St. Augustine

St. Augustine mentioned several points that people need to use in order to analyze and understandscriptures. One of the points that he mentions is to know the language(s) in which the text was written and to be well familiarized with the symbolism embedded in some terms. Certain terms have different metaphorical and hidden meanings in different languages. Using a specific language, people can identify key words used in figurative expressions, which may shed light on the idea it is trying to address. Without knowing the concepts or places the word symbolizes, the text may seem unintelligible. A snake in a passage of a text could be taken literally instead of figuratively. Zion could be interpreted as a city instead of Mount Zion (Israel).

Important metaphors or analogies could hide the true meaning of the Psalms. This point could help interpret the Psalms. In the Psalms a few passages refer to
God dominating a sea monster. I was puzzled after reading these because I assumed it referred to a shark of which people were afraid because of an accident that happened to them. But then I read the footnotes, which clarified its significance. The sea monster was an idea from canaanite religion/mythology that was incorporated into the Psalms. Without being familiar with these words that have hidden meanings, then I would not have understood those Psalms. Several of the Psalms contain metaphorical expressions, such as pit, Leviathon, lyre, etc. that would have remained mysteries if people had not studied the language and the meanings attached to them.

Psalms: God and Nature

I think that the Psalms strategically incorporate God into nature in some passages. It is a way of juxtaposing the two so that the readers can put into perspective that one is above the other in power. For example:

“His is the sea and He made it, and the dry land His hands did fashion…” 95:5

“… and He turned their rivers to blood, their currents they could not drink.” 78:44

"He blasted the Sea of Reeds, and it dried up, and He led them through the deep as through wilderness." 106:9

It makes God look like such an incredibly powerful, creative being. He created it and the earth is his possession, which he granted to humans. Especially the Psalms that illustrate how he has the ability to manipulate his creations magnifies his position in the world, which is higher than that of humans. As a result, he can inspire fear and respect in his followers, which in turn motivates them to comply with his principles. If they disobey, they will experience disasters. If they obey, they’ll experience prosperity and help as in the form of water (which is essential to life) coming from rocks.

The Psalms involving nature are similar to paintings that use hierarchic scaling. Hierarchic scaling is depicting people in an artwork a certain size which corresponds to their importance in society, to a group, or the artist himself. In the Psalms, a verbal form of hierarchic scaling is used. The Psalms depict God as an omnipotent being that controls nature resulting in fortune or chaos for humans. In a painting, God would be the dramatically larger person because he has absolute control over nature; humans would be the smaller subject in the painting because they depend on God’s will. This strategy helps people or his followers understand his power while functioning as a tool that inspires both fear and respect.

Week 4- Ethics

I see the Psalms as a reflection of the ethics God believes his followers or the people of Israel should follow. They should be honest (15). They should keep their promises and be genuinely truthful. They should not harm other people physically or verbally (15). People shouldn’t betray their friends or allies. People should be humble (37). If they commit evil deeds, then they should repent and accept their punishment (51). Breaking these morals is evil and evil creates more evil (7). In short, people should try to be innocent.

If they refuse to live like this then, then they have to face the consequences which may come in the form of illness, suffering, and other misfortunes. However, people don’t necessarily follow those morals because it is the “right” thing to do. I think that they apply the ethics to their lives out of fear. Several passages in the Psalms refer to God’s rage. The only way to avoid being harmed or even destroyed is to follow the ethics.

In addition, it is very convenient to obey these morals. God grants people protection from suffering. He also protects them from the enemies, which are people who don’t follow the ethics in the Psalms. But this convenience undermines another important moral: to “give free of charge” (37). People aren’t really living their lives selflessly because they have in mind the prosperous future that awaits them for behaving in such manners. God promises them that he will grant their desires and that they are the heirs of the Earth for following these morals. It is a livable ethic, but there is a tinge of hypocrisy caused by the fear of God and his desireable promises.

From what I know about Christianity, I think that Psalms’ ethic is very similar to it. They resemble closely the Ten Commandments. For example, “Thou Shalt not lie” is basically the same as the deceitful will stumble in the Psalms. However, the Psalms, I think are not very specific in some cases. They are more general. For instance, it says that you shouldn’t betray an allies but that isn’t very specific because there are several forms of betrayal such as lying and murder. I think that they are very much alike.

I think that the Psalms are missing something. Instead of focusing on God and how they will anger him for the wrongdoings they commit on earth, they should have focused on why it is wrong to harm others for example. The Psalms are missing the purpose of applying this ethic, which allows them to understand that people shouldn’t harm others because they have feelings as well. I’m sure people understood that but in the Psalms the emphasis was more on divine punishment.

Psalms

Despite the minor flaws in the Psalms, I enjoyed reading them so far because they reveal cultural and spiritual aspects of the historic time period in which they were written. One of the aspects that I disliked was their repetitiveness. Most of the Psalms convey the same meanings but in slightly different ways. A lot of them involve supplications; the character or narrator begs for forgiveness because of a sin they committed. Perhaps the difference among these types of Psalms is the historical context because they many of them are about different events. I was also puzzled after reading the first few because I’m not familiar with the Psalms and I was expecting them to be more positive. I was surprised that a lot of them instead referred to the wrath and fury of God toward humans. I expected them to place more emphasis on praising or glorifying God’s greatness and benevolence than on fearing him. I also found surprising that the people in the Psalms actually wish other people harm and even death; they pray to God that he eliminate them because they sinned. But then when they themselves sin, they beg for forgiveness and mercy, which I found somewhat ironic.

On the other hand, I like the Psalms because they reveal some of the cultural and spiritual characteristics of the time period in which the Psalms were written. A lot of them talk about the events taking place like warfare, plagues, and prosperity. This indicates that perhaps they lived during turbulent times. Perhaps that turbulence motivated other people to find solace in God. Also, because some of the Psalms refer to a lead person or a group, they imply that they were possibly intended for a group to setting so that they could sing or read them together. Therefore, congregations were part of their culture.

In the Psalms, you can easily see signs of spirituality. The people who wrote or read the Psalms obviously had some kind of close relationship with God. They turn to him for guidance and help in times of need. They also feel compelled to respond to him for their wrongdoings; tbey consider him so important they ask him for forgiveness. In addition, they portray notable figures from Christian history in such a way that they seem like role models. For example, David sinned and repented. His action and response could have influenced people to apply that to their spiritual lives. It seems that people then had a strong relationship with God because they placed so much trust in him because they continued obeying and respecting him even in during adversities. They did not reproach him for their plight. They Psalms indicate that to them it was important to maintain the relationship with God. This aspect makes reading the Psalms more interesting. They are not just poems, but historical events that reveal the culture and spirituality of that era.

Psalm 2

I think that the 2nd version of Psalm 2 is written better than the one in our book. The one in our book is easier to read; the organization and selection of the words gives it clarity. To me this version emphasizes the readers and humans more than the other version; the sentences end with “you” or “they/them.” For example, “Be chastened, you rulers of earth,” and “the Master derides them.” It also focuses more on fearing God instead of revering him. Moreover, it has words with multiple syllables, rendering it less powerful when spoken because you say the words not necessarily more slowly but it extends the sentences so much that it loses some of the emotion involved. It makes sound awkward as well. In addition, it lacks a pattern that could make it sound more poetic.

Although the 2nd version is harder to read, it has more emotion. Each line has about the same number of syllables, which makes it flow better when read. In addition to fear, this version includes the word reverence, which arouses respect for God. In addition, the parts of the psalm that appeal to the emotions and demonstrate the power of God are written with single syllable words. I don’t know how to explain but I just think that words with one syllable have more passion or power when spoken together. The words are spoken not quickly, but one right after the other. Therefore, to me this version of pslam 2 emphasizes the passion within it. Moreover, some of the lines end with “I will.” These words are the ones the reader will remember the most because they are at the end. Also, they are part of the main clause, which carries the most emphasis. As a result, the readers will recall the emphasis on what God promises to his loyal followers.

The colonists would interpret it almost literally. A part of the Psalm, God states, “… thou fhalt poffeff the utmoft coafts abroad.” The colonists in this time period have just arrived and are adjusting to this country that is already inhabited by the Native Americans. Reading this Psalm would comfort them that as long as they follow God, then God would give them this country. Thus, the colonists could justify the removal of the Native Americans from their land because they are not followers of God. Applying the psalm to their situation, they would probably think that the Native Americans are being disloyal to God, which means that he will unleash his rage upon them. This perspective would probably be stronger among the Puritans who strongly believe in predestination; they probably think the New World is theirs because God had already decided it. Basically, this Psalm would allow the colonists justify their actions and their claim for the New World.

Theology and Religion

Theology adds to the understanding of religion, but it is not necessary to understand it. Theology provides the followers with the underlying principles embedded within their chosen lifeway. They would understand the purposes of their rituals and other customs. For example, a person with a background in theology would see God not only as a supreme being who created the universe, but also the force that motivates the people to abide by his principles.

Moreover, theologists can make a connection between religion and the larger society. With such knowledge, they would be able to see the direct and indirect effects of religion. For instance, people familiar with theology could say that certain religions dissuade its followers from rebelling in the political arena because there religion endorses its followers to conform to the status quo. In short, they would probably view religion as an institution connected to the larger society.

Although theology broadens one's perspective, I don't think that an understanding of theology is required to understand religion. I'm sure that thousands of people worldwide can comprehend and practice their own religions without knowing any of the concepts and terminology of theology. Theology is knowledge whereas religion is knowledge blended with faith in beliefs that explain one's existance. It's similar to the position of any human within a culture. They do not need to understand anthropology to understand that they have traditions, customs, and beliefs that serve specific purposes. Religion also evokes strong feelings that motivate people to continue devoting their lives to it. Thus, comprehension of religion does not depend on understanding theology.

Week #2

The animal shaped mounds found in Wisconsin differ greatly from the animal paintings in the Lascaux caves. The animal paintings and carvings in the Lascaux caves do not seem to symbolize much of their religion, if they had one. Very few ideas can be inferred from them. All that is evident from them is that perhaps these were the animals they encountered in their daily lives. They could also have been the animals that endangered their existence as is depicted in the drawing of the bull attacking the stick man. They could also have been or the animals they hunted in order to survive. A possible function for them was probably to pass on stories of what happened to some of the members of that group of people. It is impossible to conclude that these drawings had any spiritual meanings however. Perhaps they only show a glimpse of their culture, which revolved around animals since they probably relied on them in order to survive.

In contrast, the animal shaped mounds are symbolic of the culture of the Native Americans. Different mounds represent the upperworld (sky), the earth (lowerworld), and water (lowerworld), each corresponding to different animal shaped mounds. This shows that they had some kind of religion and culture. For example, they believed that harmony with nature was important. Therefore, they where there were bird mounds, there were a few panthers, representing the lower world. They also had beliefs associated with the different animal shaped mounds. The water spirits, for instance, lived in the water, capable of harming but also blessing only if they offered it something. In addition, because different animals represented certain clans, they felt motivated to maintain some kind of balance as well since they represented opposing animals (i.e. bird and lizard). Thus, their mounds (symbols) provided them with an explanation for life that motivated (moods and motivations) them to apply their beliefs to their lives by performing certain acts (religious behaviors). They have meanings unlike the animal paintings in the caves of Lauscaux.

The animals associated with sports team are very different from the animal paintings in the caves and the animal shaped mounds. In sports, they serve as symbols that represent a particular team similar to how one animal represented a tribe. Neither the public nor the teams worship them. Although they serve no spiritual purpose, they may motivate their region to support them since sports involves competition. However, some people may express intense zeal toward their favorite team. Unlike the mounds, they do not provide an explanation for their existence. Sports symbols and animal shaped mounds served different purposes and had different meanings.

The Grizzly Man

The Grizzly man failed at his mission in life because his beliefs about bears were inaccurate. He believed that bears are harmless creatures that are misunderstood. As a result, he began promoting awareness of this issue. Although it is a noble cause, he crossed the boundary between humans and animals.

There were several flaws in his way of promoting awareness. Crossing the boundary put the bears at risk. If they became habituated to humans, they would begin to approach them more, exposing humans and themselves to danger. In addition, he treated the bears as though they were domesticated animals that could understand human emotions. His behavior communicated to the viewers and children whom he lectured that it is not dangerous to approach and pet a bear. He probably did not consider the fact that bears have less advanced cognitive abilities and have instincts that could put humans at risk. He probably did not understand that bears have dramatically different ways of life than humans; therefore, it is impossible to adapt to their lifestyle in order to prove his point. Finally, his death undermined his efforts; it supported the idea that bears can be life-threatening.

Definition of Religion

Religion is a way of life, guiding its followers with meanings embedded in historic texts, or important abstract ideas or insignia. These meanings tend to give people a purpose in life, which motivates them to abide by certain set of ethical or behavioral standards. Because it shapes their life, people experience it in different ways. In general, their worship and actions lead the followers to the fulfillment of the ultimate goal of their way of life.

I agree with Clifford Geertz’s definition of religion because it is broad, encompassing the characteristics of all religions. It includes the characteristics religions have in common. For example, they all worship different symbols, which carry different meanings. Because it is broad, it does not discriminate between religions; it does not say that some religions are right or wrong; or good or bad. In other words, it is unbiased, eliminating discrimination. As a result, it can be used to evaluate every religion.

I also agree with fact that he excluded the idea of blind faith. I think that blind faith means believing in something without having tangible evidence that proves it exists. Not all people have blind faith in their religions. For example, the Protestants in Weber's book did not always of have faith that they were among the selected. Because of their uncertainty, they felt motivated to find an indicator of their status. To them, wealth became the sign of grace or salvation. They resorted to finding something tangible to prove the faith they had in salvation. Therefore, they did not have blind faith in that aspect of their religion.