Blog # 9: Scripture According to Augustine

When reading the book by St. Augustine, I get the idea that he likes to take a very exact, almost scientific approach to the reading of scripture. He explains several specific theories or suggestions for understanding the texts, but the thing that seems of the most importance to him is memorizing them. He suggests this because it will help the reader to achieve eternal salvation, or something like that.

He strongly encourages memorizing the scriptures, saying, "the first rule is...to know these books; not necessarily to understand them but to read them so as to commit them to memory." (pg. 37) I think that for the psalms, this may not be the worst way to go about understanding them. The way the psalms are written, they are not easily understood in a single reading. If a person took the time to memorize at least some of them, it might especially help in understanding those psalms in particular. However, as the quantity of them makes this task rather daunting, it isn't completely practical.

He also suggests comparing different translations or texts in different languages in order to better understand the meaning intended by the original author. I find this to be his best and most practical suggestion. Obviously, it is easier to comprehend the purpose of the scripture when you know how it was to be understood in its original form. He suggests reading the Greek versions, and comparing them to the Latin versions, but I think that as far as the psalms are concerned, reading a translation like the Alter one gives enough notes on the translation that it seems to explain why he chose the wording he did, for those of us that only read in one language.

So, among the numerous ideas that St. Augustine proposes, I think the most useful are memorizing, and comparing translations. Both of these seem to be good suggestions as to understanding scripture, though how practical they are for students like us, is questionable.

Blog # 8: Kinds of Psalms

The psalms seem to serve many different purposes, and are written in many different ways. Some are written directly to God, as pleas for help or forgiveness, or as praise. Others are written about God, or His people. Psalms about God either speak of his wrath, that he loosed on sinners, or about his kindness and forgiveness. When they are about his people, they most often seem to tell a story of when God helped or cursed a community for something they did.

There is an obvious distinction between the psalms written to God for forgivenessor help, and those written to praise him, without asking for assistance or grace in return. The ones asking for help usually show repentance, and say that they deserve forgiveness, because they will be faithful to the Lord forever. "But I am lowly and hurting. Your rescue, o Lord, will protect me. Let me praise God's name in song, and let me extol Him in thanksgiving." (Psalms 69:30-31) The ones that offer their praise to God, which are much less abundant, simply commend Him for the wondrous things that He has done, usually for them personally, like: "You gave me your shield of rescue, Your right hand did sustain me, and Your battle-cry made me many." (Psalms 18:36)

The Psalms that are not written directly to God seem to be written to sinners, chastising them for disgracing Him, and gives examples of God's wrath, such as: "El utters doom each day. If a man repent not, He sharpens His sword, He pulls back his bow and aims it. And for him, He readies the tools of death, lets fly His arrows at the fleers." (Psalms 7:12-14) There are also many that praise God, but are not written to Him, "And He led His people...He guided them safely--they feared not, and their enemies the sea covered. And He brought them into His holy realm, the mount His right hand had acquired." (Psalms 78:52-54)

Of course, these divisions are not mutually exclusive, and most cross between one or two of these categories, and some are outside of these categories altogether.

Blog # 7: Ethics in the Psalms

Most of the psalms do not seem to explicitly mention any sort of ethical or moral code, they seem to more often speak to or about God. When they do mention right and wrong, it is usually what God's peoples' enemies have done that deserves chastisement. There are also a few small sections that mention what people have done to deserve His rewards, which I think qualifies as ethics, or at least some guidelines. It seems that the most important rules to follow as a believer of God are to worship and protect His name, and to keep your heart pure.

Apparently, God's enemies are bad because they do things like: "flung My words behind", "let loose your mouth in evil", or spoken against their brother or slandered against another (Psalms 178:17-20). Most of the wrongs commited by the enemy are acts against God, like praising statues or idols, which they call 'ungods'. "All idol worshippers are shamed, who boast of the ungods." (Psalms 97:7) There are some other faults or crimes that are commited, which more directly affect God's followers: "nations have come into Your estate, they have defiled Your holy temple...They have given Your servants' corpses as food to the fowl of the heavens, the flesh of your faithful to the beasts ofr the earth." (Psalms 79:1-2) This example suggests that it is a crime to disrespect the property, or place of worship of God, or to disrespect his followers.

There are also examples of things that believers should do, though they are fewer and more subtle. It seems that the most important thing to do in one's life is to believe in God, and always praise him. "Happy are those who dwell in Your house, they will ever praise you. Happy the folk whose strength is in You" (Psalms 84:5-6). It may also be prudent to act against those who oppose God. "Each morning I shall destroy all the wicked of the land, to cut off from the town of the Lord all the wrongdoers." (Psalms 101:7) Almost to act as God's soldier, defending His name.

Blog# 6: Violence in the Psalms

Reading the psalms seems very tedious sometimes. Although they are interesting and provide an interesting look at religion, they are also repetetive, and because there are so many, it's hard to read all of them. When I'm reading them, I find that most of them revolve around a fear of God. Many seem to see God as a violent, wrathful being. I find this slightly disturbing.

Some psalms call on God to spite their enemies, the nonbelievers. Others beg for mercy or forgiveness. However, it doesn't seem like many of them speak to God or about Him as a peaceful being. They focus mainly on the angry and dark side of religion. Perhaps this is because people find that subject to be more interesting than peace. Or maybe they find the idea of God to be more useful in those situations.

Many of the psalms praise God's glory, and flatter Him, then ask for his forgiveness or aid in defeating their enemies. It seems to me that this would mean that singing or writing about God's greatness is the best way to get in his favor, not doing good or 'christian' acts. As if God is a selfish being that prefers compliments to people helping others.

However, there are many psalms that do say many different things, and quite a few take a different perspective than the ones I have described. These just are more attention grabbing and memorable, for their violent nature.

Blog #5: Psalm Contrasts

The second psalm from the Bay Psalms is extremely contrasting to the translation by Robert Alter. The Bay Psalm version seems much more hostile and negative, almost a threat to the enemies of the readers. As I read it, it seemed to express that the men who pretend themselves to be rulers of the earth seem to constistently oppose the idea of God. Of course, God laughs at them for having such ridiculous views. The rest of the reading is dedicated to what God said to those kings, how he threatened them to follow his command, or something.

The Alter version is much less violent sounding, even if the meaning is similar. It is still about the kings of the earth that stand together against God, and what he says to them in his anger, to convince them otherwise. Even though it has the same meaning, the wording and tone of this version seems much nicer to read, and doesn't provoke as much fear of God as the other.

As for how colonists might interpret this psalm, there are many ways. The most obvious, they could see the king figure as the ruler of England, whom they were escaping by coming to America. Also, they may have percieved the heathens or non-believers as the Native Americans, and felt it was their responsibility to carry out God's will against these heathens. Either way, it probably wasn't good.

Blog # 4: Misinterpreting History

When historical sites, religious or not, are examined without context, such as the Indian Mounds, they are frequently misinterpreted. The number of times that people studying the mounds jumped to incorrect conclusions was surprisingly high, and even though they had so little information to go on, they continued to project their ideas of what the mounds should be or where they should have come from (the "lost race") onto the sites.

When we consider what future civilizations might find if our race dies out and all thats left is the ruins of modern life, it is very hard to know what they might think. We discussed which of our technologies or everyday items, like televisions, might be the most useful, or helpful in demonstrating the basic principles of our culture. I believe that no matter what future generations find, if they cannot read our literature or there is no other historical recording of our culture, they are guaranteed to come to the wrong conclusions. Unless they are much better at divining the meaning behind crumbling buildings and remnants of objects, they will have as much luck at determining our ideas and beliefs as we have had with the Native Americans.

The idea of learning about an ancient civilization is a very interesting prospect, but when the chances of correctly interpreting the evidence and remains are so slim, it is discouraging. I find it amazing though, how so many people still can examine such small amounts of fossils or other remains, and assume that they can understand so much about a culture from so little evidence to back up their claims. So many people seem to think that they can so easily understand exactly what caused ancient civilizations to function the way they did. Although its frustrating to follow strict science, since the solid answers are so few, its my opinion that it's better to have a few right answers, then many wrong ones.

Blog #3: Animals in Religion

Animals are frequently used as mascots, symbols, and for many other purposes, in and outside of religion. In the cave paintings at Lascaux, they were simply representations of animals that the people may have had encounters with. There was no obvious religious or spiritual meaning. The effigy mounds in the shape of animals, however, clearly do have some furthur significance than the animal that they depict. In addition, the mounds are more in the shape of symbols of animals, whereas the paintings are of the actual creatures as they appear.

As far as animals being used as mascots, that is also very different from the effigy mounds. Sports teams may use the animal mascots to promote their ferocity, or competetiveness, or it may simply be a catchy name. There isn't necessarily special meaning behind the name, or any religious sifnificance. The mounds, being related to burial or other rituals, do represent something more, and are less easily understood.

We know that the Native Americans' beliefs frequently include animals, including stories about ancient spirits or deities that took the shape of specific animals. That may be the main reason that animals are used as shapes for some of the mounds. Plenty of other religions used animals as symbols, but few incorporated them as much as the Native Americans. In our modern culture, animals have become characters with human traits and abilities, due to cartoons and other media. They no longer hold any special significance, and are only used for entertainment purposes.

Blog #2: Grizzly Man vs. The Crocodile Hunter

I found Grizzly Man to be a very interesting film. It obviously caused many different opinions from many different people. I found that although Timothy Treadwell obviously cared for the bears and meant well, he clearly didn't have a grasp on the best way to help them. I disagree that he was completely insane, because in order to survive as much time up there as he did, he must have been doing something right. Perhaps it was the amount of time that he spent up there alone that caused him to become mentally unbalanced. In his film, his interactions with the bears were incredible. I agree that no average person would have the desire to be so close to a wild animal, but I think that he also wasn't the only person to want to experience that.

I think that Tim Treadwell reminded me a lot of Steve Irwin, the crocodile enthusiast. They had very different approaches, but they both shared that same childish enthusiasm, which was what many critics of both pointed out as their downfall, or their lack of professionalism. Irwin also shared the desire to be close to wild animals, though he preferred crocodiles and he took a completely different approach. Irwin interacted with crocs, but when it was outside of his zoo, he clearly realized how dangerous they were, and when he was working directly with a specific animal, to transport it or for medical treatment, he often had help.

Treadwell may not have taken the best approach to helping the bears that he so cared about, but the fact is that he did understand them on a level that we never could. He sacrificed his life to get close to these animals. I respect him for his dedication and effort, but I think that as much as he cared, his desire to know the animals outweighed his desire to help them, and he didn't help them as much as he could have, if he had used a different tactic.

Blog # 1: The Definition of Religion

Religion is a collection of images and ideas that cause powerful acts and feelings in people, through beliefs and opinions about life and making these beliefs so solid and real that the actions or feelings seem differently real.

This translation of the definition of religion by Clifford Geertz seems to me to be accurate as is possible, considering the thing which is being described. I agree with this definition in that religion is seen as the images or symbols that affect a large group of people in a certain way. Religion is not the people that follow it, it is something entirely different. Also, the people who follow these symbols believe in them so strongly, and firmly percieve them to be real, which is faith. That is the key to understanding and defining religion.

However, I also think that religion is a constantly changing and extremely varied thing. It is impossible to completely and accurately define it, so obviously this definition, nor any other, can ever be totally correct. The idea of religion differs among the religious sects, and from person to person within those sects. It is more of an idea that a person can think of or refer to, than a thing that can be clearly defined and explained.