Almost Interesting

In response to this post at Feministe.

I have never been spanked/whipped/whooped/made to bleed with finger nails by any but my parents, whom felt that it was a necessary practice. Along with the trauma inflicted (including the void and mistrust it creates between the parent and the child) and the advocating of violence as an answer to problems (which I specifically place a great deal of blame on for how my brother turned out [up to and including his suicide]), I further place blame on this outdated and barbaric practice for the illogical way in which people think and act in society.

Corporal punishment simply serves as a violent outlet for the anger of a parent/guardian/authority figure. It does NOTHING to explain to the person being punished WHY what they did was wrong, nor what the consequences of their actions will be, nor how they can help to rectify their actions. It is nothing more than a cop-out for the lazy, angry parent/guardian/authority figure which additionally serves to create another generation of people who have been taught to reflexively believe others when they say something is bad/wrong/evil without any proof of what harm it does (the “bad” thing could be anything from being gay, women doing “men’s” jobs, sex acts done in private between consenting adults, etc). I sincerely hope that enough people will start to question the nonsensical practices of previous generations and turn their backs on this barbarism.

The Book of Ruth is only four chapters long and can be read in one sitting. This has to be the best book in the entire Bible; I’m not saying this because of its length (Though that certainly doesn’t hurt!) but because this book has NO murder nor mutilation nor rape nor slavery in it! It is a story of honesty and dedication and little else. It is sad that it seems that the only reason the story was included is probably because it relates a piece of King David’s lineage.

There is, of course, one glaring problem with Ruth: it posits that all the joys of a woman’s life comes from having men in their lives and all their sadness due to their absence. (They put the “penis” in “happiness!” …Er, happeniss.) Sadly, it is also the entire basis of the story, but since this is the presumption of entire Bible the reasons mentioned in the former paragraph render it tolerable indeed, at least compared to all the other books.

I’ll just summarize the whole story for you if you don’t want to go read it yourself:

Naomi and her two Moabite daughters-in-law, Orpah and the eponymous Ruth, are childless widows. On the way back to the Promised Land from Moab, Naomi urges her daughters to return to their families because it is unlikely that she could ever have another son to marry them (and fulfill that duty as mandated by their customs) and even if she did, they would not like to wait long enough for him to reach maturity. Orpah goes home, but Ruth remains out of love and devotion for her mother-in-law and swears to remain by her side until death separates them. They travel to Bethlehem. Naomi (whose name means “sweet” or “pleasant”) declares that her life is empty and bitter and requests that she be known as Mara (meaning “bitter”).

Naomi’s late husband had a relative by the name of Boaz whom still lives nearby. Boaz is a kind, honest, and prosperous man and Ruth decides to glean missed crops from his field (as per a philanthropic law noted in Leviticus 19:10). He had heard of Ruth’s goodness and favors her for it, giving her food and ensuring that her harvest will be bountiful. Naomi is heartened by the kindness shown to her.

Emboldened, Naomi applies to her daughter-in-law to seek marriage with Boaz by claiming her right to wed a brother (or in this case, near kinsman) of her late husband. Boaz realizes that he ought to have seen that this was his duty before and promises to marry Ruth if he cannot find a better husband for her.

The very next day Boaz brought the elders of the town together and offered Naomi’s husband’s land (note that women have not been allowed to own land [or anything at all in many cases] until recently) and there is interest shown in it until Boaz says that Ruth must become the wife of the new owner. Afraid to jeopardize their lineage (because the son-less widow’s child will be considered the child of her late husband and not that of the child’s actual father), all decline and Boaz assumes his duty and marries Ruth. They are happy together and have a son. Naomi claims him and her life is sweet and full again. Ruth is praised for her goodness.

¹⁵ … For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”

-Ruth 4:15
It is rare in this book that a woman, much less a foreigner daughter-in-law, should be considered better than any, man let alone seven sons, but of course that lovely sentiment is followed up with:

¹⁶ Then Naomi took the child, laid him in her lap and cared for him. ¹⁷ The women living there said, “Naomi has a son.”

-Ruth 4:16-17
Of course, the true value of a woman is her ability to be the dirt for man’s seed and, with good luck, the seed will grow into a boy. Would Ruth have been thus praised if all her children were girls? It is doubtful.

Then it is revealed that the baby, named Obed, is to be David’s paternal grandfather. The end!

I haven’t stopped reading the Bible, I’ve just gotten a bit tired of writing. Now that I have three additional books behind me I figured it was time to play catch-up.

Judges is a collection of stories of fairly inconsequential and mostly unsuccessful leaders of Israel between Joshua and Samuel.

Right off the bat, 1:6 describes the mutilation of prisoners of war, then shortly thereafter they show mercy to another treasonous ally (1:23-25) as was done with Rahab in Joshua 2, again contradicting God’s direct order as given in Deuteronomy 7:1-6.

For a short time, a woman named Deborah led Israel and was one of the few successes in the Book of Judges (Chapters 4-5). Her companion Barak was too fearful to begin a campaign against an army of Jabin on his own and Deborah lords over him that her accompaniment will mean that the glory will all belong to a woman (4:9). (It looks like Barak doesn’t capitulate to sexist bullshit like his contemporaries do. Good for him!) Later, a Shechemite leader by the name of Abimelech has an underling kill him to escape the shame of being badly (possibly mortally) wounded by a woman (9:50-57). Even the NIV note on this says that it was God’s intention to humiliate him by giving him such a “dishonorable” death.

Remember how it was forbidden to sacrifice your children to other magical fairies in Leviticus 18:21? Well, in 11:30-40 Jephthah swears to, in exchange for a military victory, sacrifice the first thing that comes out of his house to greet him when he returns home. It so happens that the first “thing” to greet him is his beloved only child, a daughter apparently not important enough to name. (Um… didn’t he think that was kind of likely when he made the deal?) Jephthah sacrifices her after giving her a bit of time to “bewail [her] virginity” (because the worst thing that can ever happen to you is to not be selected by a man). God does not stop this murder as he does that of Isaac, and the human sacrifice is accepted… maybe not since women apparently aren’t human.

11:14-18 backs up what Numbers 20:17-21 said about the Edomites not allowing Israel to pass through their land, which was contradicted in Deuteronomy 2:26-29.

For the second time since the beginning of the Bible (the other being the overall story of Moses), I found some things which could be applied to or used by modern people. Imagine that!

• In both 6:17-22 and 6:36-40 Gideon asks God directly for proof/signs of his will and presence. Why are these things to be taken on pure faith today? It is a very common tenet of modern religion that signs are to not be expected and that faith, the kind that even God’s chosen leaders of Israel did not have, is some manner of virtue.
• Joash saves his prophet-son’s life by declaring that if Baal is a true god that he can fight his own battles (6:30-32). Why can this be applied to someone else’s god but not one’s own? (i.e. What do religions need politically active social conservatives for? If their god is displeased with some victimless “sin” then that god can punish it on their own. You know, if that god exists.)
• 9:8-15 seems to say that only those without value to society seek political office. You should go read this one – I thought it very clever.

After a string of mostly forgettable recollections leader/judges, the Book of Judges is finished with two horrific stories:

Chapters 13-16 impart the story of Samson. When most people think of this character, their minds automatically go directly to Delilah, whose deception herald his downfall. Though many outside factors conspire against him, Samson is also largely responsible for his own troubles. He was consecrated even before birth to be a Nazirite – hardly a fair deal at all – then breaks the rules he never agreed to be bound to. He also has a taste for (generally forbidden) Philistine women, commits mass murder, and tortures helpless animals in part of his revenge acts. Samson a textbook psychopath.

The story contained in chapters 19-21 is even more gruesome than Samson’s story. It begins with a Levite retrieving his concubine from her father’s house and lodging with a Benjaminite. During the night all the men of the city pull a Sodom and ask the Levite out for some bum fun. The host becomes indignant and offers up his guest’s concubine and his own daughter (he has to mention that she’s a virgin, of course, so they know that she’s worthwhile). The townsmen refused, but the concubine was thrown out of the house in effort to appease the horde; she was raped and abused the whole night through and as dawn came she dragged herself to the doorstep where her owner was sleeping. He seemed to have had a refreshing night’s sleep.

²⁷ When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. ²⁸ He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

-19:27-28

After reaching home, he divided her into twelve pieces, sending them around to all the tribes of Israel. Everybody else in the country seems to be more upset by this crime than the man who sent them fragments of his murdered sex slave. All the other tribes band together to exterminate all the Benjaminites for the crimes of a few. After a few initial unsuccessful attempts (during which God tells them to fight but they lose anyway), they ultimately reduce the tribe to 600 men. Shortly thereafter they experience remorse, not for the innocents they slaughtered but for trying to commit genocide against their relatives. Because all the men had sworn to never give their daughter-chattel to a Benjaminite, they decide to go to the only city from whence no soldiers were sent to commit mass murder and kill all but the 400 virgin women. They give these women to the Benjaminite men but there were not enough for all the men so they concoct a scheme to kidnap virgins from a festival to fill the void.

Maybe if I’d just said, “People in the time of Judges were disgusting and barbaric, just like they are in all the earlier books of the Bible and probably will remain through the rest of it,” first you’d have saved all the time you spent reading the whole spheel.

The Book of Joshua isn’t particularly interesting, though much more heinously bloody than all previous. It recounts the string of genocidal conquests into Canaan which occurred between the death of Moses and the death of his second-in-command, Joshua. Of the people found there, God orders all of them put to death without exception. Of course, exceptions are made about which God is peculiarly silent.

In chapter 2 two Isrealite spies are aided by Rahab, a treasonous resident of Jericho. Rahab is either a prostitute or an innkeeper, about which the NIV is unsure. (Seems like a fairly big difference, yes?) She aids the spies in exchange for her and her family’s lives. After a successful campaign (the one where the city is marched around for seven days and all the walls fall), she lives among Israel. This story confuses me. So God commands destruction of all the people of Canaan without exception, yet exceptions are allowed?

Chapter 7 shows the inconsistency of these edicts. A man named Achan looted a few items during the conquest of Jericho, all of which was to be destroyed. After suffering a minor loss in Ai and some others dying of sickness (revealed in 22:20-22), Joshua is told that it was because some among them secretly sinned. (Sure, all bad things that happen are punishment for sin. It can’t be that you weren’t adequately prepared. Noooo. Joshua also preemptively blames intermarriage for military failures in 23:12-13. What about everybody who will marry a relative of Rahab?) Upon interrogation Achan confesses and is punished with death for himself and his entirely family, again directly acting in opposition to Deuteronomy 26:16.

I was impressed with the Gibeonites, a group of Hivites, whom deceived Joshua in chapter 9. After they heard of the fates of Jericho and Ai, some men were dressed shabbily and sent to meet Israel in order to forge a treaty. They claimed to have come far away and proffered their shabby wares as proof. (Smooth!) They are believed, God is not consulted nor does he intercede, and a peace treaty (sworn by the God of Israel) is made. Shortly thereafter the ruse is discovered and all Gibeon LOLs at them. Just kidding, they become the Israelites’ slaves. Um… good going?

In the next chapter occurs the other memorable scene from the Book of Joshua: the Sun stands still. Of course, nobody – apparently even God – knew that the Sun was stationary (Well, not really, but I’m sure God didn’t know this either.) and that the Earth turns and revolves around it. And when, as logic would dictate, the Earth stood still (perhaps the genesis of this term) gravity was not noted to have suddenly decreased. Also no word was of how hot the Earth – especially in a desert place like Canaan – became that day. Surely even an ignorant such as the author of the Book of Joshua knew the relation between the Sun being “up” and the temperature rising.

In chapter 20, the rules for people acquitted of murder are changed or contradicted. In Numbers 35:24-26 the person in question must remain in the Levite city until the high priest dies, but Joshua 20:6 states that they may leave upon being cleared of the charge. Though I do not complain about laws becoming more just, it does bother me that they are not constant. If their god is perfect, ought not these laws remain the same for more than some fifty years? (It’s not as though their society or technology improved much during the interim.)

Chapter 22 relates the anecdote about the tribes East of the River Jordan erecting a replica of an altar in order to remind those there of their god. The Western tribes get upset thinking that they had resorted to idolatry (which is likely given that these people have a history of worshipping new gods just two weeks after the old becomes occupied with other work [Exodus 32:1]). This was very funny to me because isn’t that exactly what a graven image/idol is? Surely people even back then were not stupid enough to think that the little statue got up and did the bidding of worshipers while nobody was looking, right?

The whole book is about genocidal military conquest, misplaced blame, stupidity, long lists of non-Israelites murdered, and more long lists of land allotments (upon which other people still live). The pervading themes of Joshua are the bigotry and smallness of the Israelites and of their god. “Thou shalt not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and other commandments clearly only apply to Israelites (who have not incurred magical wrath) and those whom curry their favor. My reading thus far has only strengthened my conviction that even if magic and all that nonsense could be real, a god like this is not worthy of worship. Any just-minded person would certainly rather spend eternity in Hell than with a monster like Israel’s God.

Deuteronomy failed to impress me; it’s little more than Moses rehashing the last four books and dying. Really, Moses? Didn’t I just read this? He just totally phoned it in here – maybe he signed onto a five-book deal and only had enough material for four. Deuteronomy is the Bronze Age equivalent of a clip show. Additionally, it has contradicts the previous books and at least one instance of contradicting itself. With a dearth of egalitarianism rivaling Leviticus, I’m sure you can cut me some slack for having dragged my feet, ultimately spending three days to read it.

When I first started taking notes, I started marking approvals of slavery and godly orders to commit genocide, but by the end both had become so commonplace so as to escape notice entirely. Slavery and genocide seem to be no more than background noise in the Bible, and I’m afraid the rampant misogyny may soon become similarly unexceptional. I did mark 7:1-6 for its orders to kill everybody currently inhabiting Canaan, but after that it just started becoming white noise.

There were a few direct contradictions of previously stated things. For starters, in 2:26-29 Moses recalled sending messengers to a king asking for passage through his land, paying for all things consumed as they passed. To elicit a bandwagon effect, I suppose, he claimed that the Edomites had agreed to these terms as well, but the story as told in Numbers 20:17-21 states in no uncertain terms that the Edomites refused Israel. Perhaps Moses lied? Moses contradicts God’s aforementioned edicts on Hebrew slavery by making provisions for the emancipation of Hebrew women, too (15:12-14). (Not that this is a bad thing by any means!) In clash with almost everything in the preceding books, 24:16 claims that no parent or child ought to die for the sin of the other. (So God draws the line at death? He already spits on the children of a sinner until the third or fourth generation but won’t kill them. What a good guy!) This little love fest gets shot to Hell though since, in the series of curses on those whom dare defy the myriad illogical and downright unjust rules saddled to them via birth, he condemns the defiant to the cannibalize of their own children for sustenance (28:53). Does God think you can eat your children as punishment for your sin without killing them? (Actually, my mom had a CD of folksy joke music in which this one family had a pet pig they couldn’t bear to part with so they ate him in piece-by-piece, but I think this may a little different. [Also I digress.])

32:1-43 is comprised of the “Song of Moses,” which is a misnomer for a song written by God for God, probably in a fever of self-fellating inspiration. Right off the bat, verse 4 makes the outrageous claim that

He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.

Well, I’ve already covered a great deal of this god’s wrongdoing, but there’s more to be found here!

• 8:16 explains that God fed people nothing but bland manna for forty years in order to “test” them, meaning that when he killed people for whining about the manna he was clearly guilty of entrapment.
• Chapter 13 uses the hypothetical situation of a person predicting a future event accurately and using the event to proselytize their gods. That person is to be put to death. (Surprised?) You know, because God is just testing you. (I can has circular logic?)
• Expanding on the earlier idea that unruly children should be stoned to death, 21:18-21 includes parents complaining about a “drunkard” child. Does this mean that parents can still get their adult children murdered or are we to blame the parents for giving their kid booze?
• 23:2 punishes the children of “forbidden marriages”/unmarried people (e.g. me) for the non-crime their parents.
• Also perfectly in character for this fellow, any if woman attempting to break up a fight between men accidentally touches the (more-than-likely covered) penis of someone she’s not married to, she is to have her arm chopped off (25:11-12).
• In his ravings against those whom defy him, God punishes the sinner by making his fiancee endure rape. Um… yeah… that’s fair. (28:30).

Of course, there was other bullshit. Moses, after destroying the golden calf that Israel made during Exodus, spent forty days and nights in the desert consuming neither food nor water (9:18). Even Terri Schaivo who was completely bedridden in humid Florida only lasted thirteen days. I suppose, then, that Moses was actually a waterbed with legs. Also, my favorite flub in the book is 14:11-18 in which the bat is identified as a bird. Of course, this can probably be attributed to an imperfect editor as easily as to an ignorant author, but still: much LOLs.

There were some things I found agreeable here, too! (Sure I’m inclined to poo-poo the whole thing, but I do try to be as fair as my very biased mind can allow.) 22:5 condemns slavers to death, but can’t a parent (Oh, who am I kidding? the father) selling an unwilling child into slavery also be considered ripe for retribution under this rule? Also, how do they reconcile this with being the buyers of slaves? 25:1-3 forbids more than forty flogs in a punishment and can easily be seen as a prohibition on excessive punishment, though maybe I’m being too liberal in this reading. (I mean, surely I haven’t forgotten 25:11-12 yet, right?) And in 30:1-3 all are assured that any who have turned away from God can return to him and may be fully restored to their previous position and possessions. It’s too bad that most crimes call for capital punishment, huh?

Interestingly, I found what is probably the genesis of a couple of idioms: 8:3 makes use of “man does not live on bread alone” and 32:10 “apple of his eye” is used to describe Israel.

And in the end Moses is instructed to climb Mount Nebo and look out onto the land which he has labored tirelessly for eighty years to reunite his people with and die, never entering on account of a small indiscretion. Is Jesus’ story meant to echo that of Moses’? While Jesus died for others, Moses lived for them. (Though my life has not been long thus far, I can in good faith disclose my hard gained knowledge that it is a far more arduous task to live for others than it is to die.) In the unjustness of his fate I found the deepest story the Bible has yet given me: all who toil away their entire lives for their own benefit do so in vain. Even if Moses had made it into the Promised Land, he would still die one day; his great legacy is having given his all to his people. I have to admit that his story has moved me.