Saint Augustine

The beginning of Book 2 of Saint Augustine on Christian Teaching I felt related quite a bit to interpreting the Psalms. From page 32 to page 34, he writes about the ambiguity and imagery in scripture and how deciphering that prevents boredom and makes the understanding of it so much more rewarding. Imagery is very powerful, and can make a statement, or warning, or rule mean more. But he emphasized knowing about the subjects or objects of these images and how that adds to the meaning. I think that is a good way to read the psalms. Understanding the significance of the images presented helps the reader understand what the psalms are trying to convey. However, this is obviously geared toward Christians. He writes on page 35, "In the matter of canonical scriptures he should follow the authority of the great majority of catholic churches...he should prefer those accepted by a majority of churches, and by the more authoritative ones, to those supported by fewer churches, or by churches of less authority." Just because the majority of churches accept an interpretation or translation does not mean that it is the right one. Much of the book also centers on how Christians should interpret scripture and the stages they go through to understand. At this point, it wasn't as helpful. That only works if you are Christian. A non-Christian interpreting or trying to understand does not go through this stages and does not feel "the holiness which makes it impossible for him not to admit and submit to the authority of the holy books..." I did, however, think the point about translations would be useful. He said to look at various translations that use the same basic wording to get the idea across, but the different words show the multiple levels of the translated word. The problem with translation is when the word does not accurately portray all that the original word meant. Looking at different translations can provide those multiple meanings. The notes in the Alter Psalm book did this sometimes, with notes about other translations, why a certain word was chosen, or a connotation behind a word or phrase. So some points I thought could be used in interpreting the psalms, however, the emphasis on Christianity and belief in God, I feel, makes it less accessible to some people.

Religion Interpretations

I was looking through religious videos on YouTube, and came across an interview with a man named Reza Aslan. He wrote a book called No god but God. So I looked it up, because I was interested in what it was about. I found a New York Times book review on it, and it reminded me of the psalms. This book is about Islam, the subtitle is The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. The review described how Aslan pointed out a main problem with the interpretation of Islam today, saying
"the notion that historical context should play no role in the interpretation of the Koran -- that what applied to Muhammad's community applies to all Muslim communities for all time -- is simply an untenable position in every sense.''
That reminded me of our talk about the psalms and all the interpretations that can be derived from them. I saw the connection because Alter only used the historical context as notes and in interpreting the translation, but that allows for whoever to read it then to interpret it in their own way. And I would think that most people don't take the psalms literally to apply them to their own time; I don't think there's too much sword fighting still going on. But I think Aslan is making a similar point. I haven't read the book, but I'm going off of this review. One sentence states how Islam has been reinterpreted over the years, "Over the 14 centuries that followed Muhammad's 22 years of revelation, Muslim kings and scholars distorted its tenets to serve their own narrow interests, and then cast these accretions in stone." When the highest people in society interpret something a certain way, I would assume it's a little hard for everyone else to go against that. So then you get people who believe that they're supposed to act a certain way, when that's not really what their religion is saying at all. I think the Psalms have in a sense wiped the slate clean of all previous interpretations and brought it back to the beginning, for it not to be interpreted based on previous biases. I think that is a problem with religion, that people get so set into an interpretation or view, that they don't want to change. And even though the times change, the social environment changes, people are reluctant to alter their beliefs.

"hail and fiery coals"

Psalm 18 presents a very violent, punishing God. This reminded me of our discussion on whether the God in these psalms was a universal god, or the god of a nation. This psalm, like many others, is about God destroying the enemies of the speaker. This one goes a bit further in detailing how God made the speaker (presumably David) strong and swift and a good fighter, and then helped him defend his enemies with his own God-given strength and the might of God behind him. This God is very specific to one person in this psalm. This is the first psalm (that I remember at least) where the enemies try to call out to God, and it says that "He answered them not." So it makes a distinction between the speaker, who had gone on about how he did everything according to what God said and never strayed, and his enemies, who apparently have no hope. A psalm like that is powerful in convincing people to kill their enemies. If it's God's will, he won't help them. There's no reason to feel remorse or guilt for killing people; they weren't worthy to live.

One line stuck out to me as odd. Beginning on line 48, the psalm states, "The God who grants vengeance to me...frees me from my enemies,...from a man of violence You save me." I thought this odd because of the extremely violent nature of God in this psalm. That line gives "man of violence" a bad connotation. Violence is wrong. Yet, the speaker goes into detail about how he crushes his enemies, "smashed them, they could not rise," "demolished them." I'd say that's pretty violent. And this is all with God's help, because the speaker needed saving. But, of course, the idea is that violence is ok because the speaker was going to be killed otherwise.

I think the incorporation of aspects from other religions is interesting. It seems like the writers took images or titles that they liked, that applied well and brought power to their monotheistic religion. Another reason for this, however, may be to alleviate the peoples of those religions, perhaps make them more likely to follow this religion.

Animals in Religion

I've always had a problem with how I thought religion (mainly Christianity because that's the one I've been exposed to the most) thought about animals. I grew up surrounded by cats and dogs, I've had mice, gerbils, hamsters, anoles, hissing cockroaches, and giant millipedes as pets (and probably more that I can't think of). When thinking of what to write for this blog, animals popped into my mind. It seems that early religions have so much to do with animals and the environment, and I feel like now, (well not exactly right now with all the environmental issues, but contemporary) religion gives people a stronger feeling of control and domination over the earth and animals. I don't really like this view, I don't think everything was created for humans, so I looked into it a bit more.

The Paleolithic cave art is basically all animals. Native American religions based their worldview on harmony with the earth and nature. Other traditional or tribal religions that I know of usually are animal or environment oriented. Obviously, their lives depended directly on the environment and animals for subsistence and shelter. So they lived in harmony with the earth and creatures around them. I never got the feeling that they considered themselves owners, rulers, or superior to animals.

On the Humane Society website, there's a list of some religion's official statements on animals. I skimmed through them, and most of what I saw was that the faiths have some guidelines for humane treatment of animals and care for the environment. The statements that were not just excerpts from scripture were mainly from the 21st century. There was one from 1990 and 1996, but the rest were in the 2000's. There became a need for it. We were mistreating the environment, so religions had to make statements against it in order to help. Now, I didn't think that religions said that people could do whatever they wanted to the environment and animals, but I felt like that was implyed a little bit. All I could find on this site were the good things though, which helped my opinion.

This statement I liked:
The 208th General Assembly (1996) approved the following statement, "No part of God's creation has value only in relation to human needs and human understanding…"
-from the Presbyterian Church USA

This one, however, I did not:
"Animals and all other creatures exist for the sake of humankind and may be used to serve human purposes."
-from the Roman Catholic Church

The Presbyterian Church made it less self-interested. My thoughts before were exactly what this was against; I had though that the world religions would consider animals and nature in how much it benefited humankind. So this statement raised my view.
The next one shot it down. I think the statement "exist for the sake of humankind" is dangerous and wrong. Of course, this has to do with me being non-religious in part, but I really do not think everything on the earth exists just for humans. But besides my own opinion, telling people that animals are for them does not seem like a good idea to me. That just makes it so much easier for people to justify cruel actions towards animals, because it is for the good of mankind. And then that leads to destroying the environment for industry and agriculture, no matter the harm to the creatures whose habitats they were.

There were other statements by the Roman Catholic Church that people should live in harmony with all of God's creations, but even so, I think that giving people the view that they are superior to all other creatures can lead to destruction. Why can't we all just be part of this world, and work to live in harmony, without anything "dominating" over another?

Psalm 2

First impression of the Bay Psalm Book's translation of Psalm 2: hard to read. Obviously the language used is different, which fits with the time, but the way it reads is less smooth as the version in The Book of Psalms by Robert Alter.

The line lengths in the Bay translation don't vary all that much. It normally has a longer line followed by a shorter line, but all in all, it's neat and tight. The Alter version is a little more varied and spaced out; each line carries on a thought and the next thought is the next line. In order to keep the neat, tidy sense, the Bay version has completed a thought or sentence in a line and continued to another within the same numbered line. For example, line 4 in Bay has a semi-colon, and goes on. In Alter, whats after the semi-colon is the start of the next line. This happens again in line 7 of Bay. This leads me to think that the Bay version was more concerned with things looking good and following certain guidelines rather than being worried about how well the psalm flows as a poetic writing. From what I know of early American religion, it was strict. I would think that the rhythm and flow of the text wouldn't really matter to them; that was extraneous and would make the psalm into an artistic form instead of it's true purpose, speaking of God. The Alter version doesn't leave out the message, but puts in it a more poetic form so that it can be enjoyed either or both ways.

The word choice is various parts of the Bay psalm stuck out to me as well. In some places, the wording is a lot stronger than the Alter version, but in others, it's weaker. The first line of Bay read much stronger to me. "Rage" and "furiously" compared to "aroused." Also the change of "nations" and "Heathen" struck me as odd. I thought it may have been used because of the strong feelings for heathens or pagans and serve sort of like a warning. When it's used later, in line 8, the "Heathens" are given away by God to the king, making them property. Seeing heathens as property, or something less than humans looks to fit with the thinking of the time. Back to the strength of word choices, there were places, specifically line 3, 5, and 8 in the Bay psalm that did not seem to have the power behind it that the parallel lines in Alter did.

Line 3
Bay - "their cords bee from us throwne."
Alter - "let us fling away their bonds!" (punctuation helps too)

Line 5
Bay - "Speak to them in his ire, and wrath: / and vex them suddenlie."
Alter - "The will He speak to them in His wrath, / in His burning anger dismay them..."

Line 8

Bay - "and of the earth thou shalt possesse / the utmost coasts abroad."

Alter - "the ends of the earth."

Another note is the capitalization of "He," "His," "My," "Myself," "Lord (although it's capitalized once in Bay), and "Him" in the Alter version. In the Bay version however, "King" and "Son" are capitalized. It seems from this that the early view was that the king, the chosen one is very high standing, much closer to God than anyone else. Emphasis is placed on the chosen one, which may align with the thinking of early Americans of the power and status of those kings. In the Alter version, more emphasis is placed on God. He is more distant and hard to reach, and deserves respect and the worshiping capitalization of any pronoun associated with him.

So, to wrap up my thoughts on this, the Bay translation of Psalm 2 chooses neatness and conformity over rhythm and has a king that is so close in relation to God that he deserves to be capitalized. The Alter translation goes for smooth, poetic feel as well as a strong vision of God.

I looked up religion videos on this website TED, which stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and is a really cool website that contains talks from TED conferences by great speakers and intellectuals. This is the page of talks about religion. I didn't watch it yet, but there's a talk by Billy Graham. I've watched Julia Sweeney's video, which is very funny. The other one I watched, and really liked, is Michael Shermer talking about strange beliefs. He is the founder of the Skeptic Society and disproves myths and superstitions, and talks here about why we believe things and don't take into account all of the facts. He includes seeing the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese and the sides of buildings. Also, he plays "Stairway to Heaven" backwards, and when you know what it's supposed to say, you hear it clearly. Although this talk was about strange beliefs, not normal religious beliefs, it made me wonder about that. In Julia Sweeney's talk, she recounted an experience with two young Mormons looking to teach her about their religion. She thought it was crazy, and wondered how anyone could believe it. But then she says that she can't judge. If she was hearing about Catholicism for the first time, she said that she would probably think that it's a little unbelievable as well. But so many people believe. Why? Maybe if everyone understood psychological processes, why we see things that aren't there, why we are prone to believe certain things, more people wouldn't believe scripture, at least so literally. But then again, maybe they would. Maybe some people, even in the face of evidence against them, would believe and have faith. It's something I think I would like to know more about.

Here's the Michael Shermer video from www.ted.com

A System of Symbols: Effigy Mounds

Geertz's religion definition: A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

The effigy mounds of Wisconsin were categorized into the 3 natural realms, air, earth, and water, and then the conical and linear mounds. A theory proposed by R. Clark Mallam says that the "mounds had been built to symbolize and ritually maintain balance and harmony with the natural world." The Native Americans lived off of the land and were closely tied to it; they relied on it for their subsistence and shelter. They shifted with the changing seasons and knew where to obtain food in certain areas and at certain times of the year. They worked alongside nature, not against it. That was the way in which they knew how to live and which kept them alive.

The effigy mounds represent the realms of the Native Americans world. They could not survive without them all. The mounds in the form of animals signified air, earth, and water. Certain animals were attributed to certain realms; these were their symbols. The way in which they presented these symbols and used so much energy to make them into mounds shows their importance. The mounds may serve to show their respect for these realms and, as Mallam says, to maintain harmony with them. This represents their way of life; to respect and work with nature.

Why have religion?

We've been discussing in class ur-religion and the first concepts and ideas about religion. We read about Frazer, who thought that science would eventually replace religion altogether. But obviously it hasn't. Of course, we don't know everything yet, so one could speculate that it could still be possible, but that theory isn't really considered anymore. So why do we have religion? Why did these first peoples come up with otherworldly ideas and beliefs? And why does it still continue so strongly today?

I was raised in a non-religious family, so I feel like I have more of an outsider's view when it comes to religion. Perhaps because of this, I never saw the point. I didn't think I needed a higher power to tell me what I should and shouldn't do. I didn't think I needed someone to pray to in order for things to go my way. That's all I thought religion was, and I didn't understand why everyone believed. Then, in high school, my best friend started going to youth group at a church where some other people I knew went. I felt so left out. I thought it was unfair that I couldn't really be a part of that group because I didn't believe. My friend made a lot of other friends there and had a great support network. This was the first I really thought of religion as a community oriented group. I know people who go to church more for the people than for the service. I speculated in my last post that the primary element of religion was a need for belonging and community. But that can occur in many different types of groups, such as a family, a band, an age group. So why does religion need to come into the picture? Of course, community isn't the only reason religion forms.

I read a book called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I don't agree with everything he says, I don't disagree with everything, but a lot of it made me think. A main part of his argument I was interested in was his claim that we don't need religion, that it actually does more harm than good. I don't remember all of what he wrote, I read it a while ago and I didn't have enough critical reading skills to really analyze what he was saying. I didn't know enough about religion then either. Growing up without one, I had a bias against them because I didn't see the point. As I learn more about them, I see the parts of religion that I hadn't noticed before, the parts that don't seem as crazy to me. But I still think about why we have religion. I've done fine without it. True, I feel like I would enjoy the sense of community from it, but that comes from my personality. Sometimes I think it would've been easier for me to interact with people and have a network of friends if I had been part of a religion. But I could've gotten that from many other places; sports, school, volunteer groups, anything else where you hang out with people. It has nothing to do with me not having a religion, just how I am.

So, individually, I don't need religion. But maybe humans as a species do? I don't know. I don't know if we will ever know. Just something to think about.

Paleolithic Art and Religion

Every form of religion has a component of community. There's the individualistic part of it, but that's not always defined as religion, but spirituality. I think the primary element of religion is a feeling of belonging, of connection to each other. We feel like we are connected to other people, to nature, to all of life and the universe, but don't quite know how to explain that. In the reading on Paleolithic Art and Religion, group activities were mentioned and the sense of connecting with nature and the netherworld. People could have done that individually in actuality, but for some reason, the idea that some rituals must occur in groups comes about and has existed ever since. The images painted in the caves and the ritual meanings themselves are obviously important and have some significance. But I think that religion in it's basic form comes about from a need to belong and be connected with people in the community. It is a way to be involved that gets everyone working together and brings people closer by sharing beliefs. From there comes the meaning associated with rituals and material objects and all the other elements that are associated with religion.