The most striking thing that I have noticed about the psalms (and it appears most of my classmates have as well) is the amount of violence, or the desire for vengeance, that is present in many of the psalms. A noteable example is psalm 69, which calls for God "Pour out Your indignation on [my enemies], and let Your burning anger overtake them". This is a stark contrast to the Christian ideals, with which I am most familiar, and which preach forgiveness for even the wicked (although often in the psalms, the "wicked's" only explicit offense is simply a lack of belief in the Jewish God). While this vengeful attitude may have been common several hundred or thousand years ago, I feel it is rare, even among Jews, in the western world today. It seems to me that this may have to do with the liberalization and democratization of the western world over the past several centuries. I can say nothing for certain of the general attitude of Jews elsewhere because I have no real experience of it, however, it seems that it may yet be similar to the attitude described in the psalms particularly in the middle-east where some Isrealites and Muslim peoples often use violent means (suicide bombs, car bombs, etc.) to impose vengeance on their perceived enemies. In my personal opinion, this attitude is a significant cause of all the violence and hatred that is ravaging that part of the world. Many of the conflicts over which they are fighting are centuries old. Perhaps with a philosophy that emphasizes forgiveness and compassion, these nations would be able to peaceably resolve their differences.

It also seems odd to me that the antithesis of this vengeful philosophy, advocated by Jesus Christ and the Christian religion, would spring from this same Jewish God who is called to "let [his] burning anger overtake them". It just shows how much religions can change over time, adapting to different global or regional conditions and moods.

Psalm Ethics

While reading through the Psalms, I find a very general ethic. For instance, in many of the Psalms, the author writes that the righteous will earn God's favor and the wicked will be punished, but rarely is it stated what constitutes righteous or wicked behavior. Some examples of the specific ethics that are implied in the Psalms include:

- (Psalm 4) do not "love vain things and seek out lies... offer righteous sacrifices and trust in the LORD"
- (Psalm 5) "You destroy the pronouncers of lies, a man of blood and deceit the LORD loathes"
- (Psalm 7) "If a man repent not, He sharpens His sword"
- (Psalm 10) "In the wicked man's pride he pursues the poor... the wicked did vaunt in his very lust, grasping for gain--cursed, blasphemed the LORD"
- (Psalm 15) "LORD, who will sojourn in Your tent, who will dwell on Your holy mountain? He who walks blameless and does justice and speaks the truth in his heart. Who slanders not with his tongue nor does to his fellow man evil"

Clearly, even these examples are fairly vague and general. The ethic described mostly entails being faithful in God, being honest, do not deceive, repent one's sins, do not exploit, lust, be greedy, blaspheme, etc. This does seem like a liveable ethic, however I do see one glaring contradiction. Psalm 5 states that "a man of blood and deceit the LORD loathes." I take this to mean that violence is unjust and goes against God's ethic. However, in nearly every Psalm there is some imagery of the Lord destroying and killing the author's enemies for him. I think that a God who looks down upon violence and murder should not be praised for commiting the same acts. It also seems to me that the ethic described by the Psalms is very different from the ethic that I associate with Christianity. When I think of the Christian God, I think of a God who is forgiving, one who seeks the end of evil, but does not seek the death of people who sin, which seems to be implied in the Psalms. Of Christians, I think of people who wish for the salvation of others - even those who have sinned against them - not their deaths.

The Truth About Selflessness

This post is in response to Fanny's post about selfishness (http://bricenof.blogspot.com/2008/04/selfishness-its-pretty-great.html). I am not particularly religious. In fact, despite my desire to have faith in a higher power, my reason always wins out, leaving me with an absurdist worldview like the one prescribed by Albert Camus. Being solely concerned with how one ought to live in this life, then, my main interest in religion lies in its moral implications and teachings. I believe that Fanny provides' insufficient proof to her statement that an self-interested action is good for all humanity, and I politely disagree with her philosophy. When deciding how to act, she asks herself "Why should I care about other people?What have they done for me?" It seems to me that there is an obvious contradiction in this way of thinking. How can it be that one can view other people in a way that ignores their well-being, and yet this way of thinking "helps humanity"? If it is in my self-interest to lie/cheat/steal, this is fundamentally opposed to the well-being of others and hinders rather than helps humanity, or so it seems to me. If everyone took on the same philosophy as Fanny, and asked themselves "why should I care about other people," the general state of affairs would amount to social anarchy. If everyone were to employ an arrogant disposition, this would clearly create a flawed scenario; everyone would believe that they were more important than everyone else, which is irrational, and which would dramatically warp people's morals. When deciding how to act in a situation, I too ask myself several questions, such as "how will my actions affect others?" These 'others' are people who have as much right to a just treatment as myself, the type of treatment I certainly desire for myself. I certainly desire that nobody will lie to me, cheat me out of something that i have earned, or steal something that I own. Beyond that, I certainly desire that others will help me, for no benefit of their own, when I am in need of it. If these desires about the way other people treat me are certain, then it is equally certain that it is my duty to respond with a similar treatment of others. It may not be in my self-interest to act with others in mind (though I personally find there to be benefits of conscience and emotional state in such action), but it is in my self-interest for others to act in such a way. Therefore, it is my belief that it is in everyone's individual self-interest for everyone to act morally, justly, and sympathetically.

Bay Psalm II

There are many differences between the Bay Psalm Book's translation of Psalm 2 and Robert Alter's translation, which, while not changing the basic meaning of the psalm, lend themselves to a Christian interpretation that could help colonial settlers justify displacing the Native Americans. The changes may seem subtle to an unfamiliar reader, but would have been conspicuous to the colonists who read the psalm. In the very first line, what Alter translates as "nation", is translated as "heathen" in the Bay Book. Alter gives a more general and broad interpretation to the hebrew, while the ministers who did the Bay translation in 1640 gave it their subconsciously biased interpretation, allowing it to more narrowly describe, in their eyes, the Native Americans. Phrases like, "God spake... I will give the Heathen for thy lot: and of the earth thou shalt possess the utmost coasts abroad" and later, "crush [the Heathens] with iron rod," reaffirmed to the new American settlers that God supported colonization, that it was God's will. The Bay translators also give the meaning "kiss yee the Son," which is dramatically different from Alter's translation. The ministers who translated it gave it a Christian meaning by interpreting it as referring to Jesus Christ. While it is impossible for any translation to be entirely impartial, the Bay translation, when compared to Alter's more objective approach, shows its inclination quite clearly.

Animal representation in human societies

I think that the animal representations made by the Indian mounds created a way for the Native Americans to explain and understand the world. It is probably similar to the animal representations in the Lascaux Cave. In both, the societies that created them used particular animals as symbols that helped to simplify the universe and the way it worked. The Native Americans' cosmologies typically divided the world into higher or lower realms, and created the mounds as monuments to the animal spirits which represented each realm. This simplified framework of viewing the world allowed them to make sense of the world around them, a trait that seems common to humans. We essentially do the same thing today, using modern science and technology to try and ever more simplify and understand the universe; only, the Native American societies that created the mounds disappeared or abandoned the construction of the earthworks several hundred years before the development of the scientific method. For us today, continually uncovering the workings of the natural universe allows us to feel like we possess some control over our environment. This human desire for control is also evident among the Native Americans, who built the mounds to "symbolize and ritually maintain balance and harmony with the natural world" (Indian Mounds of Wisconsin, 113). Along with the particular animals, the Native Americans also used the sun, moon, and stars as symbols on things like pottery, but the mounds were often used as burial sites and as part of death rituals, and so it makes sense that they only depicted living forms. The society that created the cave paintings of Lascaux may have created the animal representations in similar ways and for similar reasons. Much like the Native Americans, they used particular animals, in this case horses and aurochs, to symbolize different parts of the world.

To me, it seems that this kind of animal representation is very different from our use of animals as mascots or symbols of sports teams. To the two past societies we have talked about, their representations contained their ideology about the world. Their representations were part of ceremonies or rituals in which they were attempting to worship or glorify the animal spirits that symbolized the higher or lower realms. Our sports teams, however, merely symbolize a group of athletes that play a game, which has nothing to do with how we understand or categorize the world. There is no metaphysical aspect to the way in which we "worship" a sports team.

Geertz's definition of religion

Clifford Geertz's definition of religion:
"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."

While I think Geertz's definition does an adequate job sharpening out a jagged form of what religion is in an objective viewpoint, I feel that Geertz's definition does not adequately describe why "men" have religion; to me, that is where its importance lies. But as we talked about in class, religion cannot be placed in a box with rough edges, but it is instead fluid, with obscure edges at times. It does not matter what religion is or what it looks like in objective terms, because those are all effects of the reasons why religion exists among men, and that is where the subtleties and intricacies of religion lie. I believe that what religion really is is the idea or feeling that takes place in man, for that is what exists first. The "system of symbols," the "powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods," and the "aura of factuality" are results of how man tries to implement and promote religion, not the actual religion itself. I believe that religion was created to satisfy the innate human desire for meaning and purpose in life. It's occurrence in man probably coincided with the origination of man's ability to conceptualize about human existence, and cause and effect. Once we were able to conceptualize the nature of cause and effect, we likely applied it to our own existence and, at the time, a omnipotent god was probably the simplest answer. It is also a comforting answer, in that it often addresses afterlife questions and introduces ideas such as fate or karma, salvation or damnation, in which we can to some degree influence our future or eternal fate.

One other thing that i think remains unclear in Geertz's definition is whether the creation of the "system of symbols" and the "conceptions of a general order of existence" are conscious and deliberate. Geertz, by stating that these conceptions are "clothed with an aura of factuality," almost implies that it is done so deliberately. I think this is important because if the desire for religion and religion itself were intuitively sensed by man rather than consciously reasoned, it would have more validity, since religion relies on faith and goes against reason. That is why I don't think religion can be rationally or pragmatically proved.