17 "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.
19 Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
If I understand this correctly, what he's actually saying is that in order to be really holy you have to do both. One of the biggest conflicts between the Big Three faiths and all their various sub sects is the debate over which is more important- works, rules or faith. But the fact is, they're all tangled up together and interdependent on each other. Christians say they don't need all those minute and picky rules that Judaism and Islam have, yet they just end up creating their own set of rules and trying to push them on people. So far, nobody seems to have done what they should be doing, whether Jew or Christian or Muslim.
21 "You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones,'You shall not murder;' and'Whoever shall murder shall be in danger of the judgment.'
22 But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother,' Raca!' shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say,'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.
The most important thing of all is how people treat each other. We all have a tendency to spend our time coming up with convoluted ways of justifying which rules we do and do not follow. We expend so much effort doing this that we often don't have time to include things like love and compassion.
An American missionary wanted to go into New York City and preach to the homeless. He decided that he was going to rely totally on God to take care of him. So he didn't bring much money, didn't even rent a hotel room. His only contact in the city was the Jews for Jesus headquarters. When he finally arrived at the building-lost, starving, exhausted and broke, they invited him in. They have him some coffee,let him use their bathroom and sent him on his way.
There were no offers to let him stay at one of their homes. There was no effort to find him a place, or a job, they didn't even feed him. No one offered to drive him to the YMCA! They let a kid from the Midwest wander around NYC in the 1970s, *alone* with *no money* and *nowhere to stay*. This was a group of people trying desperately to convince everyone that Judaism and Christianity can be compatible, and yet they failed at one of the cardinal requirements of both faiths!
When I was searching for a new church last year I went to one I really liked. It was big enough for me without being too scarily huge. The people seemed nice, and it was close to home. The doctrines didn't conflict with anything I believe (it was UCC) as far as I knew. So I went to their information table and signed up to be contacted.
I was never contacted. They were all so busy with their lifegroups, and plays and rock band and building projects and two dvd enhanced worship services on Sunday mornings and coordinated parking and murals on the Sunday School classroom walls and sterling silver coffee pots and charity toy drives that they forgot to- you know- call someone who wanted to be reached out to.
6:9
9 "Pray then in this way: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. F47 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not bring us to the time of trial, F48 but rescue us from the evil one. F49 14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
That's from the New Revised Standard Version. It's supposed to be much better, but the rhythm and the poetry is off. Much as I hate to say this, the King James version sounds so much prettier.
Our Father which art in heaven
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come
Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
Amen.
The "power and glory" line is not included by many people. But basically this is one of the most famous prayers in Christianity and it's even acquired a deeply magical significance. It was used as a protection ritual in many Christianity based magical systems, as well as a test for witch hunters to discover witches. If a person couldn't say the whole thing, they were a witch, or if they could say it backwards, they were a witch.
I don't think Jesus meant for it to become a formal liturgy, but post Jesus Christians didn't have much in the way of a liturgy, especially not for common folk who might not be able to read, so it worked well as a universal prayer. More people can recite this than can say the Beatitudes, the Ten Commandments or the Nicean Creed.
6:21-24
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Huh? I admit it, I don't understand this one. I'll work on figuring it out.
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mammon is commonly thought to mean "money". Usually a demon or Dark deity associated with greed. For lots of people, money becomes their master, their religion.
7:7
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
The words and location of this verse gave me an idea, but I won't elaborate on it here in case it disappears on me.
8:5-10
5 And Jesus having entered into Capernaum, there came to him a centurion calling upon him,
6 and saying, 'Sir, my young man hath been laid in the house a paralytic, fearfully afflicted,'
7 and Jesus saith to him, 'I, having come, will heal him.'
A lot of people think the soldier is referring to his lover. It was a notorious practice among wealthy Roman men, owning male slaves reserved just for sex, or simply taking up with a young man. It's something Paul seems to get really upset about, which makes people wonder. Anyway, Jesus doesn't react with disgust (although he doesn't go and visit the boy either).
8:14
And Jesus having come into the house of Peter, saw his mother-in-law laid, and fevered,
So, we meet Peter's mother in law. Peter is apparently married, and indeed in another Gospel Peter mentions he's got a son, Mark. But where is Peter's wife? Who is she? Is she perhaps dead? Or did she travel with them? I know women weren't thought of as important enough to mention, yet that only means that when one is mentioned, she's really, really important.
8:18-28
and lo, a great tempest arose in the sea, so that the boat was being covered by the waves, but he was sleeping,
25 and his disciples having come to him, awoke him, saying, 'Sir, save us; we are perishing.'
26 And he saith to them, 'Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?' Then having risen, he rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm;
27 and the men wondered, saying, 'What kind -- is this, that even the wind and the sea do obey him?'
I think this is funny. Jesus is shown both being very human (he's cranky about being woken up from his nap) and possessing divine powers. It's much harder to control the weather than it is to heal people. Healing is a rare gift, but hundreds of people throughout history have possessed it. Controlling the weather? Even more rare. But if you pray hard enough, perhaps it could be accomplished. There's a lot a person with considerable magical power who also has deep faith in God can manage to do. You laugh, because I sound like some wacko Pentecostal, but it's true.
10:28
28 And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.
That's from Young's Literal Translation. The King James uses the word "hell", which of course, these people did not believe human souls could be sentenced to. Gehenna would make such a pretty name for a girl. If you wanted her to you know, hate you for the rest of her life.
11:15
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
This verse reminds me of a perfect example of "having ears to hear". A piece of art changes when you understand the backstory and the little codes artists include in their work. I rented the movie "Greencard" last year. It wasn't my first time seeing the movie, but this time I understood it better. Throughout the entire movie, there are constant baffling references to Africa. Since the story takes place in Manhatten, and ninety nine percent of the main characters are white Americans, what on earth does this story about an American botanist and her fake French husband have to do with Africa? Why is the closing song a rousing rendition of "Eyes on the Prize", the anthem of the black civil rights movement?
It's a movie about cultural harmony, two people who fall in love even though they shouldn't be together. And the story takes place in the late 1980s, at the height of…. the movement to end Apartied in South Africa. The whole movie is a not so subtle protest in favor of the rights of black Africans.
"Napoleon Dynamite" is a satire of "Donnie Darko", but you might not figure this out if you've never seen "Donnie Darko". And if you didn't get "Donnie Darko" you won't get "Napoleon Dynamite".
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Matthew 1-2
Matthew
Matthew is the first Gospel of the New Testament, which is odd because it's certainly not the oldest, Mark is. I read an explanation of why this book comes first instead, but I don't remember it now.
The first thing we encounter is a list of Jesus's genealogy. This is the second reason why all of those boring lists in the Old Testament are so important (the other reason, obviously, being so the Jews can track their ancestry). Jesus is said to be of the line of David, which would be essential if he was the Davidic Messiah (there are apparently two Messiahs who are supposed to come one after the other). This also gives him royal blood, making him a real world threat to the country's corrupt king and Roman overlords.
Oh yes, they have a corrupt king and some Roman overlords now. A lot of time has passed since Malachi, which we often forget because it looks like just two pages. But generations have gone by.
1:18
Joseph is pledged to be married to Mary, but in 1:19 he is going to divorce her. So are they married already or not? I don't understand. I've read some theories, but many of them come from people who are not necessarily reliable sources.
The story jumps right to the visit by Magi. There are no shepherds or angels in this one. First, I'll just link to my previous Magi post. And the wiki article on Magi.
In Matthew, the first people to recognize and honor Jesus for what he was, were forgeign wizards. Later on, as you by now should naturally expect, foreign wizards and witches become the thing people definitely did not want around. Having brown or black skin increased your chances of being accused of, and executed for, witchcraft.
Herod tells the Magi to find the baby, then alert him so "he may go and worship too." Of course he wants to kill Jesus, and the Magi figure this out so they don't bother to go back to the palace. The king orders all male children under two to be taken and killed.
The Jesus story is almost like an inverted version of the Moses story. Moses grows up a prince, only to discover he's really a commoner. He flees from Egypt. Jesus is a prince raised by commoners who must flee into Egypt to survive. Both stories contain a corrupt king who orders all the male children under a certain age killed, so none of them will grow up to depose him.
Since it's been such a long time, I'll repeat my disclaimer:
1) This isn't Bible Spam. I'm saying that because I don't want people thinking this is supposed to be funny, and then having low opinions of my sense of humor. Not that I won't try to be funny sometimes, but nobody ever gets me anyway.
2) I'm no professional theologian. Sometimes I'm totally wrong. But not being a professional theologian (or even a Bible college graduate-or a graduate period) does not automatically make me wrong either.
3) I have no editor, so these bounce wildly from simple recording of my thoughts on reading a passage, to actual formal essays.
By the way, I've been using this site as a reference (thanks Cat!). It has the Bible, both halves, in Greek, Byzantine, and Hebrew in addition to English.
4: 9-10
Again, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory.
9 He said to him, "I will give you all of these things, if you will fall down and worship me."
10 Then Jesus said to him, " Get behind me, Satan! For it is written,'You shall worship the Lord your God, and you shall serve him only.'
But later, some of his followers changed their minds. They were offered the world, and they exchanged the truth of Jesus for a governmental sponsorship. And things just haven't been the same since. It's not Roman Catholicism's fault entirely, because Protestantism seems to have fallen for the same line.
4:19
24 The report about him went out into all Syria. They brought to him all who were sick, afflicted with various diseases and torments, possessed with demons, epileptics, and paralytics; and he healed them.
25 Great multitudes from Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and from beyond the Jordan followed him.
Jesus is ministering among Jews normally not well respected. Samaritans and such. It, imo, paints a very different picture of him from the usual clean, white guy sitting in a pristine, white temple or a nicely maintained hill with other clean white guys. In one contemporary Jesus movie, when the Devil is trying to tempt Jesus, he/she shows Jesus a vision of a modern Palestinian refugee camp, because he/she knows that it'll get to him.
5:2-11
These are the Beatitudes, which are very important in Christianity, although you don't hear them much these days. I've taken the liberty of translating the words into "Amero-Fundie" for you. I think more people can name the ten commandments than can recite these. I know I can't recite them. I keep forgetting they even exist.
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Blessed are the financially successful, for social class is determined by your faith in God)
4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
(Blessed are those who protest the funerals of gay soldiers, for filthy sinners don't deserve respect)
5 Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
(Blessed are the violent, for the infidel needs to be smacked down)
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
(Blessed are those who gorge themselves on fatty, salty poison)
7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
(Blessed is the governor who ridicules the pleas of a woman on death row)
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
(Blessed are the technical virgins, for they are not filthy dirty whores like the rest of you)
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
(Blessed is the nation with the most bombs)
10 Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Blessed are us, for we are a minority even though we're running the government of the most powerful nation on earth)
11 "Blessed are you when people reproach you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Blessed are those who are told they can't beat their children or force strangers to pray with them)
13 "You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has lost its flavor, with what will it be salted? It is then good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men.
Does anyone else remember "Salty"? No? I just want to know if that was something unique to 1980s Nazarenes or if it was a religion wide thing. Salty was a children's cartoon character who was personified as a giant blue shaker of salt. Sort of like Gumby but Christian and musical. The local Christian bookstore used to have a huge Salty display. There was a special button you could push on the display and Salty would sing for you.
How Flanderseque. Anyway, it was based on this verse, which makes it even more obscure and weird.
15 Neither do you light a lamp, and put it under a measuring basket, but on a stand; and it shines to all who are in the house.
16 Even so, let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Conservative Evangelicals are very big on not hiding their lights. And so many people find it offensive, so liberals and moderates have tried to run in the opposite direction. There have been lots of great people I've met and I didn't know they were Christian until it accidentally came out. And that might be great, if you're the sort who doesn't want to be bothered with knowing other people's beliefs, but it becomes a problem when the only people anyone ever hears from are the wacko conservatives. It's fine to quietly practice your faith and spend your time working on being a good person rather than trying to make other people follow your rules. Except those other people? They don't keep quiet, and so they've come to define, at least in the eyes of the public, what it means to be a member of this religion.
You're afraid people will laugh? They're going to find something to make fun of anyway and they'll make less fun of you if they know you're not what they expected.
You're conflicted? Join the club.
You think no one else is like you? You'd be surprised.
In a time of peace, maybe it'd be fine to keep your beliefs to yourself. But we're not in a time of peace- we are at war. This is happening now and it is serious. And it's happening because the right people failed to stand up at the right time. Yes, I realize this is exactly what those other people are saying, but what can you do?
What if another Christian badly needs you to be well, a Christian for them?
Matthew is the first Gospel of the New Testament, which is odd because it's certainly not the oldest, Mark is. I read an explanation of why this book comes first instead, but I don't remember it now.
The first thing we encounter is a list of Jesus's genealogy. This is the second reason why all of those boring lists in the Old Testament are so important (the other reason, obviously, being so the Jews can track their ancestry). Jesus is said to be of the line of David, which would be essential if he was the Davidic Messiah (there are apparently two Messiahs who are supposed to come one after the other). This also gives him royal blood, making him a real world threat to the country's corrupt king and Roman overlords.
Oh yes, they have a corrupt king and some Roman overlords now. A lot of time has passed since Malachi, which we often forget because it looks like just two pages. But generations have gone by.
1:18
Joseph is pledged to be married to Mary, but in 1:19 he is going to divorce her. So are they married already or not? I don't understand. I've read some theories, but many of them come from people who are not necessarily reliable sources.
The story jumps right to the visit by Magi. There are no shepherds or angels in this one. First, I'll just link to my previous Magi post. And the wiki article on Magi.
In Matthew, the first people to recognize and honor Jesus for what he was, were forgeign wizards. Later on, as you by now should naturally expect, foreign wizards and witches become the thing people definitely did not want around. Having brown or black skin increased your chances of being accused of, and executed for, witchcraft.
Herod tells the Magi to find the baby, then alert him so "he may go and worship too." Of course he wants to kill Jesus, and the Magi figure this out so they don't bother to go back to the palace. The king orders all male children under two to be taken and killed.
The Jesus story is almost like an inverted version of the Moses story. Moses grows up a prince, only to discover he's really a commoner. He flees from Egypt. Jesus is a prince raised by commoners who must flee into Egypt to survive. Both stories contain a corrupt king who orders all the male children under a certain age killed, so none of them will grow up to depose him.
Since it's been such a long time, I'll repeat my disclaimer:
1) This isn't Bible Spam. I'm saying that because I don't want people thinking this is supposed to be funny, and then having low opinions of my sense of humor. Not that I won't try to be funny sometimes, but nobody ever gets me anyway.
2) I'm no professional theologian. Sometimes I'm totally wrong. But not being a professional theologian (or even a Bible college graduate-or a graduate period) does not automatically make me wrong either.
3) I have no editor, so these bounce wildly from simple recording of my thoughts on reading a passage, to actual formal essays.
By the way, I've been using this site as a reference (thanks Cat!). It has the Bible, both halves, in Greek, Byzantine, and Hebrew in addition to English.
4: 9-10
Again, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory.
9 He said to him, "I will give you all of these things, if you will fall down and worship me."
10 Then Jesus said to him, " Get behind me, Satan! For it is written,'You shall worship the Lord your God, and you shall serve him only.'
But later, some of his followers changed their minds. They were offered the world, and they exchanged the truth of Jesus for a governmental sponsorship. And things just haven't been the same since. It's not Roman Catholicism's fault entirely, because Protestantism seems to have fallen for the same line.
4:19
24 The report about him went out into all Syria. They brought to him all who were sick, afflicted with various diseases and torments, possessed with demons, epileptics, and paralytics; and he healed them.
25 Great multitudes from Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and from beyond the Jordan followed him.
Jesus is ministering among Jews normally not well respected. Samaritans and such. It, imo, paints a very different picture of him from the usual clean, white guy sitting in a pristine, white temple or a nicely maintained hill with other clean white guys. In one contemporary Jesus movie, when the Devil is trying to tempt Jesus, he/she shows Jesus a vision of a modern Palestinian refugee camp, because he/she knows that it'll get to him.
5:2-11
These are the Beatitudes, which are very important in Christianity, although you don't hear them much these days. I've taken the liberty of translating the words into "Amero-Fundie" for you. I think more people can name the ten commandments than can recite these. I know I can't recite them. I keep forgetting they even exist.
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Blessed are the financially successful, for social class is determined by your faith in God)
4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
(Blessed are those who protest the funerals of gay soldiers, for filthy sinners don't deserve respect)
5 Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
(Blessed are the violent, for the infidel needs to be smacked down)
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
(Blessed are those who gorge themselves on fatty, salty poison)
7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
(Blessed is the governor who ridicules the pleas of a woman on death row)
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
(Blessed are the technical virgins, for they are not filthy dirty whores like the rest of you)
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
(Blessed is the nation with the most bombs)
10 Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Blessed are us, for we are a minority even though we're running the government of the most powerful nation on earth)
11 "Blessed are you when people reproach you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Blessed are those who are told they can't beat their children or force strangers to pray with them)
13 "You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has lost its flavor, with what will it be salted? It is then good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under the feet of men.
Does anyone else remember "Salty"? No? I just want to know if that was something unique to 1980s Nazarenes or if it was a religion wide thing. Salty was a children's cartoon character who was personified as a giant blue shaker of salt. Sort of like Gumby but Christian and musical. The local Christian bookstore used to have a huge Salty display. There was a special button you could push on the display and Salty would sing for you.
How Flanderseque. Anyway, it was based on this verse, which makes it even more obscure and weird.
15 Neither do you light a lamp, and put it under a measuring basket, but on a stand; and it shines to all who are in the house.
16 Even so, let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
Conservative Evangelicals are very big on not hiding their lights. And so many people find it offensive, so liberals and moderates have tried to run in the opposite direction. There have been lots of great people I've met and I didn't know they were Christian until it accidentally came out. And that might be great, if you're the sort who doesn't want to be bothered with knowing other people's beliefs, but it becomes a problem when the only people anyone ever hears from are the wacko conservatives. It's fine to quietly practice your faith and spend your time working on being a good person rather than trying to make other people follow your rules. Except those other people? They don't keep quiet, and so they've come to define, at least in the eyes of the public, what it means to be a member of this religion.
You're afraid people will laugh? They're going to find something to make fun of anyway and they'll make less fun of you if they know you're not what they expected.
You're conflicted? Join the club.
You think no one else is like you? You'd be surprised.
In a time of peace, maybe it'd be fine to keep your beliefs to yourself. But we're not in a time of peace- we are at war. This is happening now and it is serious. And it's happening because the right people failed to stand up at the right time. Yes, I realize this is exactly what those other people are saying, but what can you do?
What if another Christian badly needs you to be well, a Christian for them?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Kings
Kings
One of the many reasons for the obsessive cleanliness laws about who couldn't touch what or who couldn't sit where, when, was because…
People didn't wear underwear. No, Jesus didn't wear underwear either (which means I need to correct a comment I made several entries ago except I won't because it's too time consuming but I'm stating here that I realize I made a mistake). Now, I've had it explained to me that what Jonathan actually took off was just his armor and some outer type garments, but if you are going to go around saying he stripped, then he would have been naked. Having him take off all his clothes except his non existent underwear is as strange as having them shake hands instead of kiss (which is what a couple of Bible translations have, despite the fact that shaking hands was not common in that time and place anyway. Plus it just comes off as such a blatant attempt at censorship because any idiot can pick up a good Bible and see that the translation is wrong).
I know that Sunday School teachers really want to make sure children can identify with the stories, which is why they often make David a child or young teen, and Jonathan the same age. There's a lot of value in that, teaching children about standing up to bullies, and little boys how to be a good friend. But out of neccesity, the whole story then has to be de sexualized, when sex is a major underlying theme in the original story. Not only that, but it means the story tellers have made the same mistake that a lot of overeager religious people do, which is to make a believable story, totally exaggerated to make a point, which is later taken literally and thus made much easier for skeptics to smugly debunk.
Would you be convinced that an eight year old boy killed a twenty foot giant with a rock the size of your fist?
Would you be convinced that a fairly strong, fairly athletic eighteen or twenty year old man knocked unconcsious a seven foot tall person with a rock the size of your head, and then chopped off his head with a sword while he was still down for the count?
Jonathan is also older than David. Not creepy old, but still older. So to portray David as someone barely hitting puberty , yet have their relationship be a romance, turns his older friend into a pedophile and nobody wants to see that. The fact that Jonathan is not a teenager kind of pulls the rug out from under the "okay, so they were sleeping together but it was just about typical teenage experimentation" argument. I'm also slightly annoyed by the "well, it's just their oriental temperment". Yeah... oriental temperment. That's it. Sure.
I'm wondering why it is that people are quite willing to admit that David did a lot of things he shouldn't have done, yet very conservative Christians and Jews can't stand the thought that he might have slept with a man. If you're the type of person who thinks there's something wrong with homosexaulity, and you can't entertain the idea that David might have been attracted to a man, how do you justify considering that to be worse than anything else he does?
There's also the interesting question of David and Saul- anything going on there?
I bought "David the King" by Gladys Schmidt, after finding it recced on a lj that hosts one of the few D/J fics I was able to find. The book starts out really neat, and seems to be building up both good steam as far as plot,and a lot of great sexual tension that you're hoping will explode. Except… it doesn't. Suddenly, inexplicably, Schmidt puts a rift between David and Jonathan- although they remain friends it is awkward and the progression towards something romantic is halted. The author uses social taboos as a reason why it takes David and Jonathan about six chapters to work up the nerve to hold hands before she inexplicably rips them apart. The teen angst is great, don’t misunderstand me, the description of David's dilemma- loving Jonathan but lusting after the sexually aggressive Michal. But I don't buy it that David would have allowed social taboos to keep him from Jonathan. When do we ever see the Biblical David paying attention to social taboos? Some of the things he does, such as dancing down the street half naked, would be considered pretty out there even today.
David then spends the rest of the book searching for the same love in other people and never finding it. Too much time is spent on his marriage to Michal, which is really only a rather dull footnote in the Bible, whereas half the Bible story is taken up with David's relationship with Jonathan. The air is let out of their relationship so much that in the beautiful, climactic scene (some say it contains more than one type of climax) where they are forced to part, the reader feels nothing. The author just parrots the Bible, with no added subtext or emotion and seemingly can't wait to get past it. Jonathan's death, instead of being this explosive moment of epiphany for David, (he died for me, he loved me, he was the best thing I've ever had and I never told him!) is treated like a rather unimportant side note. It's almost like she chickened out, afraid the book would meet with a negative reaction or even not be published otherwise.
The biggest problem in general with adaptations of Bible stories is the author who Doesn't Know When to Stop. Every story seems to contain a natural "cut off" point, but all too often authors just sail past it in their urge to tell the whole epic story. But the stories usually work better doled out in small, manageable portions that focus on the things most likely to interest the audience. People want to see Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt, people don't want to watch him standing around making laws. So the best place to stop the story is just after the escape- something "The Prince of Egypt" understood but "The Ten Commandments" didn't. If people would like to know what happens next, they're free to pick up an actual Bible.
http://epistle.us/hbarticles/davelament2.html
http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/2/171
There is no real Butch/Femme dichotomy here. I realize it's hard for a lot of people to comprehend, and it was probably totally puzzling for people in the ancient Middle East to conceive of a sexual relationship where no one plays the woman, but I don't think David and Jonathan were like that. I mean, there's definitely a delicate negotiation of power going on- Jonathan is David's prince and military commander. In a sense, David wouldn't even really be allowed to say no to Jonathan. David can't say "I love you" first, he's not even allowed to leave town without asking permission. But the entire relationship revolves around David, not Jonathan.
David is the one who will eventually be king, and Jonathan figures that out, and since his love for David is self less and self sacrificing, he does step aside, which might be taken by some readers to mean that he's chosen "the female role" but that just says a lot of disturbing stuff about how said readers view women. Jonathan behaves as the ideal Biblical husband, surrendering to God's will meant he had to give up all of his earthly power, so he did that. He is able to understand that this doesn't make him weak, or "the woman". It seems like hundreds of thousands of men who belong to the Abrahamic faiths have been unable to follow this example at all.
Saul seems to condone the friendship, until he starts to see that David has the potential to be king, which might mean he would be dominating Jonathan, therefore, in Saul's eyes, making Jonathan the girl. Before, Saul might have rationalized it as "my son sleeps with men, but at least he's on top in every way." Of course, like the author of the first essay says, we can't begin to know how they expressed their feelings when alone.
You know, the slash fic talk might have been innappropriate here. Duly deleted for now.
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Belle-And-Sebastian/Jonathan-David.html
One of the many reasons for the obsessive cleanliness laws about who couldn't touch what or who couldn't sit where, when, was because…
People didn't wear underwear. No, Jesus didn't wear underwear either (which means I need to correct a comment I made several entries ago except I won't because it's too time consuming but I'm stating here that I realize I made a mistake). Now, I've had it explained to me that what Jonathan actually took off was just his armor and some outer type garments, but if you are going to go around saying he stripped, then he would have been naked. Having him take off all his clothes except his non existent underwear is as strange as having them shake hands instead of kiss (which is what a couple of Bible translations have, despite the fact that shaking hands was not common in that time and place anyway. Plus it just comes off as such a blatant attempt at censorship because any idiot can pick up a good Bible and see that the translation is wrong).
I know that Sunday School teachers really want to make sure children can identify with the stories, which is why they often make David a child or young teen, and Jonathan the same age. There's a lot of value in that, teaching children about standing up to bullies, and little boys how to be a good friend. But out of neccesity, the whole story then has to be de sexualized, when sex is a major underlying theme in the original story. Not only that, but it means the story tellers have made the same mistake that a lot of overeager religious people do, which is to make a believable story, totally exaggerated to make a point, which is later taken literally and thus made much easier for skeptics to smugly debunk.
Would you be convinced that an eight year old boy killed a twenty foot giant with a rock the size of your fist?
Would you be convinced that a fairly strong, fairly athletic eighteen or twenty year old man knocked unconcsious a seven foot tall person with a rock the size of your head, and then chopped off his head with a sword while he was still down for the count?
Jonathan is also older than David. Not creepy old, but still older. So to portray David as someone barely hitting puberty , yet have their relationship be a romance, turns his older friend into a pedophile and nobody wants to see that. The fact that Jonathan is not a teenager kind of pulls the rug out from under the "okay, so they were sleeping together but it was just about typical teenage experimentation" argument. I'm also slightly annoyed by the "well, it's just their oriental temperment". Yeah... oriental temperment. That's it. Sure.
I'm wondering why it is that people are quite willing to admit that David did a lot of things he shouldn't have done, yet very conservative Christians and Jews can't stand the thought that he might have slept with a man. If you're the type of person who thinks there's something wrong with homosexaulity, and you can't entertain the idea that David might have been attracted to a man, how do you justify considering that to be worse than anything else he does?
There's also the interesting question of David and Saul- anything going on there?
I bought "David the King" by Gladys Schmidt, after finding it recced on a lj that hosts one of the few D/J fics I was able to find. The book starts out really neat, and seems to be building up both good steam as far as plot,and a lot of great sexual tension that you're hoping will explode. Except… it doesn't. Suddenly, inexplicably, Schmidt puts a rift between David and Jonathan- although they remain friends it is awkward and the progression towards something romantic is halted. The author uses social taboos as a reason why it takes David and Jonathan about six chapters to work up the nerve to hold hands before she inexplicably rips them apart. The teen angst is great, don’t misunderstand me, the description of David's dilemma- loving Jonathan but lusting after the sexually aggressive Michal. But I don't buy it that David would have allowed social taboos to keep him from Jonathan. When do we ever see the Biblical David paying attention to social taboos? Some of the things he does, such as dancing down the street half naked, would be considered pretty out there even today.
David then spends the rest of the book searching for the same love in other people and never finding it. Too much time is spent on his marriage to Michal, which is really only a rather dull footnote in the Bible, whereas half the Bible story is taken up with David's relationship with Jonathan. The air is let out of their relationship so much that in the beautiful, climactic scene (some say it contains more than one type of climax) where they are forced to part, the reader feels nothing. The author just parrots the Bible, with no added subtext or emotion and seemingly can't wait to get past it. Jonathan's death, instead of being this explosive moment of epiphany for David, (he died for me, he loved me, he was the best thing I've ever had and I never told him!) is treated like a rather unimportant side note. It's almost like she chickened out, afraid the book would meet with a negative reaction or even not be published otherwise.
The biggest problem in general with adaptations of Bible stories is the author who Doesn't Know When to Stop. Every story seems to contain a natural "cut off" point, but all too often authors just sail past it in their urge to tell the whole epic story. But the stories usually work better doled out in small, manageable portions that focus on the things most likely to interest the audience. People want to see Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt, people don't want to watch him standing around making laws. So the best place to stop the story is just after the escape- something "The Prince of Egypt" understood but "The Ten Commandments" didn't. If people would like to know what happens next, they're free to pick up an actual Bible.
http://epistle.us/hbarticles/davelament2.html
http://jot.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/2/171
There is no real Butch/Femme dichotomy here. I realize it's hard for a lot of people to comprehend, and it was probably totally puzzling for people in the ancient Middle East to conceive of a sexual relationship where no one plays the woman, but I don't think David and Jonathan were like that. I mean, there's definitely a delicate negotiation of power going on- Jonathan is David's prince and military commander. In a sense, David wouldn't even really be allowed to say no to Jonathan. David can't say "I love you" first, he's not even allowed to leave town without asking permission. But the entire relationship revolves around David, not Jonathan.
David is the one who will eventually be king, and Jonathan figures that out, and since his love for David is self less and self sacrificing, he does step aside, which might be taken by some readers to mean that he's chosen "the female role" but that just says a lot of disturbing stuff about how said readers view women. Jonathan behaves as the ideal Biblical husband, surrendering to God's will meant he had to give up all of his earthly power, so he did that. He is able to understand that this doesn't make him weak, or "the woman". It seems like hundreds of thousands of men who belong to the Abrahamic faiths have been unable to follow this example at all.
Saul seems to condone the friendship, until he starts to see that David has the potential to be king, which might mean he would be dominating Jonathan, therefore, in Saul's eyes, making Jonathan the girl. Before, Saul might have rationalized it as "my son sleeps with men, but at least he's on top in every way." Of course, like the author of the first essay says, we can't begin to know how they expressed their feelings when alone.
You know, the slash fic talk might have been innappropriate here. Duly deleted for now.
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Belle-And-Sebastian/Jonathan-David.html
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
2nd Samuel
2nd Samuel
Weird how it's still called "Samuel" even though Sam is dead.
Of course, there are some things that don't make my comparison between Y/J and this Bible story work out so well, namely that David is a lot more manipulative- he is not really that bubbly, he watches people and does what he thinks they want him to do, so they will be charmed by the "simple country boy." Although he seems to be capable of strong, demonstrative emotion he also seems to keep his own counsel. He's definitely a showman, but in the sense that he's always on, if Hollywood had been invented at the time, David would have naturally known how to work camera angles and where to stand so the light hits him the best.
David is a really fascinating guy. He's totally ambitious and ruthless- yet extremely generous and big hearted to his own friends. He does take in Jonathan's crippled son, and he is loving toward Bathsheba and genuinely devastated at the death of their first baby. However, he really doesn't let the fact that she is already married get in the way of his plans either, he simply has her husband "meet with an accident" on the battlefield. Did he really rape her? I don't know, we're not given any sort of indication whether she was willing or not. If he had assaulted her, the text would say so, because when David's son rapes his half sister, the text definitely makes that perfectly clear. It's probably more likely that David and Bathsheba had a sort of Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky thing going on. He's taking advantage, but society tells her that she should consider it a privilidge to be taken advantage of by a world leader, so she decides not to mind.
I really like this whole story arc, for the depth of feeling and three dimensional characters involved. Unlike in say, the Exodus story, the author doesn't try to insist that bad things are happening to characters because "God has hardened the heart" of the person doing the horrible thing. David's actions are also condemned in the text, especially by his spiritual advisor, who presents David with a simple parable to explain to him the effects of his selfish behavior.
Gay Renaissance sculptors sure liked making naked statues of David. And the tradition seems to have continued, although not just among gay artists. Nude statues of Bible characters, aside from Adam and Eve, are not all that common. Mary Magdalene and Jesus seem to be the only other Bible characters pictured nude with any frequency, and Jesus is usually only pictured that way in his death scene, so there's no mistaking that this isn't meant to be a pleasant image (and the important bits are usually tastefully covered with a towel). Michaelangelo probably had to use a Bible character as a model for his famous sculpture, he couldn't just call it Random Hot Nude Boy at the time, but he could have used any character as a model. He chooses, David, who is probably the most sexually charged male character in the entire Bible, a man who simply cannot seem to keep his pants on. Then there's that tower, which basically resembles giant male genitalia. I think… that the prudishness of Jesus's time was not a consistent thing in Biblical culture.
It's interesting that David is never branded a whore, unlike women in the Bible who had a reputation for actually enjoying sex. It's also interesting that today's Christian leaders let King David get away with a lot of things they did not let Bill Clinton get away with.
Did you know there's this whole fascinating theory about King David and David Bowie?
http://www.yuletidetreasure.org/archive/1/hisown.html (David/Jonathan erotica. Skip if male/male sex offends you)
http://www.yuletidetreasure.org/archive/0/momentsafter.html (David/Jonathan erotica. )
http://japanpeterpan.livejournal.com/136122.html (erotica, not very fluffy)
http://community.livejournal.com/rarelitslash/134587.html (erotica)
http://cotillion.slashcity.org/efic/viewstory.php?sid=380 (erotica, perfect, stunning example of how to write sex and make it spiritual)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/614405/1 (cute, if somewhat dry, D/J romance. Basically PG rated right now)
http://books.adultfanfiction.net/story.php?no=544182357&chapter=2 (more fic, PG)
http://books.adultfanfiction.net/story.php?no=544182357&chapter=3 (more fic, also PG)
http://japanpeterpan.livejournal.com/206785.html (excerpt from a professionally published novel. PG but with a slashy tone)
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/27/231327/961 (Buffy, David, and the Religious Left. Good article, although the author seems to have forgotten about the tv series, which took the themes of the movie and ran with them)
http://epistle.us/homobible.html (Homosexuality in the Bible, with a HUGE section on D/J- I mean, really, really thorough)
http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/57994/ (cute D/J artwork, no nudity)
http://www.newtekpro.com/ArtGallery/2002/02/King_David.jpg
(this piece shows David reading a letter and looking shocked. He also looks extremely Bowielike)
David with Goliath's head
Gorgeous, gorgeous painting on the cover of a book. I don't know the artist, so I couldn't google the painting by itself.
Weird how it's still called "Samuel" even though Sam is dead.
Of course, there are some things that don't make my comparison between Y/J and this Bible story work out so well, namely that David is a lot more manipulative- he is not really that bubbly, he watches people and does what he thinks they want him to do, so they will be charmed by the "simple country boy." Although he seems to be capable of strong, demonstrative emotion he also seems to keep his own counsel. He's definitely a showman, but in the sense that he's always on, if Hollywood had been invented at the time, David would have naturally known how to work camera angles and where to stand so the light hits him the best.
David is a really fascinating guy. He's totally ambitious and ruthless- yet extremely generous and big hearted to his own friends. He does take in Jonathan's crippled son, and he is loving toward Bathsheba and genuinely devastated at the death of their first baby. However, he really doesn't let the fact that she is already married get in the way of his plans either, he simply has her husband "meet with an accident" on the battlefield. Did he really rape her? I don't know, we're not given any sort of indication whether she was willing or not. If he had assaulted her, the text would say so, because when David's son rapes his half sister, the text definitely makes that perfectly clear. It's probably more likely that David and Bathsheba had a sort of Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky thing going on. He's taking advantage, but society tells her that she should consider it a privilidge to be taken advantage of by a world leader, so she decides not to mind.
I really like this whole story arc, for the depth of feeling and three dimensional characters involved. Unlike in say, the Exodus story, the author doesn't try to insist that bad things are happening to characters because "God has hardened the heart" of the person doing the horrible thing. David's actions are also condemned in the text, especially by his spiritual advisor, who presents David with a simple parable to explain to him the effects of his selfish behavior.
Gay Renaissance sculptors sure liked making naked statues of David. And the tradition seems to have continued, although not just among gay artists. Nude statues of Bible characters, aside from Adam and Eve, are not all that common. Mary Magdalene and Jesus seem to be the only other Bible characters pictured nude with any frequency, and Jesus is usually only pictured that way in his death scene, so there's no mistaking that this isn't meant to be a pleasant image (and the important bits are usually tastefully covered with a towel). Michaelangelo probably had to use a Bible character as a model for his famous sculpture, he couldn't just call it Random Hot Nude Boy at the time, but he could have used any character as a model. He chooses, David, who is probably the most sexually charged male character in the entire Bible, a man who simply cannot seem to keep his pants on. Then there's that tower, which basically resembles giant male genitalia. I think… that the prudishness of Jesus's time was not a consistent thing in Biblical culture.
It's interesting that David is never branded a whore, unlike women in the Bible who had a reputation for actually enjoying sex. It's also interesting that today's Christian leaders let King David get away with a lot of things they did not let Bill Clinton get away with.
Did you know there's this whole fascinating theory about King David and David Bowie?
http://www.yuletidetreasure.org/archive/1/hisown.html (David/Jonathan erotica. Skip if male/male sex offends you)
http://www.yuletidetreasure.org/archive/0/momentsafter.html (David/Jonathan erotica. )
http://japanpeterpan.livejournal.com/136122.html (erotica, not very fluffy)
http://community.livejournal.com/rarelitslash/134587.html (erotica)
http://cotillion.slashcity.org/efic/viewstory.php?sid=380 (erotica, perfect, stunning example of how to write sex and make it spiritual)
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/614405/1 (cute, if somewhat dry, D/J romance. Basically PG rated right now)
http://books.adultfanfiction.net/story.php?no=544182357&chapter=2 (more fic, PG)
http://books.adultfanfiction.net/story.php?no=544182357&chapter=3 (more fic, also PG)
http://japanpeterpan.livejournal.com/206785.html (excerpt from a professionally published novel. PG but with a slashy tone)
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/7/27/231327/961 (Buffy, David, and the Religious Left. Good article, although the author seems to have forgotten about the tv series, which took the themes of the movie and ran with them)
http://epistle.us/homobible.html (Homosexuality in the Bible, with a HUGE section on D/J- I mean, really, really thorough)
http://yaoi.y-gallery.net/view/57994/ (cute D/J artwork, no nudity)
http://www.newtekpro.com/ArtGallery/2002/02/King_David.jpg
(this piece shows David reading a letter and looking shocked. He also looks extremely Bowielike)
David with Goliath's head
Gorgeous, gorgeous painting on the cover of a book. I don't know the artist, so I couldn't google the painting by itself.
Monday, August 20, 2007
1st Samuel 15-31
1st Samuel 15-31
God and Samuel are getting upset with Saul, who is not performing as expected. Because they had a war and Saul didn't kill everyone and everything belonging to their captured enemies. And Samuel tells him that he shouldn't have sacrificed the captured animals, because God wants spiritual sacrifices, not literal ones. Samuel harrangues Saul until he tearfully repents and slaughters the captured king that he had previously been treating extremely courteously.
Samuel said, "Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.
But wait, it's not what it sounds like…
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because you have rejected the word of Yahweh, he has also rejected you from being king."
That particular passage is so easily abused, especially when it comes to schooling, and parent/child relationships. In general, it's the cornerstone of the beliefs of the religious right. Or at least, the way they interpret it.
Now we segue into the story about David, the shepherd boy. The Israelites are fighting the Philistines (still, again, blah blah blah) and the enemy has a "giant" named Goliath. As I understand it, he's about seven feet tall, which is actually quite possible, he's not some fairytale giant, he's like Shaq sized.
This story is really well done. It is clear, concise, believable, and full of well drawn characters. It is also one of the first times a villain in a Bible story is drawn with as much color and personality as the heroes. Whoever is transcribing this story really wants to make it entertaining.
David knocks Goliath out with a rock from his slingshot, and becomes an instant war hero.
After that, we get an incredibly hot and romantic male slash love triangle.
I am not sure I buy the Ruth/Naomi as lesbians theory. I don't buy it because the whole point of the story is how Ruth and Boaz got together, and because women do interact differently with each other- there are many girls who are capable of acting the role of confidante, yenta, or mother figure to practically anyone. Naomi specifically wants to help Ruth, not only because Ruth needs help but because Boaz is clearly lonely. Naomi takes it upon herself to Fix Things. Yes, they're extremely affectionate with each other, but let's be honest, and I don't mean this in any sort of sexist way, but women are often more physically affectionate and emotionally open with each other than men are with other men. For example, I know very few women who are bothered by sharing a bed with another girl- at Writercon, I platonically shared a bed with a woman I'd never met before, and neither of us minded. But I had a conversation once with some straight guys who insisted that they would not share a bed- if there were three guys and two beds in the hotel room, someone was spending the night on the floor.
If Naomi and Ruth were lovers, why did Naomi spend so much time and energy fixing Ruth up with a man? And Ruth goes along with it completely. These stories were probably written by men, who would assume that this is how two close female friends would relate to each other, but a man probably also wrote the David/Jonathan story, which has characters acting in very unstereotypically male ways.
David and Jonathan are guys. Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible for men to act that way with each other, and I do understand that there are many places in the world where men are much more physically affectionate with each other than they are in North America, and that in antiquity, men were generally more touchy feely, this is a bit beyond all of that. Especially since the culture of the Bronze Age Israelites seems to have been one where machismo was extremely important, and these two men are soldiers. Hugging, weeping, kissing, vowing eternal love, would probably not be signs of just an extremely close male friendship. The whole relationship is just beyond the kind of Gilgamesh/Enkidu type really close male friends. I don’t deny that men can be that close without being sexually attracted to each other, but they're usually childhoodfriends or relatives and Jonathan seems to love David from the first time they met.
Look at Yossi and Jagger-lots of interesting parallels there anyway, (for example, this cartoon-look at their facial expressions. David is being goofy, while Jonathan stands to the side with a patient smile on his face)and the bit about how Jagger wanted to be a rock star. Different era, of course, but the rest of their unit didn't even realize they were sleeping together. And when they have a serious talk about their relationship, or rather, when Jagger attempts to initiate one, they're not even looking at, or touching each other. But in the David/Jonathan story, the characters are quite the drama queens, making it extremely difficult to ignore how they seem to feel about each other-if we were meant to take their relationship any other way I'm sure the writer would have toned things down. Saul certainly seems to have a big problem with it, although I'm sure his repeated attempts to stab David are only about the fact that David is more popular with the people- except that he happens to also call Jonathan a pervert and screams at him for being involved with David. David's the wrong gender, the wrong social class, and he's perceived as a threat to Saul's power in the kingdom.
Basically, if David and Jonathan were a man and a woman, people would just assume they were sleeping together. And the same people who insist they couldn't have been a couple- they were just "really close friends" are also people who would instantly assume that any two men outside the Bible who act that way with each other are gay.
I'd like to see this story filmed, as a serious examination of a gay romance in the Bible.
http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayLove3.html
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/faith/jt_add4.htm
http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/jonathan.htm
http://www.allfaith.com/Religions/Christianity/jon.html
http://www.mgb-home.de/D-Jonathan1.jpg
God and Samuel are getting upset with Saul, who is not performing as expected. Because they had a war and Saul didn't kill everyone and everything belonging to their captured enemies. And Samuel tells him that he shouldn't have sacrificed the captured animals, because God wants spiritual sacrifices, not literal ones. Samuel harrangues Saul until he tearfully repents and slaughters the captured king that he had previously been treating extremely courteously.
Samuel said, "Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.
But wait, it's not what it sounds like…
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim. Because you have rejected the word of Yahweh, he has also rejected you from being king."
That particular passage is so easily abused, especially when it comes to schooling, and parent/child relationships. In general, it's the cornerstone of the beliefs of the religious right. Or at least, the way they interpret it.
Now we segue into the story about David, the shepherd boy. The Israelites are fighting the Philistines (still, again, blah blah blah) and the enemy has a "giant" named Goliath. As I understand it, he's about seven feet tall, which is actually quite possible, he's not some fairytale giant, he's like Shaq sized.
This story is really well done. It is clear, concise, believable, and full of well drawn characters. It is also one of the first times a villain in a Bible story is drawn with as much color and personality as the heroes. Whoever is transcribing this story really wants to make it entertaining.
David knocks Goliath out with a rock from his slingshot, and becomes an instant war hero.
After that, we get an incredibly hot and romantic male slash love triangle.
I am not sure I buy the Ruth/Naomi as lesbians theory. I don't buy it because the whole point of the story is how Ruth and Boaz got together, and because women do interact differently with each other- there are many girls who are capable of acting the role of confidante, yenta, or mother figure to practically anyone. Naomi specifically wants to help Ruth, not only because Ruth needs help but because Boaz is clearly lonely. Naomi takes it upon herself to Fix Things. Yes, they're extremely affectionate with each other, but let's be honest, and I don't mean this in any sort of sexist way, but women are often more physically affectionate and emotionally open with each other than men are with other men. For example, I know very few women who are bothered by sharing a bed with another girl- at Writercon, I platonically shared a bed with a woman I'd never met before, and neither of us minded. But I had a conversation once with some straight guys who insisted that they would not share a bed- if there were three guys and two beds in the hotel room, someone was spending the night on the floor.
If Naomi and Ruth were lovers, why did Naomi spend so much time and energy fixing Ruth up with a man? And Ruth goes along with it completely. These stories were probably written by men, who would assume that this is how two close female friends would relate to each other, but a man probably also wrote the David/Jonathan story, which has characters acting in very unstereotypically male ways.
David and Jonathan are guys. Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible for men to act that way with each other, and I do understand that there are many places in the world where men are much more physically affectionate with each other than they are in North America, and that in antiquity, men were generally more touchy feely, this is a bit beyond all of that. Especially since the culture of the Bronze Age Israelites seems to have been one where machismo was extremely important, and these two men are soldiers. Hugging, weeping, kissing, vowing eternal love, would probably not be signs of just an extremely close male friendship. The whole relationship is just beyond the kind of Gilgamesh/Enkidu type really close male friends. I don’t deny that men can be that close without being sexually attracted to each other, but they're usually childhoodfriends or relatives and Jonathan seems to love David from the first time they met.
Look at Yossi and Jagger-lots of interesting parallels there anyway, (for example, this cartoon-look at their facial expressions. David is being goofy, while Jonathan stands to the side with a patient smile on his face)and the bit about how Jagger wanted to be a rock star. Different era, of course, but the rest of their unit didn't even realize they were sleeping together. And when they have a serious talk about their relationship, or rather, when Jagger attempts to initiate one, they're not even looking at, or touching each other. But in the David/Jonathan story, the characters are quite the drama queens, making it extremely difficult to ignore how they seem to feel about each other-if we were meant to take their relationship any other way I'm sure the writer would have toned things down. Saul certainly seems to have a big problem with it, although I'm sure his repeated attempts to stab David are only about the fact that David is more popular with the people- except that he happens to also call Jonathan a pervert and screams at him for being involved with David. David's the wrong gender, the wrong social class, and he's perceived as a threat to Saul's power in the kingdom.
Basically, if David and Jonathan were a man and a woman, people would just assume they were sleeping together. And the same people who insist they couldn't have been a couple- they were just "really close friends" are also people who would instantly assume that any two men outside the Bible who act that way with each other are gay.
I'd like to see this story filmed, as a serious examination of a gay romance in the Bible.
http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayLove3.html
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/faith/jt_add4.htm
http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/jonathan.htm
http://www.allfaith.com/Religions/Christianity/jon.html
http://www.mgb-home.de/D-Jonathan1.jpg
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Judges through 1st Samuel
Judges- 1st Samuel
I was supposed to write up my notes on Judges. I started, but got distracted with the other projects, and when I returned to Judges, I discovered it was just- my brain kept trying to shut down, screaming " I don't want to do this. I don't wanna do this. I donwannadothis!" So I didn't do it.
I have a couple of comments, I suppose. On Gideon: People like to tell and retell the great story of how he won that particular battle, however, they never continue the story, probably because Gideon gets drunk with power and turns into a jerk.
"Ruth"
A nice, romantic story that people say has lesbian undertones but I just don't see it (and I'm usually thrilled to see stuff like that). It also introduces us to the genealogy of David , which will become important for a couple of reasons.
1st Samuel 1-14
A woman is being teased by her husband's other wife, because she's barren. So she goes to the Temple and prays for a son, promising that if she gives birth, the child will be dedicated to God and she will never cut his hair. When she has the child, she names him Samuel.
At the time, the priest's sons are extremely corrupt, but Samuel, who serves in the Temple as a child, is not. Samuel has an experience where he hears God at night, in the Temple.
Because Israel is corrupt, there's a battle and they lose really, really badly to the Philistines, in fact, they lose the Ark. The Philistines take the Ark to their own camp and set it up next to their god Dagon (the Philistines seem to have a lot of different gods at different periods in time). But every morning when they enter the tent, the Dagon statue is on his face before the Ark. The Philistines begin getting tumors (the way you would when exposed to radiation…) and so they move the Ark to another city. But there's another outbreak of tumors.
The desperate Philistines practice a bit of image magic, making golden representations of their tumors to send back to Israel with the Ark as a sort of plea to God.
After several years, the people of Israel begin to beg Samuel (the Judge) and God for a king. But God and Samuel say that the Israelites don't really understand what they're asking for. They go ahead and appoint Saul after a whole complicated story I only skimmed.
Here's something interesting. As I understand what happens next, Saul manages to lose Yahweh's favor by inexplicably attacking the Philistines and starting a whole nother war. So things are really , really awful and so guess what the people's great idea is for solving everything?
"Let's kill Jonathan, the prince. "
I read something once, that talked about this strange compulsion every society has, that is basically a resurfacing of very ancient ideas. In ancient cults, if people felt true disaster had arrived (the gods are displeased) their instinct was "it's not good enough to sacrifice an animal, if we give them one of us, a human, they will forgive us." And it can't be just anyone, it has to be someone important, like children, or a beautiful virgin, or a popular leader. I think this might be the deep down reason for a certain type of high profile political assassination. Logically, shooting JFK in the head caused more problems than it solved, and the people who planned and executed the murder must have known that. But the primitive, unconscious mind doesn't care .
I was supposed to write up my notes on Judges. I started, but got distracted with the other projects, and when I returned to Judges, I discovered it was just- my brain kept trying to shut down, screaming " I don't want to do this. I don't wanna do this. I donwannadothis!" So I didn't do it.
I have a couple of comments, I suppose. On Gideon: People like to tell and retell the great story of how he won that particular battle, however, they never continue the story, probably because Gideon gets drunk with power and turns into a jerk.
"Ruth"
A nice, romantic story that people say has lesbian undertones but I just don't see it (and I'm usually thrilled to see stuff like that). It also introduces us to the genealogy of David , which will become important for a couple of reasons.
1st Samuel 1-14
A woman is being teased by her husband's other wife, because she's barren. So she goes to the Temple and prays for a son, promising that if she gives birth, the child will be dedicated to God and she will never cut his hair. When she has the child, she names him Samuel.
At the time, the priest's sons are extremely corrupt, but Samuel, who serves in the Temple as a child, is not. Samuel has an experience where he hears God at night, in the Temple.
Because Israel is corrupt, there's a battle and they lose really, really badly to the Philistines, in fact, they lose the Ark. The Philistines take the Ark to their own camp and set it up next to their god Dagon (the Philistines seem to have a lot of different gods at different periods in time). But every morning when they enter the tent, the Dagon statue is on his face before the Ark. The Philistines begin getting tumors (the way you would when exposed to radiation…) and so they move the Ark to another city. But there's another outbreak of tumors.
The desperate Philistines practice a bit of image magic, making golden representations of their tumors to send back to Israel with the Ark as a sort of plea to God.
After several years, the people of Israel begin to beg Samuel (the Judge) and God for a king. But God and Samuel say that the Israelites don't really understand what they're asking for. They go ahead and appoint Saul after a whole complicated story I only skimmed.
Here's something interesting. As I understand what happens next, Saul manages to lose Yahweh's favor by inexplicably attacking the Philistines and starting a whole nother war. So things are really , really awful and so guess what the people's great idea is for solving everything?
"Let's kill Jonathan, the prince. "
I read something once, that talked about this strange compulsion every society has, that is basically a resurfacing of very ancient ideas. In ancient cults, if people felt true disaster had arrived (the gods are displeased) their instinct was "it's not good enough to sacrifice an animal, if we give them one of us, a human, they will forgive us." And it can't be just anyone, it has to be someone important, like children, or a beautiful virgin, or a popular leader. I think this might be the deep down reason for a certain type of high profile political assassination. Logically, shooting JFK in the head caused more problems than it solved, and the people who planned and executed the murder must have known that. But the primitive, unconscious mind doesn't care .
Joshua
Joshua 1-7
Joshua is now the leader, very much the military man, which Moses was not. A prostitute called Rahab shelters Joshua's men when they go to case the city. The story doesn't seem to specify exactly what kind of prostitute she is, but she's got a house so she must be doing well (maybe a temple priestess?).. Incidentally, some people say she is an ancestor of Jesus. I cannot find where I read that now, which is quite frustrating. According to this book, she "lives among the Israelites to this day". She agrees to leave a length of red yarn hanging from her window so the soldiers will know which house to not touch, and she brings the people whose lives she wants to spare into the house with her.
Red string, like the number seven, is a recurring motif in the Bible. It's carried through to today in the Kabbalah (well, more precisely Jewish folk magic which is not technically the same thing). The mysterious prostitute is also a recurring theme but I'll touch on that when it comes up again later.
Joshua meets a man with a sword, and asks him "so, what side are you on?" And the man says "Neither, I am the commander of the Lord's Armies." According to most mythology, that'd make him the archangel Michael. Sort of, from this point of view, the celestial equivalent of Joshua.
He tells Joshua to march around the city once a day for six days, and on the seventh day to march around the city seven times. Then everyone should stop and shout all at once. If nothing else, this is extremely effective psychological warfare. When the city falls, Rahab's life is indeed spared. Joshua also tells the army to take the sacred items from the temple and put them in God's treasury.
Joshua God of War versus Prince of Peace
The only people who supposedly are spared besides Rahab's people are a tribe that comes to Joshua and offers to serve the Israelites forever if they're not killed.
The Reubenites and the Gaddites build an altar on their own side of the river, which upsets the other Israelites. The others gather an army against them at a place called Shiloh. It's an interesting coincidence that Shiloh in the US was the location of an important American Civil War battle. Anyway, the people building the altar manage to pacify the others by explaining that they only wanted a place near home to worship God.
But the war against all other people keeps raging. There are only a few places God insists that they cannot have, Egypt and Seir are two. It's interesting how protective God's been of Egypt, in spite of having to rescue his people from it. He won't let the Israelites war against Egypt, he tells them to be nice to the Egyptians… but the Caananites all have to go.
I've always felt sympathy for the people in these stories. I have never simply dismissed it all as irrelevant and bloodthirsty mythology of a cruel God. I have spent the last five books asking questions, having in-depth discussions on culture and translations, putting things in historical context. But I find that around the middle of Joshua, my patience runs out. There is kill, and there is overkill, and this is just too much. The blood and violence just keeps coming to the point where I actually felt sickened and I couldn't keep reading. So you'll have to forgive me but I won't be finishing Joshua.
It's at this point in the Bible that the issue of God's warlike side becomes a serious problem. There's no longer a visible excuse for the violence, it's just people going to town on their neighbors because they want to. They had a chance to stop and take some land no one else appeared to be using, but the people who suggested it were bullied into continuing on. People who don't want to fight are shouted down and called traitors. They're so into fighting that they actually almost start a war with themselves when they run out of other people to kill. This does not make the Israelites worse than any other group (the people they war with in the OT were not fluffy indigenous bunnies), or their god worse than other gods, nor does it change the concept of God as being good.
God is a war god. That's what Yahweh Saboath means, "Lord of Armies".
I guess one question is, what people is God the war god of? If he is the "king of the universe", then whatever he chooses to do in regards to moving the human chess pieces around is a result of how huge this universal God is as a concept. If he made everything, then he chooses when to destroy it as well. And if God is just a tribal god who got big, then he's simply putting the needs of his own people ahead of the needs of others, which is understandable for a tribal god. Especially since the definition of "his own people" has expanded so much in the last millenium. Wikipedia says there are 14 million Jews in the world currently. I think Christians and Muslims put together add up to about 2.8 billion of the world's population. There's also some groups that worship the same god but don’t, for whatever reason, fit into the above three categories. Now what happens if, say, Christians and Muslims decide to have a war, and the Jews get stuck in between? Or some other similar problem?
It could basically rip the world apart.
Many hyper conservative Christians have been encouraging parents for decades to have as many children as possible and to raise them to be little soldiers for God. They do tend to think of themselves as an army that must continuously recruit or it will die. Even if some people have to be drafted. The children are raised with the mindset that they are learning battle skills, and that the rest of the world is out there waiting to get them.
When I was little in Sunday School, we'd sing this song called I’m in the Lord's Army. The basic idea was, you might never get to be in the military and blow things up and shoot people but you can be a warrior for God. Our summer camp did a whole "Lord's Army" theme one year.
My whole childhood was filled with martial images like that. Songs about onward Christian soldiers, and blood and stories of people dying horrible deaths.
….And we weren't one of the scariest denominations. There were a lot of intellectual training games, such as "sword drills (verse finding competitions) and "quizzing". Membership drives, reading competitions- church was an endless competition. A sort of spiritual military school and I was from a West Point family. My sister, I think, has come close to being undefeated in sword drilling since she was about ten. No one was overtly pro war, but no one really talked about the concept of being anti violence either. We were taught that it's wrong to hit people (in spite of the fact that several of the parents believed in corporal punishment), but no one made the connection between that, and war.
And so how do we square this with the nonviolent message of Jesus? It's very difficult if you want to think of them as being the same guy, instead of Jesus simply representing the highest human potential. I think that's one of the reasons why Christianity has that weird personality disorder. There are nonviolent and pacifist Christian denominations- the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Amish…who are finding themselves increasingly at odds with the loudest voices in Christianity. And it's not new, it's always been a big problem, the usurping of the church back in the Roman era was done by a military commander. And ever since then, it's divided Christians into two groups, people who revel in the battle, and people who don't.
Can someone who isn't into war, isn't into conquering the world for God, still be a warrior? Clearly there's a sort of a war coming, the first advance troops were sent out against the rest of the world three decades ago. And when you discover, as I have, that you're not on the side you were brought up to be on, and there's a chance you will have to fight these troops, how do you do it? What do you do? Should the fact that your god is a warrior god be dismissed? It's all well and good to say "I won't stoop to their level, I won't give them the satisfaction of responding", but they're simply not getting the message, they're just going to keep pushing until you push back.
Right now, for privileged Westerners, it's only words and politics, and that seems bad enough. But less fortunate people all over the world are dealing with real consequences from our "words and politics".
Joshua is now the leader, very much the military man, which Moses was not. A prostitute called Rahab shelters Joshua's men when they go to case the city. The story doesn't seem to specify exactly what kind of prostitute she is, but she's got a house so she must be doing well (maybe a temple priestess?).. Incidentally, some people say she is an ancestor of Jesus. I cannot find where I read that now, which is quite frustrating. According to this book, she "lives among the Israelites to this day". She agrees to leave a length of red yarn hanging from her window so the soldiers will know which house to not touch, and she brings the people whose lives she wants to spare into the house with her.
Red string, like the number seven, is a recurring motif in the Bible. It's carried through to today in the Kabbalah (well, more precisely Jewish folk magic which is not technically the same thing). The mysterious prostitute is also a recurring theme but I'll touch on that when it comes up again later.
Joshua meets a man with a sword, and asks him "so, what side are you on?" And the man says "Neither, I am the commander of the Lord's Armies." According to most mythology, that'd make him the archangel Michael. Sort of, from this point of view, the celestial equivalent of Joshua.
He tells Joshua to march around the city once a day for six days, and on the seventh day to march around the city seven times. Then everyone should stop and shout all at once. If nothing else, this is extremely effective psychological warfare. When the city falls, Rahab's life is indeed spared. Joshua also tells the army to take the sacred items from the temple and put them in God's treasury.
Joshua God of War versus Prince of Peace
The only people who supposedly are spared besides Rahab's people are a tribe that comes to Joshua and offers to serve the Israelites forever if they're not killed.
The Reubenites and the Gaddites build an altar on their own side of the river, which upsets the other Israelites. The others gather an army against them at a place called Shiloh. It's an interesting coincidence that Shiloh in the US was the location of an important American Civil War battle. Anyway, the people building the altar manage to pacify the others by explaining that they only wanted a place near home to worship God.
But the war against all other people keeps raging. There are only a few places God insists that they cannot have, Egypt and Seir are two. It's interesting how protective God's been of Egypt, in spite of having to rescue his people from it. He won't let the Israelites war against Egypt, he tells them to be nice to the Egyptians… but the Caananites all have to go.
I've always felt sympathy for the people in these stories. I have never simply dismissed it all as irrelevant and bloodthirsty mythology of a cruel God. I have spent the last five books asking questions, having in-depth discussions on culture and translations, putting things in historical context. But I find that around the middle of Joshua, my patience runs out. There is kill, and there is overkill, and this is just too much. The blood and violence just keeps coming to the point where I actually felt sickened and I couldn't keep reading. So you'll have to forgive me but I won't be finishing Joshua.
It's at this point in the Bible that the issue of God's warlike side becomes a serious problem. There's no longer a visible excuse for the violence, it's just people going to town on their neighbors because they want to. They had a chance to stop and take some land no one else appeared to be using, but the people who suggested it were bullied into continuing on. People who don't want to fight are shouted down and called traitors. They're so into fighting that they actually almost start a war with themselves when they run out of other people to kill. This does not make the Israelites worse than any other group (the people they war with in the OT were not fluffy indigenous bunnies), or their god worse than other gods, nor does it change the concept of God as being good.
God is a war god. That's what Yahweh Saboath means, "Lord of Armies".
I guess one question is, what people is God the war god of? If he is the "king of the universe", then whatever he chooses to do in regards to moving the human chess pieces around is a result of how huge this universal God is as a concept. If he made everything, then he chooses when to destroy it as well. And if God is just a tribal god who got big, then he's simply putting the needs of his own people ahead of the needs of others, which is understandable for a tribal god. Especially since the definition of "his own people" has expanded so much in the last millenium. Wikipedia says there are 14 million Jews in the world currently. I think Christians and Muslims put together add up to about 2.8 billion of the world's population. There's also some groups that worship the same god but don’t, for whatever reason, fit into the above three categories. Now what happens if, say, Christians and Muslims decide to have a war, and the Jews get stuck in between? Or some other similar problem?
It could basically rip the world apart.
Many hyper conservative Christians have been encouraging parents for decades to have as many children as possible and to raise them to be little soldiers for God. They do tend to think of themselves as an army that must continuously recruit or it will die. Even if some people have to be drafted. The children are raised with the mindset that they are learning battle skills, and that the rest of the world is out there waiting to get them.
When I was little in Sunday School, we'd sing this song called I’m in the Lord's Army. The basic idea was, you might never get to be in the military and blow things up and shoot people but you can be a warrior for God. Our summer camp did a whole "Lord's Army" theme one year.
My whole childhood was filled with martial images like that. Songs about onward Christian soldiers, and blood and stories of people dying horrible deaths.
….And we weren't one of the scariest denominations. There were a lot of intellectual training games, such as "sword drills (verse finding competitions) and "quizzing". Membership drives, reading competitions- church was an endless competition. A sort of spiritual military school and I was from a West Point family. My sister, I think, has come close to being undefeated in sword drilling since she was about ten. No one was overtly pro war, but no one really talked about the concept of being anti violence either. We were taught that it's wrong to hit people (in spite of the fact that several of the parents believed in corporal punishment), but no one made the connection between that, and war.
And so how do we square this with the nonviolent message of Jesus? It's very difficult if you want to think of them as being the same guy, instead of Jesus simply representing the highest human potential. I think that's one of the reasons why Christianity has that weird personality disorder. There are nonviolent and pacifist Christian denominations- the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Amish…who are finding themselves increasingly at odds with the loudest voices in Christianity. And it's not new, it's always been a big problem, the usurping of the church back in the Roman era was done by a military commander. And ever since then, it's divided Christians into two groups, people who revel in the battle, and people who don't.
Can someone who isn't into war, isn't into conquering the world for God, still be a warrior? Clearly there's a sort of a war coming, the first advance troops were sent out against the rest of the world three decades ago. And when you discover, as I have, that you're not on the side you were brought up to be on, and there's a chance you will have to fight these troops, how do you do it? What do you do? Should the fact that your god is a warrior god be dismissed? It's all well and good to say "I won't stoop to their level, I won't give them the satisfaction of responding", but they're simply not getting the message, they're just going to keep pushing until you push back.
Right now, for privileged Westerners, it's only words and politics, and that seems bad enough. But less fortunate people all over the world are dealing with real consequences from our "words and politics".
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Deuteronmy 21-26
Chapters 21-26
21:10-14
10 "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
So you can take a woman pow captive and force her to have sex with you, but only if you let her mourn her family first. Then if yourapesleep with her and don't like her after all, then you have to let her go and you can't sell her to someone else. Okkaaay… Well, I guess that qualified as civilized and enlightened back then.
21:18
18 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
The whole town gets to kill disobedient children. What's the length things are allowed to get to before this happens?
22:5
5 "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
This shouldn't, despite what some conservative religious people think, mean that women are not allowed to wear pants. Women wearing pants made for women are not cross dressing, just like men in kilts and robes are not cross dressing. I have a feeling there's a lot more to this verse, I just don't have time to look into it at this exact moment.
22:20-24
20 But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. 22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. 23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you
If she's not a virgin, she has to die. Yes, I'm aware that this could mean simply that she gets in trouble for lying about it, but there's still a disgusting double standard here and I don't see any way the passage can be justified. I respect the concept that people should save themselves for marriage (even though in practice, it doesn't work too well) but that means a woman should have a right to expect *her* partner hasn't been with anyone else either.
If a man rapes a woman in a city, and she doesn't scream for help, they both have to die. This is rather naïve, in assuming that just because she'd scream, someone would rush to her aid. It's obviously written by a man, and most likely a very sheltered man too. They don't seem to grasp how rape sometimes really works- that rape can happen and no one bothers to stop and protect the woman, or that sometimes there are fuzzy gray lines where sex starts out consensual and ends up something else, that people can be repeatedly raped for years and not even realize that's what has happened to them (such as husbands forcing themselves on their wives) or that the man can simply put his hand over her mouth so she can't scream. I don't think they had roofies back then, but I bet they had some kind of similar herb and failing that, a rock or a cudgel works pretty well.
Yes, in an ideal world, if a woman was being attacked and screamed, there would be plenty of people who would do the decent thing and help her. But we don't live in that world, that's why colleges have to hand out mace and teach female students self defense moves.
23:1-7
1 "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the LORD. 2 "No bastard shall enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
3 "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of the LORD for ever; 4 because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Be'or from Pethor of Mesopota'mia, to curse you.
What if it's not his fault? What if he's castrated without his consent? And some poor kid can't enter the temple because his parents screwed up? It really seems like an awful lot of people are ending up excluded here.
And as a Christian, this does bother me. The thing about my religion is that, even though the proselytizing is annoying, and the pushyness is annoying, Christianity makes a point of actively reaching out to everyone. Yes, people are encouraged to change behavior that is seen as undesirable in order to be considered part of a specific congregation, but no one is ever, ever, ever, officially blocked from worshipping. The worst that can happen is excommunication and that only happens due to something that you, yourself have actually done, and only in the like three or four denominations (out of hundreds) that actually practice excommunication. You can't be kicked out of church because of your race or because of something your parents did.
And no one is ever barred from entering a church building on the basis of not being able to provide adequate paperwork.
One of the big things that has stopped me from joining some other religion is that most of them have never extended any effort to reach out to me. People come to Christianity because they feel wanted.
7 "You shall not abhor an E'domite, for he is your brother; you shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land. 8 The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.
23:17
15 "You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you; 16 he shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place which he shall choose within one of your towns, where it pleases him best; you shall not oppress him. 17 "There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel.
A nifty concept of proto social justice, followed immediately by another prohibition against cult prostitutes, who the authors really seem to hate.
25:11
11 "When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity.
So if two men are fighting, and the wife tries to defend her husband and touches the other man on his privates, it's the wife who gets in trouble? WTF? That makes no sense!
Deut 27-30
Moses talks about what'll happen if the Israelites reject God. Or maybe just general prophecies, I wasn't clear on that.
28:49
49 The Lord will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, to swoop down on you like an eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand, 50 a grim-faced nation showing no respect to the old or favor to the young. 51 It shall consume the fruit of your livestock and the fruit of your ground until you are destroyed, leaving you neither grain, wine, and oil, nor the increase of your cattle and the issue of your flock, until it has made you perish. 52 It shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout your land; it shall besiege you in all your towns throughout the land that the Lord your God has given you.
Is this perhaps about Rome? Oh man, I hope it's only about Rome.
Well, Moses has half the people stand on one mountain and pronounce a curse, and half the people stand on another mountain and pronounce a blessing. Then they all gather together and Moses preaches to them one last time before he goes off to die.
RIP Moses, you weren't so bad.
21:10-14
10 "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.
So you can take a woman pow captive and force her to have sex with you, but only if you let her mourn her family first. Then if you
21:18
18 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
The whole town gets to kill disobedient children. What's the length things are allowed to get to before this happens?
22:5
5 "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
This shouldn't, despite what some conservative religious people think, mean that women are not allowed to wear pants. Women wearing pants made for women are not cross dressing, just like men in kilts and robes are not cross dressing. I have a feeling there's a lot more to this verse, I just don't have time to look into it at this exact moment.
22:20-24
20 But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. 22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. 23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you
If she's not a virgin, she has to die. Yes, I'm aware that this could mean simply that she gets in trouble for lying about it, but there's still a disgusting double standard here and I don't see any way the passage can be justified. I respect the concept that people should save themselves for marriage (even though in practice, it doesn't work too well) but that means a woman should have a right to expect *her* partner hasn't been with anyone else either.
If a man rapes a woman in a city, and she doesn't scream for help, they both have to die. This is rather naïve, in assuming that just because she'd scream, someone would rush to her aid. It's obviously written by a man, and most likely a very sheltered man too. They don't seem to grasp how rape sometimes really works- that rape can happen and no one bothers to stop and protect the woman, or that sometimes there are fuzzy gray lines where sex starts out consensual and ends up something else, that people can be repeatedly raped for years and not even realize that's what has happened to them (such as husbands forcing themselves on their wives) or that the man can simply put his hand over her mouth so she can't scream. I don't think they had roofies back then, but I bet they had some kind of similar herb and failing that, a rock or a cudgel works pretty well.
Yes, in an ideal world, if a woman was being attacked and screamed, there would be plenty of people who would do the decent thing and help her. But we don't live in that world, that's why colleges have to hand out mace and teach female students self defense moves.
23:1-7
1 "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the LORD. 2 "No bastard shall enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
3 "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none belonging to them shall enter the assembly of the LORD for ever; 4 because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Be'or from Pethor of Mesopota'mia, to curse you.
What if it's not his fault? What if he's castrated without his consent? And some poor kid can't enter the temple because his parents screwed up? It really seems like an awful lot of people are ending up excluded here.
And as a Christian, this does bother me. The thing about my religion is that, even though the proselytizing is annoying, and the pushyness is annoying, Christianity makes a point of actively reaching out to everyone. Yes, people are encouraged to change behavior that is seen as undesirable in order to be considered part of a specific congregation, but no one is ever, ever, ever, officially blocked from worshipping. The worst that can happen is excommunication and that only happens due to something that you, yourself have actually done, and only in the like three or four denominations (out of hundreds) that actually practice excommunication. You can't be kicked out of church because of your race or because of something your parents did.
And no one is ever barred from entering a church building on the basis of not being able to provide adequate paperwork.
One of the big things that has stopped me from joining some other religion is that most of them have never extended any effort to reach out to me. People come to Christianity because they feel wanted.
7 "You shall not abhor an E'domite, for he is your brother; you shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land. 8 The children of the third generation that are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.
23:17
15 "You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you; 16 he shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place which he shall choose within one of your towns, where it pleases him best; you shall not oppress him. 17 "There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel.
A nifty concept of proto social justice, followed immediately by another prohibition against cult prostitutes, who the authors really seem to hate.
25:11
11 "When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, 12 then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall have no pity.
So if two men are fighting, and the wife tries to defend her husband and touches the other man on his privates, it's the wife who gets in trouble? WTF? That makes no sense!
Deut 27-30
Moses talks about what'll happen if the Israelites reject God. Or maybe just general prophecies, I wasn't clear on that.
28:49
49 The Lord will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, to swoop down on you like an eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand, 50 a grim-faced nation showing no respect to the old or favor to the young. 51 It shall consume the fruit of your livestock and the fruit of your ground until you are destroyed, leaving you neither grain, wine, and oil, nor the increase of your cattle and the issue of your flock, until it has made you perish. 52 It shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout your land; it shall besiege you in all your towns throughout the land that the Lord your God has given you.
Is this perhaps about Rome? Oh man, I hope it's only about Rome.
Well, Moses has half the people stand on one mountain and pronounce a curse, and half the people stand on another mountain and pronounce a blessing. Then they all gather together and Moses preaches to them one last time before he goes off to die.
RIP Moses, you weren't so bad.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Deuteronomy 7-20
7:1-12
For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. and
7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.
7:17 If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them?
7:18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them: but shalt well remember what the LORD thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt;
7:19 The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the LORD thy God brought thee out: so shall the LORD thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid.
7:20 Moreover the LORD thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.
7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
7:22 And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
7:23 But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
7:24 And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.
7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
Wow. This book is getting a bit scary. Way to ram home the point, high priest guy pretending this is written by Moses. Sounds a lot like the Puritans.
In 9:5 we're told that God is not doing this because Israel is special and good, but because the other people are just that awful, God just has to kill them. Thing is, we can't ever know for sure know, since so much of the culture of these conquered people was destroyed.
Deut 10-25
Regarding the rules about women and their periods-and I know this is off topic but now is when I thought of it..
Today, we think of isolation during your period as some kind of horrible punishment. But back then, maybe it came as a relief to women. Women had fewer rights, they didn't always even have the right to decide when they'd have sex. Remember that it's only been about thirty years since wealthy, industrialized nations with democratic leadership agreed that a man forcing sex on his wife still legally counts as rape. But what if there were specific times when GOD and the legal authorities mandated that a woman could not be touched? Someone who had to live every day with concerns over being accosted, groped or forced to have sex when she didn't feel like it and couldn't even get much access to birth control might welcome such a law. She can go and be as hormonal and cranky as
She wants to be without having to put on a falsely hospitable mask, and then she gets to pamper herself with a nice long bath. And you know, men don't know what's going on down there, you could stall him for at least a couple of days extra.
Okay, back to the reading. It's been a week or two since I actually read these chapters, and although I took notes they might not be as complete as I thought. Click the links to view some Brick Testament illustrations!
Deuteronomy 10-15
Chapters 10-15
We are told in this chapter once again, to never eat blood.
13:8-11
And if anyone says "let us go and worship other gods (gods we have not known)…
And if the town falls to worshipping another god, the entire town must be killed. It doesn't say how, but everyone's gotta die.
I'll really trying here, but I just have nothing to say to that.
Deuteronomy 16-20
Chapters 16-20
The king must not have too much gold or take too many wives. First off, didn't they only have a judge at this point? What's with the king talk? Or is Mr. Document Forger forgetting that he's supposed to stay in character? Maybe this is "advice for a future king". It's good advice though and if more kings paid heed to it, maybe other things would work out better too.
For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. and
7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.
7:17 If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them?
7:18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them: but shalt well remember what the LORD thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt;
7:19 The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the LORD thy God brought thee out: so shall the LORD thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid.
7:20 Moreover the LORD thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.
7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
7:22 And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
7:23 But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
7:24 And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.
7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God.
Wow. This book is getting a bit scary. Way to ram home the point, high priest guy pretending this is written by Moses. Sounds a lot like the Puritans.
In 9:5 we're told that God is not doing this because Israel is special and good, but because the other people are just that awful, God just has to kill them. Thing is, we can't ever know for sure know, since so much of the culture of these conquered people was destroyed.
Deut 10-25
Regarding the rules about women and their periods-and I know this is off topic but now is when I thought of it..
Today, we think of isolation during your period as some kind of horrible punishment. But back then, maybe it came as a relief to women. Women had fewer rights, they didn't always even have the right to decide when they'd have sex. Remember that it's only been about thirty years since wealthy, industrialized nations with democratic leadership agreed that a man forcing sex on his wife still legally counts as rape. But what if there were specific times when GOD and the legal authorities mandated that a woman could not be touched? Someone who had to live every day with concerns over being accosted, groped or forced to have sex when she didn't feel like it and couldn't even get much access to birth control might welcome such a law. She can go and be as hormonal and cranky as
She wants to be without having to put on a falsely hospitable mask, and then she gets to pamper herself with a nice long bath. And you know, men don't know what's going on down there, you could stall him for at least a couple of days extra.
Okay, back to the reading. It's been a week or two since I actually read these chapters, and although I took notes they might not be as complete as I thought. Click the links to view some Brick Testament illustrations!
Deuteronomy 10-15
Chapters 10-15
We are told in this chapter once again, to never eat blood.
13:8-11
And if anyone says "let us go and worship other gods (gods we have not known)…
And if the town falls to worshipping another god, the entire town must be killed. It doesn't say how, but everyone's gotta die.
I'll really trying here, but I just have nothing to say to that.
Deuteronomy 16-20
Chapters 16-20
The king must not have too much gold or take too many wives. First off, didn't they only have a judge at this point? What's with the king talk? Or is Mr. Document Forger forgetting that he's supposed to stay in character? Maybe this is "advice for a future king". It's good advice though and if more kings paid heed to it, maybe other things would work out better too.
Deuteronomy 5-9
Deut 4-9
This is a well written passage in 4:11.
You came and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens with black clouds and deep darkness.
So it's a volcano type thing, I suppose. Now, this doesn't mean that we can just say "Oh, it was a natural phenom, that's all". Because Moses goes into the volcano and comes out alive. But definitely, whatever was in that mountain is what got put in the ark- and that thing killed people. I skimmed the Gardiner book "Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark" and he's got some interesting theories.
Somewhere around verse 14, the people are warned in a lengthy diatribe, not to make grave images and not to worship "the created and not the creator".
This is not about having pictures on the wall, or about paying tribute to different aspects of God. Of course whatever image of God we as humans try to create will be just a reflection of our own psyches. So we've definitely got to be careful there. But idolatry can be pretty insidious. Some Christian churches actually put loyalty to the inerrency of the Bible ahead of Jesus and even God. When I was little, my parent's denomination went through a brief period where they stressed pledging allegiance to a "Christian flag". Money can be an idol. It certainly is here in the US. Many of the worst atrocities of modern times have either been directly the result of greed, or somehow motivated by greed, often masked as religion or whatever the favorite style of government is (buy a new washing machine, do it for democracy's sake!)
Neo pagans are often accused of "worshipping the created and not the creator". Ironically, the people who do the most accusing are the sort of Christians who actively worship Jesus as God. Neo pagans (although I dislike using such a blanket term) worship the spark of God that is in all of nature, not the rock or tree itself. They're aware, as most pagans from at least the time the Greeks began writing down some serious literature have been aware, that Gods do not really reside in statues. Generally, when they forget that, that's when things go downhill for them, just like they would for Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a huge problem with the idea of Jesus as God, but look at it this way. God has been God since the dawn of the universe, and will be God for eternity. Jesus lived 33 years. From the perspective of an immortal, 33 years is nothing. Even Jesus insists "I'm not more important than God!"
This is a well written passage in 4:11.
You came and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens with black clouds and deep darkness.
So it's a volcano type thing, I suppose. Now, this doesn't mean that we can just say "Oh, it was a natural phenom, that's all". Because Moses goes into the volcano and comes out alive. But definitely, whatever was in that mountain is what got put in the ark- and that thing killed people. I skimmed the Gardiner book "Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark" and he's got some interesting theories.
Somewhere around verse 14, the people are warned in a lengthy diatribe, not to make grave images and not to worship "the created and not the creator".
This is not about having pictures on the wall, or about paying tribute to different aspects of God. Of course whatever image of God we as humans try to create will be just a reflection of our own psyches. So we've definitely got to be careful there. But idolatry can be pretty insidious. Some Christian churches actually put loyalty to the inerrency of the Bible ahead of Jesus and even God. When I was little, my parent's denomination went through a brief period where they stressed pledging allegiance to a "Christian flag". Money can be an idol. It certainly is here in the US. Many of the worst atrocities of modern times have either been directly the result of greed, or somehow motivated by greed, often masked as religion or whatever the favorite style of government is (buy a new washing machine, do it for democracy's sake!)
Neo pagans are often accused of "worshipping the created and not the creator". Ironically, the people who do the most accusing are the sort of Christians who actively worship Jesus as God. Neo pagans (although I dislike using such a blanket term) worship the spark of God that is in all of nature, not the rock or tree itself. They're aware, as most pagans from at least the time the Greeks began writing down some serious literature have been aware, that Gods do not really reside in statues. Generally, when they forget that, that's when things go downhill for them, just like they would for Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a huge problem with the idea of Jesus as God, but look at it this way. God has been God since the dawn of the universe, and will be God for eternity. Jesus lived 33 years. From the perspective of an immortal, 33 years is nothing. Even Jesus insists "I'm not more important than God!"
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Deuteronomy 1-4
Deut 1-4
The boundary of the land God promises to his people seems to be expanding, while the criteria of who is considered a true Israelite seems to be shrinking. That's the way it seems to me when I'm reading it, anyway.
God and Moses create the concept of a "judge", a person who will function as the legal and martial head of the nation.
My notes say "who is talking here, oh..Moses". LOL. This is written in first person, by Moses. I've gone and looked this up, and it seems that Talmudic scholars suspected that this book wasn’t really written by Moses, because it describes his death and says " there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses". They think Joshua wrote it. From Wikipedia- These writers had no problem identifying a period for the text to have been written within. At the end of the 2 Kings, there is an enigmatic story of the religious reform conducted during the reign of King Josiah, also recounted more briefly in the 2 Chronicles 34:3. After eradicating the rival cultic centres to Jerusalem, Josiah purged the Temple in Jerusalem of pagan influences (621 BC). During the process of cleansing, Hilkiah, the High Priest, found a lost scroll of the Torah, whose laws were happily in complete accord with the reforms then being instituted."
But for now, frankly I don't care that much who really wrote it, whoever they are, I suspect I wouldn't like them.
He recounts what happened in Numbers. Right away, I'm noticing that this version of events is not the same as the one I just finished reading. This time, the Lord says he won't give them the land of Esau, although in the last book he promised it to them. He will not give them the Moabite land, it's reserved for the descendants of Lot (although in the last book they were told go to war with the Moabites and slaughter them all). He will not give them the land of the Ammonites either.
God will not allow Moses to enter the promised land, but the text doesn't explain why other than that Moses hadn't done well enough at keeping the people from whining. I have been told two different reason, neither of which appears in this book- a) that Moses cheated on his wife and so made God angry, and b) that he had allowed the spies to lie about what they found. Um… huh? I don't see any evidence of a) in the text, and I honestly can't remember when or how I was given the impression that it was anything close to the reason.
The boundary of the land God promises to his people seems to be expanding, while the criteria of who is considered a true Israelite seems to be shrinking. That's the way it seems to me when I'm reading it, anyway.
God and Moses create the concept of a "judge", a person who will function as the legal and martial head of the nation.
My notes say "who is talking here, oh..Moses". LOL. This is written in first person, by Moses. I've gone and looked this up, and it seems that Talmudic scholars suspected that this book wasn’t really written by Moses, because it describes his death and says " there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses". They think Joshua wrote it. From Wikipedia- These writers had no problem identifying a period for the text to have been written within. At the end of the 2 Kings, there is an enigmatic story of the religious reform conducted during the reign of King Josiah, also recounted more briefly in the 2 Chronicles 34:3. After eradicating the rival cultic centres to Jerusalem, Josiah purged the Temple in Jerusalem of pagan influences (621 BC). During the process of cleansing, Hilkiah, the High Priest, found a lost scroll of the Torah, whose laws were happily in complete accord with the reforms then being instituted."
But for now, frankly I don't care that much who really wrote it, whoever they are, I suspect I wouldn't like them.
He recounts what happened in Numbers. Right away, I'm noticing that this version of events is not the same as the one I just finished reading. This time, the Lord says he won't give them the land of Esau, although in the last book he promised it to them. He will not give them the Moabite land, it's reserved for the descendants of Lot (although in the last book they were told go to war with the Moabites and slaughter them all). He will not give them the land of the Ammonites either.
God will not allow Moses to enter the promised land, but the text doesn't explain why other than that Moses hadn't done well enough at keeping the people from whining. I have been told two different reason, neither of which appears in this book- a) that Moses cheated on his wife and so made God angry, and b) that he had allowed the spies to lie about what they found. Um… huh? I don't see any evidence of a) in the text, and I honestly can't remember when or how I was given the impression that it was anything close to the reason.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Numbers: The rest
The Israelites often say that they're "on the way to the land of milk and honey" or that God has promised them a "land of milk and honey".
Margaret Starbird says "In Sumerian poetry, milk and honey are symbolic of the erotic secretions of male and female partners… So the epithet "milk and honey" conveys the joyful spirit of conjugal harmony, fruitfulness, and well being in the language of symbol. This is the land where the people live "happily ever after…. A land of milk and honey is a country filled with nature's bounty. It is a land where children are nurtured, widows consoled, foreigners made welcome, and arts and letters, music and dance are encouraged."
The Edomites will not let the Israelites pass through, even when they offer to pay. The people of Arad attack them.
Okay, God gets mad at the people again, for reasons I didn't quite catch. He sends "fiery serpents" among them that make the people sick. So the people beg Moses to do something about it. Moses appeals to God, who tells him to
Yahweh said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard: and it shall happen, that everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live
(21: 8)
Two things- one, what happened to the rules about not appealing to graven images? Does it not count this time? Also, this is kind of, well, magic…imo. And two, this snake curled around a pole is the international symbol for "doctor" or "hospital".
They find a well and sing about it.
There's a story about Balaam and his donkey, which is just so trippy.
Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have mocked me, I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would have killed you."
The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Was I ever in the habit of doing so to you?" He said, "No."
Apparently, Balaam is this guy who is being coerced into betraying Israel. Then God has his donkey talk to him and this proves to Balaam that God is really real. So when Balaam is taken up to the high place to curse Israel, he says How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? How shall I defy whom Yahweh has not defied?
23:24
Behold, the people rises up as a lioness, As a lion he lifts himself up. He shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drinks the blood of the slain."
24:9
He couched, he lay down as a lion, as a lioness; who shall rouse him up? Everyone who blesses you is blessed. Everyone who curses you is cursed."
The KJV says "as a lion and as a great lion" which doesn't work for me. I like the other translations, that use both lion and lioness, because it seems more true to the nature of God. I once read an article on HuffingtonPost where the author was complaining about the image of the Abrahamic god.
He compares gods to the animal kingdom and says "Is God like some kind of lion, who sends a lioness out to do his bloodthirsty work for him?" I guess this guy's never read his bible. Imagery of God as a lion abounds throughout the bible. God's "dirty work" is frequently done by his "presence" which is sometimes interpreted as being female. And you know… Ishtar's symbolic animal is the lioness, as is Sekmet's. Of course, C.S Lewis also chose to make his Godish character a great big lion, and in "The Lion King" the lion is well, king of the animals. In Africa, and the Middle/Near East, there are plenty of other huge, dangerous animals around. But only the lion has the grace and elegance combined with power that make the animal seem royal.
According to wikipedia, "the lion is referred to 130 times in the Bible"
24:17
I see him, but not now. I see him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob. A scepter will rise out of Israel, and shall strike through the corners of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth.
Many Christians take this to be a prophecy about Jesus. However it can also be a prophecy about Bar Kokhba's revoltThe article even theorizes that this might have been what originally encouraged the schism between Jews and Christians- an argument over which man was the real Messiah.
(there's a few verses in chapter 24 that I'm just skipping right over because I find them a little worrying, but I don't have the time to get into them right now.)
It seems like the whole issue with the other nations might have been one big misunderstanding. The Hebrews/Israelites are basically homeless, but they need to be protected. So they form a national army that just happens to include every able bodied male over age 20. They're crossing the desert, looking for a place to settle. But all these other countries see is a gigantic, mobile army of fierce desert people who are rumored to have a powerful war god, and their tribal chiefs are renowned sorcerers who humiliated Egypt (which, as I said before, was the most powerful nation in the area). All these nations are living on the verge of war constantly, and now here's this new group that has appeared almost out of nowhere and are marching across the land. Thousands and thousands of them.
I left my parent's church because the pastor preached a sermon using some of the verses in this chapter (although mostly from the far harsher Deuteronomy) and used it as a diatribe against "sinners" and non Christians... yeah... I think that Westerners especially see these stories as not being real, so when you use rhetoric like that you're not really talking about people who really exist. I mean, after all, Canaanites don't exist anymore, they magically walked off the face of the earth one day in BCE to be replaced by people who apparently came down off some kind of spaceship?
These incidences are about a specific group of people in a specific time and place. They're not universal orders for the entire world for all time. The Israelites at first attempt to pass through peacefully, but the neighbors (according to this story) aren't having it. It seems like war is almost unavoidable in these cases. That's not true of the people who tend to point to these verses as justification for war today.
The people are starting to see their neighbors as "The Other". Dangerous, alien, and a threat. They'll fight over anything and God keeps egging them on.
Sure, "defend the land". But even among "the chosen", there are many groups and many colors of skin, many languages, many cultures. The right to live in that "promised place" is not the sole right of one tiny sub section of the population. That'd be like saying that only African Americans from Atlanta, GA deserve to have civil rights. The Edomites are seen as The Other in the story, yet they're actually the descendents of Esau, Jacob's twin. The descendants of Ishmael are also seen as The Other, yet they're of the blood of Abraham too.
Numbers 23-34
While in Moab, the Israelite men begin to indulge in immoralities with the Moabite women. They worship "Baal of Peor" (it seems that there are different Baals?)
And… God tells Moses to kill them. A man marries a Midianite woman and is killed for it. Wasn't Moses married to a Midianite? I'm getting a really mixed message about racism, and this vigilante justice is setting an unpleasant precedent.
"If a man dies and leaves no sons, turn the inheritance over to his daughter."
After that random interlude, they go to war with the Midianites. God tells them that they must kill everyone except the virgin girls, who they can take for themselves.
The Ruebenites and the Gadites don't feel like crossing the Jordan to go to war, so they decide to remain behind. But first Moses scolds them and convinces them to fight in the war, and it's decided that they’ll fight, then they can go back to their settlements.
33:52-56,
peak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;
33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
33:53 And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it. 33:54 And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit.
33:55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
That's horrible.
But then God says he doesn't want any bloodshed in the land!
"'So you shall not pollute the land in which you are: for blood, it pollutes the land; and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him who shed it.
So, against war but pro war, against death penalty but all for the death penalty. Don't have wars or murders on God's land or we'll have to kill you.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Numbers 1-25
Numbers 1-5
There's a tally of the population of each tribe, totaling to 603, 550. It's another incident of numbers and measurements being so specific for something that might seem almost unimportant that I wonder if the numbers don't mean something extra besides what they appear to mean at face value. I also can't help thinking that the main purpose of all this is to find out "do we have enough for an army?" Certainly Moses would be considering this as they head toward hostile territory- they are a nation now, and a nation has to defend itself. They specifically want to know how many men are of age and can bear arms.
All the tribes have to stay in their own tribal groups, parked around their tribal standards. These people on the move must have been something to watch. Like a huge, mobile city.
The Levites are set apart, they're not supposed to do anything except take care of the temple.
The Sons of Levi are:
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The clans of Gershon are Libni and Shimei. The clans of Kohath are Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. The clans of Merari are Mahli and Mushi. There are very specific instructions for what each Levite is responsible for. The Kohathites are in charge of the holiest things.
With all these people constantly on the move, such regimented social roles make sense. It makes things easier and faster if everyone has a specific job which they never deviate from. There are 22, 000 Levites total.
However, the rules are becoming much harsher. Now, anyone who tries to get involved with helping set up or take down the tabernacle, or who attempts to touch anything in the tent, and who is not a Levite will die. This translation says they'll be put to death, but I think it really means that they'll die from touching the energy source in the tent. People who are unclean are to be "put out of the camp".
Chapter 5 verse 12-31
"Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them:'If any man's wife goes astray, and is unfaithful to him, and a man lies with her carnally, ……
The priest shall bring her near, and set her before Yahweh; and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the waterThe priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal offering of jealousy. The priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that brings a curse. The priest shall cause her to swear, and shall tell the woman, "If no man has lain with you, and if you haven't gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, be free from this water of bitterness that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray, being under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband:"
then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall tell the woman, "Yahweh make you a curse and an oath among your people, when Yahweh allows your thigh to fall away, and your body to swell; and this water that brings a curse will go into your bowels, and make your body swell, and your thigh fall away." The woman shall say, "Amen, Amen."
"'The priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse; and the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. The priest shall take the meal offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the meal offering before Yahweh, and bring it to the altar. The priest shall take a handful of the meal offering, as its memorial, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water.
When he has made her drink the water, then it shall happen, if she is defiled, and has committed a trespass against her husband, that the water that causes the curse will enter into her and become bitter, and her body will swell, and her thigh will fall away: and the woman will be a curse among her people.
If the woman isn't defiled, but is clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Here's an interesting discussion on this topic.
http://community.livejournal.com/christianleft/156901.html which reveals that this passage is not really at all what it seems. Although I'm still slightly bothered by the fact that there's no similar test for an unfaithful man, I understand why there wouldn't be. It was just the way of the world back then, and is the way of the world still-men get away with cheating many times when women don't. I'm also wondering if the whole little ritual isn't just something devised by Moses/the priests/God to humor paranoid men.
Numbers 13-20
Who signs up for a Bible study and then gets annoyed because there aren't enough pagans? It's a Bible study. What would you expect the majority of people to be? In fact there are plenty of pagans, they just don't feel like going around shouting "look at meeee, I'm a pagan!"
Also, people need to learn what the definition of a "terrorist" is. A terrorist doesn't wear a uniform, a terrorist doesn't need a paycheck to be a terrorist, nobody says "I wanna be a terrorist when I grow up". A riot is not terrorism. Furthermore, no matter what he does, God cannot be a terrorist. He's God, and therefore a) operates according to a different set of moral guidelines and b) if he made it, it's his prerogative to destroy it. We may not like it, we may not think it's fair, and some may decide not to worship a god who would do that, but to call God a terrorist is a horrible misuse of the word. It's also kind of racist, considering we're talking about war in the Middle East. God is just such a big concept that his actions can't be boiled down to "OMG Terrorist!"
in 13:2 Moses is told to send spies into Canaan. I'm not going to retype all the names here (of course the names are listed) but I will say it amuses me that one of the men is called "Oshea" in the KJV. It's also written as "Hoshea" in some of the translations, and Moses calls him "Joshua". The spies come to Hebron. They cut off a branch of grapes, and take some figs and pommegranates back to the Hebrew camp. At the camp, they say that the new country is full of giant fruit just like this! But also that the people there are also huge, and mean- they're the "children of Anak" aka the Nephilim. They're saying this mainly because they're afraid to fight the new people.
13:29
Amalek dwells in the land of the South: and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the hill country; and the Canaanite dwells by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan.
Caleb says they should take the land anyway, but the other men disagree. Now, this is supposed to make Caleb a hero, but is he really?
"Let's not go to war with the foreign people who are actually semi related to us and who we'll be feuding with forever if we do this.. it sounds like a bad idea."
"LOSER! WIMP! "
"Let's go kill the foreign people who are actually semi related to us, and who we'll be feuding with forever if we do this…"
"YEAH! Caleb, you are the MAN!"
God comes down and yells at everyone again. Then God says that because the people in the other countries have not been good, he'll strike them down and make Israel a great nation. And Moses says "that'll show the Egyptians."
So wait. Is God the god of everyone, and that's why he can punish these other people too, or is God just the god of the Israelites? If God is the god of everyone, why is he uprooting everyone else to make room for a special group of people? If God is everyone's god, isn't there the slightest possible chance that these other worship practices might be legitimate too? (barring the ones that involve human sacrifice and such).
But then the people begin to worry that God doesn't really mean it, maybe God brought them out here to kill them where there'd be no witnesses. God gets annoyed and tells everyone that the people who doubted him will never see the promised land. And he's going to make their children wander for another forty years. Then he orders them to go around the Amorites, instead of through them. The ones who "grumbled against Yahweh" all die of a plague.
Then a few of the people decide that they're going to attack the new country right away, even though God said to wait. They rush off without Moses or Aaron or the ark. Of course they lose in the most humiliating way.
I think this battle is actually described in "The Egyptian", except from the enemy's pov. The main character is an Egyptian doctor who happens to be doing business with some Hittite troops, when a ragtag bunch of wild eyed people called "Khabiri" (Egyptian word for "Hebrews" apparently) come out of nowhere and attack them. To the Hittites, who only encounter the ones who disobeyed God, these people seem kind of desperate and pathetic, ignorant hillbillies who are just looking for food. Killing them all is hardly a workout. Of course, the Hittites don't know that there's thousands of people waiting on the other side of the hills and the only reason why they haven't been attacked again is because a god told the people not to engage.
15:32
A man is put to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath. Geez.
In 15:38, there's some puzzling fashion advice from God.
Some priests attempt a coup, and God announces that he will kill them. He tells Moses and Aaron to step back, and the ground opens up beneath the rebellious priests. The desert literally swallows up a couple of families (16:33). Act of God, flowery language, or sinkholes? Yet another 250 people are destroyed by fire. And then fourteen thousand seven hundred people die in a plague.
20:8, the people are whining about not having water.
God tells Moses and Aaron
"Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you, and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their livestock drink."
I guess I realize that this is probably just a natural method of divining for water. But I'm so depressed that all the things I used to think were magic turn out not to be.
I've read most of these passages several days ago and have typed them up after that, so I'm not like, reading six chapters a night or anything, lol.
There's a tally of the population of each tribe, totaling to 603, 550. It's another incident of numbers and measurements being so specific for something that might seem almost unimportant that I wonder if the numbers don't mean something extra besides what they appear to mean at face value. I also can't help thinking that the main purpose of all this is to find out "do we have enough for an army?" Certainly Moses would be considering this as they head toward hostile territory- they are a nation now, and a nation has to defend itself. They specifically want to know how many men are of age and can bear arms.
All the tribes have to stay in their own tribal groups, parked around their tribal standards. These people on the move must have been something to watch. Like a huge, mobile city.
The Levites are set apart, they're not supposed to do anything except take care of the temple.
The Sons of Levi are:
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The clans of Gershon are Libni and Shimei. The clans of Kohath are Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. The clans of Merari are Mahli and Mushi. There are very specific instructions for what each Levite is responsible for. The Kohathites are in charge of the holiest things.
With all these people constantly on the move, such regimented social roles make sense. It makes things easier and faster if everyone has a specific job which they never deviate from. There are 22, 000 Levites total.
However, the rules are becoming much harsher. Now, anyone who tries to get involved with helping set up or take down the tabernacle, or who attempts to touch anything in the tent, and who is not a Levite will die. This translation says they'll be put to death, but I think it really means that they'll die from touching the energy source in the tent. People who are unclean are to be "put out of the camp".
Chapter 5 verse 12-31
"Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them:'If any man's wife goes astray, and is unfaithful to him, and a man lies with her carnally, ……
The priest shall bring her near, and set her before Yahweh; and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the waterThe priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal offering of jealousy. The priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that brings a curse. The priest shall cause her to swear, and shall tell the woman, "If no man has lain with you, and if you haven't gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, be free from this water of bitterness that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray, being under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband:"
then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall tell the woman, "Yahweh make you a curse and an oath among your people, when Yahweh allows your thigh to fall away, and your body to swell; and this water that brings a curse will go into your bowels, and make your body swell, and your thigh fall away." The woman shall say, "Amen, Amen."
"'The priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse; and the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. The priest shall take the meal offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the meal offering before Yahweh, and bring it to the altar. The priest shall take a handful of the meal offering, as its memorial, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water.
When he has made her drink the water, then it shall happen, if she is defiled, and has committed a trespass against her husband, that the water that causes the curse will enter into her and become bitter, and her body will swell, and her thigh will fall away: and the woman will be a curse among her people.
If the woman isn't defiled, but is clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Here's an interesting discussion on this topic.
http://community.livejournal.com/christianleft/156901.html which reveals that this passage is not really at all what it seems. Although I'm still slightly bothered by the fact that there's no similar test for an unfaithful man, I understand why there wouldn't be. It was just the way of the world back then, and is the way of the world still-men get away with cheating many times when women don't. I'm also wondering if the whole little ritual isn't just something devised by Moses/the priests/God to humor paranoid men.
Numbers 13-20
Who signs up for a Bible study and then gets annoyed because there aren't enough pagans? It's a Bible study. What would you expect the majority of people to be? In fact there are plenty of pagans, they just don't feel like going around shouting "look at meeee, I'm a pagan!"
Also, people need to learn what the definition of a "terrorist" is. A terrorist doesn't wear a uniform, a terrorist doesn't need a paycheck to be a terrorist, nobody says "I wanna be a terrorist when I grow up". A riot is not terrorism. Furthermore, no matter what he does, God cannot be a terrorist. He's God, and therefore a) operates according to a different set of moral guidelines and b) if he made it, it's his prerogative to destroy it. We may not like it, we may not think it's fair, and some may decide not to worship a god who would do that, but to call God a terrorist is a horrible misuse of the word. It's also kind of racist, considering we're talking about war in the Middle East. God is just such a big concept that his actions can't be boiled down to "OMG Terrorist!"
in 13:2 Moses is told to send spies into Canaan. I'm not going to retype all the names here (of course the names are listed) but I will say it amuses me that one of the men is called "Oshea" in the KJV. It's also written as "Hoshea" in some of the translations, and Moses calls him "Joshua". The spies come to Hebron. They cut off a branch of grapes, and take some figs and pommegranates back to the Hebrew camp. At the camp, they say that the new country is full of giant fruit just like this! But also that the people there are also huge, and mean- they're the "children of Anak" aka the Nephilim. They're saying this mainly because they're afraid to fight the new people.
13:29
Amalek dwells in the land of the South: and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the hill country; and the Canaanite dwells by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan.
Caleb says they should take the land anyway, but the other men disagree. Now, this is supposed to make Caleb a hero, but is he really?
"Let's not go to war with the foreign people who are actually semi related to us and who we'll be feuding with forever if we do this.. it sounds like a bad idea."
"LOSER! WIMP! "
"Let's go kill the foreign people who are actually semi related to us, and who we'll be feuding with forever if we do this…"
"YEAH! Caleb, you are the MAN!"
God comes down and yells at everyone again. Then God says that because the people in the other countries have not been good, he'll strike them down and make Israel a great nation. And Moses says "that'll show the Egyptians."
So wait. Is God the god of everyone, and that's why he can punish these other people too, or is God just the god of the Israelites? If God is the god of everyone, why is he uprooting everyone else to make room for a special group of people? If God is everyone's god, isn't there the slightest possible chance that these other worship practices might be legitimate too? (barring the ones that involve human sacrifice and such).
But then the people begin to worry that God doesn't really mean it, maybe God brought them out here to kill them where there'd be no witnesses. God gets annoyed and tells everyone that the people who doubted him will never see the promised land. And he's going to make their children wander for another forty years. Then he orders them to go around the Amorites, instead of through them. The ones who "grumbled against Yahweh" all die of a plague.
Then a few of the people decide that they're going to attack the new country right away, even though God said to wait. They rush off without Moses or Aaron or the ark. Of course they lose in the most humiliating way.
I think this battle is actually described in "The Egyptian", except from the enemy's pov. The main character is an Egyptian doctor who happens to be doing business with some Hittite troops, when a ragtag bunch of wild eyed people called "Khabiri" (Egyptian word for "Hebrews" apparently) come out of nowhere and attack them. To the Hittites, who only encounter the ones who disobeyed God, these people seem kind of desperate and pathetic, ignorant hillbillies who are just looking for food. Killing them all is hardly a workout. Of course, the Hittites don't know that there's thousands of people waiting on the other side of the hills and the only reason why they haven't been attacked again is because a god told the people not to engage.
15:32
A man is put to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath. Geez.
In 15:38, there's some puzzling fashion advice from God.
Some priests attempt a coup, and God announces that he will kill them. He tells Moses and Aaron to step back, and the ground opens up beneath the rebellious priests. The desert literally swallows up a couple of families (16:33). Act of God, flowery language, or sinkholes? Yet another 250 people are destroyed by fire. And then fourteen thousand seven hundred people die in a plague.
20:8, the people are whining about not having water.
God tells Moses and Aaron
"Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you, and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their livestock drink."
I guess I realize that this is probably just a natural method of divining for water. But I'm so depressed that all the things I used to think were magic turn out not to be.
I've read most of these passages several days ago and have typed them up after that, so I'm not like, reading six chapters a night or anything, lol.
Numbers 1-5
Numbers 1-5
There's a tally of the population of each tribe, totaling to 603, 550. It's another incident of numbers and measurements being so specific for something that might seem almost unimportant that I wonder if the numbers don't mean something extra besides what they appear to mean at face value. I also can't help thinking that the main purpose of all this is to find out "do we have enough for an army?" Certainly Moses would be considering this as they head toward hostile territory- they are a nation now, and a nation has to defend itself. They specifically want to know how many men are of age and can bear arms.
All the tribes have to stay in their own tribal groups, parked around their tribal standards. These people on the move must have been something to watch. Like a huge, mobile city.
The Levites are set apart, they're not supposed to do anything except take care of the temple.
The Sons of Levi are:
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The clans of Gershon are Libni and Shimei. The clans of Kohath are Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. The clans of Merari are Mahli and Mushi. There are very specific instructions for what each Levite is responsible for. The Kohathites are in charge of the holiest things.
With all these people constantly on the move, such regimented social roles make sense. It makes things easier and faster if everyone has a specific job which they never deviate from. There are 22, 000 Levites total.
However, the rules are becoming much harsher. Now, anyone who tries to get involved with helping set up or take down the tabernacle, or who attempts to touch anything in the tent, and who is not a Levite will die. This translation says they'll be put to death, but I think it really means that they'll die from touching the energy source in the tent. People who are unclean are to be "put out of the camp".
Chapter 5 verse 12-31
"Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them:'If any man's wife goes astray, and is unfaithful to him, and a man lies with her carnally, ……
The priest shall bring her near, and set her before Yahweh; and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the waterThe priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal offering of jealousy. The priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that brings a curse. The priest shall cause her to swear, and shall tell the woman, "If no man has lain with you, and if you haven't gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, be free from this water of bitterness that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray, being under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband:"
then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall tell the woman, "Yahweh make you a curse and an oath among your people, when Yahweh allows your thigh to fall away, and your body to swell; and this water that brings a curse will go into your bowels, and make your body swell, and your thigh fall away." The woman shall say, "Amen, Amen."
"'The priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse; and the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. The priest shall take the meal offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the meal offering before Yahweh, and bring it to the altar. The priest shall take a handful of the meal offering, as its memorial, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water.
When he has made her drink the water, then it shall happen, if she is defiled, and has committed a trespass against her husband, that the water that causes the curse will enter into her and become bitter, and her body will swell, and her thigh will fall away: and the woman will be a curse among her people.
If the woman isn't defiled, but is clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Here's an interesting discussion on this topic.
http://community.livejournal.com/christianleft/156901.html which reveals that this passage is not really at all what it seems. Although I'm still slightly bothered by the fact that there's no similar test for an unfaithful man, I understand why there wouldn't be. It was just the way of the world back then, and is the way of the world still-men get away with cheating many times when women don't. I'm also wondering if the whole little ritual isn't just something devised by Moses/the priests/God to humor paranoid men.
Numbers 13-20
Who signs up for a Bible study and then gets annoyed because there aren't enough pagans? It's a Bible study. What would you expect the majority of people to be? In fact there are plenty of pagans, they just don't feel like going around shouting "look at meeee, I'm a pagan!"
Also, people need to learn what the definition of a "terrorist" is. A terrorist doesn't wear a uniform, a terrorist doesn't need a paycheck to be a terrorist, nobody says "I wanna be a terrorist when I grow up". A riot is not terrorism. Furthermore, no matter what he does, God cannot be a terrorist. He's God, and therefore a) operates according to a different set of moral guidelines and b) if he made it, it's his prerogative to destroy it. We may not like it, we may not think it's fair, and some may decide not to worship a god who would do that, but to call God a terrorist is a horrible misuse of the word. It's also kind of racist, considering we're talking about war in the Middle East. God is just such a big concept that his actions can't be boiled down to "OMG Terrorist!"
in 13:2 Moses is told to send spies into Canaan. I'm not going to retype all the names here (of course the names are listed) but I will say it amuses me that one of the men is called "Oshea" in the KJV. It's also written as "Hoshea" in some of the translations, and Moses calls him "Joshua". The spies come to Hebron. They cut off a branch of grapes, and take some figs and pommegranates back to the Hebrew camp. At the camp, they say that the new country is full of giant fruit just like this! But also that the people there are also huge, and mean- they're the "children of Anak" aka the Nephilim. They're saying this mainly because they're afraid to fight the new people.
13:29
Amalek dwells in the land of the South: and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the hill country; and the Canaanite dwells by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan.
Caleb says they should take the land anyway, but the other men disagree. Now, this is supposed to make Caleb a hero, but is he really?
"Let's not go to war with the foreign people who are actually semi related to us and who we'll be feuding with forever if we do this.. it sounds like a bad idea."
"LOSER! WIMP! "
"Let's go kill the foreign people who are actually semi related to us, and who we'll be feuding with forever if we do this…"
"YEAH! Caleb, you are the MAN!"
God comes down and yells at everyone again. Then God says that because the people in the other countries have not been good, he'll strike them down and make Israel a great nation. And Moses says "that'll show the Egyptians."
So wait. Is God the god of everyone, and that's why he can punish these other people too, or is God just the god of the Israelites? If God is the god of everyone, why is he uprooting everyone else to make room for a special group of people? If God is everyone's god, isn't there the slightest possible chance that these other worship practices might be legitimate too? (barring the ones that involve human sacrifice and such).
But then the people begin to worry that God doesn't really mean it, maybe God brought them out here to kill them where there'd be no witnesses. God gets annoyed and tells everyone that the people who doubted him will never see the promised land. And he's going to make their children wander for another forty years. Then he orders them to go around the Amorites, instead of through them. The ones who "grumbled against Yahweh" all die of a plague.
Then a few of the people decide that they're going to attack the new country right away, even though God said to wait. They rush off without Moses or Aaron or the ark. Of course they lose in the most humiliating way.
I think this battle is actually described in "The Egyptian", except from the enemy's pov. The main character is an Egyptian doctor who happens to be doing business with some Hittite troops, when a ragtag bunch of wild eyed people called "Khabiri" (Egyptian word for "Hebrews" apparently) come out of nowhere and attack them. To the Hittites, who only encounter the ones who disobeyed God, these people seem kind of desperate and pathetic, ignorant hillbillies who are just looking for food. Killing them all is hardly a workout. Of course, the Hittites don't know that there's thousands of people waiting on the other side of the hills and the only reason why they haven't been attacked again is because a god told the people not to engage.
15:32
A man is put to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath. Geez.
In 15:38, there's some puzzling fashion advice from God.
Some priests attempt a coup, and God announces that he will kill them. He tells Moses and Aaron to step back, and the ground opens up beneath the rebellious priests. The desert literally swallows up a couple of families (16:33). Act of God, flowery language, or sinkholes? Yet another 250 people are destroyed by fire. And then fourteen thousand seven hundred people die in a plague.
20:8, the people are whining about not having water.
God tells Moses and Aaron
"Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you, and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their livestock drink."
I guess I realize that this is probably just a natural method of divining for water. But I'm so depressed that all the things I used to think were magic turn out not to be.
I've read most of these passages several days ago and have typed them up after that, so I'm not like, reading six chapters a night or anything, lol.
There's a tally of the population of each tribe, totaling to 603, 550. It's another incident of numbers and measurements being so specific for something that might seem almost unimportant that I wonder if the numbers don't mean something extra besides what they appear to mean at face value. I also can't help thinking that the main purpose of all this is to find out "do we have enough for an army?" Certainly Moses would be considering this as they head toward hostile territory- they are a nation now, and a nation has to defend itself. They specifically want to know how many men are of age and can bear arms.
All the tribes have to stay in their own tribal groups, parked around their tribal standards. These people on the move must have been something to watch. Like a huge, mobile city.
The Levites are set apart, they're not supposed to do anything except take care of the temple.
The Sons of Levi are:
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The clans of Gershon are Libni and Shimei. The clans of Kohath are Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. The clans of Merari are Mahli and Mushi. There are very specific instructions for what each Levite is responsible for. The Kohathites are in charge of the holiest things.
With all these people constantly on the move, such regimented social roles make sense. It makes things easier and faster if everyone has a specific job which they never deviate from. There are 22, 000 Levites total.
However, the rules are becoming much harsher. Now, anyone who tries to get involved with helping set up or take down the tabernacle, or who attempts to touch anything in the tent, and who is not a Levite will die. This translation says they'll be put to death, but I think it really means that they'll die from touching the energy source in the tent. People who are unclean are to be "put out of the camp".
Chapter 5 verse 12-31
"Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them:'If any man's wife goes astray, and is unfaithful to him, and a man lies with her carnally, ……
The priest shall bring her near, and set her before Yahweh; and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the waterThe priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal offering of jealousy. The priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that brings a curse. The priest shall cause her to swear, and shall tell the woman, "If no man has lain with you, and if you haven't gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, be free from this water of bitterness that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray, being under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband:"
then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall tell the woman, "Yahweh make you a curse and an oath among your people, when Yahweh allows your thigh to fall away, and your body to swell; and this water that brings a curse will go into your bowels, and make your body swell, and your thigh fall away." The woman shall say, "Amen, Amen."
"'The priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse; and the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. The priest shall take the meal offering of jealousy out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the meal offering before Yahweh, and bring it to the altar. The priest shall take a handful of the meal offering, as its memorial, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water.
When he has made her drink the water, then it shall happen, if she is defiled, and has committed a trespass against her husband, that the water that causes the curse will enter into her and become bitter, and her body will swell, and her thigh will fall away: and the woman will be a curse among her people.
If the woman isn't defiled, but is clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Here's an interesting discussion on this topic.
http://community.livejournal.com/christianleft/156901.html which reveals that this passage is not really at all what it seems. Although I'm still slightly bothered by the fact that there's no similar test for an unfaithful man, I understand why there wouldn't be. It was just the way of the world back then, and is the way of the world still-men get away with cheating many times when women don't. I'm also wondering if the whole little ritual isn't just something devised by Moses/the priests/God to humor paranoid men.
Numbers 13-20
Who signs up for a Bible study and then gets annoyed because there aren't enough pagans? It's a Bible study. What would you expect the majority of people to be? In fact there are plenty of pagans, they just don't feel like going around shouting "look at meeee, I'm a pagan!"
Also, people need to learn what the definition of a "terrorist" is. A terrorist doesn't wear a uniform, a terrorist doesn't need a paycheck to be a terrorist, nobody says "I wanna be a terrorist when I grow up". A riot is not terrorism. Furthermore, no matter what he does, God cannot be a terrorist. He's God, and therefore a) operates according to a different set of moral guidelines and b) if he made it, it's his prerogative to destroy it. We may not like it, we may not think it's fair, and some may decide not to worship a god who would do that, but to call God a terrorist is a horrible misuse of the word. It's also kind of racist, considering we're talking about war in the Middle East. God is just such a big concept that his actions can't be boiled down to "OMG Terrorist!"
in 13:2 Moses is told to send spies into Canaan. I'm not going to retype all the names here (of course the names are listed) but I will say it amuses me that one of the men is called "Oshea" in the KJV. It's also written as "Hoshea" in some of the translations, and Moses calls him "Joshua". The spies come to Hebron. They cut off a branch of grapes, and take some figs and pommegranates back to the Hebrew camp. At the camp, they say that the new country is full of giant fruit just like this! But also that the people there are also huge, and mean- they're the "children of Anak" aka the Nephilim. They're saying this mainly because they're afraid to fight the new people.
13:29
Amalek dwells in the land of the South: and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the hill country; and the Canaanite dwells by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan.
Caleb says they should take the land anyway, but the other men disagree. Now, this is supposed to make Caleb a hero, but is he really?
"Let's not go to war with the foreign people who are actually semi related to us and who we'll be feuding with forever if we do this.. it sounds like a bad idea."
"LOSER! WIMP! "
"Let's go kill the foreign people who are actually semi related to us, and who we'll be feuding with forever if we do this…"
"YEAH! Caleb, you are the MAN!"
God comes down and yells at everyone again. Then God says that because the people in the other countries have not been good, he'll strike them down and make Israel a great nation. And Moses says "that'll show the Egyptians."
So wait. Is God the god of everyone, and that's why he can punish these other people too, or is God just the god of the Israelites? If God is the god of everyone, why is he uprooting everyone else to make room for a special group of people? If God is everyone's god, isn't there the slightest possible chance that these other worship practices might be legitimate too? (barring the ones that involve human sacrifice and such).
But then the people begin to worry that God doesn't really mean it, maybe God brought them out here to kill them where there'd be no witnesses. God gets annoyed and tells everyone that the people who doubted him will never see the promised land. And he's going to make their children wander for another forty years. Then he orders them to go around the Amorites, instead of through them. The ones who "grumbled against Yahweh" all die of a plague.
Then a few of the people decide that they're going to attack the new country right away, even though God said to wait. They rush off without Moses or Aaron or the ark. Of course they lose in the most humiliating way.
I think this battle is actually described in "The Egyptian", except from the enemy's pov. The main character is an Egyptian doctor who happens to be doing business with some Hittite troops, when a ragtag bunch of wild eyed people called "Khabiri" (Egyptian word for "Hebrews" apparently) come out of nowhere and attack them. To the Hittites, who only encounter the ones who disobeyed God, these people seem kind of desperate and pathetic, ignorant hillbillies who are just looking for food. Killing them all is hardly a workout. Of course, the Hittites don't know that there's thousands of people waiting on the other side of the hills and the only reason why they haven't been attacked again is because a god told the people not to engage.
15:32
A man is put to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath. Geez.
In 15:38, there's some puzzling fashion advice from God.
Some priests attempt a coup, and God announces that he will kill them. He tells Moses and Aaron to step back, and the ground opens up beneath the rebellious priests. The desert literally swallows up a couple of families (16:33). Act of God, flowery language, or sinkholes? Yet another 250 people are destroyed by fire. And then fourteen thousand seven hundred people die in a plague.
20:8, the people are whining about not having water.
God tells Moses and Aaron
"Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you, and Aaron your brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and you shall bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their livestock drink."
I guess I realize that this is probably just a natural method of divining for water. But I'm so depressed that all the things I used to think were magic turn out not to be.
I've read most of these passages several days ago and have typed them up after that, so I'm not like, reading six chapters a night or anything, lol.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Leviticus
I seem to be missing a chapter. Maybe it fell behind the couch.
There are long instructions for what to do if you find mildew in your house (yet another set of instructions that are not considered very relevant now).
Men's emissions and discharges are also considered unclean. The difference is, men aren't forced to have them every month. Maybe this is just me looking at it all through modern Christian feminist westernized glasses and it's not really as sexist as it all looks. But then again, there's still the part about girl babies being more impure than boy babies. Later on in Leviticus, there's a list of monetary values for people wishing to dedicate themselves to the temple. Men in every age category are worth more than women. I love how men throughout history have devalued women. I'd like to see them try to have babies without women around. They probably also wouldn't eat their vegetables or shower enough.
The "Scapegoat Ritual" is in here. Remember I talked about that before?
People are no longer allowed to make sacrifices away from the Temple. This has got to be a clever plan to keep the people's religious ceremonies under control of the priests. And that would probably be how the division between a legal religious ritual and "illegal magic" starts. Anything that happens without the authority of the priests must be against God, and since women aren't allowed to be priests, any ritual a woman, or an uneducated, lower class person does away from the eyes of the priests is clearly evil. According to this logic anyway. Well, it's what whoever wrote this probably wants to happen.
"You must no longer offer sacrifices to goat idols" The footnote to NIV says "demons". I'll have to look that up later.
Things and people you cannot have sex with
Animals
Close relatives
Your mother
Your father's wife
Your sister
Your son's daughter or daughter's daughter
Daughter of father's wife
Your father's sister
Your father's brother
Your father's brother's wife
Your daughter in law
Your brother's wife
A woman and her daughter
Wife's sister while your wife is alive
A woman having her period
Neighbor's wife
It does not say that sex is forbidden between fathers and daughters, which is kind of creepy. Although I suppose that can be covered by "close relatives". God says here that he gives these rules to people so they "won't fall into the sins of their neighbors"… and father/daughter sex was not really a part of the culture of neighboring nations either as far as I know. It produces an almost universal eeeeeugh reaction. Father/son sex is not mentioned either except in the "no gay sex" clause and that's a very debatable clause. ETA: aside from the "close relatives" clause which should cover everything, it also says you can't sleep with both a woman and her daughter, so that also covers father/daughter liasons.
Don't sacrifice your children to Moloch. However, Moloch is not listed here so he is not likely a Canaanite god. He might have been Phoenician, and the Phoenician version of the Canaanite religion was much crueler and harsher than the some other forms of Canaanite faith.
Wikipedia on Moloch. Pay especial attention to the section on "Bohemian Grove" and look at the picture to the right. *shudder*
ALso the name of the demon in the Buffy episode "I Robot, You Jane", who enjoyed seducing young teenagers through the internet and then killing them.
Don't lie with a man as with a woman. ( a long article that deserves a thorough read)
Leave gleanings on the edges of your fields for the poor.
Don't steal.
Don't lie.
Don't deceive.
Don't swear falsely by God.
Don't defraud people.
Don't hold back wages.
Don't make fun of handicapped people.
Judge fairly.
Don't spread slander
Don't endanger a neighbor
Don't hate in your heart
Don't seek revenge
…you know almost all of these are ignored on a daily basis by the right wing theocrats in America? In fact, they've been providing horrible moral examples while trying to push their agenda. Well, I don't know if they make fun of handicapped people or not but I wouldn't put it past them.
Don't plant a field with two kinds of seeds. I admit I don't understand this one. At all. And I don't know how I'd manage my proposed vegetable garden if I were to take this law seriously. I have about fifteen different types of seed and only two rather small plots of land. I guess if I cleared out a space in the woods I could have three plots. One for herbs, one for flowers, one for veggies?
Do not wear clothing made from two different kinds of materials. … /blinks/
You can't eat fruit from a plant planted in a new land for three years. Makes sense, a lot of fruit trees don't even bear fruit for three to five years. I'm sure there's some other reason too, but I'm not going to try and guess.
Do not promote divination or sorcery. Once again, what's your definition of sorcery? Shaking a chicken at someone to "cure them"? Oh wait…
Don't cut the hair on the sides of your heads or trim the edges of your beard. There's like only one group of people in the world who actually follow this one.
No tattoos. I'm suddenly hating Nazis even more than before.
Don't force your daughter into prostitution.
Don't turn to mediums or seek out spiritists. Right, because only the priests have the right to talk to the supernatural...
Be honest with your measurements.
Show respect for old people.
Death to:
Adulterers.
Children who curse their parents.
Men who lie with other men as with a woman
Bestiality
Brother/sister incest does not require death.
Mediums are stoned. You know, most mediums say that their skills are something they didn't ask for and didn't necessarily even want?
Priests can't marry divorced women or prostitutes.
No descendant of Aaron who has a defect may come in the Temple (it looks almost like the verse is saying no one at all who has a defect… ) This just upsets me. So physically disabled people can't come in the Temple?
Don't lend money with interest.
Don't have slaves from your own nation. This verse has had a terrible impact on the world. It encourages people to think of those from other nations as "not my people, therefore not important". It was used as justification in the early settling of America for people to get slaves from Africa.
Don't set up a sacred stone or a carved stone to worship. Now wait a minute, didn't Jacob do that back in Genesis? I'm sure they mean worshipping the actual stone, because that was and still is a common misconception between Judeo-Christians and people of other faiths. The god is not the effigy, the god is not in the statue. God might be trying to concentrate his power all in one place, but this is a bad move, IMO because what if later, say, the Temple is destroyed, where will he go to gather power?
But I think all of this is really an admonishment from the actual writers, who have a terror of "foreign gods" due to a recent bad experience with another nation. This is also probably why they have God saying that he will punish Israel for not following all the rules he lays out. The writers list several traumatic events that sound similar to what they've just been through at the hands of Babylon.
There are long instructions for what to do if you find mildew in your house (yet another set of instructions that are not considered very relevant now).
Men's emissions and discharges are also considered unclean. The difference is, men aren't forced to have them every month. Maybe this is just me looking at it all through modern Christian feminist westernized glasses and it's not really as sexist as it all looks. But then again, there's still the part about girl babies being more impure than boy babies. Later on in Leviticus, there's a list of monetary values for people wishing to dedicate themselves to the temple. Men in every age category are worth more than women. I love how men throughout history have devalued women. I'd like to see them try to have babies without women around. They probably also wouldn't eat their vegetables or shower enough.
The "Scapegoat Ritual" is in here. Remember I talked about that before?
People are no longer allowed to make sacrifices away from the Temple. This has got to be a clever plan to keep the people's religious ceremonies under control of the priests. And that would probably be how the division between a legal religious ritual and "illegal magic" starts. Anything that happens without the authority of the priests must be against God, and since women aren't allowed to be priests, any ritual a woman, or an uneducated, lower class person does away from the eyes of the priests is clearly evil. According to this logic anyway. Well, it's what whoever wrote this probably wants to happen.
"You must no longer offer sacrifices to goat idols" The footnote to NIV says "demons". I'll have to look that up later.
Things and people you cannot have sex with
Animals
Close relatives
Your mother
Your father's wife
Your sister
Your son's daughter or daughter's daughter
Daughter of father's wife
Your father's sister
Your father's brother
Your father's brother's wife
Your daughter in law
Your brother's wife
A woman and her daughter
Wife's sister while your wife is alive
A woman having her period
Neighbor's wife
It does not say that sex is forbidden between fathers and daughters, which is kind of creepy. Although I suppose that can be covered by "close relatives". God says here that he gives these rules to people so they "won't fall into the sins of their neighbors"… and father/daughter sex was not really a part of the culture of neighboring nations either as far as I know. It produces an almost universal eeeeeugh reaction. Father/son sex is not mentioned either except in the "no gay sex" clause and that's a very debatable clause. ETA: aside from the "close relatives" clause which should cover everything, it also says you can't sleep with both a woman and her daughter, so that also covers father/daughter liasons.
Don't sacrifice your children to Moloch. However, Moloch is not listed here so he is not likely a Canaanite god. He might have been Phoenician, and the Phoenician version of the Canaanite religion was much crueler and harsher than the some other forms of Canaanite faith.
Wikipedia on Moloch. Pay especial attention to the section on "Bohemian Grove" and look at the picture to the right. *shudder*
ALso the name of the demon in the Buffy episode "I Robot, You Jane", who enjoyed seducing young teenagers through the internet and then killing them.
Don't lie with a man as with a woman. ( a long article that deserves a thorough read)
Leave gleanings on the edges of your fields for the poor.
Don't steal.
Don't lie.
Don't deceive.
Don't swear falsely by God.
Don't defraud people.
Don't hold back wages.
Don't make fun of handicapped people.
Judge fairly.
Don't spread slander
Don't endanger a neighbor
Don't hate in your heart
Don't seek revenge
…you know almost all of these are ignored on a daily basis by the right wing theocrats in America? In fact, they've been providing horrible moral examples while trying to push their agenda. Well, I don't know if they make fun of handicapped people or not but I wouldn't put it past them.
Don't plant a field with two kinds of seeds. I admit I don't understand this one. At all. And I don't know how I'd manage my proposed vegetable garden if I were to take this law seriously. I have about fifteen different types of seed and only two rather small plots of land. I guess if I cleared out a space in the woods I could have three plots. One for herbs, one for flowers, one for veggies?
Do not wear clothing made from two different kinds of materials. … /blinks/
You can't eat fruit from a plant planted in a new land for three years. Makes sense, a lot of fruit trees don't even bear fruit for three to five years. I'm sure there's some other reason too, but I'm not going to try and guess.
Do not promote divination or sorcery. Once again, what's your definition of sorcery? Shaking a chicken at someone to "cure them"? Oh wait…
Don't cut the hair on the sides of your heads or trim the edges of your beard. There's like only one group of people in the world who actually follow this one.
No tattoos. I'm suddenly hating Nazis even more than before.
Don't force your daughter into prostitution.
Don't turn to mediums or seek out spiritists. Right, because only the priests have the right to talk to the supernatural...
Be honest with your measurements.
Show respect for old people.
Death to:
Adulterers.
Children who curse their parents.
Men who lie with other men as with a woman
Bestiality
Brother/sister incest does not require death.
Mediums are stoned. You know, most mediums say that their skills are something they didn't ask for and didn't necessarily even want?
Priests can't marry divorced women or prostitutes.
No descendant of Aaron who has a defect may come in the Temple (it looks almost like the verse is saying no one at all who has a defect… ) This just upsets me. So physically disabled people can't come in the Temple?
Don't lend money with interest.
Don't have slaves from your own nation. This verse has had a terrible impact on the world. It encourages people to think of those from other nations as "not my people, therefore not important". It was used as justification in the early settling of America for people to get slaves from Africa.
Don't set up a sacred stone or a carved stone to worship. Now wait a minute, didn't Jacob do that back in Genesis? I'm sure they mean worshipping the actual stone, because that was and still is a common misconception between Judeo-Christians and people of other faiths. The god is not the effigy, the god is not in the statue. God might be trying to concentrate his power all in one place, but this is a bad move, IMO because what if later, say, the Temple is destroyed, where will he go to gather power?
But I think all of this is really an admonishment from the actual writers, who have a terror of "foreign gods" due to a recent bad experience with another nation. This is also probably why they have God saying that he will punish Israel for not following all the rules he lays out. The writers list several traumatic events that sound similar to what they've just been through at the hands of Babylon.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Exodus: The rest
Or therabouts. Moses is given the ten basic commandments by God. It's been pointed out that these are similar to the Code of Hammurabi (which, as a prince of Egypt, Moses would be familiar with because Egypt did quite a lot of trading with Babylon). They are also similar to the Sumerian "tablets of destiny" which were given to Marduk as a symbol of his rulership over the other gods. Whichever god had possession of the tablets held the destiny of the world, and was guaranteed success and power for their people.
1) You shall have no other gods before me. I find the use of the word before to be very significant.
2) You shall not make for yourself an idol. The difference between this, and a "graven image" is also significant. It doesn't say that you can't have pictures of living things.
3) You shall not misuse the name of the Lord . There's a tradition in Judaism of not saying or spelling out the name of God. The name is so secret that even the thing most people think is his name, is just four shorter words stuck together, and those four words represent an even longer series of words and syllables. God's full name takes up about a page and is still never printed completely. The only tradition Christians seem to have is that you shouldn't say "oh my God" too much if you're not actually intending to call on God. Christians tend to frown more on the use of "foul language"- four letter words. Which really aren't taking the Lord's name in vain at all, they're just rude, and rudeness is relative depending on social class and current company (an Anglo Saxon word is considered more impolite than a word that means the same crude thing in French or Latin).
4) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. You'd think that'd be self explanatory but it's not. Some people think this means you must not do anything on the Sabbath, and other people make it the most stressful day of the week trying to "keep it holy". Which day is the Sabbath? For some, it is Saturday, because their calendar says Saturday is the last day of the week. For others, it is Sunday because the people who built their religion decided they wanted the week to end on Sunday. Are people who celebrate it on Sunday going to be in trouble with God? Or will they only be in trouble if they fail to properly honor the day they've chosen as the Sabbath? Should you not do anything at all, or does it just mean that you should relax and do what makes you happy?
5) Honor your parents.
6) You shall not murder. The word used in the NIV is "murder". There is, I suppose, a difference between murder and killing but I think this is one of those laws we're supposed to mind the spirit of, and not try to get off on technicalities. Except… people are just so bloody hypocritical. A large percentage of "pro lifers" are also pro death penalty, pro war, meat and egg eaters who yearn for fur coats and spray chemical pesticides in their gardens. They scream about saving babies from abortions (which include condom use and birth control pills according to these people) but refuse to spare a moment for the babies after they're born. You can't take someone off life support, unless they can't pay the hospital bill. Then it's ok, apparently. I think that if God really had the power over life and death, and he wanted a baby to not be aborted or a plug not to be pulled, he'd arrange for it not to happen. My grandfather was going to die, they pulled the plug on his life support machine and he started breathing on his own. We did what we thought was best, and God had other plans.
7) You shall not commit adultery.
8) You shall not steal. I've heard stealing defined as anything from robbing a bank to to going to lunch and not punching out.
9) You shall not give false testimony. In court, or ever?
10) You shall not covet. Defined to me as wanting something so badly it's all you ever think about. I suppose I've been "covetous" about wanting my own apartment.
Anyone who attacks his parents (verse further down the page says "curse") shall be put to death. . This is a little different from merely not "honoring" them. I'm still not sure death is the proper solution though.
It says a man must provide all his wives with the same proper amount of food, clothing and marital rights. If he doesn't, his wife can leave him. Sounds nice in theory ,doesn't it. But women had no power back then, so even if the law said she could leave him, do you think she'd actually be able to manage it? She'd be shamed for abandoning her marriage, the court might find in favor of the man just because, you know, "bros before hos". She's been trained from birth to obey the resident alpha male, someone's gotten to her psychologically before she's old enough to even think about marriage. And never underestimate the impact of simply being smaller and weaker. Look at what happens in the modern USA, where women are incredibly liberated and all she has to do to leave her husband is say "I don't want to be married to you anymore". And many abused women have difficulty leaving, or just simply never do.
Do not allow a sorceress to live (NIV word is sorceress). Why is it only women who are condemned here? And what is the definition they have in mind of a "sorceress"? I know the King James deliberately uses the word "witch", because James was paranoid about witches and wanted it to have that specific connotation.
Mistreating a foreigner is against the rules. People seem to ignore that one easily.
Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.. Hey, biblical literalists- do not curse the ruler of your people. Exodus, chapter 22, verse 28.
Servants and non Jews are not to be forced to work on the Sabbath either. Another one people ignore easily-people don't give their maids the Sabbath off. In the US in the 1800s, rich Protestants would force their Irish Catholic maids and cooks to work on Sundays.
Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
This was considered cruel. I'm not sure it applies anymore, in the sense that we can't eat meat with dairy. Goat isn't so popular anymore. Dairy comes from dairy cows, and meat comes from meat cows, often grown on different farms in different parts of the country. Or you can eat goat cheese on beef, or dairy cow cheese on goat. Or am I totally missing something here?
The idea of God keeping a book that he writes down people's behavior in, is very, very Egyptian.
Cut down their Asherah poles? They have Asherah poles already?
Archaeologists have uncovered inscriptions on ancient altars, inscribed "To Yahweh and His Asherah".
God goes on for about three pages on what he wants the tent to look like, and what he wants his ark to look like. Then, the author describes in vivid, painstakingly anal detail the process of building them.
I could never summarize it as hilariously as Insidian, so I'll just let her remarks say it.
Leviticus pt 1
Exodus is older than Levitcus, yet Exodus says nothing about homosexuality. There are a lot of things in Leviticus that aren't in Exodus. Most modern, mainstream Christians tend to focus more on the rather simple, easy to follow rules of Exodus- Leviticus was never even taught to the children in the Sunday School I went to, and I wouldn't exactly call that church liberal. Leviticus and Deuteronomy (coming up) are practically dirty words among theologically left wing Christians.
It's not nearly as bad as it seems like it's going to be. But where the Christian Reconstructionists go wrong is in trying to legislate this series of laws for the entire world, whether other people want them or not. They also don't understand (or more likely, don't care) that some of these rules are no longer enforced even by Jewish people. I mean, when was the last time you heard about an official Public Stoning? There is no high priest caste system anymore and there are no more animal sacrifices. Furthermore, despite their so called "literal" stance, most Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists ignore all parts of the OT that they feel are inconvenient, such as dietary laws and admonishments to take care of the poor.
First, there's a few detailed instructions on how and when to make a burnt offering.
Bird offerings must be doves or young pigeons. Doves are sacrificed a lot. You know, nearly all the major goddesses of the ancient East are associated with doves?
The priest must sprinkle blood on altar. Eventually, this must have started to smell bad, even if the place were regularly washed.
NO YEAST. Looks like yeast is forbidden constantly in the Bible. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation why God hates yeast so much?
Priests burn a "memorial portion" and keep the rest for themselves. Kind of interesting that the people are providing their priests with free food, and that so many "sins" require animal sacrifices.
"All the fat is the Lord's"
All the fat from the animal has to go to God. Regular meat can't have any fat on it either, and the blood has to be drained out. You must not eat any fat or blood. Makes sense- fat is bad for you, and bloody food isn't always safe to eat. I'm not sure it needs a mandate from God but I'm a modern person who has grown up in a world obsessed with cutting the fat off meat.
The fire must not go out. Never. Ever. Ever. I wonder why. But it's something I've seen mentioned in descriptions of ancient Egyptian temples.
Two of Aaron's sons are "struck down by God" for offering the wrong incense at the wrong time. This seems overly harsh to me, but I bet it was really something like they performed the ritual without taking proper fire safety precautions.
God says the priests must not drink while working. A reasonable request although it causes conflict with the modern Christian "communion" in many denominations and the words can also be twisted to claim that no one can drink wine, ever.
You can eat- any animal that has a split hoof and chews its cud. Which excludes camels, rabbits, badgers and pigs. This is the first anti pig mention. Hmm. About pigs….
Pigs can make people sick. There's this disease called Trichinosis. Also, the modern meat packing industry is really kind of disgusting and unethical, the pork industry is particularly famous for it. Someone once wondered if the pig thing didn't have to do with DNA- supposedly pigs DNA is close to human's. The Egyptian god Set, who was the bad guy of the Egyptian pantheon and whose identity is often confused with/syncreticized with Satan had pinkish skin, hoofed feet and pointy ears.
The reason why so many people are always bringing up the no pig rule is because many Gentile (and non Muslim) societies revolve, or used to revolve, around pig farming. There's pork in everything, especially now that someone's invented Bacon Bits. To ask that someone not eat pork is quite shocking and baffling to them. Try being a part of a Gentile culture, and not allow yourself to touch pork. It's not easy-
"You sure you don't want ham?"
"I'm sure."
"She's a vegetarian."
"I'm not a vegetarian, I just don't eat pork!"
"She's Jewish."
"I'm not Jewish, I just don't want any ham! I don't eat pig! Pig I do not eat! No pig. Not ham, not pork, not sausages, not bacon. No. Frigging. PORK!"
"There's no need to lose your temper."
For some reason, chowing down on a ham while observing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has often struck me as particularly rude.
It's permissible to eat sea creatures that have fins and scales. This could be again, another evolutionary thing- life comes from the ocean/sea…
Birds you cannot eat include : vultures, eagles, ravens, kites, owls, gulls, storks, heron or bats. Three of those birds (gulls, ravens and owls) are sacred to certain Goddesses, which is interesting. Then again, vultures and gulls also eat trash and scavenge. Bats are birds?
You can't eat bugs, except for locusts, katydids and grasshoppers. Now, I think most of us would laugh at the idea that people had to be told not to eat bugs, but there are places in the world where it is done.
You can't eat animals that walk on paws- nothing from the dog or cat or bear family, I guess. And I assume that excludes primates too? I don't know, they're not mentioned here. I know that Phoenician pirates once discovered a tribe of "hairy women" in Africa which were apparently gorillas.
You can't eat weasels, rats, lizards or snakes. You know, I have no urge to eat most of these animals anyway? The stumbling block for most people seems to be the pork, and the seafood, and mixing meat with dairy.
You have to wash anything that comes in contact with an unclean animal. So far nothing seems all that scary, mostly it's things people do already or would find it easy to do.
But then it starts to get weird.
If a woman gives birth, she must wait seven days while she's ceremonially unclean. If she gives birth to a boy she will be impure for thirty three days. For a girl, it's two weeks and sixty six days. Then she has to give a "sin offering".
I mean, wtf? I mean, I understand about germs and disease but she hasn't done anything wrong by having a baby. And giving birth to a girl makes her twice as impure? How is that rationalized?
There follows a series of specific instructions on what to do if you get a rash, or a boil. You have to go see the priest, who will look at it and decide if it's unclean or not. Apparently, the priest, in addition to being a judge, religious leader, sex police and public health inspector is now also a doctor. Leviticus doesn't command that the priest actually cure you, just that he tell you if it's bad enough to be "unclean". If it is, you are isolated for seven days. If it gets worse, you have to leave the camp for a certain amount of time. At the end of that time, the priest will come to you with certain items.
Instructions for curing a person
Two birds.
Scarlet yarn
Hyssop
Cedar wood.
Kill one bird over fresh water. Dip the live bird, together with the yarn, wood and hyssop in the blood of the dead bird. Sprinkle it over person seven times. Release the live bird.
Tell me again what's wrong with witch doctors and voodoo?
Someone asked a question that it had never occurred to me ask… what makes anyone think the angels who visited Sodom and were almost raped, appeared to the Sodomites as men? There's a tradition that teaches angels appear at least slightly androgynous.
In the last chapter of Genesis, when Joseph frames his brothers for stealing the silver chalice, he puts the cup in Benjamin's bag. Is this where medieval scholars got the idea that Mary Magdalene was of the line of Benjamin? Because there's not a lot of evidence for her being of that family, since we don't really know her family tree, but it was a popular myth at one point. It's one of the ways she acquired her famous red hair- those descended from the tribe of Benjamin were frequently believed to have red hair.
An interesting theory was brought up about Isaac and Abraham. It's a really controversial story, a father sacrificing his son. But it becomes clear just how frustrating it is for people who don't know the Jewish oral traditions that go along with the Bible, and people who don't have PhDs in Divinity, because they read it and get the impression that God is a horrible deity. But it was brought up on list that Isaac was probably an adult at the time, fully consenting. Christians are usually left with the impression that this is a child, maybe seven, maybe twelve. I mean, that's what I'd always been led to believe. But God is not condoning child sacrifice!. Someone suggested that it might actually be a voluntary initiation into Abraham's religion- tribal leader performing a coming of age ceremony that will prepare his son to take his place as tribal leader. A psychological initiation, the kind every student of Mysteries has to go through.
You know, no matter how much I try to analyze it, that part where God attacks Moses makes no sense. It's just bizarre and random- why didn't God just tell Moses he had to be circumcised?
Another thing we have to consider is not just "did such and such a thing really happen?" but what are we meant to believe happened, and why does the writer want us to think that? The writers of Exodus and Leviticus are writing from several generations later, when worship of YHVH has changed quite a bit. They've also recently had a bad experience with a polytheistic nation and so are eager to keep their people from embracing what they see as an evil culture. This is the point when the idea of other gods is going to become officially no longer tolerated.
They did such a good job of erasing memory of the time when other gods were given equal respect that I've heard of Asherah referred to as an "obscure Goddess". She was anything but obscure in her own time. There are gigantic temples to her in Lebanon. Her "poles" are the ancestor of the medieval "May Pole". Granted, she's not as popular as Isis or Ishtar, whose worship continued until Islam became the dominant religion in the region. But obscure? No, not if she actually makes it into the Bible, not if the worship of her was such a threat that an actual commandment had to be issued to stop the people from praying to her. They even tried to marry her to God.
If they'd been allowed to, (or agreed that she was already the female half of God) there probably would have been less war. Which is one of the big problems I've begun to have with this entire book. People are so adamant about the monotheism that they'd rather kill all their neighbors than admit that someone else could have an equally valid god. It seems like God is on a bit of a power trip. Or is it the authors who are on the power trip? Or maybe just trying to make their people feel better about themselves by painting neighbors as evil and inferior. They probably didn't realize what a negative affect those words would have thousands of years later. They keep getting conquered, and people seem to want to hurt them, so the authors are trying to find a way to explain to the Jews why everyone wants to hurt them.
So far the reasons have included:
1) Pagans are just evil, because their gods are evil.
2) People are jealous because God has chosen you.
3) God is punishing you for not being loyal enough/clean enough/devout enough.
But I'm digressing. It's important to understand what the reader was intended to think, not just what really happened. Authors put words in Jesus' mouth all the time when the NT was being written. Both orthodox and gnostic sources contain episodes of the life of Jesus that could be entirely fictionalized. But each story exists for a purpose, to argue or illustrate a point. An author who desperately wants to justify say, eating unclean food, might include a story in which Jesus says it's alright to eat unclean food.
I was really worried about reading the next chapter. It's considered THE Dominionist handbook
1) You shall have no other gods before me. I find the use of the word before to be very significant.
2) You shall not make for yourself an idol. The difference between this, and a "graven image" is also significant. It doesn't say that you can't have pictures of living things.
3) You shall not misuse the name of the Lord . There's a tradition in Judaism of not saying or spelling out the name of God. The name is so secret that even the thing most people think is his name, is just four shorter words stuck together, and those four words represent an even longer series of words and syllables. God's full name takes up about a page and is still never printed completely. The only tradition Christians seem to have is that you shouldn't say "oh my God" too much if you're not actually intending to call on God. Christians tend to frown more on the use of "foul language"- four letter words. Which really aren't taking the Lord's name in vain at all, they're just rude, and rudeness is relative depending on social class and current company (an Anglo Saxon word is considered more impolite than a word that means the same crude thing in French or Latin).
4) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. You'd think that'd be self explanatory but it's not. Some people think this means you must not do anything on the Sabbath, and other people make it the most stressful day of the week trying to "keep it holy". Which day is the Sabbath? For some, it is Saturday, because their calendar says Saturday is the last day of the week. For others, it is Sunday because the people who built their religion decided they wanted the week to end on Sunday. Are people who celebrate it on Sunday going to be in trouble with God? Or will they only be in trouble if they fail to properly honor the day they've chosen as the Sabbath? Should you not do anything at all, or does it just mean that you should relax and do what makes you happy?
5) Honor your parents.
6) You shall not murder. The word used in the NIV is "murder". There is, I suppose, a difference between murder and killing but I think this is one of those laws we're supposed to mind the spirit of, and not try to get off on technicalities. Except… people are just so bloody hypocritical. A large percentage of "pro lifers" are also pro death penalty, pro war, meat and egg eaters who yearn for fur coats and spray chemical pesticides in their gardens. They scream about saving babies from abortions (which include condom use and birth control pills according to these people) but refuse to spare a moment for the babies after they're born. You can't take someone off life support, unless they can't pay the hospital bill. Then it's ok, apparently. I think that if God really had the power over life and death, and he wanted a baby to not be aborted or a plug not to be pulled, he'd arrange for it not to happen. My grandfather was going to die, they pulled the plug on his life support machine and he started breathing on his own. We did what we thought was best, and God had other plans.
7) You shall not commit adultery.
8) You shall not steal. I've heard stealing defined as anything from robbing a bank to to going to lunch and not punching out.
9) You shall not give false testimony. In court, or ever?
10) You shall not covet. Defined to me as wanting something so badly it's all you ever think about. I suppose I've been "covetous" about wanting my own apartment.
Anyone who attacks his parents (verse further down the page says "curse") shall be put to death. . This is a little different from merely not "honoring" them. I'm still not sure death is the proper solution though.
It says a man must provide all his wives with the same proper amount of food, clothing and marital rights. If he doesn't, his wife can leave him. Sounds nice in theory ,doesn't it. But women had no power back then, so even if the law said she could leave him, do you think she'd actually be able to manage it? She'd be shamed for abandoning her marriage, the court might find in favor of the man just because, you know, "bros before hos". She's been trained from birth to obey the resident alpha male, someone's gotten to her psychologically before she's old enough to even think about marriage. And never underestimate the impact of simply being smaller and weaker. Look at what happens in the modern USA, where women are incredibly liberated and all she has to do to leave her husband is say "I don't want to be married to you anymore". And many abused women have difficulty leaving, or just simply never do.
Do not allow a sorceress to live (NIV word is sorceress). Why is it only women who are condemned here? And what is the definition they have in mind of a "sorceress"? I know the King James deliberately uses the word "witch", because James was paranoid about witches and wanted it to have that specific connotation.
Mistreating a foreigner is against the rules. People seem to ignore that one easily.
Do not blaspheme God or curse the ruler of your people.. Hey, biblical literalists- do not curse the ruler of your people. Exodus, chapter 22, verse 28.
Servants and non Jews are not to be forced to work on the Sabbath either. Another one people ignore easily-people don't give their maids the Sabbath off. In the US in the 1800s, rich Protestants would force their Irish Catholic maids and cooks to work on Sundays.
Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
This was considered cruel. I'm not sure it applies anymore, in the sense that we can't eat meat with dairy. Goat isn't so popular anymore. Dairy comes from dairy cows, and meat comes from meat cows, often grown on different farms in different parts of the country. Or you can eat goat cheese on beef, or dairy cow cheese on goat. Or am I totally missing something here?
The idea of God keeping a book that he writes down people's behavior in, is very, very Egyptian.
Cut down their Asherah poles? They have Asherah poles already?
Archaeologists have uncovered inscriptions on ancient altars, inscribed "To Yahweh and His Asherah".
God goes on for about three pages on what he wants the tent to look like, and what he wants his ark to look like. Then, the author describes in vivid, painstakingly anal detail the process of building them.
I could never summarize it as hilariously as Insidian, so I'll just let her remarks say it.
Leviticus pt 1
Exodus is older than Levitcus, yet Exodus says nothing about homosexuality. There are a lot of things in Leviticus that aren't in Exodus. Most modern, mainstream Christians tend to focus more on the rather simple, easy to follow rules of Exodus- Leviticus was never even taught to the children in the Sunday School I went to, and I wouldn't exactly call that church liberal. Leviticus and Deuteronomy (coming up) are practically dirty words among theologically left wing Christians.
It's not nearly as bad as it seems like it's going to be. But where the Christian Reconstructionists go wrong is in trying to legislate this series of laws for the entire world, whether other people want them or not. They also don't understand (or more likely, don't care) that some of these rules are no longer enforced even by Jewish people. I mean, when was the last time you heard about an official Public Stoning? There is no high priest caste system anymore and there are no more animal sacrifices. Furthermore, despite their so called "literal" stance, most Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists ignore all parts of the OT that they feel are inconvenient, such as dietary laws and admonishments to take care of the poor.
First, there's a few detailed instructions on how and when to make a burnt offering.
Bird offerings must be doves or young pigeons. Doves are sacrificed a lot. You know, nearly all the major goddesses of the ancient East are associated with doves?
The priest must sprinkle blood on altar. Eventually, this must have started to smell bad, even if the place were regularly washed.
NO YEAST. Looks like yeast is forbidden constantly in the Bible. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation why God hates yeast so much?
Priests burn a "memorial portion" and keep the rest for themselves. Kind of interesting that the people are providing their priests with free food, and that so many "sins" require animal sacrifices.
"All the fat is the Lord's"
All the fat from the animal has to go to God. Regular meat can't have any fat on it either, and the blood has to be drained out. You must not eat any fat or blood. Makes sense- fat is bad for you, and bloody food isn't always safe to eat. I'm not sure it needs a mandate from God but I'm a modern person who has grown up in a world obsessed with cutting the fat off meat.
The fire must not go out. Never. Ever. Ever. I wonder why. But it's something I've seen mentioned in descriptions of ancient Egyptian temples.
Two of Aaron's sons are "struck down by God" for offering the wrong incense at the wrong time. This seems overly harsh to me, but I bet it was really something like they performed the ritual without taking proper fire safety precautions.
God says the priests must not drink while working. A reasonable request although it causes conflict with the modern Christian "communion" in many denominations and the words can also be twisted to claim that no one can drink wine, ever.
You can eat- any animal that has a split hoof and chews its cud. Which excludes camels, rabbits, badgers and pigs. This is the first anti pig mention. Hmm. About pigs….
Pigs can make people sick. There's this disease called Trichinosis. Also, the modern meat packing industry is really kind of disgusting and unethical, the pork industry is particularly famous for it. Someone once wondered if the pig thing didn't have to do with DNA- supposedly pigs DNA is close to human's. The Egyptian god Set, who was the bad guy of the Egyptian pantheon and whose identity is often confused with/syncreticized with Satan had pinkish skin, hoofed feet and pointy ears.
The reason why so many people are always bringing up the no pig rule is because many Gentile (and non Muslim) societies revolve, or used to revolve, around pig farming. There's pork in everything, especially now that someone's invented Bacon Bits. To ask that someone not eat pork is quite shocking and baffling to them. Try being a part of a Gentile culture, and not allow yourself to touch pork. It's not easy-
"You sure you don't want ham?"
"I'm sure."
"She's a vegetarian."
"I'm not a vegetarian, I just don't eat pork!"
"She's Jewish."
"I'm not Jewish, I just don't want any ham! I don't eat pig! Pig I do not eat! No pig. Not ham, not pork, not sausages, not bacon. No. Frigging. PORK!"
"There's no need to lose your temper."
For some reason, chowing down on a ham while observing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has often struck me as particularly rude.
It's permissible to eat sea creatures that have fins and scales. This could be again, another evolutionary thing- life comes from the ocean/sea…
Birds you cannot eat include : vultures, eagles, ravens, kites, owls, gulls, storks, heron or bats. Three of those birds (gulls, ravens and owls) are sacred to certain Goddesses, which is interesting. Then again, vultures and gulls also eat trash and scavenge. Bats are birds?
You can't eat bugs, except for locusts, katydids and grasshoppers. Now, I think most of us would laugh at the idea that people had to be told not to eat bugs, but there are places in the world where it is done.
You can't eat animals that walk on paws- nothing from the dog or cat or bear family, I guess. And I assume that excludes primates too? I don't know, they're not mentioned here. I know that Phoenician pirates once discovered a tribe of "hairy women" in Africa which were apparently gorillas.
You can't eat weasels, rats, lizards or snakes. You know, I have no urge to eat most of these animals anyway? The stumbling block for most people seems to be the pork, and the seafood, and mixing meat with dairy.
You have to wash anything that comes in contact with an unclean animal. So far nothing seems all that scary, mostly it's things people do already or would find it easy to do.
But then it starts to get weird.
If a woman gives birth, she must wait seven days while she's ceremonially unclean. If she gives birth to a boy she will be impure for thirty three days. For a girl, it's two weeks and sixty six days. Then she has to give a "sin offering".
I mean, wtf? I mean, I understand about germs and disease but she hasn't done anything wrong by having a baby. And giving birth to a girl makes her twice as impure? How is that rationalized?
There follows a series of specific instructions on what to do if you get a rash, or a boil. You have to go see the priest, who will look at it and decide if it's unclean or not. Apparently, the priest, in addition to being a judge, religious leader, sex police and public health inspector is now also a doctor. Leviticus doesn't command that the priest actually cure you, just that he tell you if it's bad enough to be "unclean". If it is, you are isolated for seven days. If it gets worse, you have to leave the camp for a certain amount of time. At the end of that time, the priest will come to you with certain items.
Instructions for curing a person
Two birds.
Scarlet yarn
Hyssop
Cedar wood.
Kill one bird over fresh water. Dip the live bird, together with the yarn, wood and hyssop in the blood of the dead bird. Sprinkle it over person seven times. Release the live bird.
Tell me again what's wrong with witch doctors and voodoo?
Someone asked a question that it had never occurred to me ask… what makes anyone think the angels who visited Sodom and were almost raped, appeared to the Sodomites as men? There's a tradition that teaches angels appear at least slightly androgynous.
In the last chapter of Genesis, when Joseph frames his brothers for stealing the silver chalice, he puts the cup in Benjamin's bag. Is this where medieval scholars got the idea that Mary Magdalene was of the line of Benjamin? Because there's not a lot of evidence for her being of that family, since we don't really know her family tree, but it was a popular myth at one point. It's one of the ways she acquired her famous red hair- those descended from the tribe of Benjamin were frequently believed to have red hair.
An interesting theory was brought up about Isaac and Abraham. It's a really controversial story, a father sacrificing his son. But it becomes clear just how frustrating it is for people who don't know the Jewish oral traditions that go along with the Bible, and people who don't have PhDs in Divinity, because they read it and get the impression that God is a horrible deity. But it was brought up on list that Isaac was probably an adult at the time, fully consenting. Christians are usually left with the impression that this is a child, maybe seven, maybe twelve. I mean, that's what I'd always been led to believe. But God is not condoning child sacrifice!. Someone suggested that it might actually be a voluntary initiation into Abraham's religion- tribal leader performing a coming of age ceremony that will prepare his son to take his place as tribal leader. A psychological initiation, the kind every student of Mysteries has to go through.
You know, no matter how much I try to analyze it, that part where God attacks Moses makes no sense. It's just bizarre and random- why didn't God just tell Moses he had to be circumcised?
Another thing we have to consider is not just "did such and such a thing really happen?" but what are we meant to believe happened, and why does the writer want us to think that? The writers of Exodus and Leviticus are writing from several generations later, when worship of YHVH has changed quite a bit. They've also recently had a bad experience with a polytheistic nation and so are eager to keep their people from embracing what they see as an evil culture. This is the point when the idea of other gods is going to become officially no longer tolerated.
They did such a good job of erasing memory of the time when other gods were given equal respect that I've heard of Asherah referred to as an "obscure Goddess". She was anything but obscure in her own time. There are gigantic temples to her in Lebanon. Her "poles" are the ancestor of the medieval "May Pole". Granted, she's not as popular as Isis or Ishtar, whose worship continued until Islam became the dominant religion in the region. But obscure? No, not if she actually makes it into the Bible, not if the worship of her was such a threat that an actual commandment had to be issued to stop the people from praying to her. They even tried to marry her to God.
If they'd been allowed to, (or agreed that she was already the female half of God) there probably would have been less war. Which is one of the big problems I've begun to have with this entire book. People are so adamant about the monotheism that they'd rather kill all their neighbors than admit that someone else could have an equally valid god. It seems like God is on a bit of a power trip. Or is it the authors who are on the power trip? Or maybe just trying to make their people feel better about themselves by painting neighbors as evil and inferior. They probably didn't realize what a negative affect those words would have thousands of years later. They keep getting conquered, and people seem to want to hurt them, so the authors are trying to find a way to explain to the Jews why everyone wants to hurt them.
So far the reasons have included:
1) Pagans are just evil, because their gods are evil.
2) People are jealous because God has chosen you.
3) God is punishing you for not being loyal enough/clean enough/devout enough.
But I'm digressing. It's important to understand what the reader was intended to think, not just what really happened. Authors put words in Jesus' mouth all the time when the NT was being written. Both orthodox and gnostic sources contain episodes of the life of Jesus that could be entirely fictionalized. But each story exists for a purpose, to argue or illustrate a point. An author who desperately wants to justify say, eating unclean food, might include a story in which Jesus says it's alright to eat unclean food.
I was really worried about reading the next chapter. It's considered THE Dominionist handbook
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Exodus 1-39
Exodus 1-13
Speaking of civil rights movements. . .
The Book of Exodus tells the story of what appears to be the world's first organized push for civil rights for a minority class.
The NJB says Moses is an Egyptian word short for Tutmoses. The footnotes also say that according to the Elohist tradition, this is the period in time when God first reveals his name of Yahweh. So what was he being called before that? The text likes to imply that he had no name, he was just "God" or "The God of our Ancestors" except where it calls him El Shaddai. Many mythologists say El refers to the high god of Canaan, where they'd lived previously and return after Egypt and Shaddai means, depending on the motives of the translator, either mountains, breasts or destruction. Shaddai/Shaddaim is definitely breasts in Hebrew, but I expect any minute now for someone to explain that it's just not that simple. If there really is just one true God, then there must have been a time when he was the only God around, so the earliest cultures must have all had gods who were either related to each other or were the same god called by different names. The Mesopotamian belief was that there was a family of gods, each assigned to rule over a particular area of the world. Moses asks who it is that is speaking to him.
"I am he who is, " says God. Some versions have him saying, "I am that is" or "I am who I am" (apparently God is Popeye.) More than one scholar has claimed this really means, "It's none of your business who I am".
Does Moses know anything about the Hebrew god at all? I liked the way the animated film "Prince of Egypt" handled it- Moses doesn't even know he's Hebrew, let alone anything about the slave's religion. The revelation triggers a major and realistic freakout. There were several scenes I liked in the movie but the burning bush scene was especially interesting. Moses goes into a cave and sees not a traditional "burning bush" but a sort of "holy fire", a pale, glowing substance that symbolizes the presence of God. The voice Moses hears in the cave is not one voice but at least two, a male voice and a female voice speaking in harmony. The male voice is more dominant, but the female voice initiates the conversation and echoes the male voice as it speaks. Later, on the night of Passover, when the Egyptian boys are…eliminated… when the filmy white substance that winds its way through the city finishes its task, it sighs, and that sigh is definitely a woman's sigh. In terms of evidence of the Divine Feminine, this is on par with Mary Magdalene appearing in the Da Vinci painting. It's not hard evidence; it's just evidence that the idea that God has a female side is a far more popular idea than you'd think. This is an interesting window into the personal theology of the people who made this movie.
In the NIV, contrary to what we usually hear, when Moses rescues the Hebrew slave, he makes sure no one is looking before he kills the slavedriver, then he buries the body in secret. This is more consistent with the characteristics of a shy man ("I am slow of speech and tongue") but not with that of a member of the royal family, who would likely not even face a reprimand for dispensing justice between two employees. In the cartoon, Moses' brother (who is now Pharaoh) offers to whitewash the entire incident, because the law doesn't apply to a prince. It's Moses' personal conscience that makes him run away, not fear of legal retribution.
Moses goes to live in the desert, which is where he meets his wife Zipporah. Her father is called Ruel on his first appearance in my NIV, then Jethro for the rest of the book. No it doesn't explain why. The NJB does explain, by saying that tradition varies as to what his name was. But in the text they pick a name and stick with it.
The NIV says God was "concerned" about the situation with the Hebrews. CONCERNED? God was only concerned? That seems inconsistent for a deity prone to flying off the handle over little things.
"I will take you as my own people and I will be your god, " says God. But hadn't he already done that?
God says that he will help Moses speak to Pharaoh, but that he'll harden Pharaoh's heart against Moses. Why would he decide to make things harder on everyone, when he has the power to make Pharaoh compliant to Moses' demands? Because, as he says a couple of pages later just before he drowns Pharaoh, "I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh." God is playing stupid political games with people's lives.
It's hard not to wonder what the secret was behind the Egyptian's massive architecture. It's not surprising that people wonder if it was aliens, or superior, advanced technology, and it's certainly not hard at all to believe that it was done with thousands of slaves driven to exhaustion (in spite of what a PR problem it is for Egypt, it's by far the most realistic answer and it's not like they were the first or last nation to do so). Try for a moment to grasp the scope of Egypt's power. There was a long period when they were basically the USA of the ancient Middle and Near East. Heck, they're still one of the most stable and powerful nations in their region. Surrounding nations were fighting with weapons they bought from Egypt, paying tribute to Egypt to secure their borders, often subject to Egyptian law whether they wanted to be or not. Mika Walteri's "The Egyptian" is an excellent chronicle of the time period the Moses story takes place in.
You know how in Genesis everyone's complaining about the Hittites all the time? In reading "The Egyptian" it's easier to understand why Everyone Hates the Hittites. At least according to that book, they seem a bit like land bound Vikings, but without the charm and sophistication and respect for other people's property. The book also describes a thorough, barbaric and bloody conquest by the Egyptians of a small tribe of people called the "Khabiri". I tried looking on Wikipedia, but there was no entry for "Khabiri". But a Google search revealed this- The tablets show the frequent use of the name Khabiri in speaking of those who were over-running the country. Many of the very finest scholars regard Khabiri as Egyptian for Hebrew and the whole framework fits in well with the early date (1400 BC) for the beginning of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan under Joshua ... The author of "The Egyptian" must have seen the tribal name in some documents, saw that they were from a certain area, and incorporated a scene with them, maybe without realizing that his entire novel revolves around them. Or perhaps he did know, and it's a nod to the AU aspects of his story. And it's Hittite warriors paid by Egyptians who do the most damage to the Khabiri in the novel. But then there's this too.
After God sends down ten plagues on Egypt, he prepares to help the Hebrews escape. This involves detailed instructions for the Passover meal, which they are to eat the night before they leave for good. God really hates yeast for some reason. Yeast improperly used can make people sick but honestly!
According to the NJB, the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover were not originally the same event. The Feast of Unleavened Bread started in Canaan. Passover was a "pre Israelite festival", the "Destroyer" was a demon who threatened family and cattle, the blood gave protection against him. This puts a whole new perspective on mezuzahs, which I was told are symbolic of the blood on the doorposts. They would never have been needed after Egypt if the whole thing was just about the Angel of Death striking down Egyptians. Instead, they protect people against a primeval, visceral nightmare that was a concern way before the Egypt incident.
There are supposedly two versions of the reasons why the Hebrews left Egypt. In one, they run away, in the other they are kicked out. The flight story is dominated by the Moses figure. The two stories may historically belong to two different periods. That's probably why some people are convinced Moses had something to do with Ahkenaton, the Pharaoh who becomes a monotheist and nearly destroys Egypt in the process. I am not really sure this works, not just because I don't know enough about Egyptian history. Moses and his people left and struck out on their own across the desert, while Ahkenaton merely built another city a few miles down the Nile, experienced humiliating failure, and his family moved back when he died. If those people came back they can't be the Hebrews. But there are also many details that match up- in Walteri's novel, the "waters turning to blood" are caused by violence and war in the streets of Thebes, children are killed, "darkness fills the land" and the crops of Ahkenaton's people develops a disease. The children who eat this grain die in massive numbers and the loyalists of Ammon blame it on Aton, the "one God" of Akhenaton. In response, Ahkenaton becomes even more dictatorial, increasing the number of slaves he sends to the mines and putting people to death who criticize him.
Exodus 14-39
I'm going to leave off trying to figure out what is true and not true in the Moses story, because that's totally not the point of this project at all. It's all about the wisdom and spiritual insight I'm supposed to be getting, and playing Amateur Historian is only distracting me. Also, I'm trying to pretend I don't know what's happening next.
On the discussion list, someone brought up the connection Ishmael and Hagar have with Islam. I'm sorry I didn't mention it here, I didn't really know that story. In fact, I don't know much about actual Islamic theology at all, which is why I never discuss it. I talk about Judaism and paganism because I'm trying to learn to understand it so I can understand Christianity better.
Speaking of civil rights movements. . .
The Book of Exodus tells the story of what appears to be the world's first organized push for civil rights for a minority class.
The NJB says Moses is an Egyptian word short for Tutmoses. The footnotes also say that according to the Elohist tradition, this is the period in time when God first reveals his name of Yahweh. So what was he being called before that? The text likes to imply that he had no name, he was just "God" or "The God of our Ancestors" except where it calls him El Shaddai. Many mythologists say El refers to the high god of Canaan, where they'd lived previously and return after Egypt and Shaddai means, depending on the motives of the translator, either mountains, breasts or destruction. Shaddai/Shaddaim is definitely breasts in Hebrew, but I expect any minute now for someone to explain that it's just not that simple. If there really is just one true God, then there must have been a time when he was the only God around, so the earliest cultures must have all had gods who were either related to each other or were the same god called by different names. The Mesopotamian belief was that there was a family of gods, each assigned to rule over a particular area of the world. Moses asks who it is that is speaking to him.
"I am he who is, " says God. Some versions have him saying, "I am that is" or "I am who I am" (apparently God is Popeye.) More than one scholar has claimed this really means, "It's none of your business who I am".
Does Moses know anything about the Hebrew god at all? I liked the way the animated film "Prince of Egypt" handled it- Moses doesn't even know he's Hebrew, let alone anything about the slave's religion. The revelation triggers a major and realistic freakout. There were several scenes I liked in the movie but the burning bush scene was especially interesting. Moses goes into a cave and sees not a traditional "burning bush" but a sort of "holy fire", a pale, glowing substance that symbolizes the presence of God. The voice Moses hears in the cave is not one voice but at least two, a male voice and a female voice speaking in harmony. The male voice is more dominant, but the female voice initiates the conversation and echoes the male voice as it speaks. Later, on the night of Passover, when the Egyptian boys are…eliminated… when the filmy white substance that winds its way through the city finishes its task, it sighs, and that sigh is definitely a woman's sigh. In terms of evidence of the Divine Feminine, this is on par with Mary Magdalene appearing in the Da Vinci painting. It's not hard evidence; it's just evidence that the idea that God has a female side is a far more popular idea than you'd think. This is an interesting window into the personal theology of the people who made this movie.
In the NIV, contrary to what we usually hear, when Moses rescues the Hebrew slave, he makes sure no one is looking before he kills the slavedriver, then he buries the body in secret. This is more consistent with the characteristics of a shy man ("I am slow of speech and tongue") but not with that of a member of the royal family, who would likely not even face a reprimand for dispensing justice between two employees. In the cartoon, Moses' brother (who is now Pharaoh) offers to whitewash the entire incident, because the law doesn't apply to a prince. It's Moses' personal conscience that makes him run away, not fear of legal retribution.
Moses goes to live in the desert, which is where he meets his wife Zipporah. Her father is called Ruel on his first appearance in my NIV, then Jethro for the rest of the book. No it doesn't explain why. The NJB does explain, by saying that tradition varies as to what his name was. But in the text they pick a name and stick with it.
The NIV says God was "concerned" about the situation with the Hebrews. CONCERNED? God was only concerned? That seems inconsistent for a deity prone to flying off the handle over little things.
"I will take you as my own people and I will be your god, " says God. But hadn't he already done that?
God says that he will help Moses speak to Pharaoh, but that he'll harden Pharaoh's heart against Moses. Why would he decide to make things harder on everyone, when he has the power to make Pharaoh compliant to Moses' demands? Because, as he says a couple of pages later just before he drowns Pharaoh, "I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh." God is playing stupid political games with people's lives.
It's hard not to wonder what the secret was behind the Egyptian's massive architecture. It's not surprising that people wonder if it was aliens, or superior, advanced technology, and it's certainly not hard at all to believe that it was done with thousands of slaves driven to exhaustion (in spite of what a PR problem it is for Egypt, it's by far the most realistic answer and it's not like they were the first or last nation to do so). Try for a moment to grasp the scope of Egypt's power. There was a long period when they were basically the USA of the ancient Middle and Near East. Heck, they're still one of the most stable and powerful nations in their region. Surrounding nations were fighting with weapons they bought from Egypt, paying tribute to Egypt to secure their borders, often subject to Egyptian law whether they wanted to be or not. Mika Walteri's "The Egyptian" is an excellent chronicle of the time period the Moses story takes place in.
You know how in Genesis everyone's complaining about the Hittites all the time? In reading "The Egyptian" it's easier to understand why Everyone Hates the Hittites. At least according to that book, they seem a bit like land bound Vikings, but without the charm and sophistication and respect for other people's property. The book also describes a thorough, barbaric and bloody conquest by the Egyptians of a small tribe of people called the "Khabiri". I tried looking on Wikipedia, but there was no entry for "Khabiri". But a Google search revealed this- The tablets show the frequent use of the name Khabiri in speaking of those who were over-running the country. Many of the very finest scholars regard Khabiri as Egyptian for Hebrew and the whole framework fits in well with the early date (1400 BC) for the beginning of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan under Joshua ... The author of "The Egyptian" must have seen the tribal name in some documents, saw that they were from a certain area, and incorporated a scene with them, maybe without realizing that his entire novel revolves around them. Or perhaps he did know, and it's a nod to the AU aspects of his story. And it's Hittite warriors paid by Egyptians who do the most damage to the Khabiri in the novel. But then there's this too.
After God sends down ten plagues on Egypt, he prepares to help the Hebrews escape. This involves detailed instructions for the Passover meal, which they are to eat the night before they leave for good. God really hates yeast for some reason. Yeast improperly used can make people sick but honestly!
According to the NJB, the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Passover were not originally the same event. The Feast of Unleavened Bread started in Canaan. Passover was a "pre Israelite festival", the "Destroyer" was a demon who threatened family and cattle, the blood gave protection against him. This puts a whole new perspective on mezuzahs, which I was told are symbolic of the blood on the doorposts. They would never have been needed after Egypt if the whole thing was just about the Angel of Death striking down Egyptians. Instead, they protect people against a primeval, visceral nightmare that was a concern way before the Egypt incident.
There are supposedly two versions of the reasons why the Hebrews left Egypt. In one, they run away, in the other they are kicked out. The flight story is dominated by the Moses figure. The two stories may historically belong to two different periods. That's probably why some people are convinced Moses had something to do with Ahkenaton, the Pharaoh who becomes a monotheist and nearly destroys Egypt in the process. I am not really sure this works, not just because I don't know enough about Egyptian history. Moses and his people left and struck out on their own across the desert, while Ahkenaton merely built another city a few miles down the Nile, experienced humiliating failure, and his family moved back when he died. If those people came back they can't be the Hebrews. But there are also many details that match up- in Walteri's novel, the "waters turning to blood" are caused by violence and war in the streets of Thebes, children are killed, "darkness fills the land" and the crops of Ahkenaton's people develops a disease. The children who eat this grain die in massive numbers and the loyalists of Ammon blame it on Aton, the "one God" of Akhenaton. In response, Ahkenaton becomes even more dictatorial, increasing the number of slaves he sends to the mines and putting people to death who criticize him.
Exodus 14-39
I'm going to leave off trying to figure out what is true and not true in the Moses story, because that's totally not the point of this project at all. It's all about the wisdom and spiritual insight I'm supposed to be getting, and playing Amateur Historian is only distracting me. Also, I'm trying to pretend I don't know what's happening next.
On the discussion list, someone brought up the connection Ishmael and Hagar have with Islam. I'm sorry I didn't mention it here, I didn't really know that story. In fact, I don't know much about actual Islamic theology at all, which is why I never discuss it. I talk about Judaism and paganism because I'm trying to learn to understand it so I can understand Christianity better.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Genesis 23-36
Genesis 23-36
Why, if God said that people would no longer live past 120, are people still living past 120 in Genesis? But I can only assume this is why they all marry so late.
So many of these stories have to do with sibling rivalry between brothers.
Hagar had almost died in the wilderness, but God rescues her and promises that Ishmael will also become a great nation. Ishmael's people settle in the area from Havilah to Shur "on the border of Egypt" and "lived in hostility toward all their brothers." Isaac is now grown up, and has married Rebekah (who is from Mesopotamia and has a nose ring! A nose ring! ) Isaac makes yet another peace treaty with the Philistines.
Rebekah is barren (why are so many of these women having trouble conceiving? Does anyone know?) but then she becomes pregnant with twins, who seem to be fighting with each other inside her.
"Two nations are in your womb, "God says. "And the two peoples from within you will be separated. One people will be stronger than the other and the older one will serve the younger one."
Esau (Edom) is the older one. He's red and hairy, while Jacob, the younger is smooth and comes out grabbing onto Esau's heel. Esau is the outdoorsy type, and Jacob apparently likes to stay and home and cook. One day Esau comes in starving and begs for some of Jacob's stew. Jacob won't give it to him until Esau hands over his birthright.
I don't think I like this guy. Later, when Isaac is dying, Rebekah and Jacob cover Jacob's arms in wool and bring some food into Isaac, who has failing eyesight. Isaac thinks he is talking to Esau, and hands over his entire estate. When Esau comes in later, and announces that Isaac has been deceived, his father gives him some vague promise about living by the sword.
Esau then tries to kill Jacob, who runs away. While on the run, he dreams of seeing a "stairway to Heaven".
God says "your descendants will be like the dust of the earth."
Which means they'll be everywhere and indispensable, but also that people will treat them like dirt. Jacob calls the place "Bethel" and offers a sacrifice. He finishes his journey in his grandfather's homeland and when he first meets his beautiful cousin Rachel, he kisses her and cries (that must have freaked her out, some dirty foreign guy grabs her and starts sobbing…) When Jacob asks to marry Rachel, Rachel's father tricks him into marrying Rachel's sister Leah too. Leah is not pretty like Rachel.
Poor plain Leah keeps having babies, hoping Jacob will love her because she is fertile where Rachel is barren. But then Rachel starts having kids too. And Jacob likes her kids more, because they're Rachel's and he loves Rachel, whereas he married Leah out of responsibility.
Jacob does a spell to get more money out of his father in law, and then claims God did it for him.
It's a prevailing misconception (IMO) that bible characters are always correct in everything they do. But that really doesn't seem to be the case, they are often just as human as anyone else is. Probably what makes them such enduring characters is that they are imperfect.
Jacob and Rachel are not nice people. Jacob cheated Esau out of his birthright. Now he is unsatisfied with the wages his father in law pays him (after he performed magic to try and manipulate things to his advantage) and so he and Rachel steal her father's household gods and take off in the middle of the night with their children. Her father catches them and has them searched. But he can't search Rachel, because she claims she's having her period and can't get up/let anyone touch her.
Her father then laments that if they'd just told him they were unhappy, he'd have understood. He wishes they'd waited so he could see them off properly.
Jacob returns to Esau and makes up with him. The rest of his family goes ahead, and leaves him to spend the night alone. He "wrestled with the man until daybreak". What man? This has got to be some kind of translation error because it just jumps right into the scene without even explaining the arrival of "the man". I'll have to wait until I can check some other sources… unless someone is reading this who can help me out, but maybe no one is reading this.
Jacob won't let the man go until he blesses him and tells him his name. But the man is God, and God renames Jacob "Israel" which means, "struggles with God."
Regarding OT women and their periods- modern feminists often complain that women back then couldn't be touched and had to go off and live in another tent. And no, it isn't fair to force someone to do it; it's not fair at all. But on the other hand, consider what having your period can be like for many women. In this modern era, we can go into any drugstore, supermarket or Wal-Mart esque store and see an aisle full of sprays, creams, powders, and pads and tampons of every size, shape, color, scent, expandability and absorbency. We have disinfectant sprays and powerful laundry detergents. But imagine what it was like in BCE, when the best a woman had, especially if she was a desert nomad, was a few rags. If she were lucky she'd be able to get some painkilling herbs. Would you even want to be around anyone else? Even today, in the most powerful, comfortable and advanced nation in the world, the best technolgy for dealing with menstruation that I can get my hands on is… a bottle of aspirin and what's essentially super absorbent wads of cotton. No, I don't want to go out, no, I don't want to be touched, no, I don't want to come out of my room and yes, I have discovered the value of voluminous black clothing. And am I looking forward to taking a long shower/bath? You bet.
The final story in Genesis is the story of Joseph (and his Technicolor Dreamcoat!). There are about five stories out of the Bible that everyone at least vaguely knows- the Garden of Eden, Noah, Moses, the Christmas story, and the Joseph story. So I don't think it needs summarization here, because there's not much that's controversial, confusing or worth debating in it. We'll see if anyone else comes up with something later.
The basic theme of Genesis, if I could sum it up, would be sibling rivalry. And along with that, the importance of recognizing that we're all brothers and sisters under the skin and it doesn't really matter who's on whose land. God loved everyone and he tried to give everyone a place to belong and a country to call their own.
BTW, Spellcheck insists that it's "Dreamboat" not "dreamcoat" and that Rebekah is spelled wrong.
(comments)
pepperjackcandy
2006-01-19 09:27 pm UTC
We'll see if anyone else comes up with something later.
How's this?
I think that Akhenaten was the Pharaoh of Joseph's time.
Because if Pharaoh believed that his dreams had been sent by one of the gods of the Egyptian pantheon, why would he listen to someone who specializes in one god of a different pantheon?
But Joseph's great-grandfather did the same thing Akhenaten did -- abandoned a pantheon in favor of one god.
Since both dropped out of their respective polytheisms (?), that'd give them a more common worldview, I guess.
babydraco
2006-01-19 09:50 pm UTC
That'd make some sense. And it corresponds to the famine that Joseph predicts-Akhenaton's administration totally ruined Egypt and a lot of people died. And I'd rather see that than see Moses made out to be a cowardly, incompetant king who was deposed by angry citizens.
Why, if God said that people would no longer live past 120, are people still living past 120 in Genesis? But I can only assume this is why they all marry so late.
So many of these stories have to do with sibling rivalry between brothers.
Hagar had almost died in the wilderness, but God rescues her and promises that Ishmael will also become a great nation. Ishmael's people settle in the area from Havilah to Shur "on the border of Egypt" and "lived in hostility toward all their brothers." Isaac is now grown up, and has married Rebekah (who is from Mesopotamia and has a nose ring! A nose ring! ) Isaac makes yet another peace treaty with the Philistines.
Rebekah is barren (why are so many of these women having trouble conceiving? Does anyone know?) but then she becomes pregnant with twins, who seem to be fighting with each other inside her.
"Two nations are in your womb, "God says. "And the two peoples from within you will be separated. One people will be stronger than the other and the older one will serve the younger one."
Esau (Edom) is the older one. He's red and hairy, while Jacob, the younger is smooth and comes out grabbing onto Esau's heel. Esau is the outdoorsy type, and Jacob apparently likes to stay and home and cook. One day Esau comes in starving and begs for some of Jacob's stew. Jacob won't give it to him until Esau hands over his birthright.
I don't think I like this guy. Later, when Isaac is dying, Rebekah and Jacob cover Jacob's arms in wool and bring some food into Isaac, who has failing eyesight. Isaac thinks he is talking to Esau, and hands over his entire estate. When Esau comes in later, and announces that Isaac has been deceived, his father gives him some vague promise about living by the sword.
Esau then tries to kill Jacob, who runs away. While on the run, he dreams of seeing a "stairway to Heaven".
God says "your descendants will be like the dust of the earth."
Which means they'll be everywhere and indispensable, but also that people will treat them like dirt. Jacob calls the place "Bethel" and offers a sacrifice. He finishes his journey in his grandfather's homeland and when he first meets his beautiful cousin Rachel, he kisses her and cries (that must have freaked her out, some dirty foreign guy grabs her and starts sobbing…) When Jacob asks to marry Rachel, Rachel's father tricks him into marrying Rachel's sister Leah too. Leah is not pretty like Rachel.
Poor plain Leah keeps having babies, hoping Jacob will love her because she is fertile where Rachel is barren. But then Rachel starts having kids too. And Jacob likes her kids more, because they're Rachel's and he loves Rachel, whereas he married Leah out of responsibility.
Jacob does a spell to get more money out of his father in law, and then claims God did it for him.
It's a prevailing misconception (IMO) that bible characters are always correct in everything they do. But that really doesn't seem to be the case, they are often just as human as anyone else is. Probably what makes them such enduring characters is that they are imperfect.
Jacob and Rachel are not nice people. Jacob cheated Esau out of his birthright. Now he is unsatisfied with the wages his father in law pays him (after he performed magic to try and manipulate things to his advantage) and so he and Rachel steal her father's household gods and take off in the middle of the night with their children. Her father catches them and has them searched. But he can't search Rachel, because she claims she's having her period and can't get up/let anyone touch her.
Her father then laments that if they'd just told him they were unhappy, he'd have understood. He wishes they'd waited so he could see them off properly.
Jacob returns to Esau and makes up with him. The rest of his family goes ahead, and leaves him to spend the night alone. He "wrestled with the man until daybreak". What man? This has got to be some kind of translation error because it just jumps right into the scene without even explaining the arrival of "the man". I'll have to wait until I can check some other sources… unless someone is reading this who can help me out, but maybe no one is reading this.
Jacob won't let the man go until he blesses him and tells him his name. But the man is God, and God renames Jacob "Israel" which means, "struggles with God."
Regarding OT women and their periods- modern feminists often complain that women back then couldn't be touched and had to go off and live in another tent. And no, it isn't fair to force someone to do it; it's not fair at all. But on the other hand, consider what having your period can be like for many women. In this modern era, we can go into any drugstore, supermarket or Wal-Mart esque store and see an aisle full of sprays, creams, powders, and pads and tampons of every size, shape, color, scent, expandability and absorbency. We have disinfectant sprays and powerful laundry detergents. But imagine what it was like in BCE, when the best a woman had, especially if she was a desert nomad, was a few rags. If she were lucky she'd be able to get some painkilling herbs. Would you even want to be around anyone else? Even today, in the most powerful, comfortable and advanced nation in the world, the best technolgy for dealing with menstruation that I can get my hands on is… a bottle of aspirin and what's essentially super absorbent wads of cotton. No, I don't want to go out, no, I don't want to be touched, no, I don't want to come out of my room and yes, I have discovered the value of voluminous black clothing. And am I looking forward to taking a long shower/bath? You bet.
The final story in Genesis is the story of Joseph (and his Technicolor Dreamcoat!). There are about five stories out of the Bible that everyone at least vaguely knows- the Garden of Eden, Noah, Moses, the Christmas story, and the Joseph story. So I don't think it needs summarization here, because there's not much that's controversial, confusing or worth debating in it. We'll see if anyone else comes up with something later.
The basic theme of Genesis, if I could sum it up, would be sibling rivalry. And along with that, the importance of recognizing that we're all brothers and sisters under the skin and it doesn't really matter who's on whose land. God loved everyone and he tried to give everyone a place to belong and a country to call their own.
BTW, Spellcheck insists that it's "Dreamboat" not "dreamcoat" and that Rebekah is spelled wrong.
(comments)
pepperjackcandy
2006-01-19 09:27 pm UTC
We'll see if anyone else comes up with something later.
How's this?
I think that Akhenaten was the Pharaoh of Joseph's time.
Because if Pharaoh believed that his dreams had been sent by one of the gods of the Egyptian pantheon, why would he listen to someone who specializes in one god of a different pantheon?
But Joseph's great-grandfather did the same thing Akhenaten did -- abandoned a pantheon in favor of one god.
Since both dropped out of their respective polytheisms (?), that'd give them a more common worldview, I guess.
babydraco
2006-01-19 09:50 pm UTC
That'd make some sense. And it corresponds to the famine that Joseph predicts-Akhenaton's administration totally ruined Egypt and a lot of people died. And I'd rather see that than see Moses made out to be a cowardly, incompetant king who was deposed by angry citizens.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Bible Study: Genesis 3-23
Genesis 3-23
Or approximately thereabouts. I find it easy to read ahead because the chapters are so short, six chapters is like the equivalent of six pages of a normal book, and because I don't have my hands on the NJB at the moment I'm not getting bogged down by footnotes. But I still wish I had the footnotes.
5The Lord saw how great was mans wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. 6And the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened. 7The Lord said, I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them. 8But Noah found favor with the Lord.
This once again reminds us of Sumerian myth. In Sumerian myth, there was a figure called Ziasudra/Utnapishtim, who was like a proto-Noah. A later story gives the credit to Gilgamesh, who was the most famous action hero of ancient Mesopotamia. God is angry at the humans and decides to destroy them. He plans to save only one family, and to them he gives detailed instruction on how to build a boat that will withstand the flood. He tells Noah to gather up two of every animal.
Adad thunders, Nergal tears down the doorposts of the gates that hold back the waters of the upper ocean, the Anunnaki lift up the torches, setting the land ablaze with their glare. The gods themselves cower like dogs against the wall of Heaven. Ishtar who had incited the gods to destroy mankind lifts up her voice and bewails her action, while the rest of the gods weep with her. The storm rages for six days and nights. On the seventh day it subsides. …The ship grounds on Mt. Nisir. Utnapishim waits seven days and then sends out a dove which returns having found no resting place. …he also sends out a raven. Then he lets out all the animals and offers a sacrifice. The gods smell the sweet savour and gather. Ishtar lifts up her necklace of lapis lazuli and swears by it never to forget what has happened. " -Middle Eastern Mythology, by S.H Hooke.
God tells Noah to gather up seven each of the "clean" animals and two of the "unclean", although most songs and cartoons as well as the simplified versions told to Christian children only mention the two of every kind. I assume the clean and unclean distinction is another unique addition of the Jewish priests at the later time, because Noah and his people didn't live under the clean/unclean restrictions. Or they wouldn't if they had ever existed, which scholars doubt.
Noah's trip takes forty days and forty nights. He also sends out a raven and a dove (ravens and doves, by the way, are often used as goddess symbols. The dove in particular is used as a symbol of YHVH's feminine side).
God says "Never again will I curse the ground." God says this about five times on one page, why is it that so many people, especially biblical literalists, still think God is going to use weather to punish us?
God tells Noah "you must not eat meat that still has its lifeblood in it." Don't eat your meat raw? That's very sensible advice. Thank you, God.
Later, Noah is drunk and lying in his tent naked. His son Ham finds him, and is embarrassed. His other two sons grab a cloak and walk backwards (so they won't see him naked) and drape him with the cloak. But Noah wakes up and curses Ham for looking at him naked. The passage says that Ham's descendants were cursed.
"Cursed be Canaan, the lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." It goes on to explain yet another genealogy which tells of Nimrod, descendant of Ham, who founded Babylon, Erech, Akkad, Assyria, Ninevah, all those people who pick on the Israelites. Perhaps the authors wanted to explain why things were so terrible for the Israelites.
The lists of descendents actually match up in places with the Sumerian "king lists"- Enoch appears on both the king lists and the Biblical genealogies, as does Nimrod. It is actually here that the story begins to join up in an obvious way with other mythologies. Nimrod shows up in other myths from other cultures, and real places are being mentioned. This sets the stage for the entrance of the Bible into map-able history. After yet another long genealogy, we're introduced to Abram and his wife Sarai.
Abram (later to be called Abraham) was supposedly a mercenary in his youth. This is fascinating to me, it means that Yahweh was a soldier's god, which continues to be born out later. His armies are powerful and tend to win; it's why he was often called Yahweh Saboath (God of the Armies). The Hebrew people were always fierce warriors. Their skill was highly prized throughout the Oikumune ("civilized world"). What does this mean for us today? Is the fact that the Abrahamic god is a war god justification for making war?
I also find it interesting that the chief Babylonian/Sumerian goddess Ishtar was a war goddess. It goes a lot toward explaining the tempestuous relationship they have in mythology. But also, if the God and Goddess are two halves of one being, they might be similar in their favorite roles. In the novelization of the Abram/Sarai story ("Sarah" by Marek Halter ), Sarai is a priestess of Ishtar. It's interesting to see the reaction to the book-the things people seem to believe about her, despite how little her personality is described in the canon scriptures.
Sarai and Abram travel to Egypt, where Abram is afraid the Pharaoh will take her away and so he tells everyone she is his sister. This backfires, the Pharaoh "takes her to be his wife" (I think that means he slept with her) and is upset that Abram didn't say anything about being married. This passage does not make a ton of sense and doesn't advance what there is of a plot, so I think we have to assume that it's either a confused fragment of something else, or it is one of those coded references to a conflict the source of which is long forgotten but certainly not forgiven.
Abram settles in the area around the Salt Sea (the Dead Sea). There's a pair of cities there called Sodom and Gomorrah. His relative Lot moves into the city.
This is the infamous story that has served for thousands of years to encourage the oppression of homosexuals. Conservatives especially have always claimed the problem was the actual sex acts that were named after the city-leading it to be banned in several societies and it's still banned in some US states.
It seems pretty clear that the issue with Sodom/Gomorrah was their violence and lack of hospitality, not their alleged gayness. They were going to violently sexually assault two messengers of God. This wasn't two people of the same sex who met at a party and really liked each other, set up a house together and wanted to adopt kids. This wasn't even two gay men meeting in a bar and negotiating a consensual sexual encounter. This was attempted violent gang rape of two angels. The people were so evil they didn't recognize the representatives of God among them. The message might not be "gay people are evil" but "don't rape people, especially not angels". God never destroyed other famous centers of gayness- God never destroyed the Isle of Lesbos and nothing has ever happened to Christopher Street or London's SoHo. Government incompetence is what half destroyed New Orleans, and part of the reason appears to have been that the government didn't think poor people, ethnic minorities and gay people deserved to be rescued, not because God hates them.
I still don't understand why Lot tries to give them his daughters.
I watched a documentary on the Dead Sea area, the environmental evidence does show that there could have been a huge earthquake and explosion in the area long thought to be the former Sodom and Gomorrah. Volcanic ash was thrown into the air and rained down on the heads of the people, most people probably didn't make it out alive. It would be easy for someone to be covered with the falling salt and ash if they couldn't run fast enough. Looking back slowed Lot's wife down. In the actual Dead Sea, if an object remains under water for a certain amount of time it will become completely covered in pure white salt. According to the scripture, it really doesn't seem like Lot was given a lot of time to get out. The angels sort of grab their hands and say "Go! Now!" like in the movies when people run from a building that explodes just as they hit the parking lot.
By the way, according to the same documentary, in the area around the Dead Sea, the walls of the underground caves below the beaches are crumbling and so random sinkholes open up and suck people under.
God tells Abram to change his name to Abraham and Sarai to change her name to Sarah. I'm sure there's some significance to the name change but I’m not a linguist so it just seems rather arbitrary to me. They do this a lot in the Bible, telling us that someone changed their name and not quite explaining the reason for the linguistic difference. I've read some speculation about gematria that claims these names become codes when there's a slight letter shift.
God demands that Abraham circumcise himself and the men of the tribe. It's not really explained why they have to do this- I know it's allegedly more hygienic and it increases sexual pleasure but as an ethnic identifier it leaves a lot to be desired. Sometimes I think God is making Abraham do all these things just to see how far Abraham will go for him.
Sarah and Abraham are unable to conceive, but God promises that they will have a child. First he tells them to give Abraham a chance with Hagar, Sarah's slave (I guess they were trying to see whose problem it really was?) Hagar becomes pregnant; Sarah is jealous of her and begins to treat her horribly. Hagar runs away. God finds her and demands that she go back (whuh?). She gives birth to a boy and they name him Ishmael.
Abraham and Sarah go to another place, and meet another king. Abraham pulls the sister scam again, and again it fails. Obviously the men will try to sleep with her if she says she's single (so she's either cheated on him twice now or she's been raped twice). I guess they're trying to show us that Sarah really couldn't get pregnant. They're in their 90s, so I'm not sure what's going on here, can she possibly still be that hot at 90?
Abraham makes a treaty with the Philistine men of Beersheba. King Abimlech says "Now swear to me that you will not deal falsely with me or my children or my descendants. Show to me and the country where you are living the same kindness I have shown you." (Gen 21: 22).
And Abraham swears it.
God gives in and says he'll make Sarah miraculously pregnant. A year later, Isaac is born and immediately becomes more special and important than Ishmael. In fact, Hagar is asked to leave and ends up cast out into the desert to starve with her baby. God promises that her child will also be a great father of nations. I'm starting to wonder if God isn't just making this up as he goes along. He wanted Abraham to have a child to begin the ascendance of the nation of Israel, but he wasn't sure it would work so he created a backup baby in Ishmael and then had to fob him off on someone else? "You are my Chosen People. And you're my Backup Chosen People."
Several years pass by, and God comes up with yet another whimsical test for Abraham. He wants Abraham to take Isaac out to sacrifice a lamb. But when they get to the altar, God tells Abraham to kill Isaac instead. Abraham actually tries to go through with it, and Isaac is surprisingly willing to lay down his life. God manages to intervene and explains that it was only a test. We can see that this is clearly some kind of foreshadowing-maybe messianic, maybe not.
Or approximately thereabouts. I find it easy to read ahead because the chapters are so short, six chapters is like the equivalent of six pages of a normal book, and because I don't have my hands on the NJB at the moment I'm not getting bogged down by footnotes. But I still wish I had the footnotes.
5The Lord saw how great was mans wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. 6And the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened. 7The Lord said, I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them. 8But Noah found favor with the Lord.
This once again reminds us of Sumerian myth. In Sumerian myth, there was a figure called Ziasudra/Utnapishtim, who was like a proto-Noah. A later story gives the credit to Gilgamesh, who was the most famous action hero of ancient Mesopotamia. God is angry at the humans and decides to destroy them. He plans to save only one family, and to them he gives detailed instruction on how to build a boat that will withstand the flood. He tells Noah to gather up two of every animal.
Adad thunders, Nergal tears down the doorposts of the gates that hold back the waters of the upper ocean, the Anunnaki lift up the torches, setting the land ablaze with their glare. The gods themselves cower like dogs against the wall of Heaven. Ishtar who had incited the gods to destroy mankind lifts up her voice and bewails her action, while the rest of the gods weep with her. The storm rages for six days and nights. On the seventh day it subsides. …The ship grounds on Mt. Nisir. Utnapishim waits seven days and then sends out a dove which returns having found no resting place. …he also sends out a raven. Then he lets out all the animals and offers a sacrifice. The gods smell the sweet savour and gather. Ishtar lifts up her necklace of lapis lazuli and swears by it never to forget what has happened. " -Middle Eastern Mythology, by S.H Hooke.
God tells Noah to gather up seven each of the "clean" animals and two of the "unclean", although most songs and cartoons as well as the simplified versions told to Christian children only mention the two of every kind. I assume the clean and unclean distinction is another unique addition of the Jewish priests at the later time, because Noah and his people didn't live under the clean/unclean restrictions. Or they wouldn't if they had ever existed, which scholars doubt.
Noah's trip takes forty days and forty nights. He also sends out a raven and a dove (ravens and doves, by the way, are often used as goddess symbols. The dove in particular is used as a symbol of YHVH's feminine side).
God says "Never again will I curse the ground." God says this about five times on one page, why is it that so many people, especially biblical literalists, still think God is going to use weather to punish us?
God tells Noah "you must not eat meat that still has its lifeblood in it." Don't eat your meat raw? That's very sensible advice. Thank you, God.
Later, Noah is drunk and lying in his tent naked. His son Ham finds him, and is embarrassed. His other two sons grab a cloak and walk backwards (so they won't see him naked) and drape him with the cloak. But Noah wakes up and curses Ham for looking at him naked. The passage says that Ham's descendants were cursed.
"Cursed be Canaan, the lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." It goes on to explain yet another genealogy which tells of Nimrod, descendant of Ham, who founded Babylon, Erech, Akkad, Assyria, Ninevah, all those people who pick on the Israelites. Perhaps the authors wanted to explain why things were so terrible for the Israelites.
The lists of descendents actually match up in places with the Sumerian "king lists"- Enoch appears on both the king lists and the Biblical genealogies, as does Nimrod. It is actually here that the story begins to join up in an obvious way with other mythologies. Nimrod shows up in other myths from other cultures, and real places are being mentioned. This sets the stage for the entrance of the Bible into map-able history. After yet another long genealogy, we're introduced to Abram and his wife Sarai.
Abram (later to be called Abraham) was supposedly a mercenary in his youth. This is fascinating to me, it means that Yahweh was a soldier's god, which continues to be born out later. His armies are powerful and tend to win; it's why he was often called Yahweh Saboath (God of the Armies). The Hebrew people were always fierce warriors. Their skill was highly prized throughout the Oikumune ("civilized world"). What does this mean for us today? Is the fact that the Abrahamic god is a war god justification for making war?
I also find it interesting that the chief Babylonian/Sumerian goddess Ishtar was a war goddess. It goes a lot toward explaining the tempestuous relationship they have in mythology. But also, if the God and Goddess are two halves of one being, they might be similar in their favorite roles. In the novelization of the Abram/Sarai story ("Sarah" by Marek Halter ), Sarai is a priestess of Ishtar. It's interesting to see the reaction to the book-the things people seem to believe about her, despite how little her personality is described in the canon scriptures.
Sarai and Abram travel to Egypt, where Abram is afraid the Pharaoh will take her away and so he tells everyone she is his sister. This backfires, the Pharaoh "takes her to be his wife" (I think that means he slept with her) and is upset that Abram didn't say anything about being married. This passage does not make a ton of sense and doesn't advance what there is of a plot, so I think we have to assume that it's either a confused fragment of something else, or it is one of those coded references to a conflict the source of which is long forgotten but certainly not forgiven.
Abram settles in the area around the Salt Sea (the Dead Sea). There's a pair of cities there called Sodom and Gomorrah. His relative Lot moves into the city.
This is the infamous story that has served for thousands of years to encourage the oppression of homosexuals. Conservatives especially have always claimed the problem was the actual sex acts that were named after the city-leading it to be banned in several societies and it's still banned in some US states.
It seems pretty clear that the issue with Sodom/Gomorrah was their violence and lack of hospitality, not their alleged gayness. They were going to violently sexually assault two messengers of God. This wasn't two people of the same sex who met at a party and really liked each other, set up a house together and wanted to adopt kids. This wasn't even two gay men meeting in a bar and negotiating a consensual sexual encounter. This was attempted violent gang rape of two angels. The people were so evil they didn't recognize the representatives of God among them. The message might not be "gay people are evil" but "don't rape people, especially not angels". God never destroyed other famous centers of gayness- God never destroyed the Isle of Lesbos and nothing has ever happened to Christopher Street or London's SoHo. Government incompetence is what half destroyed New Orleans, and part of the reason appears to have been that the government didn't think poor people, ethnic minorities and gay people deserved to be rescued, not because God hates them.
I still don't understand why Lot tries to give them his daughters.
I watched a documentary on the Dead Sea area, the environmental evidence does show that there could have been a huge earthquake and explosion in the area long thought to be the former Sodom and Gomorrah. Volcanic ash was thrown into the air and rained down on the heads of the people, most people probably didn't make it out alive. It would be easy for someone to be covered with the falling salt and ash if they couldn't run fast enough. Looking back slowed Lot's wife down. In the actual Dead Sea, if an object remains under water for a certain amount of time it will become completely covered in pure white salt. According to the scripture, it really doesn't seem like Lot was given a lot of time to get out. The angels sort of grab their hands and say "Go! Now!" like in the movies when people run from a building that explodes just as they hit the parking lot.
By the way, according to the same documentary, in the area around the Dead Sea, the walls of the underground caves below the beaches are crumbling and so random sinkholes open up and suck people under.
God tells Abram to change his name to Abraham and Sarai to change her name to Sarah. I'm sure there's some significance to the name change but I’m not a linguist so it just seems rather arbitrary to me. They do this a lot in the Bible, telling us that someone changed their name and not quite explaining the reason for the linguistic difference. I've read some speculation about gematria that claims these names become codes when there's a slight letter shift.
God demands that Abraham circumcise himself and the men of the tribe. It's not really explained why they have to do this- I know it's allegedly more hygienic and it increases sexual pleasure but as an ethnic identifier it leaves a lot to be desired. Sometimes I think God is making Abraham do all these things just to see how far Abraham will go for him.
Sarah and Abraham are unable to conceive, but God promises that they will have a child. First he tells them to give Abraham a chance with Hagar, Sarah's slave (I guess they were trying to see whose problem it really was?) Hagar becomes pregnant; Sarah is jealous of her and begins to treat her horribly. Hagar runs away. God finds her and demands that she go back (whuh?). She gives birth to a boy and they name him Ishmael.
Abraham and Sarah go to another place, and meet another king. Abraham pulls the sister scam again, and again it fails. Obviously the men will try to sleep with her if she says she's single (so she's either cheated on him twice now or she's been raped twice). I guess they're trying to show us that Sarah really couldn't get pregnant. They're in their 90s, so I'm not sure what's going on here, can she possibly still be that hot at 90?
Abraham makes a treaty with the Philistine men of Beersheba. King Abimlech says "Now swear to me that you will not deal falsely with me or my children or my descendants. Show to me and the country where you are living the same kindness I have shown you." (Gen 21: 22).
And Abraham swears it.
God gives in and says he'll make Sarah miraculously pregnant. A year later, Isaac is born and immediately becomes more special and important than Ishmael. In fact, Hagar is asked to leave and ends up cast out into the desert to starve with her baby. God promises that her child will also be a great father of nations. I'm starting to wonder if God isn't just making this up as he goes along. He wanted Abraham to have a child to begin the ascendance of the nation of Israel, but he wasn't sure it would work so he created a backup baby in Ishmael and then had to fob him off on someone else? "You are my Chosen People. And you're my Backup Chosen People."
Several years pass by, and God comes up with yet another whimsical test for Abraham. He wants Abraham to take Isaac out to sacrifice a lamb. But when they get to the altar, God tells Abraham to kill Isaac instead. Abraham actually tries to go through with it, and Isaac is surprisingly willing to lay down his life. God manages to intervene and explains that it was only a test. We can see that this is clearly some kind of foreshadowing-maybe messianic, maybe not.
Bible Study: Genesis 1-3
Genesis 1-4
I joined an email discussion group that will be reading the Bible together. I am posting my responses here as well. Before I do so, I want to talk about how I view reading the Bible. How should people read it? What should you expect?
1) It is not a science textbook, and it's mostly not meant to be taken as a literal history throughout. It is part mythology, and chronicle of the growth of a religion but its main purpose is as a spiritual guide. Parts of it contain beautiful and almost universal spiritual truths, and some parts are just entertainment, political propaganda or an attempt at historical archiving. There's also parts that are just plain useless junk. The thing that's so great is no one knows which is which!
2) It is difficult and cryptic, a one-time read-through is not at all enough. Of course it won't make sense if you just read it as a straight narration meant to be taken entirely at face value.
Because it contains stories written by different authors over a period of several thousand years, there will be many contradictions. These don't invalidate the text at all, because it was never meant for all authors to agree with each other- it wasn't planned ahead of time like a modern book and it's not meant to be read like one.
6) I'm not pretending to be some expert, I'm at best an amateur theologian, at worst just someone with a lot of time on my hands and an interest in religion.
7) I'm going to include references to other books, because it helps me, as well as links to Bible Spam and The Brick Testament for fun.
7) We're reading The New Jerusalem Bible which is supposed to be the most accurate (Christian) translation. The group's name is lectiodivinia, at yahoogroups. The NJB is a Catholic bible, highly respected linguist and fantasy author JRR Tolkien was one of the original translators/editors. At times I was not able to use the NJB because I don't own it, so I've also used this one online. Partly because I simply didn't trust half the versions that turned up in my google search. This online one is not well typed out, sadly and someone forgot to do line breaks at one point, so I've occasionally been forced to resort to my NIV (curse you, Rupert Murdock).
This week's readings were
Sunday, Jan. 1: Genesis 1-2 and Mark 1:1-13
Monday, Jan. 2: Genesis 3-4 and Mark 1:14-28
Tuesday, Jan. 3: Genesis 5-6 and Mark 1:29-39
Wednesday, Jan. 4: Genesis 7-8 and Mark 1:40-45
Thursday, Jan. 5: Genesis 9-10 and Mark 2:1-12
Friday, Jan. 6: Genesis 11-12 and Mark 2:13-17
Saturday, Jan. 7: Genesis 13-15 and Mark 2:18-28
Here is Insidian's take on Genesis. And from Brick Testament, the Garden of Eden story.
Genesis.
The earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep and a divine wind swept over the waters.
The "Old Testament" has some of the most beautiful language in world mythology, if it doesn't put this part of the bible in the top ten of the most incredible writing ever. Whether it is accurate or not is irrelevant, it's more important what it teaches us about people, and what we learn about that is extremely relevant.
God creates man last, and gives him special intelligence and special jobs to do. Man is given dominion over all the plants and animals, but man is also charged to take care of those things, these things were not given to us just to use up and break. Light is a creation of God, but darkness is pre-existing, chaos is older than order. Perhaps God didn't create evil after all, then. Or perhaps when he separated light from darkness, he created the concept of good and evil at the same time.
It says that God created the heavens and the earth, but it does not specifically state that God created the entire universe. This leaves plenty of room for speculation on where God itself came from, and is not really addressed in Genesis. Knowing how thorough these authors were, if they had thought of an answer they would have included it.
Perhaps one of the reasons why they don't ask the question is because they have borrowed much of their mythology from the Babylonians. Babylonians were the descendants of Sumerians, ironically the people who gave us Abraham. They can't answer the question because it is not asked by the original inventors of the myth. Likewise, the Noah story doesn't give a reason why God wanted to destroy the world, other than people were "sinning", but the Sumerian version does. The older gods were annoyed at how loud the human parties were, and the humans weren't doing the work the gods had given them to do.
There are two versions of the creation story in Genesis. They were written at different times and the variations tell us a lot about what was going on with the authors. One may have been written during the reign of King David, when Israel was powerful and wealthy, and monotheistic. The other, written during or just after the Babylonian captivity, when Israel was beaten down and thrown in with a strange, foreign culture. But since this was the culture they had originally come from many generations ago, they'd already been traveling around with a similar myth, sprinkled with some bits from Egyptian and Canaanite beliefs. There are actually four different authors or groups of authors thought to have worked on this book.
It's not actually clear in some places whether this "God" is one god or several. Elohim is plural, a word that seems to have been borrowed from Canaan.
"Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves".
"Behold Adam is become as one of us knowing good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."
In fact, the Hebrew people were not always monotheists- the monotheistic Yahwist worship tended to be something only hicks from the mountains engaged in and Abraham did not come from a monotheistic culture. Yahweh may have originally been part of a pantheon, slowly gaining power until he staged a coup and was crowned king. There is actually a passage in the OT where Yahweh travels to the Council of El (the Canaanite high god) and berates the other gods for their lack of morals and concern for the humans. He becomes king of the other gods; much like Marduk becomes king of the gods in the Sumerian/Babylonian story.
God may be One, but with many emanations or aspects. The earlier creation myth, the Enuma Elish (from Sumeria) describes twenty four beings emanating from the Creator, each being was given rulership over one part of the world. But all these beings seem to be aspects of the original God and Goddess- Enki and Ninhursag are Ishtar and Tammuz. And above the first two God and Goddess mentioned, there is another Creator who seems to encompass them all.
"Man" here is used to refer to both man and woman, according to the footnotes. It's at least implied that Adam and Eve are created at the same time, which is similar to the original Mesopotamian myth in the way it doesn't differentiate between the creation of man and the creation of woman. A more obscure version teaches that Adam began as a hermaphrodite that then split into two people and two genders.
God said, Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and birds that fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky. 21God created the great sea monsters, and all the living creatures of every kind that creep, which the waters brought forth in swarms, and all the winged birds of every kind. And God saw that this was good. 22God blessed them, saying, Be fertile and increase, fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth. 23And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
It's interesting that God does create birds and reptiles and "great sea monsters" before he creates cattle and primates, and that man comes last, which is not so terribly different from evolution. I once saw this painting of the evolution of man from ape to Homo Sapiens, all the creatures are standing in a line and at the end of the line is a primitive man reaching up his hand. God is standing at the end of the line, holding the man's hand as if to help him walk.
Terry Pratchett attempts to summarize our modern beliefs about world creation by saying "In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded."
More than twelve of the world's creation myths involve the world beginning as a formless, watery waste. Why is this so? There are reasons, but every reason involves people admitting something they don't want to admit. Either there really was a big flood (human beings probably didn't witness it, but found evidence later) or we really did all come from the same ancestor, or there really is a Great Universal Unconscious, or perhaps the Mesopotamians, Egyptians and Africans had earlier and more extensive contact with cultures on the other side of the world than traditional historians want to believe. Several myths also seem to include snake goddesses, and the stories often echo that of Marduk and Tiamet. An Aztec myth describes two gods pulling the "serpent goddess" apart to make the sky and the ground. The Aztecs were quite Egyptian in their architecture, worship style and dress, cocaine, maize (corn that grows only in the Americas) and tobacco were found in the stomach of an Egyptian mummy. The Bushmen of the Kalahari (southwest Africa) have a myth, their god had a wife and two sons, the sons taught the humans how to find food and the daughter of the god married a snake. The Algonquin have a myth with the "Sky Goddess" falling from the moon, which is similar to the Persian story of Astarte, another version of Ishtar/Inanna. Astarte could also be Asherah, a Canaanite fertility goddess, the descendants of these people were the Phoenicians and rocks have been found in on the east coast of the US that are engraved with Phoenician writing.
All the Middle and Near East, creation myths also feature a god creating humanity out of clay or mud. In the Sumerian/Babylonian version we are created from clay and the blood of Tiamet's monstrous husband Kingu, slaughtered by Marduk in the great war between the gods (what's that? A war in heaven? Hmm.)
The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom He had formed. 9And from the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. 10A river issues from Eden to water the garden, and it then divides and becomes four branches. 11The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah, where the gold is. (12The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli. (Others: onyx ; meaning of Heb. shoham uncertain.)) 13The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through the whole land of Cush. 14The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that flows east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 1
Oddly specific directions, aren't they? I don't think they knew, when they wrote that, that it would spark a war several thousand years later. There's a book called "Entrance to the Garden of Eden" that I'd love to get and read, it's about a Jewish man who experiences a crisis of faith and goes back to the Holy Land to find himself. He sets out with a Christian and a Muslim to walk the paths of the bible, they end up finding a lot of common ground (no pun intended).
God plants a tree in the garden and tells Adam and Eve not to eat from it; they can have anything else they want but not this fruit. The type of fruit is not specified, it is popularly thought of as an apple but it could also have been a peach or a pomegranate, or perhaps some fruit the world no longer has. Incidentally, those three fruits are associated with sex and especially sex with women, because they resemble parts of the female anatomy. Apples are part of the rose family and the rose is the sacred flower of the Goddess. Eve is tricked by "the serpent" into eating the fruit and giving some to her husband.
This serpent makes no appearance before then, so people have spent centuries trying to figure out who exactly it was and what the purpose of this temptation was. Popular Christian thought makes the serpent the Devil/Satan, but seems to be confused as to why God allowed it to happen and why God couldn't fix it afterward. The serpent says to Eve, " God doesn't want you to eat the fruit, because if you do, you'll be as wise as a god- your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods".
This has had a threefold effect. It created a theology where it was deemed bad to be like gods, leading people to think it would have been better for us if we'd never been tempted. This is the Rebellion is Bad train of thought, which can be traced all the way up to today's dictatorial religious types. There is also the theory that the snake was some kind of hero or servant of God, who was supposed to push us in the right direction, God knew all about it but either couldn't change it or didn't want to. And finally, the theory that the snake was a rebel, who did it all behind God's back because it wanted to free us from the intellectual shackles God had put us in.
Adam and Eve do not actually die. But it's believed that they would have been immortal had they not given in to temptation. Through their sin, Christianity teaches, they damned the entire human race. God catches them, Adam blames his wife for the entire thing (setting a precedent for thousands of years of similar actions) and God throws them out of Eden.
As the footnotes say, it is never written that women's pain in childbirth or menstruation was because of her sin. Rather, the problem was between her and man; man would now seek to dominate her, instead of accepting her as his equal partner. It's never stated or implied that God wanted it this way, or that it's right, just that it happened.
Adam and Eve have two sons, Cain- a farmer and Abel, a shepherd. They both bring offerings to God, and God is not as excited about Cain's offering as he is about Abel's.
The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, 5but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed. Cain was much distressed and his face fell. 6And the Lord said to Cain,
Why are you distressed?
And why is your face fallen?
7 ( Meaning of verse uncertain.)Surely, if you do right,
There is uplift.
But if you do not do right
Sin couches at the door;
Its urge is toward you,
Yet you can be its master.
Cain feels as if he hasn't pleased God, and God tells him that it's okay, not to be discouraged because discouragement opens the door to sin (my interpretation, anyway). Cain takes this badly in spite of God's words. This has always come across as confusing, partly because people don't use the actual words of God in this scene, but sort of make up something. The message that comes across is that God didn't like Cain's vegetables, vegetables are not as good as meat and God wants blood sacrifices. Blood! BLOOD! Muhaahahahaa. But it doesn't look like the verse says anything of the sort.
8Cain said to his brother Abel... and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him. 9The Lord said to Cain, Where is your brother Abel? And he said, I do not know. Am I my brothers keeper? 10Then He said, What have you done? Hark, your brothers blood cries out to Me from the ground! 11Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground, ( See 3.17.) which opened its mouth to receive your brothers blood from your hand. 12If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth.
Cain said to the Lord, My punishment is too great to bear! 14Since You have banished me this day from the soil, and I must avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth anyone who meets me may kill me! 15The Lord said to him, I promise, if anyone kills Cain, sevenfold vengeance shall be taken on him. And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone who met him should kill him. 16Cain left the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
This is one of the more misunderstood passages. People tend to think that it means Cain was only cursed, but God also extends protection to him. People have, at various points in history, tried to claim certain races were descendants of Cain, and used it as an excuse to treat them horribly.
People often criticize this story because they claim it makes no sense. How can Cain and Abel have such intimate conversations with God, when Adam and Eve were cast from God's presence? And why does Cain fear retribution when there are supposedly only two other people in the entire world and they're his parents?
The easiest answer is that this story was tacked on later, and does not mean what it seems to mean at all. It could be a metaphor for the reason why certain races have historically feuded with certain other races- an agricultural society's war with their neighbors. Something to do with Jews and Arabs, perhaps. But also there is an ancient ritual called the "scapegoat" ritual, where priests would drive a goat into the wilderness to atone for the sins of the community. This was celebrated around the same time as Yom Kippur is now (leaving room, of course for variations in the calendar). Sometimes they used a man instead of a goat, and the man would be marked so no one would touch him. This ritual is at least 7,000 years old. There is also a myth of two male gods, one a farmer and one a shepherd, fighting to be Ishtar/Inanna's husband, it appears to get quite violent.
When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, 2the divine beings (Others: the sons of God.) saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them. 3The Lord said, My breath shall not abide ( Meaning of Heb. uncertain ) in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years. 4It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
This part has always struck me as odd, especially since it's one of those passages that gets virtually ignored by everyone except fantasy writers. Another translation says that the women were taught magic by the "sons of God", which is just such perfect justification for the existence of people with the gene for being powerful witches and wizards. It could also be an attempt to divert attention away from the necessary incest that had to have happened in order for the human race to come from just two people.
There follows a long and very specific genealogy, listing exactly how long each person lives. If you're paying attention, this actually becomes quite important, but what strikes me is how painstakingly specific so many things are in this part of the Bible. They don't say "so and so lived to maybe something close to five hundred years" but "he lived for five hundred and sixteen years, three months, and two days".
I joined an email discussion group that will be reading the Bible together. I am posting my responses here as well. Before I do so, I want to talk about how I view reading the Bible. How should people read it? What should you expect?
1) It is not a science textbook, and it's mostly not meant to be taken as a literal history throughout. It is part mythology, and chronicle of the growth of a religion but its main purpose is as a spiritual guide. Parts of it contain beautiful and almost universal spiritual truths, and some parts are just entertainment, political propaganda or an attempt at historical archiving. There's also parts that are just plain useless junk. The thing that's so great is no one knows which is which!
2) It is difficult and cryptic, a one-time read-through is not at all enough. Of course it won't make sense if you just read it as a straight narration meant to be taken entirely at face value.
Because it contains stories written by different authors over a period of several thousand years, there will be many contradictions. These don't invalidate the text at all, because it was never meant for all authors to agree with each other- it wasn't planned ahead of time like a modern book and it's not meant to be read like one.
6) I'm not pretending to be some expert, I'm at best an amateur theologian, at worst just someone with a lot of time on my hands and an interest in religion.
7) I'm going to include references to other books, because it helps me, as well as links to Bible Spam and The Brick Testament for fun.
7) We're reading The New Jerusalem Bible which is supposed to be the most accurate (Christian) translation. The group's name is lectiodivinia, at yahoogroups. The NJB is a Catholic bible, highly respected linguist and fantasy author JRR Tolkien was one of the original translators/editors. At times I was not able to use the NJB because I don't own it, so I've also used this one online. Partly because I simply didn't trust half the versions that turned up in my google search. This online one is not well typed out, sadly and someone forgot to do line breaks at one point, so I've occasionally been forced to resort to my NIV (curse you, Rupert Murdock).
This week's readings were
Sunday, Jan. 1: Genesis 1-2 and Mark 1:1-13
Monday, Jan. 2: Genesis 3-4 and Mark 1:14-28
Tuesday, Jan. 3: Genesis 5-6 and Mark 1:29-39
Wednesday, Jan. 4: Genesis 7-8 and Mark 1:40-45
Thursday, Jan. 5: Genesis 9-10 and Mark 2:1-12
Friday, Jan. 6: Genesis 11-12 and Mark 2:13-17
Saturday, Jan. 7: Genesis 13-15 and Mark 2:18-28
Here is Insidian's take on Genesis. And from Brick Testament, the Garden of Eden story.
Genesis.
The earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep and a divine wind swept over the waters.
The "Old Testament" has some of the most beautiful language in world mythology, if it doesn't put this part of the bible in the top ten of the most incredible writing ever. Whether it is accurate or not is irrelevant, it's more important what it teaches us about people, and what we learn about that is extremely relevant.
God creates man last, and gives him special intelligence and special jobs to do. Man is given dominion over all the plants and animals, but man is also charged to take care of those things, these things were not given to us just to use up and break. Light is a creation of God, but darkness is pre-existing, chaos is older than order. Perhaps God didn't create evil after all, then. Or perhaps when he separated light from darkness, he created the concept of good and evil at the same time.
It says that God created the heavens and the earth, but it does not specifically state that God created the entire universe. This leaves plenty of room for speculation on where God itself came from, and is not really addressed in Genesis. Knowing how thorough these authors were, if they had thought of an answer they would have included it.
Perhaps one of the reasons why they don't ask the question is because they have borrowed much of their mythology from the Babylonians. Babylonians were the descendants of Sumerians, ironically the people who gave us Abraham. They can't answer the question because it is not asked by the original inventors of the myth. Likewise, the Noah story doesn't give a reason why God wanted to destroy the world, other than people were "sinning", but the Sumerian version does. The older gods were annoyed at how loud the human parties were, and the humans weren't doing the work the gods had given them to do.
There are two versions of the creation story in Genesis. They were written at different times and the variations tell us a lot about what was going on with the authors. One may have been written during the reign of King David, when Israel was powerful and wealthy, and monotheistic. The other, written during or just after the Babylonian captivity, when Israel was beaten down and thrown in with a strange, foreign culture. But since this was the culture they had originally come from many generations ago, they'd already been traveling around with a similar myth, sprinkled with some bits from Egyptian and Canaanite beliefs. There are actually four different authors or groups of authors thought to have worked on this book.
It's not actually clear in some places whether this "God" is one god or several. Elohim is plural, a word that seems to have been borrowed from Canaan.
"Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves".
"Behold Adam is become as one of us knowing good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."
In fact, the Hebrew people were not always monotheists- the monotheistic Yahwist worship tended to be something only hicks from the mountains engaged in and Abraham did not come from a monotheistic culture. Yahweh may have originally been part of a pantheon, slowly gaining power until he staged a coup and was crowned king. There is actually a passage in the OT where Yahweh travels to the Council of El (the Canaanite high god) and berates the other gods for their lack of morals and concern for the humans. He becomes king of the other gods; much like Marduk becomes king of the gods in the Sumerian/Babylonian story.
God may be One, but with many emanations or aspects. The earlier creation myth, the Enuma Elish (from Sumeria) describes twenty four beings emanating from the Creator, each being was given rulership over one part of the world. But all these beings seem to be aspects of the original God and Goddess- Enki and Ninhursag are Ishtar and Tammuz. And above the first two God and Goddess mentioned, there is another Creator who seems to encompass them all.
"Man" here is used to refer to both man and woman, according to the footnotes. It's at least implied that Adam and Eve are created at the same time, which is similar to the original Mesopotamian myth in the way it doesn't differentiate between the creation of man and the creation of woman. A more obscure version teaches that Adam began as a hermaphrodite that then split into two people and two genders.
God said, Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and birds that fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky. 21God created the great sea monsters, and all the living creatures of every kind that creep, which the waters brought forth in swarms, and all the winged birds of every kind. And God saw that this was good. 22God blessed them, saying, Be fertile and increase, fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth. 23And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
It's interesting that God does create birds and reptiles and "great sea monsters" before he creates cattle and primates, and that man comes last, which is not so terribly different from evolution. I once saw this painting of the evolution of man from ape to Homo Sapiens, all the creatures are standing in a line and at the end of the line is a primitive man reaching up his hand. God is standing at the end of the line, holding the man's hand as if to help him walk.
Terry Pratchett attempts to summarize our modern beliefs about world creation by saying "In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded."
More than twelve of the world's creation myths involve the world beginning as a formless, watery waste. Why is this so? There are reasons, but every reason involves people admitting something they don't want to admit. Either there really was a big flood (human beings probably didn't witness it, but found evidence later) or we really did all come from the same ancestor, or there really is a Great Universal Unconscious, or perhaps the Mesopotamians, Egyptians and Africans had earlier and more extensive contact with cultures on the other side of the world than traditional historians want to believe. Several myths also seem to include snake goddesses, and the stories often echo that of Marduk and Tiamet. An Aztec myth describes two gods pulling the "serpent goddess" apart to make the sky and the ground. The Aztecs were quite Egyptian in their architecture, worship style and dress, cocaine, maize (corn that grows only in the Americas) and tobacco were found in the stomach of an Egyptian mummy. The Bushmen of the Kalahari (southwest Africa) have a myth, their god had a wife and two sons, the sons taught the humans how to find food and the daughter of the god married a snake. The Algonquin have a myth with the "Sky Goddess" falling from the moon, which is similar to the Persian story of Astarte, another version of Ishtar/Inanna. Astarte could also be Asherah, a Canaanite fertility goddess, the descendants of these people were the Phoenicians and rocks have been found in on the east coast of the US that are engraved with Phoenician writing.
All the Middle and Near East, creation myths also feature a god creating humanity out of clay or mud. In the Sumerian/Babylonian version we are created from clay and the blood of Tiamet's monstrous husband Kingu, slaughtered by Marduk in the great war between the gods (what's that? A war in heaven? Hmm.)
The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom He had formed. 9And from the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. 10A river issues from Eden to water the garden, and it then divides and becomes four branches. 11The name of the first is Pishon, the one that winds through the whole land of Havilah, where the gold is. (12The gold of that land is good; bdellium is there, and lapis lazuli. (Others: onyx ; meaning of Heb. shoham uncertain.)) 13The name of the second river is Gihon, the one that winds through the whole land of Cush. 14The name of the third river is Tigris, the one that flows east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 1
Oddly specific directions, aren't they? I don't think they knew, when they wrote that, that it would spark a war several thousand years later. There's a book called "Entrance to the Garden of Eden" that I'd love to get and read, it's about a Jewish man who experiences a crisis of faith and goes back to the Holy Land to find himself. He sets out with a Christian and a Muslim to walk the paths of the bible, they end up finding a lot of common ground (no pun intended).
God plants a tree in the garden and tells Adam and Eve not to eat from it; they can have anything else they want but not this fruit. The type of fruit is not specified, it is popularly thought of as an apple but it could also have been a peach or a pomegranate, or perhaps some fruit the world no longer has. Incidentally, those three fruits are associated with sex and especially sex with women, because they resemble parts of the female anatomy. Apples are part of the rose family and the rose is the sacred flower of the Goddess. Eve is tricked by "the serpent" into eating the fruit and giving some to her husband.
This serpent makes no appearance before then, so people have spent centuries trying to figure out who exactly it was and what the purpose of this temptation was. Popular Christian thought makes the serpent the Devil/Satan, but seems to be confused as to why God allowed it to happen and why God couldn't fix it afterward. The serpent says to Eve, " God doesn't want you to eat the fruit, because if you do, you'll be as wise as a god- your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods".
This has had a threefold effect. It created a theology where it was deemed bad to be like gods, leading people to think it would have been better for us if we'd never been tempted. This is the Rebellion is Bad train of thought, which can be traced all the way up to today's dictatorial religious types. There is also the theory that the snake was some kind of hero or servant of God, who was supposed to push us in the right direction, God knew all about it but either couldn't change it or didn't want to. And finally, the theory that the snake was a rebel, who did it all behind God's back because it wanted to free us from the intellectual shackles God had put us in.
Adam and Eve do not actually die. But it's believed that they would have been immortal had they not given in to temptation. Through their sin, Christianity teaches, they damned the entire human race. God catches them, Adam blames his wife for the entire thing (setting a precedent for thousands of years of similar actions) and God throws them out of Eden.
As the footnotes say, it is never written that women's pain in childbirth or menstruation was because of her sin. Rather, the problem was between her and man; man would now seek to dominate her, instead of accepting her as his equal partner. It's never stated or implied that God wanted it this way, or that it's right, just that it happened.
Adam and Eve have two sons, Cain- a farmer and Abel, a shepherd. They both bring offerings to God, and God is not as excited about Cain's offering as he is about Abel's.
The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, 5but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed. Cain was much distressed and his face fell. 6And the Lord said to Cain,
Why are you distressed?
And why is your face fallen?
7 ( Meaning of verse uncertain.)Surely, if you do right,
There is uplift.
But if you do not do right
Sin couches at the door;
Its urge is toward you,
Yet you can be its master.
Cain feels as if he hasn't pleased God, and God tells him that it's okay, not to be discouraged because discouragement opens the door to sin (my interpretation, anyway). Cain takes this badly in spite of God's words. This has always come across as confusing, partly because people don't use the actual words of God in this scene, but sort of make up something. The message that comes across is that God didn't like Cain's vegetables, vegetables are not as good as meat and God wants blood sacrifices. Blood! BLOOD! Muhaahahahaa. But it doesn't look like the verse says anything of the sort.
8Cain said to his brother Abel... and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him. 9The Lord said to Cain, Where is your brother Abel? And he said, I do not know. Am I my brothers keeper? 10Then He said, What have you done? Hark, your brothers blood cries out to Me from the ground! 11Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground, ( See 3.17.) which opened its mouth to receive your brothers blood from your hand. 12If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth.
Cain said to the Lord, My punishment is too great to bear! 14Since You have banished me this day from the soil, and I must avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth anyone who meets me may kill me! 15The Lord said to him, I promise, if anyone kills Cain, sevenfold vengeance shall be taken on him. And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone who met him should kill him. 16Cain left the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
This is one of the more misunderstood passages. People tend to think that it means Cain was only cursed, but God also extends protection to him. People have, at various points in history, tried to claim certain races were descendants of Cain, and used it as an excuse to treat them horribly.
People often criticize this story because they claim it makes no sense. How can Cain and Abel have such intimate conversations with God, when Adam and Eve were cast from God's presence? And why does Cain fear retribution when there are supposedly only two other people in the entire world and they're his parents?
The easiest answer is that this story was tacked on later, and does not mean what it seems to mean at all. It could be a metaphor for the reason why certain races have historically feuded with certain other races- an agricultural society's war with their neighbors. Something to do with Jews and Arabs, perhaps. But also there is an ancient ritual called the "scapegoat" ritual, where priests would drive a goat into the wilderness to atone for the sins of the community. This was celebrated around the same time as Yom Kippur is now (leaving room, of course for variations in the calendar). Sometimes they used a man instead of a goat, and the man would be marked so no one would touch him. This ritual is at least 7,000 years old. There is also a myth of two male gods, one a farmer and one a shepherd, fighting to be Ishtar/Inanna's husband, it appears to get quite violent.
When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, 2the divine beings (Others: the sons of God.) saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them. 3The Lord said, My breath shall not abide ( Meaning of Heb. uncertain ) in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years. 4It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
This part has always struck me as odd, especially since it's one of those passages that gets virtually ignored by everyone except fantasy writers. Another translation says that the women were taught magic by the "sons of God", which is just such perfect justification for the existence of people with the gene for being powerful witches and wizards. It could also be an attempt to divert attention away from the necessary incest that had to have happened in order for the human race to come from just two people.
There follows a long and very specific genealogy, listing exactly how long each person lives. If you're paying attention, this actually becomes quite important, but what strikes me is how painstakingly specific so many things are in this part of the Bible. They don't say "so and so lived to maybe something close to five hundred years" but "he lived for five hundred and sixteen years, three months, and two days".
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Harry Potter: Hallows, Not Horcruxes
He was born a pauper to a pawn on a Christmas day
When the New York Times said God is dead
And the war's begun
Calling the first book "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the US editions probably helped to sell the books (because underestimating American intelligence is apparently a marketing tool that works) but it also made the book a lot more controversial. People who wouldn't have noticed the book at all if it were called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" decided they weren't going to stand for their children reading any books about sorcerers.
Christian fundamentalists accused the books of promoting witchcraft and Devil worship. Because the characters wore pointy black hats and waved wands around, they reacted more strongly to these books than they did to "His Dark Materials" which is far more critical of, and obnoxious toward, Christianity.
"His Dark Materials" would be more infamous if they'd changed the title of "Amber Spyglass" for American readers to "So Where's Your God Now, Suckers!"
Among conservative Christians, Harry Potter books were burned and banned and ranted against, accused of inducing demonic possession at worst, "encouraging interest in the occult" at best.
To people who are not conservative Christians, this sounds ridiculous, almost funny. But it's not nearly so funny if you've ever had to debate the issue with someone, or if you have to see the look on church people's faces when you tell them you're a Harry Potter fan.
As for its alleged bad influence on children, Harry Potter is far from a morally bankrupt series. The moral values encouraged in the stories are actually quite traditional. Be nice to people, killing people except in self defense is bad, don't pick on racial minorities, it’s important to study for school and make use of the library, and a successful adult life includes achieving a happy heterosexual marriage that results in children with the person you fell in love with in high school. Harry Potter is, at times, so traditional it's annoying.
If they'd bothered to read the books, they'd have noticed something. There was no religion mentioned at all for six books. It would appear JKR's magical world was one where religion and magic were not connected, magicalness was genetic, not spiritual.
The fact that Christianity makes no appearances in most of the books except for mentions of Christmas is a bit bizarre considering where this story takes place. It takes place in a traditionally Christian nation, with no real separation of church and state, a place steeped in Christian history. Yes, people in Europe and the UK are less likely to talk about stuff like that than Americans but good grief.
The way JKR’s magic seemed totally divorced from spirituality was actually one of the things conservative Christians who bothered to read it didn’t like about it. The ones who didn’t think it was Of the Devil didn’t approve because the books didn’t mention Jesus. They are the kind of people who really prefer that all entertainment worth experiencing should press home a message about God or Jesus. They worried that because the books didn’t guide children in the direction of Christianity, they’d eventually tempt the children away from Christianity.
They never really understood that just because it wasn’t being mentioned, that didn’t mean it wasn’t there. Because they don’t understand subtlety, metaphor or any way of talking about spirituality that doesn’t whack people over the head with it. JKR's Christianity is more traditionally English- seen as something cultural and as a social duty, not as something meant to consume your entire being twenty four seven. I get the feeling she wouldn't have much respect for people who obsess about it.
Christianity, you say? Where? But I thought these characters were pagans!
Wherever did you get that idea? It's true that some of the HP mythology is based on pagan things, and probably some Hogwarts students *are* pagans but the structure of the wizarding world is based on Ceremonial Magic/k which less of a religion and more of a method of doing things. It was and still is,heavily based on the Kabbalah and Christian Hermeticism and is the method most often chosen by magical types who belong to Abrahamic faiths. These aren't Wiccans-there is no Rede in Harry's world (clearly, everyone's stomping all over it if it exists there). Assuming that the characters are pagans just because they use magic is playing into the hands of fundamentalists.
The International Statute of Secrecy was passed in 1689, not, unfortunately, the more romantic image of the wizards going into hiding upon the arrival of Christianity in Britain. But check out what was going on in 1689.
Bear in mind that these aren't "Christian books" they are books written by someone who was influenced by Christian mythology. The difference is simple, a "Christian book" is a book by an author who considers the most important part to be getting the message of Jesus through. This is an author who just happens to be working with a set of themes she's most familiar with. She's been very clear about allowing people to see the story through the lense of their own beliefs-I do not believe she intended for everyone to go "Harry Potter=Christian story!". Mostly what I'm saying here is that these books are not and never were, anti Christian.
Despite all the non religious flaws the books had, I’m happy to see someone once again writing fantasy inspired by Christian beliefs that does not make preaching Christianity the entire point. In fact, the Christianity is so vague you could easily insert another religion in its place. It’s just that this means, oh, this is wonderful, the fact that the author is Christian and included Christian beliefs and values means that people who claim it’s of the Devil don’t have a leg to stand on and now we have proof of how wrong they were.
JKR has said "anyone who knows my beliefs knows where the story is going." Although I've been told she's a Presbyterian, without guessing her beliefs, let's see where this story went.
Harry is a blatant messiah figure. The wizarding world certainly treats him like one. He's "The Boy Who Lived", the hoped for savior and chosen one of an oppressed people. As a baby, he survives an attempt on his life, the way Jesus did in the Christmas story. He is raised until age 11 in total obscurity. So far, though, we're basically still doing the typical fantasy hero background.
His last name is "Potter". "The Potter's Field" is a medieval English term for the place where Judas hung himself after betraying Jesus to his death (see the Ellis Peters novel of the same name) and Matthew 27:7 in the Bible. Harry's parents were betrayed by their own best friend, who then faked his own death and framed another friend for his murder.
There is also a famous verse, "I am the potter, and you are the clay" (meaning "I made you what you are and you are a work in progress"). I have heard God and/or Jesus referred to as "the potter".
Harry's parents died on Halloween, which is a very important day for Christianity (in spite of what certain people claim). It's Reformation Day for Protestants, celebrating Luther's official break from Catholicism. It's also All Saints Day/All Souls Night for Catholics and Anglicans, as well as the (European) pagan festival of the dead, when the veil is thinnest. Only evangelicals (especially American ones) see the three holidays as unable to coexist peacefully. Halloween was originally one of the great examples of the ability of Christians and pagans to learn to cooperate with each other, but later became a battleground between Protestants and Catholics.
Harry is a "Seeker", which could have a double meaning (there is even a fan dicussion group called "Harry Potter for Seekers").
The last book is called "Deathly Hallows". "Hallows" are an old word for saint's bones. Harry's owl is named after the patron saint of orphans. There is a scene in book 7 where Harry's friends drink a potion that contains parts of Harry. A sly allusion to the Eucharist/Last Supper? But I won't go so far as to claim Neville's head catching on fire is symbolic of Pentecost. Harry's first broomstick is called a "Nimbus 2000", a nimbus is an old word for the halos which saints have often been portrayed with.
You've probably noticed by now that there's a recurring number theme in Harry Potter.
Wizards are supposed to manifest magical ability by the age of 7,which is also "the age of reason" in Christianity. There are 7 members of a Quidditch team.
In Matthew 7:7 it says
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door
will be opened to you..
When I was doing my Bible Study posts I actually paused after reading that and my first thought was "OMG Harry Potter!" Only...a completely obsessed fan would do that, I'm sure. But that's what happened.
Harry turns 17 on the 7th day of the week in the 7th book in a book that was released in 2007. On that day, six of his friends drink the previously mentioned potion to alter their appearance so they look like him, making 7 Harry Potters. Students attend Hogwarts for 7 years. There are 7 Horcruxes and 7 secret entrances to Hogwarts.
Seven is just about the holiest number in the Abrahamic tradition. Incidents involving the number 7 appear all throughout the Bible and various Kaballistic works. If you want to get really technical and grasping at strawsy, the book was released on a Saturday in the US, and Saturday is the 7th day of the week by the Jewish calender.
Harry is from Gryffindor House, whose symbol is a lion. The Abrahamic god is usually portrayed as a lion or lion like. Slytherin, the house Voldemort comes from, uses the symbol of a snake. The snake is symbolic of the snake who tempted Eve in Eden (although lots of people believe the serpent was not such a bad guy after all). Nowhere does it say the serpent was actually the Devil, but they have come to be associated with each other.
Dumbledore's conflict first with Grindelwald then with Voldemort is classic God vs Devil.
Is Snape the Paul of this story? He used to persecute people, and then saw the light and ended up being a tremendous force for good even though he was still kind of a jerk and nobody really liked him.
And if so, does that make Draco, Timothy?
I took advantage of this comparison in A Seal Upon Your Heart, my first post DH fan fic.
Or is Draco, Salome? He’s a spoiled teenager, as I say in
Candles in the Rain
, a “sad relic of a sad legacy” whose lust for power and attention is manipulated by the adults in his life, he is manipulated and coerced into causing the death of a beloved political figure (or so it seems to people on the outside). He is the darling prince of the Death Eaters, but has no actual power of his own (and Draco as a boy Lolita is very popular in the slash writing community). And in the end, Draco and his parents are left with nothing.
The four houses can be compared to branches of Judaism in the first century-Slytherin are the Sadducees, Gryffindor are the Pharisees, Ravenclaw are the Essenes, and Hufflepuff are…I guess I’ll get back to you on that one.
Of course, in all of these scenarios the Death Eaters represent Rome, the Slytherins being the group desperate to cooperate with the conquerors, only to end up humiliated and used, with the rest of their community saying "WTF is wrong with you?, You ruined everything. "
Some have pointed out that "King's Cross" may be a reference to Jesus the King on a Cross, but that's kind of a shaky theory for most of the series, because there are two other reasons why she probably chose it as well. First, it is the reputed grave of Queen Boudicca (between platforms Nine and Ten), and JKR likes to incorporate a lot of British history into the books, and second, because it's just so cool looking. If you've been there, or seen the movies where it is featured briefly you know what I mean. Douglas Adams used it as a setting too, it just makes a great Portal to Another World. It's one of the most widely used stations in London, so why wouldn't the characters depart from there?
Harry is tortured by Voldemort in a graveyard (a place of the skull). He's tied to a gravestone and bled while Voldemort subjects him to the Cruciatus as his enemies look on and mock him.
In Order of the Phoenix, Harry and his friends go to the Ministry of Magic and have a battle with Death Eaters. Harry and his friends, while engaging in the fight, end up smashing the entire room of prophecy globes. Sirius falls through a veil in the Department of Mysteries, which is reminiscent of Jesus' prophecy that the Temple would fall and the curtain would split in two, and all previous prophecy would be null (hence the shattering).
This is also the book where the Death Eaters, working with clueless Ministry officials, put Harry on trial on a bunch of bizarre, trumped up charges.
There are allusions to Grail Quests and Arthurian Legends, but that also loops right around and brings up Christianity again.
All of this, all of this can be yours
Just give me what I want...and no one gets hurt!
There's another reason conservative and fundamentalist Christians don't like this series. They think its very presence in the world is an attack on them, and what if it is? Hear me out on this… These are people who are always complaining about something, but it often turns out that their complaints, while they were basically misguided, are not totally out of left field, even if they don't realize it because they're so focused on freaking out over stupid things.
In Christianity right now there is something going on that's very much like the growing problem of the Death Eaters in the earlier books. It's called The Shadow War. Some Christian leaders are still trying to pretend this isn't happening.
Check out this Christians United For Israel Tour vid. Otherwise known as Fake Christians United Against Israel
The Death Eaters taking over Hogwarts is very much like the Southern Baptist takeover of their theological seminaries. There are parallels in other religions but I don't want to say anything because I don't want to offend anyone. Anyway, the rise of the Death Eaters eerily parallels the rise of Dominionism in Christianity. They even use similar rhetoric at times and many Dominionist groups are known to be connected to white supremacist organizations.
In the Harry Potter films the Death Eaters are dressed like KKK members (only in black). The KKK often uses the symbols of Christian nationalism, their new millennium version is even called "Christian Identity" and recruits through prisons.
Magic is Might after all.
Draco and the other Slytherins are classic conservative Christian/Dominionist kids (except conservative Christian kids are more cheerful in general-like the children of Death Eaters on Super Terrific Happy Pills!). I know these kids (yeah, I've said my denomination was not dominionist, but that never stopped anyone).
No, they weren't as bad as they could have been-there were no KKK style racists among them (but this was the extreme Northeast, where even if you are One of Those you do NOT advertise it) but there was a lot of casual anti Semitism/anti Arab stuff. A lot of "we are better than everyone else"-ness. It was especially interesting among the core group of local pastor's kids, because we believed that the rules simply did not apply to us (remind me to tell the story about The Day We Learned to Shoplift). And deep down what a lot of us were was just plain terrified, struggling to be perfect and failing miserably- trying to lead lives that other people thought were weird and old fashioned and pressured into endorsing a lot of really hateful stuff.
Now I'm picturing Death Eater "purity balls" and it sounds like a fan fic.
The way she goes out of her way not to mention Christianity in books 1-6 is telling, since she's making all her points anyway without once bringing it up.
But suddenly, in Book 7, she is no longer pretending Christianity doesn't exist except for Christmas.
The scene where Harry, Ron and Hermione sneak into the bowels of the Ministry of Magic to free the imprisoned Muggleborns is very similar to the medieval legend of the "Harrowing of Hell". In this story, Jesus dies on the cross, and during the three days he is dead, he descends into Hell and frees the Jewish Patriarchs (Moses, Abraham, etc) and various other people who were considered great men but not Christians*. He then bravely fights his way back out so they can take their place in Heaven. There is a similar moment in the "Buffy" episode "Anne", and in the "His Dark Materials" trilogy.
There is a character called Pius Thicknesse who betrays the Order and then gets made Minister of Magic. Pius Thicknesse took over the government. Get it? Get it? It's a shout out to us Americans!
When Harry, Ron and Hermione visit the different wizard villages in Europe, they find that these villages often contain wizards and Muggles living peacefully together-buried in the same graveyards, working together, worshipping together, even the War Memorial in Godric's Hollow is for two wars. Christians and magical people are living together, some of the magical people are Christians. Sirius mentioned that he went to James house every week for "Sunday Dinner" (something only Christians do), and the characters get Christmas and Easter off, not Yule and Ostara.
It reminds me a bit of Salem, where there's an occult shop on every street, and they throw one of the biggest and most raucous Halloween street parties in three states, and have been know for decades as a Pagan Mecca, yet the churches are flourishing too and it's hard to believe that people don't make use of both.
What ravages of spirit
Conjured this temptuous rage
Created you a monster
Broken by the rule of love
And fate has led you through it
You do what you have to do.
In a beautiful scene in which Hermione and Harry visit a churchyard, one of the graves has a specific quote inscribed. "Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also." The meaning of this saying should be obvious- It's a bit like the psychological test of asking a person what they would rescue from a burning house. What does your mind automatically go to when your life is threatened?
And in a less dramatic sense, whatever you value the most is what will drive every motivation you have. It can also be taken quite literally- the place where you keep your most important stuff is the place you'll try the hardest to protect. There are a great many "treasures" in Deathly Hallows that people are fighting over or trying to protect- Lord Voldemort literally put pieces of his own soul into his treasures and he accidentally put a part of his own soul in his worst enemy.
The phrase was a clue that Harry was the final Horcrux.
But this isn't just some old phrase.
This is a Bible verse. She doesn't attribute it in the book, so only someone who knows- really knows- their Bible will know where the quote comes from. But like I said in my original reaction to the book, when I saw those words I gasped and slammed the book shut.
Matthew 6:21 says "Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also."
Another gravestone, in fact, it’s James and Lily’s grave says The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death which is from Corinthians 15:26.
While I'd had my suspicions for quite some time, I was shocked to see an actual, blatant reference to my faith in a book that people have frequently accused of being hostile to my faith or at least indifferent to it. To see evidence that supported my theory made me happy. It was cool to have an author slipping in a quote that you had to have special knowledge to pick up on, a reminder of being part of a club with its own specific codes.
My urge to punch the air and shout “YES!” is not about wanting to be smug towards people who aren’t Christians. It’s about conservative and fundamentalist Christians who spent the better part of a decade screaming about how these books were sent by the Devil Himself. They were so obsessed with proving how pious they were and trying to shut down anything that sounded like it might be heretical that they failed to recognize a true Christian message when it was right in front of them.
A Livejournal friend pointed out that the six Slytherin characters who manage to redeem themselves are like the six members of Lot's family in Sodom. They stand between the evil people and the heroes, even if it's in a somewhat passive way- Regulus switching the lockets, Narcissa and Draco pretending they don't recognize Harry, since the Death Eaters were relying on Draco to identify him, when Draco chooses to pretend he's never met Harry before, Draco essentially saves his life.
Later, Narcissa tells Voldemort Harry is dead, even when she knows he isn't.
Dumbledore is a sort of stand in for God. Many of the issues people have with him and the questions they have about him are similar to the ones addressed when it comes to God. If DumbleGod can see the future, why doesn't he do something about it? How much does DumbleGod actually know? Is he playing favorites and if so, why?
Is he dead or did he just abandon everyone? Dumbledore allows the characters, the author, and the readers to explore their issues with God without actually referencing God in any way.
He sees all and knows all but won't interfere because you have to figure it out for yourself. God has guided you and protected you and set you apart as special, but he's also manipulated you and seemingly abandoned you at times, and set you up to fail so that you could succeed.
People familiar with Christian theology may recognize DumbleGod's methods, which are finally revealed in Deathly Hallows. DumbleGod has put Harry under his personal protection for seventeen years so Harry will survive to fight Voldemort…and die doing it. One of them (Harry or Voldemort) must kill the other one in order to end this, and because Harry is the final Horcrux, the only true way Harry can defeat Voldemort is to allow Voldemort to kill him. His entire purpose on earth is to grow up to be murdered.
Many Christians don't like this theory when it concerns Jesus, and may be annoyed to see it popping up again in Harry Potter. A lot of people think DumbleGod could have handled things differently from the start. I think people have filled many hours and many books with arguing over this. Such views definitely illustrate ambivalent feelings about God.
So he has two choices. Die, or watch all his friends die. And Harry survives because he went to his death willingly. The point was ultimately not his death, but being willing to die. After his quasi death, Harry and Dumbledore have a trippy conversation in King's Cross station, which is really taking place on another plane as Harry hovers between life and death. I am very surprised he wasn't discovered resurrected by a weeping Ginny.
Greater love hath no man than he who would lay down his life for his friends. . John 15:13.
"I mean to, and that's what did it. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them, you can't touch them"
Another important Christian theme. It's complicated, and people can't agree on it but... The sacrifice of the cross is supposed to mean that the Dark's power over us has been lifted and from that point on, Evil can't really hurt you.
As for those who may be curious about the Dark Mark or one of the primary final themes of the books, I’ll let King Solomon elaborate.
Set me as a seal upon your heart, a seal upon your arm, for love is as strong as death, passion as fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it. If one offered love for all the wealth in his house it would be utterly scorned.
Harry ends up with a "seal upon his heart" due to the Horcrux he was wearing around his neck. The Death Eaters have a "seal upon their arms". And love *does* prove as strong as death.
This is also an amusing fact.
The resurrection symbolism of peacocks (apparently, Flannery O'Connor liked to use them for Christ symbolism too).
The Mercy of Albus Dumbledore
Other recommended reading:
"Looking for God in Harry Potter"
"The Gospel According to Harry Potter"
"God, the Devil, and Harry Potter"
**the Harrowing. Look, I didn't make it up, okay?
Friday, August 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
