Rediscovering the Psalms. Burn symbolism, burn!

Interpreting the Psalms initially seemed an easy task. Knowing the history, and where the symbolism came from, we could understand Psalms as a piece of work trying to convey morals, and create a pure lifestyle. After reading On Christian Teaching, I find that my views on interpreting the Psalms has changed somewhat.

The first thing that was brought to my attention was symbolism and which is natural, and what is not. The best example of natural symbolism is smoke, because where there is smoke, there is fire. The opposite side of the scale is an actor’s hands, and symbolism of the moments in relationship to the meaning and emotion the actor is trying to convey. The second part of interpretation that comes up is interpreting through translation. Ideas are universal, but in some languages, and specific idea may be better communicated (Like in Funes' language, it would be described perfectly). What this means is that, while something may have significance in one language, it will lose its meaning in another. I know that the Psalms are translated so i have to wonder how i would have looked at them if i could have read them before translation.

What I just realized though, is that is doesn't matter at all that the Psalms were translated. While i said my views on interpreting the Psalms has changed, my views on the Psalm have not. As i said before, a language conveys an idea, but some languages canc convey it better than others. Because the Psalms are ideas and views on how to live life, it does not matter, as long as they convey the same message. The Psalms couls be written as lymrics, but it wouldn't matter, because the idea would be the same. The only thing i have to ask now is, did the person who translated the Psalms understand their full meaning in the previous langauge? If so, I have nothing to worry about. If they did not, whatever words they use, i will never fulling understand the initial meaning.

Here is a video that i have always liked. Its the creation and battle to control a being on the computer. Why i am posting this is because it has slight significance religion in the media. Movies, shows, even simple animations have religion embedded in them. As we shall see from watching Happy feet, the idea of creation and a high power come into play in so many different places. This next clip is from Supernatural, one of my favorite shows, where Dean meets Castiel, the angel.



This show is completely unrealistic. While they have their own form of religion built into the show, we know immediately that it is a not a real religion. Now, why would we not think as this as its own religion? Is it because of the mass media? Is it because we know the people who believe in it are actors on the show? Something that my generation has been coping with is the escalation in violence because of TV and games. If we see religion on TV and in games as false, will we start seeing religion in reality as false? Violence on TV is thought of as false and pretend, and because of that, people sometimes believe the same thing in reality, which produces people desensitized to violence's affect.

Does religion on TV have the same affect as violence on TV? I believe that it does. I believe that the constant exposure to false religions will lead to the eventual desensitization of religious influence on children. But doesn't that happen already? Aren't children of a certain faith taught mainly that their faith is the one true faith? And wouldn't that encourage the desensitization of other religions already? My thoughts are that yes, it does.

children are exposed to religion every day through media. This constant exposure i believe overwhelms the mind with falsehood which eventually leads to the same thought in reality.

I Smite You, and You. You're save... Just kidding. I Smite You too.

God in Psalm 18 seems unnaturally violent. In many references to God within the Psalms and other works, while God does cast down those who are unjust, God is seen in a good light; a light with no evil. In this Psalm, his entire image revolves around violence, and darkness.

The first instance we see this is in line 3: my God, my rock where i shelter, my shield and the horn of my rescue, my fortress. Many times, God is shown as a protector but here, God is the destroyer also. The horn of my rescue shows that to protect him, God will destroy those around him. Many times, Heaven is seen with light. God is seen as being pure, while the underworld, devil, and darkness, many times, is represented by fire and smoke. Line 9: They heaved, for smoke rose from His nostrils and fire from His mouth consumed, coals blazed up around him. God in this image burns inside. Smoke comes from within.

Along with that, line 12: He set darkness His hiding-place round Him. Here, God's ever veil of light has disappeared. Instead of having light shine wherever he goes, instead, he is surrounded by darkness. Also, here he is hiding. He is hiding in darkness which is something very unlike him. All in all, the image of God he seems quite dark in comparison to the rest of the Psalms, surrounded by an unnatural

Why this post is very strange is that God is so scary and frightful. Could this be an aid for battle? I don't know, but it seems to me if God's power was so great, he would not need to scare. Any demonstration of power would be enough. Even if he never revealed himself, he could raise up those who fight for him so that they would be feared. Also, i don't think it is a problem that this God has been borrowed from other religious traditions. Being God is a complicated role, but God can do everything. Why can't he appear in all forms, whether or not the forms coincide with other religious traditions? Being borrowed from another tradition only increases the omnipotence of God.

This week, I wanted to explore religion created in TV shows and movies. Recently, or at least since i have been taking my intro to religious studies class, i have been thinking about the place of religion in everything and its meaning. From movies like "Happy Feet" to shows like "Supernatural," significance is given to everything. I just wanted to apply the definition of a religion to these created religions and see how it compares, and where it falls in relationship to our own past and present society.

First movie is "Happy Feet." In this movie, Mumble challenges the Great Gwen who controls the fish. While this on top looks a lot like many religions, the Great Gwen is only responsible for the harvest of fish each year. In the movie, they never go into it enough to establish how much of the culture the Great Gwen controls, but on the surface, the only thing Gwen governs is the fish through their behavior. You act correctly, you don't have to search far and wide for fish. Eh, sounds a lot like a recent Psalm we read, I have never seen a just man forsaken. His kin will never look for bread if they are just.

The next show is Charmed. Yes, i kind of like this show, but it involves a completely different type of religious aspects. In this show, instead of having a true overarching power which, if obeyed, everything will be good, there is a constant battle of good and evil going on. These three ladies fight evil to try and create a world without it. There are higher powers involved, but their direct actions create the world they live in. Also, supernatural powers are a blessing here, instead of meaning someone is a witch or evil. Also, within this show, instead of creating a whole new religion, this show builds off of existing religions. In the episode i am watching while writing this early in the morning, it has to do with the existence of the Chinese zodiac and its influence on the people. It is the circle of life, and the demons want to take control of that power, so naturally, the charmed ones have to stop them.

The third show i have to go into, as i am a big fan is SUPERNATURAL!!! This is the third type of religion integrated into the televised world. Sam and Dean have to follow the grand design. They fight demons, escaped souls, ghosts, crazy people, all to prevent the end of the world where demons take over. This is neither the creation of a new religion, but the expansion of a religion. The difference between this show and Charmed is that here, while they are fighting demons, everything they do is part of a grand design. Angels, prophets, and everything you else come to see them, to help guide them to a world without demons. They help to make the world better, but its still following plan laid out for them.

So, looking at these three shows, we have the creation of a new religion, and the expansion of religion where in one case, they define how and when the world changes, and in the other, have to follow a set plan where failure means the end of the earth. In so many places, religion appears. As seen in Happy Feet, in the creation of a new society, almost always, a new religion accompanies. Between religious connotations in shows, and new religions, its all about progression of the greater good. Whether fighting for it, or living in the correct manner we continuous live in a world where fact and fiction effect us, and is interspersed within society. Now, if reading this, i would love a post that includes more shows and movies that either create a religion, or significantly expand on an existing one, as i am will have a follow up post next week referencing this and the shows/movies you bring up. But also, how do you think religion on TV has influenced your perspective on religion in general? Has episodes of supernatural made you less susceptible to the influence of religion because that is a very probable chance that supernatural is entirely created for the entertainment of the viewers and not as a realistic view of our world? Just a little food for thought.

Psalm 2 first depicted the Israelite monarchy, but in a different context, what was its meaning in an early American context?escape religious prosecution. This obviously creates tension in the meaning the Psalm

This is the Psalm present in the earliest book printed in America around 1640. Many differences are present between these two versions. First, this Psalm came out with the first pilgrims, many of who were trying to has, as the first related to the monarchy. one of the first things i noticed was the replacement of some interesting words. First, in the first line, nations aroused has been changed to rage the Heathen furiously. This definitely brings a more hostile attitude, but almost immediately, in the second line conspire becomes consult and suddenly the mood lightens.

All, in all, the entire Psalm seems more hopeful. When i got to the 6th line, where the quotes appear, i find a major difference. In the book, it establishes that someone appointed their king. someone brought that king to power. In the 1640 version, the person speaking is the annoynted and they have their king. They are special, but their king is forever.

In line 8, in the original version, the narrator dictates that they will give nations for the king's estate. They will expand his rule, while in the American version states that they will give Heathens. The difference between conquering nations to only giving individuals is a huge deal. Also, as the pilgrims have just arrived in America, there is plenty of new land, and plenty of non believing people. The change in this context has definitely created a more hopeful, and less violent stance on converting.

All in all, i believe that this new American Psalm better represents a more hopeful version of its counterpart, and also a less violent version. This new version better reflected the views of the new settlers. It allows them individualism and freedom from the constricting religion of the past. This new Psalm embodies the more hopeful nature of the future, just like what the pilgrims were looking for, coming to the new world.

So, relating back to whether science is a religion, i would like to finish my thoughts on that as i promised.

I believe that in Geertz's words "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," science can be seen as religion. This definition embodies the reality of mathematics. First, mathematics incorporates symbols to represent the world. It has created a system in which can we describe the world. The symbols by themselves only have the meaning that we give them just like any religion. Second, math is the most persuasive tool we have. Unlike some other sciences where the best we can do is theories, while in math, we have proofs to where this is no variation and we know they are correct. these proofs "formulate conceptions of general order" by literally putting the universe in order as defined by the symbols we have created, and by using proofs, everything done with math, if done correctly, is factual.

One things that is greatly disputed is the idea of fate and destiny. some argue that fate and destiny are determined and can't be changed. Some look and try to figure out there destiny. "Immutable laws prescribed the motion of every particle in the universe, exactly and forever" --Ian Stewart. While an impossible task, if every particle in the universe was mapped, the future could be told. Wouldn't knowing exactly how every particle behaved in the universe be very similar to describing destiny and fate. Something immutable that we foresee. It would prove that everything was predetermined by the beginning of the universe. That initial moment which set everything in motion.

Religion is created to describe the unknown, bring order from chaos, connect to the world and universe, provide control life, and much more. While religion may be seen as separate from science and math, in fact, the definition of religion deeply includes math and science to their full potential.

Effigy Mounds

The Effigy mounds of the ancient paleo-indians have sprouted up everywhere throughout Wisconsin. These mounds have taken the forms of many spiritual forms such as birds, and animals tide to the ground. This collections of mounds make up a variety of symbols. Geertz defines religion as "The definition again: 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." The combination of this definition and existence of the effigy mounds signifies the presence of a religion somewhere within this culture.

From the symbols created out of these effigy mounds, it is quite apparent that it reflects a system of beliefs that these people had. First of all, they must create a long lasting mood because they are based on burial, the everlasting sleep. Whether to guide the people in the mounds only to the other side, or help them walk the plane of the dead, these symbols were created to form general order for the dead. along those lines, these symbols created by the mounds were not ordinary symbols either. They represented the mythical such as water monsters, and animals not tied to the earth. While some of the effigy mounds did represent the more earth tied, general animals, these animals probably had some significance already.

One thing about the effigy mounds that does reveal itself without the symbols is the size of each. This places more emphasis on the burials then if each was a single person of tradition person size. This also isolates the symbols as being more significant. If a symbol is worthy enough to be made out of thousands of dead people, the significance of it will tie to the spiritual meaning of the burial and the physical representation of the burial. Thus, each symbol is exemplified by the sheer size and meaning of the these effigy mounds.

The last thing i can say about these symbols in relationship to the effigy mounds, is that i doubt that the effigy mounds define the symbols, but the symbols define the effigy mounds. These great representations of animals or significant beings isolate the effigy mounds as something significant. Thus the symbols take a role in the burial rituals. From that, it is the symbols that help define the culture, providing the structure and general order to the culture.

Religious Elements

What are the basic elements of religion? Stories, community, traditions, worship, meaning, belief? From cave drawings to modern day religions, are these elements universal to the past present and future of religion? first off, we can't know about the future. We progressed from cave drawings to modern day art. From caves to cathedrals. Shamans to popes. We see all the differences of all the religions. One religion believes in multiple gods, while another believes in only one. One religion believes in a circle of life through reincarnation, and another, an everlasting afterlife of either good or evil depending on how they lived their life. While some religions believe in gods, others do not. Worship may not even exist in a religion. So, trying to isolate these common elements between religions, what does it boil down to? Can we redefine religion by these common elements.

The first element is meaning. All religions give some kind of meaning to life, or humanity. It places something in perspective.

Second, belief. A religion will have a similar belief. What that concerns is not limited.

Third, there are going to be traditions. While this goes along with belief, it is the physical aspect of that.

After that, religion can add any other elements. While i know i am not incorporating everything into this post, i feel that this idea i'm about to present will strike you as odd. Between meaning, traditions, and belief, what can constitute a religion? Do people have their personal religion, or is it reserved for groups of people who believe the same thing? Does science constitute a religion? Science gives meaning to life. It shows us how the world works. To follow science, there is the scientific method: Observation, Formulation and hypothesis, testing that hypothesis, peer review, and acceptance with the transition of that hypothesis to theory. This belief of figuring out the religion also can be seens as a tradition, or ritual.

For this post, i'm not going to reveal my thoughts on the elements religion. I will leave that for later. But boiling down religion does bring into question what a religion is through the basic elements.

After reading this post, please answer the survey question on the left, as i would much appreciate your opinion. If you answer no, please comment on this post for the reason.

These two videos are of Woody Allen and Billy Graham having a talk on religion. Notice the differences between the two people. The difference between how open minded each are.




Woody mentions that if he ever went will Graham, he would be converted instantly because he has a very open mind that can lead around, while Graham says that while Woody may say things, his belief will never sway. Its just something to notice when have a discussion on religion.