Week 5 Prompt Blog: Point of Interpretation

In Book Two (sections 105-109) of his work, On Christian Teaching, St. Augustine speaks of the significance of history and specifically chronology to understanding and interpreting Christian text. He uses several examples which include the misconceptions of the age of Christ at his death and the relationship between Platonic ideas and Christ’s teachings to support this significance. The point that St. Augustine ultimately makes regarding the interpretation of Christian texts is that in order accurately understand events or ideas depicted in religious texts, we must know which historical events or ideas preceded or surrounded the writing of those texts.

This point is especially pertinent to the Psalms, considering both their historical and abstract nature. Many of the Psalms refer to specific historical events, often major events in the history of the Hebrew people. A modern day reading of these Psalms will mean little without a knowledge of these events and the order in which they occurred. While this is true of a lot Christian text, it is especially pertinent to the Psalms because of the abstract way in which these events are mentioned. Unlike other portions of both Hebrew and Christian texts which give clear recounts of historical events (which explains why these texts are so highly valued as historical documents), the Psalms refer to historical events through metaphors and personal comparisons of the struggles or joys that characterized these events. Because of this, it is very easy for a reader unfamiliar with Hebrew and Christian history to miss these references in the Psalms even though they are often integral to understanding the use or context of the texts. Additionally the cries of need for God and the Thanksgiving found in the Psalms make often surround historical events, and knowing an individual Psalm’s chronological relation these events is necessary to really understand the Psalm.

week 4 Free blog: conceptions of the natural world

Nature and natural phenomena are used throughout the Psalms to illustrate God’s power. The vivid natural depictions of Psalm 104 present a portrayal of a God who rules over all the Earth and all its creatures. However, this Psalmist takes a very interesting approach to God and the natural world by drawing very close parallels (and even mixing together) examples of how God provides for man and animals needs alike. This approach seems much more naturalistic than more modern religious depictions that suggest a hierarchy of God above man above animal. Verses 21-23 “The lions roar for prey they seek from God their food. When the sun comes up, they head home, and in their dens lie down. Man goes out to his work and to his labor until evening.” depict animals calling to God and behaving in the same way that man does. This differs greatly from modern religious belief, which tends to shun any notion of animal spirituality.

It seems clear from the vast natural depictions in the Psalms that the Hebrews valued the beauty of nature and saw it as a testament of their God’s power. Their texts suggest that additionally, nature is dependent on God- in a way that is in tune with his will. Why then has time changed Western religious views of nature to an entity separated from God and spirituality and that only God and man have a special spiritual bond that extends beyond life? I believe the advances in the natural sciences may be involved in this apparent shift. As we become able to explain natural phenomena, they may seem to be somewhat separated from the mysterious and very present hand of God that the Psalms depict. Today, especially in Christian tradition, the closest connection people see to God is through prayer and miracles, two phenomena that cannot be explained. I think this interpretation is fitting with the ancient tradition of man attempting to understand and explain the mysteries of his world through God.
The irony, I think, is that the incredible beauty and complexity of the science of our world is not appreciated more in modern western religious thought than it was by the Psalmists.

Week 4 Prompt Blog: Ethics of the Psalms

The vivid literary imagery employed in the Pslams is what makes them so powerful; however, this imagery can also make it difficult to pull away clear messages without having to decipher them. Much of the ethical teaching of the Psalms is communicated through personal reflection to God, or personal praise of God, and from that we see an ethical stance develop.
This ethical stance is cearly rooted in Judaism. In Psalm 18, the author recieves God's aid in a dire time of need and then goes on the explain why he was saved. In verse 23 he refers to his keeping and upholding of God's "laws" and "statutes". These laws and statutes most likely refer to the extensive Hebrew law by which people were supposed to adhere. These numerous regulations, laid out across Leviticus and the rest of the Torah, are not seen in Christian tradition (because of the new covenant Jesus created). Additionally, in Psalm 50:14 God calls his people to give sacrifice. This is another Hebrew tradition, discontinued by Christians after the new covenant.
Despite the extensive Hebrew law, and the depiction of God as a violent enemy of the wicked, the ethical stance of the Psalms may seem unlivable. However, the Psalms are filled with examples of God's chosen begging to be forgiven in such a way that they seem to believe they will be. In Psalm 51 "David" gives a heartfelt cry for forgiveness for his sins with Bathsheba. During this Psalm he refers to a purification ritual, showing the Hebrew people did believe they could be purified and forgiven. Psalm 25:7 gives an even more extreme case of forgiveness. In this passage the author is not only asking for the forgiveness of a single sin, but for all the crimes and offenses of his youth. Pslams such as these give the hopeful message that with an honest eart and a desire to be in God's favor, the Hebrew ethic described in the Pslams can be a livable one.

Week 3 free blog: the evolution of worship music

In this blog I would like to explore the evolution of Christian worship through music. The Psalms, specifically the Davidic Psalms, represented the birth of group worship music. There is much to compare and contrast between these musical Psalms, Christian hymns, modern praise and worship music, and Christian rock/rap.

A major poetic aspect of many of the musical Psalms, and the Psalms in general, is the repetition of ideas. This kind of repetition is also seen in many hymns, which in fact use many of the same lines and phrases. Interestingly, modern Christian praise and worship music features a different kind of repetition. This musical style uses direct repetition of lines heavily (eg. Yes Lord, yes Lord, yes yes Lord….etc.). The prevalence of repetition in praise and worship music goes far beyond that of both mainstream music (in which it is still common) and the Psalms, suggesting that both could be influences on the development of this tradition.

Another interesting way in which Christian worship music has changed is though content. The Psalms often feature the extensive use of vivid metaphors and very personal pleas or praises to God. We see in Christian hymns that some of the more common metaphors (God as a tower/fortress, thirsting for God) are retained, while the more vivid (and violent) ones are omitted. As we progress towards modern praise and worship music, the content also becomes less personal (references to specific instances, or at least phrasing the lines that way, are replaced by more general statements. Much modern Christian rock and rap use new metaphors which often incorporate modern ideas or cultural phenomena.

A possible reason for this change could be a reflection of the changing use of Christian worship music. The Psalms, though often created for others to use, were used for a more personal nature. Many of the Psalms were likely used in private to better express the situation of the worshipper. As Christian music evolved, group worship came to be nearly the sole musical worship tradition in Christian churches. Te change in content reflects this change in usage. The change seen in moving towards more mainstream Christian music (rock and rap) reflects the increasing interaction between worship music and the secular music culture.

Week 3 prompt blog: Psalm 2

The task of translating a religious text presents a number of challenges and choices that a translator must face. This task is made even more difficult when the material is poetic and lyrical in nature. This is the case for the Hebrew Psalms. Examination of two translations of the Psalms, Robert Alter's and an early puritan translation reveals how social and political context can be seen through Biblical translation.
Alter and other scholars believe that Psalm 2 is a result of a historic military conflict. The tone of the psalm seems like a motivational rally cry. The author speaks of the enemy negatively, and explains how God shows his chosen favor, and his enemies wrath.
There are a number of noteworthy differences between our two translations that suggest something about the puritans' situation. The puritan version of verses 1 and 8 of Psalm 2 use the term heathen to describe the "enemy" while Alter takes a more political approach to the Psalms and speak of "nations". Considering the puritan situation, it seems likely that this Psalm was influenced by conflicts both with differing religious denominations, which became a growing concern during this period, and possibly with natives (who would have been considered heathens). It makes sense that this Psalm would have been used to deal with the similar "political" conflicts that the puritans faced.
We see also how in verses 7 and 8 the idea of being a chosen people destined control "nations" is incorporated by puritans in their destiny that includes possessing the "heathens' lot" and the "coasts abroad". Even a basic knowledge in American history is enough to see how this Psalm reflects the take over of Native land and the development of a Manifest Destiny.
These differences suggest that the puritans took the Hebrew belief that they were a chosen people destined to conquer all who opposed them and their god and inherit the Earth, and made similar claims about their life in the New World.
Being able to look beneath the words and religious implications of these texts allows us to see how religion is a dynamic entity that influences and is influenced by culture and context.

week 2 free blog: Mississippian development and mound tradition

The existence of a deep and intertwined relationship between culture and religious values and practices is certain, especially upon examining a society in change.The rise and sociocultural adaptation of the Mississippian people reflects this relationship in the unique development of religious traditions within these tribes. Many of the unique aspects of Mississippian ceremonial and spiritiual tradition appear to fit the socil and political changes and challenges that these people encountered.
As many native people shifted to agriculture, cities began to develop. Many of the unique social aspects of organized city life are reflected in Mississippian religious practices. Complex societies required organized political control and organization, and this was accomplished in part through religion. Large civic and religious centers became commonplace, and probably contributed to the development of strong social identities. Such identities were often rooted in religious belief, including a common mississippian belief that they were descendants of the Sun and hence belonged to the Sun clan. The idea of a group rooted in common spiritual ancestry would have implications on inter-tribal relationships. Trade became an integral part of tribe survival and many ceremonial mounds are believed to have doubled as important trading posts. Many cities, including Aztalan appear to have been strategically located in prime trading areas. Eventually, the tensions that expansion and trade produced resulted in militaristic fortification. This increased militarism can be seen in falcon worshipping and often brutal killings and burial rituals.
As individual cities grew and gained military and trade power, many religious traditions seemed to grow in extravagance and even shift in focus. Mass burials, human sacrifices, and elaborate burial pracitces for tribal rulers all demonstrate this change. Rulers in these cities exerted much power through ceremony. They often used rituals and festivals to control the economic distribution of rood and other resources.
It appears clear that the social and cultural changes that the Mississippian people faced were reflected in their religious traditions. This social and cultural change would influence many other native groups and their practices as well.

Week 2 prompt blog: animals-spirits and symbolism

As humans we have used and represented animal forms in different ways throughout history. in this class we have already looked at several cultures' use of animal forms. I would like to compare and contrast the representation of animals in Native American effigy mounds, the cave at Lascaux, and our current use of animals as mascots.
Effigy mounds, and the late-woodland people that created them, embody a set of unique beliefs and ideas that give meaning to their use of animal forms. Current theory suggests that these mounds are part of a desire of these people to maintain balance and harmony between humans and the natural world throguh spiritual forces. Mound building seems to satisfy this goal, by burying the dead beneath the earth and marking the spot with a symbol of the natural world. The things we can infer from the mounds themselves as well as other archaeological knowledge reveal a unique perspective on animal life. the spiritually conscious late-woodland people placed many natural spirits in the form of animals. From the powerful thunderbirds and water panthers to the snakes that guard the underworld, animals held significant symbolic value for these people. This symbolism seems to extend beyond that of the cave paintings at Lascaux, which appear to represent a more naturalistic or potential historical use of animals. While both groups had a reverence for animals, the cave paintings do not suggest the same spiritual attachment.
Interestingly, I believe that a modern use of animals as mascots, contains a similar, but less serious symbolism. The animals used by the late-woodland mound builders were symbolic of certain qualities or traits. for example, raptors were popular among clans at war, and it is belieed were often consulted or called upon for their fierce predatorial qualities. Shamans would dress as birds (potentially in order to call on the qualities or powers they represent). In a similar way we attach certain symbolic qualities or traits to our animal mascots. These qualities are most often those or strength, agressiveness, or other skills that may be intimidating to the competition. for this reason, the most common animal mascots are large or ferocious predators. However this symbolic use of animals is also different between the mound-building culture and our own. Ou use of mascots does not place so much of a religious or spiritual significance on these symbols, and if fact mascots are frequently changed and many refer to cultural events or figures important to the people of that area, not spirits or virtues embodied in animals. Additionally, the association of these symbols with death and their relation to conceptions about the spiritual forces of the world are elements of animal belief that we lack in our mascot culture.

Week 1 free blog: Humanimal?

Since viewing and discussing the paintings from the Cave at Lascaux and the film Grizzly Man I have been contemplating the barrier between man and animal that we began to discuss in class. I made the point that i consider this barrier to be a human social construct. By this I mean that it is both man-made and dependent on human social interactions. In this entry I would like to explore this idea further, its relation to both The cave and Grizzly Man, and how religion relates or is involved with this barrier.
I believe that the man-animal barrier is a man-made structure because our reason is what separates us from animals, and their lack of reason would make it impossible for them to be aware of this difference. In this way, the man-animal barrier must be man-made and a product of the cognitive difference that only we perceive. What I consider more important is that this barrier is also a social construct. Our interactions with other human beings in society are generally mediated by a protocol for communication and interpersonal behaviors. This differs greatly from the interaction between man and wild animal. I would guess that a man born and raised in solitude from humans in the wild would feel less isolation from animals because he would not consider himself part of any other group. I think these protocols can include almost any constructed behavior, tradition or facet of interpersonal activity, and build into cultures. Without such an organized and deep human-human interaction, the human-animal interaction seems less separated.
This notion makes sense when viewed through both the cave at Lascaux and Grizzly Man. The cave paintings suggest that while animals were respected and revered, the interaction between man and animal was not one of comfort, friendship, or progress but rather of survival. The painting of the man being gored in attempt to kill the bull displays beautifully separate beings or groups of beings subject to the same laws of nature and death. Thus the barrier these people create is one that seems to be the result of the knowledge of their cognitive difference and of the value of social relationships between humans, and not of relationships with animals.
Perhaps Treadwell misinterprets this view as a total lack of separation, or perhaps he too considers the construct social, which would explain his desire to immerse himself in the bears' world, the wild world. We can't be certain what was going on in his mind, but it is clear from his human-like treatment of the animals and his confidence in his ability to understand their logic or "animal reason" that to him this barrier is neither inevitable nor natural.
Religion serves, in my opinion, to strengthen the man-animal barrier. In relation to both the human and social factors that lead to this barrier, this interpetation makes sense. Many modern religions (specifically western ones) elevate the human status to beneath the diety or dieties but above other animals. When paired with the differences that we see from our cognitive disparities, a convincing separation is acheived. Additionally, while social interaction is necessary to establish religion, the presence of religion within a social group is bound have some interaction (discussion, behaviors) that involve religion. These occurences widen the pre-exsisting gap between human-human interaction and human-animal interactions. Therefore, religion is not the cause of the man-animal barrier, but the factors necessary to create this barrier are also factors necessary to create religion. The development of these factors which leads to religion, also leads to the development of the man-animal barrier.

Week 1 prompt blog

I would summarize Clifford Geertz's definition of religion from The Interpretation of Cultures in the following way.

Religion is a structure that uses stories, texts, and other symbols to engender a variety of specifc conceptions of universal truths or realities in such a way that they are viewed as factual and have influence over the behaviors and values of those individuals who follow those specific conceptions.

I really agree with two specific phrases that Geertz uses in his definition. First, I agree that a crucial part of religion is the fact that it is "a system of symbols which acts...". I see this as a point of separation between religion and spirituality, which we discussed yesterday. Religion seems to focus more heavily on the traditions and stories and symbols as a means of influencing or directing those who are firm believers of the "general order of existence" described by that religion. Spirituality does not focus on these traditions or symbols as much, nor does it use them in the same way.

Second, I agree that the unique "clothing of these conceptions" (or way the fundamental beliefs are presented as universal and historical factuality) is indeed unique to religion. This is what I believe separates religion from many of the other devotions we discussed in class (sports team, nationalism, etc...). This "aura of factuality", along with grand universal scale of many of the core beliefs of various religions is another reason why religious beliefs unlike other beliefs or ideals have such an influence on the behaviors and ideals of that religion's followers.