The Beauty of the Psalms

The aesthetic quality of these psalms inspire people’s faith to deepen. The psalms themselves do not cause faith to appear within a person, but I believe they can help religious people to feel more connected to the LORD. The psalms still have an impact on religions still in practice. Psalm 23 is one of the most well-known psalms ever written and it is used throughout a large part of Christianity.  

“The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want”

The Book of Psalms is so beautiful in its representation of the beliefs of the early Israelites. The language used by the authors of the psalms as well as the meanings behind the words were a reminder of how deep the faith of these people was. They saw the psalms as an expression of the gratitude they felt for the god that would save them from their suffering. Reading the psalms is a lovely way to remember the joy felt by the people who wrote and lived through these times of persecution.

It is important that I define which version of the psalms I believe are beautiful because we read two different translations and each translation was given such a different meaning in the two versions. I think Alter’s version provides the more meaningful translation because it is closest to the version of the original psalms.

The pure aesthetic quality of these psalms would inspire people to strengthen their belief in God, if they were inclined to believe in Him in the first place. They are used as prayers and songs. The fact that they are still quoted throughout religions shows that they are truly magnificent. 

Alter's Version of Psalms Compared to the Bay Psalm Book

I read Psalm 2 and Psalm 29 in the Bay Psalm Book. The language used to write the psalms found in the Bay Psalm Book is vastly different from Alter’s version of the Psalms, and the historical context affects the purpose of the psalms as time progresses.

The two translations are so different from each other. The language used is of course different because of the span of time between the publishing of each book, but even the cadence is different. The Psalms in Alter’s book flow. They are poetic and roll off the tongue. The versions found in the Bay Psalm Book are choppy and use very old English. It is more challenging to find the message in the old versions of the psalms.

So much time has passed since the first time the psalms were published that they are not as relevant to our lives as the first religious people. As time has passed the historical context has become even less important. Our world has become a secular place not as concerned about the background for understanding these psalms as they were intended to be read. The people who worshiped using the Bay Psalm Book were more concerned about the context by which these psalms were inspired. The Psalms in Alter’s book seem to be written more for enjoyment and analysis because the historical references do not mean as much as they did when the Psalms were originally penned. 

Protect The Mounds!

I think it is fascinating how much researchers can infer from the simple structures of the Indian Mounds. Some things mentioned in this book are purely speculation because there is no record of the Mound Building people, but the theories about them are so intricate and developed. It amazes me that the researchers that have spent their whole lives striving towards figuring out who built these mounds still have not determined the builders.

The fact that some of the mounds were used as burial sites cannot be disputed, but the fact that they are seen as a pivotal gathering point for a religion or even possibly multiple tribes is something that would take much research and thought. The theory that the mounds were used to bring multiple varied groups together is interesting. The mounds had to have a huge significance for people to put aside their differences and gather around these beautiful structures.   

I think it is important for people to want to preserve something that was so important to a culture of the past. The fact that some people throughout communities with mounds feel no need to protect them is astonishing to me. Why would you not want to protect such a unique piece of history? Nowhere else in the world has these amazingly well preserved artifacts. I think the legislation passed to protect the mounds was a necessary measure to preserve the past. I feel bad for the Indian tribes that have had to see their ancestral connections destroyed by developers. 

Effigy Mounds Could be a Link to the Afterlife

The effigy mounds found in and around Wisconsin were seen by the Native Americans that built them to be the system of symbols in a religion. The mounds brought together many different people through the burials that took place in them. The Native Americans built the mounds in shapes that reflected the different levels of Earth. This is highly symbolic and could be contributed to an idea of religion. The fact that some of the Lower Earth mounds were first carved a few feet into the ground is an interesting fact to me.

The few feet dug first into the earth makes me believe the Native Americans had a belief in an underworld. They may have believed that being buried in a mound helped the soul to move into the afterlife. If the Native Americans did indeed believe this, it would have been a unifying force among the people of the tribe. They would have been drawn together due to their common belief. The mounds took on the task of being a symbol of the afterlife that could be seen regularly. They were reminders of what would become of your soul once you died.

The shape of the mounds could also be a symbol of a religion. The animal shapes of effigy mounds serve as a great connection to nature. Using the soil to build the mounds into shapes of creatures found in nature could be seen as a spiritual ritual. Building the mounds could have been the important piece to the “religion” of the Native Americans.

Dawkins is crazy!

Dawkins is preaching to the choir. No religious people would listen to him because he is so abrasive, and he tries to shove his opinion down the throat of people who disagree with him. He thinks he is spreading his research, but the way he presents it makes a person hate anything that comes from his mouth.

Dawkins is trying to make people see his point of view. He is trying to “help” people understand that God does not exist. He believes that the absence of scientific proof proves that God cannot exist. His theory will never convert a true believer into a total nonbeliever. Faith is completely based on things you cannot see or prove. True believers are already aware that concrete proof cannot be found to support God’s existence. Dawkins cannot tell a religious person something they already know and expect them to change their mind. If Dawkins really wanted to convert people into atheists he would have to come up with something people did not know yet. He also needs to learn how to present his arguments in a less hostile fashion. His hatred of religion will not attract many people.

I have also been pondering where atheism comes from. If religion is something society cannot escape, as the article suggests, then how can someone be atheist? The article makes an argument towards religion being an individual thought process. Are atheists just born without the thoughts of a higher power, or is science truly enough for them? Science does not answer every question proposed by the universe. Religion tends to answer the questions science seemingly cannot answer. Some religious people attest to miracles, but if there is no higher power and science cannot explain these seemingly “supernatural phenomena,” then how does an atheist explain them?

Ditch Religion?

I do not think it is humanly possible to ditch religion. Civilizations from the beginning of time believed in some sort of higher power. Even if religion is not taught to a person, they will search for answers to things they cannot explain. I think the article made it clear that the human mind is always looking for some explanation to any unexplained phenomena. Religion is a natural leap for the mind to make. It is impossible for people who have strong religious beliefs to drop them.This need to fill in the gaps of logic make it impossible for a society to be without some aspect of religion.

Society would not benefit from religion being completely dropped because of the moral codes we are taught through religions. They help society to have a balance between good and evil. The morals we are taught in religions make us feel obliged to help others in times of need and treat others with respect. Society must have a moral compass and religion helps us to determine the north, south, east, and west.

I think our society should work to accept all religions. Even though religions tend to differ on their individual beliefs, they do share some basic principles. Our society should learn to focus on the main points of a religion instead of quarreling over the more precise doctrines. Society has already incorporated basic teachings into public policy with laws against murder and stealing. No one has a problem with those.