For this response, I would like to extend discussion from Response 2 regarding the fluidity of religion. Specifically, the selected readings further emphasize the adaptability of Judaism. After the destruction of the first temple, exiled Jews rationalized the destruction in a framework previously unused; this rationalization (destruction as divine punishment) allowed the continuity of the religion. The destruction of the second temple recreated the conditions for further adaptation. As Armstrong notes, "Jews would need all their creativity to survive this devastating loss" (Armstrong 155). I found it particularly interesting to learn about the (general) formation of present day Judaic theology. The most innovative and subsequently useful adaptation was the removal of the necessity of "temple". Previously, the region's religions were centered around a physical, sacred space. These early Jews removed the need for the temple and "placed" God firmly in the human realm, by encouraging "experiencing God in [their] neighbor". This effect was twofold. First, it insured that Judaism would retain continuity. No longer is the religion's success tied to the survival of physical space. As long as believers still adhered to the faith, the faith would survive. Second, this adaptation created a religion moved from the more mystical aspects of temple behavior. Regarding a neighbor as a reflection of God firmly plants the religion in the physical and human world.
This necessity of adaptation is further emphasized in
The New Jerusalem. Similar to the Jews, early Christians had to contend with threats to theology. The argument over Jesus' degree of divinity highlights the malleability of religion, as well as the human aspect in its formation. As to be later seen, the Great Schism illustrates the results of an inability to agree on the nature (and goal) of a religion's adaptability.
I also appreciated Armstrong's emphasis on the importance of the human aspect in religious formation. In contemporary times, religion is largely regarded as a static, ancient relic. Principles were defined thousands of years ago with little change. One must remember that religions are reflections (and components) of culture. Individual actors very much affect the development of culture; religion is no exception. As noted, Judaism was formed due to identifiable policy decisions enacted by a select few. On a related note, I was particularly amused by Armstrong's noting that some of Jerusalem's citizens did not regard Jesus as divine, because they knew him since he was a child. Often, people forget that religious stories are often rooted, to one degree or another, in reality.
I also like how she illustrates how beliefs about physical and spiritual spaces change over time. Also I agree, religion defiantly reflects the people and culture that it exists within. We can see how certain festivals and traditions from a religion prior to a new one are kept after given a new name and reason for celebrating throughout history. People have to be able to relate to the messages within the religion.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this book, I have also found it fascinating how religion evolved over time. The Temple, which Jews once died for, became less integral to practicing the faith.
ReplyDeleteI like that you brought up this quote because I think it is strong and i didn't notice it when I read. "Jews would need all their creativity to survive this devastating loss" (Armstrong 155). Creativity I think is an important word here because it means that the religion is forever changing because on different people's thoughts. If a person is creative and can look at religion in a different way, that changes everyones perspective.
ReplyDeleteAlso, at the end of your blog you mentioned an important point saying that we must remember that religious stories are rooted from reality. I totally agree with this, but it is interesting that a lot of religious ideas come from people seeing visions of the divine spirit or visions of g-d, which again makes me think that is nowhere near reality.