Week 5

I thought that Augustine's comments about language were interesting in terms of thinking about the psalms. One thing that intrigued me about our reading of the psalms was how different the translation was from the others I have seen. I think when looking at any religious text that has been translated from its original language, it is important to realize that parts of the meaning can be lost. Augustine points out that in many languages, some words do not directly translate to other languages. While main ideas can be translated, slight implications or connotations can be lost. Unfortunately, sometimes these underlying meanings are important to gaining understanding of the scripture. If the wording in the original language is ambiguous, it becomes even more difficult to get an accurate translation. The psalms are very poetic so it seems that they would be prone to ambiguous language and translation. I think it is important to keep this in mind when reading the psalms. The meaning we are getting from them might be quite different from the meaning the readers would get when reading it in the original Hebrew.

Psalm 128

My first reaction to this Psalm is that it is really pretty. It is very simple and is almost like a "recipe" for happiness. I found the first line interesting right away, that those who fear the Lord and walk in his ways are happy. The idea that fearing God is necessary is interesting. Obviously obeying him is considered necessary for gaining God's favor but to think about it as giving happiness is a slightly different angle. And being fearful of God causing happiness is not something I had thought of before. Enjoying the fruits of your labor, having a family and a home, all of these are, according to the writer of the psalm, things that will make you happy. It reminded me of the part of Geertz's definition that refers to the order of existence. Not only does having a religion (following God, in this case) give an explanation for the world, it makes you happy. If you do what God wants, you will live a happy and peaceful life. If you don't, presumably, bad things will happen to you. This psalm seems to be one of the more instructive of the psalms, a "do this and God will love you and give you blessings" sort of poem. Even the second half, which is the speaker praying for blessings to be given to someone else, seems dependent on the first part.

Week 4, Blog 1

Psalm 92 says in the second verse that it is "good to acclaim the Lord." Many of the psalms of praise urge the reader to shout,sing, etc. to God (e.g. Psalms 66, 96, 98). Worshiping God and giving him glory seem to be expected of the people who read the psalms. This expectation could be considered an ethical guideline.
In general, the psalms do not give specific ethical guidelines. Some do seem to refer to rewards and punishments for obeying or not obeying some sort of moral code. What this moral code actually is, however, is not really specified in the psalms. The guideline of giving glory to God isn't terribly hard to follow, provided one believes in his existence. However, the hints of God condemning those who do not obey him, whether here or in the afterlife (e.g. Psalms 2, 5, 28) might be rather hard for people to accept.
Other parts of the ancient Hebrew texts include many very detailed laws. These are not described in the Psalms but the original readers of them would most likely have been familiar with them. They would have taken the threats of condemnation to be in terms of breaking these laws.
The commands to be worshipful of and thankful to God seem to be part of what we consider to be Christian ethics. However, most ethical commands relating to killing, stealing, etc. are relatively absent from the psalms.

Week 3, Blog 2

It is interesting how many of the psalms have been taken from their original contexts to mean quite different things than the authors intended. The psalms, with much of the ancient Hebrew texts, including the Torah, have been adopted as part of the Christian Bible. Therefore, it is reasonable that in their Christian usage, they would take on Christian meanings and ideas. So much time has passed since the psalms were written that most likely even modern day Jews read them with meanings that differ from the original.
Like much of Scripture, many psalms were likely written in response to events that were occurring at the time. People who read them at the time they were written understood them in a way that is impossible for modern readers. When reading a religious text, people look at it through a certain lens. They have a preconceived framework into which they attempt to fit the text. Especially in modern times, readers want to apply ancient text to their own lives. In the case of the psalms, this can be done, but the original meanings might be lost. Religious writings can be very ambiguous in this way. While a religion as a whole might accept a text as truth and generally read most of it in the same way, different members can derive different meanings from the same writing. And this interpretation can be quite different from the original meaning of the text, especially when the text has been translated from a different language. We all come at everything we read and study with a certain perspective; it is impossible to be entirely objective. This goes for religious texts as well as other things we read. When reading the psalms, we read them with our own ideas of God, ideas which might be vastly different from those of the authors. The tendency to over-personalize the psalms is not a bad thing, it is fulfills the purpose of gaining personal satisfaction from the psalms. However, it does not allow one to read the psalms looking for their original meanings.

Psalm 2

The language in the two different versions of the Psalm is so radically different, it hardly seems like they are the same piece of writing. They were translated from the same Hebrew text but differ drastically. The translation in the Book of Psalms is quite modern while the other is fairly old-fashioned. Overall, the general meaning of the Psalm does not change drastically, but in many places the differences in language create differences in connotation. For example, in v. 2, in the Book of Psalms version, the word "conspire" is used as opposed to the word "consult." These two words mean relatively similar things but "conspire" holds a more sinister and secretive connotation. It is difficult to know what the original author intended.
The place where I notice rather large difference in actual meanings is in v. 1. ("Why rage the heathen furiously?" vs. "Why are the nations aroused?"). Heathens raging furiously and nations being aroused seem like very different things to me. Heathen, in a religious context, especially, is quite different from "nation" which also has it's own unique Biblical connotation.
If I was puritan, I would probably think I was doing alright in obeying God but be worried that I might make a mistake. The writer of the psalm seems to condemn others for their actions and defend/promote himself and his actions. The Puritans were generally fearful of God's wrath and very serious about obeying him. They were often scornful and distrustful of those who did not do the same.

Religion and Theology (among other things)

First, I have to say how weird it is for me to read about places I am familiar with in a book for a class. I live right in the middle of the area that contains effigy mounds. My hometown is just north of Madison and there are many parks in the area that have mounds. As I said in class, almost everyone I know at home has seen an effigy mound. We went on field trips to see them when I was a kid. We were told that out of respect, we should not walk on them. I never drew much significance from their presence. They were just sort of there. The mounds I'm most familiar with are in a state park and are easily overshadowed by the natural beauty surrounding them. I've found it interesting to learn more about the history behind them.
That said, I found the discussion in class about theology and religion to be very interesting. I firmly believe theology and religion to be connected but two separate things. The abstract and spiritual principles that religion is based on are made concrete by theology. In a way, it is theology that takes simple spirituality and turns it into a practiced religion. The theology behind a religion helps to tie its members into a cohesive group . However, religion is more than a set of ideas, on a both a cultural and on a spiritual level. Culturally, religion ties people together in a community. There is a sense of togetherness that comes from more than just theology. Theology, in the end is a set of ideas. People can practice a religion and believe all, some, or none of the theology. People can study the theology and believe it, or not believe it, without practicing the religion. The two are connected and one could not exist without the other, but they are not the same thing.

Week 2 Blog

One difference between the animals in the effigy mounds of Wisconsin and the animals in the cave of Lascaux is simply the types of animals portrayed. For example, in the caves, animals such as bison are more common, while birds are more often seen. This could simply be a result of what types of animals the people who created the paintings and the mounds, respectively, were used to seeing. Also, certain animals have held a cultural and possibly religious significance in Native American culture that can be traced back considerably. For example, bears have held a significance that can be traced back to the Middle Woodland. In the case of the caves of Lascaux, it is unknown whether the animals portrayed held any cultural or religious significance.
Another difference is the way in which animals are portrayed. In general, the animals in the cave of Lascaux are portrayed more literally than those in the effigy mounds. The animals in the effigy mounds are generally abstract. Some, in fact, do not look like animals at all. These may be representations of various spirits or mythical creatures, which also lends to the theory that the creation of the mounds was rooted in religion. Also, while you can stand in the cave of Lascaux and look the paintings and tell what they are, to get a good look at an effigy mound, you must look at it from above.
Our use of animals in the names of sports clubs seems quite different from the use of animals in the building of effigy mounds. Unlike the effigy mound builders, who built mounds representing animals they were familiar with, sports clubs do not always name their teams after an animal that can be found in the area. And, in sports clubs there is no worship of the animal for which the team is named. Respect, perhaps, but no worship. There isn't the spiritual connection to the animal that the mound builders seemed to have.
If religion is a system of symbols, mound building definitely fits into the definition. What are mounds if not some sort of symbol? They are also very permanent and were difficult to build, which suggests that they served some long-lasting purpose. The fact that some of the mounds represented spirits and other supernatural creatures suggests that the mounds are tied to some belief in a higher power or higher order of things.

Blog 2

I find the differences between Timothy Treadwell's fascination with bears and Native American religions/cave painting very interesting.
Many Native American religions involve animals in some way. There is a certain amount of respect for and connection with animals, somewhat like what Timothy Treadwell had. However, unlike Mr. Treadwell, Native Americans who practiced these religions (from what I understand) still viewed themselves as separate from nature and from animals. Sometimes animals were a source of food and there was always a sense of respect and gratitude toward them. In some religions, I believe, people would try to exhibit characteristics of various animals, such as bravery, strength, intelligence, etc. However, there doesn't seem to be the same desire to actually become the animal like Timothy Treadwell did with the grizzly bears. While Native American religions held a certain respect and reverence for nature and for animals, it seems that Mr. Treadwell took this respect a step further in his devotion to the grizzly bears.
Similarly, the cave paintings we discussed in class do not depict humans and animals as equals (like Mr. Treadwell seemed to view them). The only scene to contain a human is one that depicts hunting and the human being attacked by the bison. This shows the relationship between humans and animals as well as a respect for the power and strength of the animals. It does not depict humans and animals as equals.
Timothy Treadwell seemed to have a view of animals and their relationship with people that few others share. The boundary that the rest of us have did not exist for him. Even Native Americans, whose religions often showed a definite connection with nature, have this boundary that Mr. Treadwell seemed to lack.