Augustine and Psalms

A point that could be used to interpret the Psalms from Augustine's On Christian Teaching is the whole point about signs. Signs are essentially like symbols in the sense that they stand for something else, or rather divert the attention on themselves to elsewhere. Signs "cause something else besides themselves to be known from them" (30). I feel that this point of signs from Augustine could be used to interpret the Psalms because I think that if one wants to better understand the Psalms, one must understand that many of the words used are signs themselves. The words of the Psalms are the "signs by which people communicate their feelings to one another concern[ing] the eyes" (31). These words in the Psalms are signs that signify something else besides themselves, so to understand them better is to perhaps try and understand what they signify first. I feel that if one were to understand what these words mean or signs signify that it would help one in the process of interpreting the Psalms. If these words, which are written signs, used in the Psalms brings something else to mind other than itself, then understanding the new concept brought to mind would help in understanding the original concept. That original concept is the Psalm itself so the usage of signs would eventually be helpful in the process of interpreting the Psalms.

Post2Week4

So last class we talked about the Psalms and Earth Day and how they related to one another. Having had some time to think about their relationship some more I began to really become blown away by it. I assume that Earth Day has not been around that long and that it was only just recently created in the past few tens or hundreds of years. And then, the Psalms are something that are quite ancient and old. I assume them to have been around for as long as the religion itself has been around. My guess is that this is from hundreds to thousands of years. I find it amazing that the concept of Earth Day has been around without ever acknowledging it with an official name. This is shown by the various Psalms that relate to Earth Day like things. It is almost like an insight into the future by the Psalms about such a day as Earth Day.
One of the Psalms that we looked over in class was Psalm 104. This basically was the Earth Day Psalm if anything. I notice now that much of the Psalm talk was about circles or something cyclical. Relating this to Earth Day I found that it too was about circles or rather cyclical things. The whole idea in Psalm 104 about lions and man taking turns in the night and day, respectively, to hunt was the main cyclical idea. I see this cycle as a circular thing because it repeats about everyday and well the Earth is just about a circular shape as well. But really, the whole idea of a cycle brings me to the whole Earth Day cycle that is Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. The Psalms in the Book of Psalms that correspond to Earth Day are quite cyclical as is the concept of Earth Day nowadays. And then of course, at Lawrence, there is supposedly an all day Earth Day event going on, during the day which is the time that man goes out to work and labors. All of this is quite amazing to me because it all just cannot be a coincidence that they relate to one another even though they are from different times.

Ethics and Psalms

So when I think about ethics I think of a system or a code by which to follow because of the principles that it entails morally. And now when I think of Psalms I think of short stories or passages like poems or songs that are very similar to prayers. That then of course links me to thinking about prayers which to me are a form of communication between oneself and God spiritually. Going back to ethics, I of course see many things about ethics within the Psalms.
One Psalm that I would like to bring up is Psalm 37. Right away the Psalm establishes an ethical stance which includes:
"Do not be incensed by evildoers. | Do not envy those who do wrong." (Line 1)
"Trust in the LORD and do good. | Dwell in the land and keep faith." (Line 3)
"Direct your way to the LORD. | Trust Him and He will act, | and He will bring forth your cause like the light, | and your justice like high noon." (Lines 5-6)
"Let go of wrath and forsake rage. | Do not be incensed to do evil." (Line 8)
I would have to say that the ethical stance reflected in this book includes being right and just. One would need to trust and follow God for it is the principle of ethics. One should not associate in any way shape or form with the evil or the wrong but rather the good and the right in order to be ethical. I see this Psalm to say that to be ethical one must stand his ground righteously and not sway to the forces of the evil and wrong. Ethical is then in a sense synonymous with right and just and faithful to God.
And of course this is an ethic that is very livable. I mean what is wrong with being right and just? Absolutely nothing! I see myself as a nice and right and just person for the most part so I would then be an ethical person as well. I think that I "let go of wrath and forsake rage" because I see myself as a pretty laid back and tolerant person. Since I am still living as well as many other who share this ethical stance, this is very well a livable ethic. This is very much comparable to the ethnic that I associate with Christianity and Judaism. I see the people of Christianity and Judaism to be people who are right and just because they follow God and put their faith in Him. I see them as having more of a reason to be right and just because they follow God and therefore have much graver consequences if they don't. Also, the ones that I have encountered have been extremely nice that make me feel not so nice in comparison.
However, one can and may be quite nice, right, and just without being a follower of God. So yes of course I feel like something is missing because nothing is perfect. These Psalms always speak about the LORD and being right and just and not being incensed to evil but to put your faith in God. What about those of us who don't believe in or follow a God or Gods that are still right and just and not incensed to evil?

Post2Week3

Yes! I love the fact that some of Will Martin's blog posts are on Yu Yevon in the world of Final Fantasy X. The entirety of that game's story line is still a bit fuzzy to me because I have yet to entirely play through it all. However, it is quite a populous game among my friends that we talk about it here and there when talking about video games, so I pick up patches of the story line here and there. The way Will Martin describes the religion of Yu Yevon in Spira of the Final Fantasy X game is very well done. I don't think that I could have described it that accurate or detailed. What I would like to focus on is this whole of idea of 'Sin,' the physical embodiment of the sinners of Spira.
Rereading some of the Psalms that we were told to reread from last class, Psalm 23 caught my attention after I read Will Martin's blogs. It seemed as though Psalm 23 was talking about 'Sin' if not from the point of view of 'Sin.' The whole idea of lying down and being guided by the waters fits 'Sin's' description quite well because 'Sin' is basically kind of like a whale like creature. Like Will Martin said, when a summoner and his guardian sacrifice themselves to try and appease the beast, he only goes away for ten years before he returns to wreak havoc and another summoner and his guardian must sacrifice themselves again for ten more years of peace. Also, Yu Yevon turns out to be evil or something, at least against you, because in the end you have to fight and defeat him.
It is like Psalm 23 says, 'My life He brings back' because there is really no way to kill off 'Sin' for he just keeps coming back. And then in the end of Psalm 23 it says, 'And I shall dwell in the house of the LORD / for many long days.' This is like 'Sin' dwelling away for ten years during which is known as 'the Calm.' I sort of see this Psalm 23 as the speaker or the writer being 'Sin' which would then make him a creature of and for the LORD. I know that this is perhaps an entirely different way to interpret the Psalm but it is certainly plausible. What I mean by this is what is thought of as being 'good' could very well be 'evil' and vice versa because it is all about perspective, whichever point of view that you are coming from.

Psalm2

The translation of Psalm 2 from the Bay Psalm Book varies greatly from the same Psalm in our translation. The first and foremost thing that I noticed while reading through it was how the letter 'f' was actually an 's' at some times. This however was something that I eventually got used to so it did not bother me quite so much. And then of course the main difference between the two different works is the various uses of words and their meanings based on the emphasis that is felt from them. It feels like the translation of Psalm 2 from the Bay Psalm Book is more aggressive and angry with its word choices. In the very opening lines, our translation of Psalm 2 uses words such as aroused and murmur. These words are more passive and laid back when compared to the words used in Psalm 2 from the Bay Psalm Book such as rage, Heathen, and furiously. Our translation of Psalm 2 feels like a soft spoken plea towards those who are non-believers in God to believe in God for there will be shelter for those who believe in Him. The translation of Psalm 2 from the Bay Psalm Book feels to be on the angry side towards the non-believers of God as if to smite them.
Now, how might this Psalm 2 from the Bay Psalm Book be interpreted in 1640 by colonists in North America? I feel that maybe with the aggressive word choices used at the time, the colonists would feel very strongly about the words and the Psalm. The believer in God colonists would interpret this Psalm to say that they are quite safe and they will be sheltered by Him since they believe in Him. They would however feel quite resentful towards the non-believers in God colonists as well as the 'savages,' the Native Americans, because obviously the colonists would believe that they would not have known and believed in God. They would then feel obligated to spread the religion of their God or suffer for not fulfilling their duty as followers. This Psalm could also have very well been interpreted back in 1640 by colonists as something that says either believe in God and be sheltered or else suffer his wrath, so perhaps the colonists believed in God in fear if anything.

Post2Week2

I do not know quite exactly how to phrase this but it seems to me that nowadays religion is losing its influence over people. What I mean by this is something along the lines of how the level of respect for religion appears to have dropped over time. It appears to me that the respect and tolerance level for the various and numerous religions out there has diminished to the point where some religions are no longer respected as much as they used to be. It is as if they are now out-dated and the new and modern religions are taking over. I see this as something that says that those religions never really ever mattered even then because now they do not matter so much.
This is apparently shown through an example about the effigy mounds. Because of the way of how some of the effigy mounds are nowadays, I see it as something that may or may not be disrespectful to them. I feel that maybe assuming some things about them for the sake of religion is wrong. What I mean by this is the whole idea about how these effigy mounds are something religious when some could potentially be completely free of religion. And so of course, assuming religious ties to these Indian mounds, they may or may not be disrespected depending on what the religion itself was like. I would just like to point out the fact about trying to preserve these effigy mounds and turning them into tourist sites. I see this as an exploitation of that particular religion whether it may or may not be wrong.
I understand that there is a mass amount of history among these mounds that should be learned, but I feel that perhaps this may just be against what the religion stands for. One thing I would like to point out is the fact of outlining these various effigy mounds in gravel to accentuate the figure of it when viewed from the sky. This may very well be a sort of vandalism against the effigy mounds depending on the religion. Another thing is the fact about trying to preserve these effigy mounds. Some are indeed fascinating and they are something in our history that we all should learn about. However, what if the whole idea of the preservation of these mounds is actually something that is against what they stand for, what the religion stands for? I mean these mounds could very well be meant to not be noticed or exploited in a touristy fashion nor were they meant to be altered in any way, shape, form. I feel that knowledge is a must but it must be gone about in such a way so as to not disrespect or disturb anything.

Animal Representations

I think that going about these various animal representations in a religious way makes sense in a religious studies course. And well of course these representations of animals could have been for religious purposes, however we have no idea what was going on at that time. These various animal representations could have no relationship to anything religious at all. I think that as a religious course we are looking for the religious connections in everything, but everything doesn't need to be religious. And there may well be things that we look closer at that are indeed not religious at all whether we know it to be or not. I think that not everything has to be religious at all.
These representations of animals whether they are mounds, paintings, or names of sports clubs may have nothing religious about them at all. True they are symbols of some sort so according to Geertz, this is religion. I do believe that these animal representations "established powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations," however, symbols are things that represent other things. However, what they represent may or may not be religious. These activities in the past, the mounds and the paintings, could have been just for the fun of it with no religious intentions at all. These days we have so much technologies to occupy our time with so perhaps this was their way of passing time in the past since they had no such devices as we do now.
The animal representations in sports clubs today are indeed symbols, but I see these symbols representing nothing religious at all. I see the example of the Chicago Bears as an excellent one. I believe that the bear for the Chicago Bears is a symbol that represents strength which is nothing religious at all. The bear is a big animal, so this sports team being the bears says that they, the players, are big as well which is true and has no relation to being religious at all. I think that there may not be any religious significance in the representations of animals because what they are used for to represent are mainly the specific traits and characteristics that the particular animal represents.

Post2Week1

So one of my other classes that I have this term is Expressions in Ethnicity. It's pretty much like Intro. to Religious Studies because it's basically a discussion class. Well I find that ethnicity is something that is rather difficult if not impossible to define. It's kind of like defining religion, rather difficult if not impossible. Well ethnicity and religion are rather difficult to define at this point because I just began these classes and they are issues that I don't really think about.
Anyways, during discussions in my ethnicity class I was reminded about my religion class because just about the same issue came about. The issue was during a discussion where we were trying to define what ethnicity or ethnic is. It was pretty much like trying to define what religion is. Well, one of the many things that ethnicity and religion share when discussing them or rather trying to define them involves the need of a group in order to be considered and defined as an ethnicity or a religion. The question was whether or not you could be your own ethnicity just like whether or not you could have your own religion. It's been concluded in religion class and ethnicity class that you cannot have your own religion nor be your own ethnicity.
I see this as something that says people don't like or are afraid of the unknown and different. It seems that nowadays there is no more room for new things so everything gets pushed into the already existing categories. So far I have no real problem with this because well there hasn't really been anything that has proven this method wrong, but perhaps it should be something that is flexible with room to grow should the need ever arise. So far everything has pretty much worked out as defined, ethnicities and religions exist in groups and they seem to only exist in groups. Many things that exist as groups are still able to exist as individuals though, so perhaps these sorts of things that only exist in groups because of definition were created just so there may be groups to have no matter what.

Definition of Religion

Okay so what I understand from Clifford Geertz's definition of religion is that religion is a system that establishes in mankind's mind ideas and feelings about being. This system of religion has those ideas and feelings coated in such a way that those ideas and feelings will appear to be realistic to mankind.
It would appear so then that this system called religion feeds mankind ideas and feelings that are apparently real(istic). I would like to point out the key word "apparently" in the last sentence, which is the "seem" in Geertz's definition. As far as I can tell I basically agree with Geertz's definition of what religion is. I see it too as a system of stuff that does stuff for people. Going back to what I was getting at earlier, Geertz using the word "seem" catches my attention because I take it to mean that those who have taken up a certain religion would see that religion as true but in actuality it may very well be false. However, I will say that using the term "seem" makes it so that it leaves it open to the interpretations being that these things, religions, may be real(istic) and true or made up and false. Religions then appear to be real(istic) and true and may in fact be real(istic) and true but the possibility of it being false exists as well. Geertz sees things from both sides which I prefer rather than the views from people of their respective religions because I usually find that for them things have to be a certain way, theirs.
I would then like to say that I see myself as an agnostic/atheist, for a lack of better terms or whatever the case may be be it unsureness or confusion or misunderstanding. It is this apparentness about religion that makes me doubt the whole idea of it and be so hesitant about turning to a particular religion. However, I would also like to point out that I refer to Shamanism as sort of my religion because of family, and on a larger scale culture. I sort of follow this certain religion because my family follows it so I was raised with influences of it here and there. Which leads to a point about maybe why people follow a certain religion or not and I would just like to bring it to your attention. Perhaps people follow a certain religion or not because maybe it is sort of like a familial thing, just staying constant (and perhaps blindly too) with generation to generation.