The True Language of the Bible

Throughout Book 2 of Augustine's On Christian Teaching, Saint Augustine claims that in order to understand the full meaning of the Bible one must interpret it in its original context.  The value of one's knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is necessary according to Augustine.  This is important to know because I believe that Augustine is trying to say that in order to worship God in the way he is suppose to be followed, it is hard to completely understand the true meaning of the Bible without knowing these two languages.

In the Book of Psalms, it continually says that worshiping God is vital.  I think that Augustine believes that possibly reading the Psalms, a follower or one that is maybe agnostic or a non-believer  might not be able to concept how to worship God or realize God's splendor.  In my freshman studies course, we examined how Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis is vastly different from it original German text.  Like in freshman studies and in Augustine's opinion, certain words and signs can mean many different things.  Arguably, if one has the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and were to read the bible in its original point of view, following the lord becomes much clearer.

Book of Psalms

I feel as though in the Book of Psalms, I get this impression that if you don't follow God's righteous path you are doomed.  For example, chapter 2, verse 5 "Then will He speak to them in His wrath, in His burning anger dismay them."  This chapter speaks of the consequences of misjudging the worship of God.  

However, by worshiping God faithfully one should have nothing to fear.  Chapter 30, verses 3-4, "Lord, my God, I cried to You and You healed me."  By turning to God he will help you.  Also in chapter 30, verse 8 "Lord, in your pleasure You made me stand mountain-strong.  When You hid Your face, I was stricken."  In this passage God has given great security to those in need and those without him are most definitely lost.  The Psalms use of capitalizing "You' and "Your" really emphasizes God's majesty.

Ethically speaking, by following God according to the Book of Psalms, he has all the answers to live by.  Typically, God demands will save you.  From the beginning of mankind up to the Book of Psalms, every person has committed an act of wrong doing.  In human nature it has been impossible.  In today's standards, living by the rules of God I believe is especially harder.  This ethic sums up the ethics of Christianity or Judaism.  The question is whether if they are rules to live by and to follow them with the best of one's ability or will the people of mankind find out that they are condemned?  I think that if the latter were the case no one would be saved.  In short, by worshiping God faithfully, one might make mistakes but by gaining God's forgiveness nobody will have anything to fear.  By avoiding those who will lead you down the wrong path, you can pull through.  Chapter 35, verse 8, "Take my part, Lord, against my contesters, fight those who fight against me."

Psalm II

The Psalm published in 1640 Massachusetts could easily represent Puritan life during that time.  I feel as if though the Puritans believed if one is to not follow God, one will be in danger of the lord's wrath.  

The puritans moved from England because they believed that it was more pure to practice Christianity before the English Reformation took place.  After reading the first five verses it gives solid validation as to why the puritans left.  "Kings of the earth take their stand, and prince conspire together againste the Lord and against His anointed."  This is their justification.  England has changed for the worse.  "Let us afunder break their bands..." When the Psalms speaks of "Kings" the Puritans believed that they spoke of the King of England.  By reforming the Church of England, those who follow it are getting more away from God.  One way or another everybody serves something or someone.  By leaving God, the chapter speaks of how the lord is still there no matter what.  

Wisconsin Mounds

I think that the Mounds of Wisconsin are similar to that of the Cave of Lascaux.  As one can see, the animals pictured were vital to life.  The men used them to hunt and helped their survival.  The Indians of Wisconsin strongly relied on them for food too.  In Native American culture, some animals had the same spirit that they followed.  The Indians even named some of their people after animals for certain qualities that they possess.  The connection between Native Americans and animals is like that of no other culture.

Our own use of animals in the name of sports clubs is different than that of Indians.  We do not have the connection that Indians had with animals.  Most of us do not have a religion involving animals like Native Americans do.  We might name a sports club after something special to a region.  For example, the Baltimore Orioles get their name from the common Oriole bird in the Maryland area.  But that does not mean the people of Baltimore worship the Oriole or have it involved in religion at all.  

The religious significance in the Indian mounds might be how a great kill than a Native American might have achieved and when he dies the spirit of possibly a bison reflect each other.  An important aspect of animals and the Indians is that Native Americans always used every single piece of the animal when they were hunted.  Nothing whatsoever was wasted.  This really shows how sacred some animals were to Native Americans.

Grizzly Man

In class on Friday after watching the Grizzly Man, we discussed whether or not Timothy Tredwell was clearly insane.  Personally, I believe that in order to interact with grizzly bears, which can be extremely dangerous, it would take a man that is very willing to risk his life.  His love for those bears really showed how anxious he was to be out in the wilderness.  

I do not think he was insane.  When one takes risks such as him it was bound to happen.  For example, a guy like Steve Irwin died during the work he loved or James Dean for racing cars.  Its seems almost fulfilling that he died the way he did.  

To me, I feel as if everyone in the documentary highly criticized him.  It seemed as if no one took anything good from his research other than to avoid grizzly bears.  I would never risk my life the way he did to bring out bear awareness.  I believe that he deserves credit for his work.

My Response to Clifford Geertz's Definition of Religion

Geertz's definition of Religion has a very scientific approach to it.  But the fact of the matter is religion is no science.  Simply put, religion can help implement morals in human beings while living in this world.  For example, the ten commandments.  Not only does it do this, but help further justify our place.  His definition explains our existence in this world and what our purpose is.  

Geertz's refers to religion in his definition as a "system".  Who knows if it is an exact "system"?  I or people that follow a religion choose to believe in something because we have "faith".  An important aspect of one's religion is one's faith toward a higher being and believing in the right morals.

I disagree with Geertz's point of view.  His definition seems as if it is coming from an atheists's point of view.  Religion is more than that.  To some, it is in his or her life every single day.  Geertz's use of the quote "uniquely realistic" makes religion seem as if the occurrence's in one's life are very coincidental.