St. Augustine on Christian Teaching Book II

In Book II, St. Augustine spends a great deal of time discussing the idea of symbols and the ways in which we can and cannot interpret them.  She also expresses that ones "fear of God is the beginning of wisdom" and "those who fear God...seek the will of God".  I interpreted this to mean that we must understand that God is a transcendental being, and when we do this we, naturally, will fear God.  This isn't a negative thing however.  It simply means that God holds ultimate power, and we must look to God for help and guidance.  I believe that this idea is differently prevalent throughout the Psalms.  What I got from reading the Psalms is that if we put our faith in God, and follow certain requests (i.e. do good, commit no sin ... ) then God will protect us.  I think this is an idea underlies the basic ideals of most religions.  

Tattoos and Piercings

I know this doesn't have much to do with Psalm 18, however, me and my friend were talking today about how in Judaism it's against "Jewish law" to pierce and tattoo ones body.  People with tattoos and piercings are not allowed to be burried in a Jewish cemetery.  I find this interesting that not getting tattoos or piercing is a test of faith, and respect for religion.  How is personal appearance a test of faith?  Me and my friend then got to talking about how Rabinical law should be adjusted to suite the times.  It's a new day in age, and tattoos and piercings are seen as less taboo then they used to.  I also then got to thinking about the idea that religions can be adapated. 

I think I said this in one of my other blogs too, but i've always been under the impression that religions are set in stone, or that the underlying beliefs that come from religion are set in stone. Because this isn't the case it makes me feel like religion is less solid then i've previously viewed it.  It makes me believe in it less.  So what is religion really?  Is it just something to believe in  to make life seem more interesting?  Is it just something to guide us so we don't feel lost? ...

Psalm 18

As in most of the Psalms, in Psalm 18, God is represented as a healer, and as a guide.  God is very powerful in this Psalm, as he is capable of granting a multitude of various requests.  Of course, these requests come with qualifications, as is expressed in verse 21: The LORD dealt with me by my merit,/ for my cleanness of hands He requited me.  As long as we are free of sin, God will protect us and grant our requests.  Not only does God repay those who do good, but he punishes those who sin.  To me, it kind of seems like God was manifesting himself in the whomever the speaker is.  It is as the he is becoming human and coming down to Earth.  

This is very powerful, and through the humans actions and power he gains from God, we see what it is that God is capable of doing.  For this week's blog, you ask the question: is the image of God as a fighter and aid in battle scary?   I do not think this is scary, rather I see it as a very influence song.  It's as though the message conveyed in this Psalm is, if I am to believe in God, and if I am to follow the proper requirements that keep me from being a sinner, God will grace me with his power and protect me from all evil.  This Psalm gives me the image of God giving me special powers that turn me into Hercules, but I just have a weird imagination. 

Also, to answer the question: is it problematic that elements of this FOd have been borrowed from other religious traditions? my answer is no.  I think every interpretation comes from an influence of some other interpretation.  

Questions about the Psalms

I personally am very confused by the Psalms.  I do not really understand how to read them, or how to interpret it.  It's difficult because I have a hard time identifying the speaker of each song, and I also am unfamiliar with the historical context.  This might sound stupid, and perhaps ignorant, but who wrote all the stories in the Psalms?  How did these stories earn such an authoritative role in the world of religion? These are stories that make up the basis of Christianity.  I just find it interesting how quick people are to believe these stories, and view them as a type of spiritual guidance.  Especially when there are so many interpretations of each Psalm.  

I think it is very interesting that there are so many different interpretations of the Psalms.  I think it says a lot about religion.  When I was growing up, I used to believe that religious views were set in stone.  Raised Jewish, I used to believe that during, what is now called Passover, Moses parted the Red Sea.  I searched online for other stories of Passover and I, unfortunately, couldn't find any.  However, it is interesting because the story of Passover, or Pesach (as it is called in the Torah), probably comes from interpretation as well.

This might sound ignorant of me, but this is not my intention.  I am not a "religious" person, per say, however I would really like to understand what drives people to follow a certain religious belief.  I feel that when faced with multiple translations of the Psalms, I'd question the legitimacy of what I'm being taught.  However, what the knowledge of the Psalms having multiple interpretations has taught me is that religion is all subjective.  Each religious view is carried out based on each individuals personal interpretation.  I, now, feel that religion offers a set of guidelines for us to follow.  How we carry out these guidelines however is entirely subjective.  This is very different from my previous idea of religion, where I believed different religious offered single-minded approaches as to how one should live life.  I see now that this is not the case.

 

Psalm II

A significant difference between the early American translation of Psalm II from The Book of Psalms, and the original version, I noticed is in the tone. The early American version pertains to the early settlers in America, or the native Americans, while the original version pertains more to the Jews.  This is seen via various word choices and punctuation.

The first verse of the translation talks about Heathens, which are people who are unconverted, therefore not occupying any religious views.  The first verse asks why be angry at these people, thus indicating an almost non-religious tone to the Psalm.  In the second verse of the original version of Psalm II, the word "lord", written as LORD indicates not only a religious undertone, but a specific one.  As we learned in class, "LORD" references the Jewish God adonai.  In the second verse of the translation, "lord" is simply spelled "Lord".  While "Lord" is obviously religious, it doesn't pertain to a particular religion.  The translation seems to veer away from Judaic references.  I also noticed the language of the translation is more casual.  

(more to come)

Effigy Mounds

The definition of religion we learned in the class on monday was: 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. 

I think it is really interesting that Geertz says that we must present these symbols with a light of factuality.  In order to form a set of beliefs, or ideas to follow, the only way to legitimize them is to present them in a factual matter.  When reading about the effigy mounds i noticed that everything was presented in this way.  

Is this really an accurate way of presenting religion though?  Nothing is really ever factual, especially not with symbols that date back over 1,000 years.  We have no idea where the mounds came from, or what they truly represent, we can only make educated guesses.  While i do agree that religion should be based around factual observations, this is rather unaccurate.  

I also find it interesting that Geertz explains that the reason we clothes these conceptions with an aura of factuality, is for them to appear to realistic.  This is kind of seems to be suggesting that we must make a personal opinion into a fact, which doesn't make it a fact at all.  So does religion come from a fake place?  Is religion essentially made up?  I think it is.  Of course, this isn't somethign most religious people want to admit, but we really have no evidence for beliefs or rituals.  Well we do, but we don't have evidence that these beliefs are the correct in what they suppose.

Blog 2

Lately, the past three classes have made me think about the distinction between culture and religion.  I kind of talked about this is in my first point, but I think this is a good time to expand on this idea.  From what we've talked about in class, it seems religion is defined by ideas, morals, values, and beliefs, but how is that different from culture?  For example, I was raised Jewish, however I have always defined Judaism as a culture.  Why, I do this, I don't know, and understanding this could probably shed light on a distinction between culture and religion.  In my family, though my parents believe in God, I was never raised being forced to feel this way.  I participated in certain religious ceremonies, such as going to temple on the high holidays, and celebrating Jewish holidays.  I was never Bat Mitzvahed, yet I still consider myself Jewish.  The belief in God aside, I've noticed a lot of similarities and moral beliefs and values among my family and other Jewish people.  I think this is what makes me classify Judaism as a culture.  So I guess, it seems what is making me classify a religion as a religion, is the presence of God, and the presence of a set of beliefs that guide one's life.  Maybe this has nothing to do with Judaism, and more with how my family raised me, but I never felt pressure to act and think a certain way.  

So far, it seems to me that I am using the presence of God to define religion.  As I learn more about various religions, I will  be interested to see if my answer changes.  I am pretty certain it will.  This is a question I will return to frequently.