Translation advice

I read a portion of Saint Augustine's On Christian Teachings. Book 2 to be precise. The most important thing I took from the reading was a set of suggestions for interpreting translations of books. He advises having many sets of the same book but translated by different people, and possibly through different languages. For example, I would need a few copies of the book of psalms, one translated directly from hebrew, another one translated by somebody else, one translated from greek or latin, and so on and so forth. Having multiple copies from different translations can be extremely useful in understanding some passages. If there is a passage that doesn't make sense or sounds funny, cross check it against a different translation. If it is the same at least you know it is probably translated properly and can ask someone of knowledge for help, and if they are different your lack of understanding could be due to a poor translation. Having different sets of translations through different languages can help, because some languages can carry meaning and have different words that will translate into the next language better. So while the direct Hebrew may not make much sense, maybe from Hebrew to Latin to Greek to English will carry the emotion or meaning properly.

I think having a second translation of the book of psalms would have been very useful. Granted Alter provided other possible translations for some passages or phrases, but it would have been interesting as a whole to see how it was done differently.

Churches Charitable?

I know many people who donate money to charity through churches, but is that really the best way to help those in need? I was taught in high school that a good charity should be spending 90% of its budget directly helping people. From what I have heard the Catholic church spends less than 10% on charitable efforts. This is not acceptable. Money donated should be used to help people, not to support a wealth bleeding system. My girlfriends grandmother was asked for 200 thousand dollars in order to cover a down payment for a new church. That particular perish had built a new church less than five years ago. Building new and extravagant buildings is wasting the perishes money.

I am not trying to discourage people from giving to charity. I just think that people should think about where their money is really going, and if it is actually helping people or just helping to pay for the solid gold statue of Jesus. Look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, now there is a charity run by financially smart people who figure out how to help people the best for the money spent. Well organized charities help people far more efficiently than the average church. What really makes more sense for helping people.

Psalm 18

Today I read psalm 18 from the "Book of Psalms" as translated by Alter. This psalm portrays a very fierce and destructive god. This psalm has god being represented first as a preluding earth quake, then as a volcano. Then god tilts the heavens in order to descend to earth and fly around on an "cherub." A cherub is some sort of god like war horse from Canaanite mythology. God then proceeds to destroy David's enemies with hail, fire, arrows, lightning, and water. He rescues David then proceeds to bestow upon him fighting abilities so he can destroy his own enemies. Such as strength, speed, a bronze bow, a shield, and a fearsome god based battle cry.

Many of the images of god are based on pre-Israelite mythological poetry. With some other images coming from Canaanite mythology. Religions evolve in contact with other religions. I would expect images of god to come from different sources. Founders of pre-christianity may have been former pre-Israelites. It perfectly logical for images from the old beliefs to carry into the new ones. It helps to ease the transition for new comers to the religion. Converted Canaanites may have included images from their own mythology in the poetry they wrote. Over time peoples poetry influences the next generation of poetry. The new generation drawing on multiple influences, might very well create a hodgepodge of mythological references. I would be more surprised to see a lack of mythologies than a combination of many.

The image of an omnipotent god flying down from the heavens on a god like war horse, preluded by earth quakes and volcanoes, launching fire and lightning before him, and pushing back the seas is a terrifying image regardless of what your beliefs are. In times of war this exactly the image you would want for your troops. Belief that a massively powerful god will come to help destroy your enemies, or give you the power to destroy your enemies yourself is a great morale boost. Modern christian god is a bit on the tamer side and certainly more hands off than the god of old. I suppose since Christians started fighting Christians there are fewer reasons why one side should be supported over the other. David was saved by his firm belief in god and by following what god preached. That doesn't work as well when both sides are christian. Makes you wonder if truly religion based war broke out if violent imagery of god would resurface. I suppose historically non violent Islam is being reinvented by some to support fighting non muslims...

Missunderstood

I learned recently that a few of my friends are involved in religions that I know virtually nothing about. Apparently Quakers can don't have to believe in god to be faithful. Some of them believe in a life force, and simply avoid killing things. I found it really interesting that a Christian sect didn't require believing in god. Everything I know about Christianity focuses on the single omnipotent god. I can't help but wonder how little I know about other sects of Christianity, or other religions for that matter.

How many choices to do people make based on their faith? I tend to think that its a large amount, and the only way to understand those choices is to understand other peoples faith. I think a substantial portion of conflicts could be resolved in the world, but getting to know to the other side, or for that matter your "own" side. I was raised Catholic but stopped attending church was I was young. I find that I have trouble understanding devote Christians motivations for many of their choices. Part of me is tempted to read to the bible, just to figure out why certain passages are so important and guide peoples lives. After that I might go read a Koran or read up on other religions in general. Lack of understanding can only lead to conflict. There is enough conflict in the world. Its time to learn how to avoid it.

The importance of translation

This week I read two versions of the same psalm. Psalm two from the Book of Psalms by Robert Alter and the same Psalm from the Bay Psalm Book. The two translation are very similar, but there are some key differences that really manage to change the meaning of the Psalm. The Bay Psalm Book was also one of the first books printed in early America and the people from them may have taken some interesting meaning from the translation.

The early Americans may have taken this psalm to be more of a prophecy than anything else. In line 7 it states "God spoke to me, thou art my Son, this day I begot" Most early Americans probably interpreted that as God speaking to Jesus. Without knowing that this psalm was written some 500 years before the birth of Jesus, it would be easy to infer that Jesus is the son referred to. In actuality God is speaking to the kings of Jerusalem. The psalm says that those who oppose Jerusalem will be destroyed "break as potters sherds, and crush with iron rod." If looked at as though Jesus were talking the target of destruction suddenly changes from ancient enemies, to potentially any enemy of christianity at any point in time. This could be read as a prophecy that Jesus is going to come and destroy the conspiring princes and the kings of the earth. Only those who fear and revere the Lord will be spared.

Line 12 also has a key grammatical difference. The Bay version states "Kisse yee the Sonne, lest he be wroth, and yee fall in the way." and the Book of Psalms states "With Purity be armed, lest He rage and you be lost on the way." The Bay version hints that if you anger the Sonne bad things will happen if you get in the way. In the new translation there is more of left behind feel. The tone seems less angry and vengeful.

Overall I see the old version striking fear into Christians in order to keep them devote to Christianity, while the new translation is more of a warning to others that bad things will happen if they don't make friends with the Christians. The grammatical and slight wording changes make for a very different overall experience. I can't help but wonder how many other translations I have read and have taken an unintended meaning from. For that matter how many times has the bible been retranslated? I can't help but wonder how skewed the modern english bible is from its original meaning. Just think about how different modern christianity would be if the bible were even subtly different. It kind of makes me want a time machine just to see how many grammatical changes it would take to alter the future. My guess is three well placed ones.

What makes a religion?

Today I asked a teammate what his religious beliefs consisted of. He replied, "Rowing." At first this sounded a little odd to me. How can someone consider a sport to be a religion? I then thought up a list of what I take to be some of the key components of a religion.

Community- Being part of a team includes a person into the larger, broader community of rowing. I found it comparable to individual teams being churches, and christianity as being comparable rowing as a sport. Different styles of rowing were the different sects aka sweep vs sculling, and Catholic vs Lutheran, and different sports being different religions aka swimming vs rowing and Christianity vs Islam. The structures of communities and the interactions between the different parts of the hierarchy do resemble that of religion. Different while disagreeing on the best way to row, still agree that rowing is best, and conflict between sports or religions is common.

Ritual- Religion is often filled with rituals. Be it attending sunday mass, taking communion, meditating, praying, or something else more complex. Sports are filled with just as many rituals. The regular schedules of practice could be viewed as attending service. Stretching before exercising as meditating or praying before a service. Granted there are many superficial differences, but the idea behind regular and meaningful ritual is the same in both the world of sports and the world of religion.

Sense of fulfillment- I feel that a person is only truly participating in a religion if they receive some sort of emotional fulfillment from it. If attending does not make you happy, give you a sense of pride, or satisfy an emotional need, then they are not experiencing the whole thing. The same is true of sports. Anyone can participate in a sport, but if there is no emotional connection then they are not experiencing everything that sport has to offer. Team sports can provide a social bond that is extraordinarily strong. Very few types of groups can build community as quickly and as strongly as team sports. Individual sports still offer emotional fulfillment. I find very few things in life more enjoyable and satisfying than going for a swim and putting in a few thousand yards.

Overall, I find that sports share many of the same core components of religion. Sports may consist of very different belief systems, and don't have much to say about the afterlife or creation, but is that a really a defining factor of religion? I have always found creation and afterlife beliefs as a way for a church to convince peoples its beliefs are better, and to try to explain the world so that religion fits within it. I don't find that to be a nessecary part. I am more than content to go for a row or a swim and feel better for it.

Some other peoples ideas about sports as religion.

http://www.religionlink.org/tip_050118A.php

http://www.amazon.com/season-sports-as-american-religion/dp/0865546940

Effigy Mounds

Effigy mounds are symbols of native american religion. The birds and bird like creatures are representative of the over world, the bear creatures and other land creatures are symbols of the lower world, and serpents and lizards represent the underworld. The presence of all of the different worlds represent a harmony of existence. This goes along with Geertz's symbols representing a general order of existence. The concepts of over, lower, and underworlds make enough sense as to be believable. Building the massive structures added meaning, and provided explanations for the world around the native peoples. The way the mounds were built reflects the meaning of them. Many of the underworld effigies show signs of being dug downwards before being built up. This ties in the mythology of the underworld existing underground. The extensive rituals associated with building the mounds and the rituals performed on and around the completed mounds shows how important the mounds were to the people. Simply moving the astounding amount of soil shows dedication to what the mounds represent, and the importance to the people.

I can't help but wonder why such massive structures were built. Many of them were too large to properly view from the ground, and without being able to easily see the whole thing, constructing symmetric shapes must have been obscenely difficult. I wonder how long it would take modern man, without the use of heavy machinery, to built a 700 ft long mound. I can only guess years. Are there any symbols modern man would be devoted enough too, that he would give the time energy to constructing giant mounds by hand? I would guess not.

Organized Religion

I had an interesting talk the other day about religion. After an hour or two of discussion I decided that there are some problems with modern organized religion in my home community.

A few that bother me

1 Lack of fiscal responsibility

2 Competition amongst perishes

1. This is by no means universally true of all religions and may only be a problem in my home town. Many perishes of different sects of christianity are having severe monetary problems. The biggest of those being the inability to pay the absurd mortgages on the 15 million dollar buildings. The churches should not have assumed that the perish would be able to pay for such large monthly costs. This does not help people, but adds additional expenses to perish members families. In a time when many families are tight on money this strikes up moral issues with me. Once a month or so, my family will receive a letter for one of many local churches asking for a large donation in order to pay off church debts. This could have been avoided had churches not had impressive building wars.

2. When the economy was riding high and donations were up, local churches decided it would be an excellent idea to expand, and built enormous, lavish, and unnecessary buildings. There are now multiple 10 million dollar and up churches in a community of about 25 thousand. There was no need for any of the perishes to expand, and certainly no need to double or triple current capacities. They expected the new buildings to draw more members and increase donations to pay for the expansions. Very few new members joined the perishes, now the perishes are poor, and are leeching off of the community.

Ur-religion must have been happily without the problems of modern religion. Their places of worship were caves or just outside. Things were only as lavish as the bands could make them. Spending excess resources could have easily meant the end of the tribe. I think modern religion needs to step back and take a look at the needs of the members. What happens if the people can't survive? Ultimately to church fails. The needs of the members out weigh the needs of the church.