Augustine

Reading the Psalms for me was something that had room for interpretation and through Augustine's words it seems that there isn't much room for your own interpretation. It did give me a view on how other people see the world and how they may think.

Augustine is addressing Christians and the way they should live their lives, some of the Psalms that addressed a particular lifestyle that didn't really make at the time seems to make more sense now because of the strict lifestyle.

There was one area in particular: the different occupations that people have and how some of them are pointless, that made me question what it is that Christians tend to follow and how they see that in their lives. Not to pursue pointless areas of study. Sure, that made sense hundreds of years ago when areas of study weren't as advanced as they are today. But, in the sense of the Psalms if someone is questioning their life and their lifestyle if they get the sense that what they do in life is pointless and no one else will follow them, then the psalms are pointless.

I don't know much about scriptures but I feel that Augustine's opinion really does reflect what the scriptures say. It's kind of reinforcement that says, "What you believe in really is true."

I will have a hard time adjusting to Augustine's point of view especially if I don't agree with a lot of it.

That's so stereotypical

I've had a lot of people ask me questions lately about the Navajo culture and what we represent. I was able to tell them some of the Navajo creation story and some of the rituals I've been a part of, which isn't a big number. One person asked me if my culture was my religion, because the Navajos believe in Father Sky and Mother Earth and that Navajos were created through a series of worlds. So, they used that as a creation story and figured that something had to branch off of it. I replied with a no because I think there is a lot to it and I was a little agitated by, what I thought of as ignorance, but then, I realized that I shouldn't feel down by something that they don't understand. If Navajos, a people of color, have a creation story within their belief but don't exactly lay it out as an organized religion it makes me wonder how many other groups of people may be stereotyped as belonging to a certain religion.

Being a person of a diverse background and seeing the world from a different perspective than others who are part of the not-so-diverse population. When someone thinks about India and their culture they can assume that Indians are all Buddhist or all Asians are Buddhist. What about people from Africa? What do people know about their religious beliefs? African Americans? There are all these sterotypes of what kind of relgious belief people come from and I don't think that's fair, but I understand that its only because people don't understand. Even if they learn more, the stereotype seems to stand out in a regular day-to-day basis.

I really like learning about what kind of things people know and people would be willing to share. I don't like stereotypes very much because people generalize and catagorize others based on the color of their skin. Take time to know someone for more than just their skin color entails.

Here's a link to the Navajo creation story if anyone is interested: http://www.lapahie.com/Creation.cfm

Psalm 18

I don't think that the image of God is terrifying in this Psalm. If I was the one who were commmentating on what he was doing as he was "punishing" or "scaring" my enemies I'd be basically cheering him on. I would have wanted God to defend me and know what I want in the sense of someone who could protect me.

On the other hand, if I wasn't on the good side, and I was the enemy, yes, I'd be deathly afraid. A anthromorphoized image of God that is portrayed through the words of my enemy.

The image of God being able to yell a battle cry. That could be good or bad depending on which position you are in. If I was on the side of God I'd be so entranced by all of His continuous strength, I'd take the battle cry as something that was meant to happen in order to protect me. But, if I was not on the good side, I'd be terrified. I wouldn't want an almighty being yelling at me.

So, I think the image of God, personally, is not scary. But, then again it depends on which side is being defended.

It's not that hard.

I've been reading some blogs and it seems that the Psalms are difficult for people to interprete but to me they aren't. I thought that I was doing something wrong. I think it's easier for anyone to relate to a foreign piece of...literature... if they somehow can relate it to their own life. There are millions of possible ways to interprete something and make it your own, but there will be one way that makes the most sense to you. I don't think it's as easy as it sounds. There are a vast amount of possible answers and such but because only one will fit, you have to weed through the others to find the right answer for yourself.

I found it much easier to relate to 'Indian Mounds' because it wasn't so 'old.' And it also reflected some of the things I thought that we ought to preserve but the Psalms is so much harder. But it is definitely not as hard as trying to interprete the Bible in Hebrew.

That is my opinion on interpretation. There are many ways to do it but you can find one way that works for yourself and if that meaning is clear to you, then you can deliver a message.

And if its really hard, try this link: http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/4387690.htm

I definitely don't mean this to offend anyone. But, I feel that relating a beautiful piece of work is something that takes time and it means more when the right meaning is found.

Psalm 2

On a complete random note: I started reading the handout before I read the little note that said fs look like ss and I had a hard time reading. :p

ANYWAY...

One of the first changes that I recognized was the change of wording from "nations" to "hearthen." The settlers of America had broken away from the established city and country to start their own. 'Nation' allows room for many different countries and areas of different culture to collaborate on one idea. With 'hearthen' there is a sense given off of unsettled and new. Which was what the new settlers were.

I feel that in line 2 of the HO there was a king lesser in quality. In the book, the Kings of the earth took their stand. But, in the HO the kings of the earth set themselves. There wasn't anything given to them there wasn't a place that was reserved for them, they had to 'set themselves.' This could be related to how the settlers in early America had a dislike for monarchy.

On the last page in the book it says, "Worship the Lord in fear, and exult in trembling." In the the HO it says, "Serve yee the lord with reverence, rejoyce in him with fear." I feel the second part of the sentences are similar because the wanted effect is an appreciated fear. But, in the book-worshipping the Lord in fear, I feel as if you are obligated to worship and if you don't there will be worse things that happen to you. In the HO it says to serve the lord with revernce, which is profound respect. It doesn't say that if you don't something bad will happen. It's merely a strong suggestion.

In the two versions I feel there is more room for individualism in the hand out version because there isn't a previous obligation to an authority not agreed with, an over dominating figure of a king and there isn't a do-this-or-else feel to the psalm. If there is an individualistic quality to the American psalm then it served in favor of the new settlers because it was what they were looking for, or it was a perfect psalm that carried the words of God but at the same time allowed room for their new outlook on religion.

How do YOU understand religion?

I grew up in a non-religious family and I never understood what it was because I didn't go to church or know who God was. As I grew up and moved to Utah I found out that people around me all went to church and called themselves 'Mormons'

Well, as I went to high school I learned about different people with different beliefs, other than the Mormon faith. I was surprised. I mean I was 14 and barely learning about different religions/beliefs.

I also learned about my culture. I am a full-blooded Navajo. My history teachers told me that the rituals that Native Americans had in their "ceremonies" was considered religious and emphasized their beliefs. I was very surprised because my family members did that. We used corn pollen for blessings, we talked about Father Sky and Mother Earth as creators of the world and how we have to respect animals. I understood that I was raised with the Navajo culture reflected some of the things I believed in. My mom also showed me morals and told me what was right, it added to what would be my future beliefs.

I have no current affiliation with an organized religion but I believe in something higher.

I think that religion in your own personal terms varies and it is based upon how you were raised and what you truly accepted to be the right way.

Mound Builders

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 a aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

I really think that the "mysterious" Mound Builders follow the definition of the religion by Geertz fairly well.

As I mentioned in my RLST class I thought that use of symbols was something that could be argued against. But, in the case of the Mound Builders (MB) their symbols, their existence was shown by the mounds. How else would we have known that they existed? The MB created these mounds because it meant something to them, there are artifacts inside of the mounds that lead to this conclusion. We aren't exactly sure what kind of moods they received from mound building but it couldn't have been negative if they kept going? Right? Their mound building isn't exactly unique because there are other groups that have done something similar but they are the only group in WI. And whoever they are, they found something beneficial in creating mounds, such as the effigy mounds. They are in the shape of animals, and other various shapes. MBing was something that they used to express their belief...in what? I'm not exactly sure. But, I am sure that they fulfil the definition of Geertz pretty well.

Symbolistic interpretation

I feel that many religions use symbols to demonstrate a simplistic view of what their beliefs are.

All symbols have a history behind it and when different denominations started differentiating their beliefs from others the symbols became tainted and biased. I don't know the difference in all religions but I feel like I have a broad and general idea and when I see a symbol I feel like it represents that branch/denomination. Over time the symbols become more and more of something than what it was originally intended for.

Symbols meant more when it started than what they do today. And that is something that is open to interpretation whether its a bad thing or a good thing. I personally feel like its not good.