of Christ and how in doing so this follower will achieve salvation.
What is especially noteworthy in this excerpt is the very first line of the first passage, "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (line 12). The basis of an entire religion, and really, social institution is that the savior of man, Christ, was resurrected from the dead at which point he joined his father in heaven. But why do Christians believe this? Because the bible says so. And the bible says so because it was first preached, that Christ did in fact die and live again in an eternal paradise as followers of him will also do. The excerpt is a perfect example of how an oral tradition or myth was passed among the people and eventually put into text. Without the Bible, it is hard to believe that Christianity would have grown to the extent that it has. While the oral spread of myth works to great extents it cannot reach the magnitude and consistency of text.