Universality and Hypocrisy in the Psalms

As I wrap up my reading of the Psalms, I can't help but notice some characteristics that seem to span almost every one of the psalms. One that is almost impossibly obvious is that the psalms are all written about subjects that would have been fairly universal to the people of the time. Things such as: war, sex, violence, etc. tend to pop up occasionally in the text. These things are all of human invention and practice. They are things that a person living in the times that the psalms were written in would encounter at some point. The text occasionally will reference a specific occurrence of human fallibility (such as David's little fling with Bathsheba), but a lot of the texts refer to hypothetical situations that, in my opinion, are written in a way that would make the reader apply the situation to his/her own life. In this regard, I see two kinds of Psalms (though I acknowledge that there are other separations): ones that lead by example (historical stories (David and Bathsheba)) and ones designed to be optimally applicable (hypothetical stories/stories with a nameless narrator (not famous)).

Another feature that I noticed tended to be a trend throughout a great deal of the Psalms is how much the text seems to contradict itself. Often the text is hypocritical when it comes to its attitude towards violence. In a lot of the Psalms there is mention of wicked people enacting violence on the narrator/someone close to the narrator. There is a definite negative tone towards the violent actions of these "wicked" individuals. Often after describing and deriding the terrible deeds of the "wicked", the narrator will either ask for God's help to destroy that person, or recount how the Lord gave them strength to cut down each of his foes. This contradictory style, to me, seems to add to the universality of the text. If the reader looks at the text through a lens that is seeking to be above violence they will focus on the "the wicked are being naughty people" section, emphasizing that "wicked" people are the violent ones. A reader seeing the text with more of an "eye for an eye" point of view would probably concentrate on the vengeance section. By covering both sides of the story (despite the fact that it's done in a contradictory manner) the Psalms become more applicable.

The above sections, I realize, have a distinctly negative tone towards the writing in the Psalms. This tone is not purposeful. Though I may not agree with the some of the ways it is done, I believe that a religious text needs to be fairly widely applicable. In my opinion, a religion is only as good as its applicability; it needs to adapt to cultural changes without a drastic overhaul. Religion needs to stick to its guns though. If a religion completely changes its core values to appease society then it betrays itself. That's why I think that the contradictory statements in the psalms are sort of walking a thin line; if there is too much of a contradiction it is likely that the ideas will be rejected.