Almost Interesting

The picture shown here is of a passenger on an American Airlines flight, as taken by a concerned flight attendant. I have seen it passed around and discussed, usually in discussions of whether or not larger passengers ought to be charged for a second seat.

After seeing this picture initially, my reaction was along the lines of, “Well, he got himself this way so he should be responsible for it!” But now I’m in a bit of a philosophical crisis over it. Look closely at the photo – this man is not only much wider but also far taller than the other passengers. Should this passenger be of a “normal” BMI, it is likely that he may require more than one seat anyway! Somehow I feel that it is wrong to charge an “average”-weight-but-very-tall passenger extra for their ride, but right to charge an obese person more. Why? Why do I feel this way?

No matter the reason for a person to require special accommodations, the end result is the same. Why, then, do I feel that a fat person should be charged more? Am I seeking to punish the grave social sin of being fatter than is deemed acceptable? Of course, it can be pointed out that one is not likely to grow to such a size without consuming animal flesh (wish does indeed fill me with a sickening sort of dread), but 98% of Americans (and ~90% worldwide) do the same and I am certainly not in the business of seeking retribution against them.

Have I identified a prejudice against fat people in my own mind?

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.

Thankfully, Numbers was a far better book than Leviticus. The first nine chapters are about the census taken of the Israelites, sans the Levites, for militaristic purposes. The aforementioned 603,550 men mentioned in Exodus are indeed only males and all over the age of 20, which (as the notes say) lends to the idea that there are about 2,000,000 people in total. This, of course, is an extraordinarily large number of people and various possibilities of mistranslation have been suggested to account for this. 2,000,000 in a population may not seem like much today, but, in order to put this in perspective, take into account that the whole of the Las Vegas valley is currently home to two million people. Farming and food distribution systems at the time were not adequate to provide for this many people in a place such as Egypt – even Babylon had only ~40,000 people at its peak. Regardless, the Bible is a book of impossibilities and this is doubtlessly one of them.

Numbers repeatedly lists the names of representatives of the 12 tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh each counting as a tribe as the Levites are excluded); when the Tabernacle was finally set up each tribe’s gifts are listed separately, even though all the tribes gave the same gifts. These parts were boring. There are also some holdover laws and regulations discussed at points in Numbers, but not to the tedious extent of Leviticus. The various atrocities wrought on sacrificial animals are now referenced by their specific titles (Burnt, Fellowship/Peace, Sin, Guilt Offerings, and Grain Offerings usually only accompanying a furry or feathered victim). 5:11-31 details a bit of more anti-woman hypocrisy with a borderline-voodoo test to decide if an accused wife has cheated on her husband: she is to be given a jug of water with dirt in it of which she drinks and if she contracts a wasting disease she is guilty, if not she is innocent. Sanitization at the time was abysmal so any poor woman found guilty is clearly the victim of bad water, and the acquitted merely lucky. No cheating-husband test was ever introduced.

From here an actual story develops in which the authority of Moses and Aaron is repeatedly tested and challenged by their needy charges. Nostalgia (and probably idleness, too) wear on the Israelites and they alternately complain, act as though bondage in Egypt or death would be better than freedom in Sinai, and attempt to usurp power from those their god has placed in charge.

It is in this book that I developed a strong regard for the character of Moses. He seems to be all that is virtuous: humble, hard-working, compassionate, forgiving. All the evils he brings onto others is at the command of an evil god whom he is forced to serve. Repeatedly he pleads with God to forgive those whom transgress against him (Moses, that is) and often succeeds to an extent. Examples include 12:1-13, 14:11-19, 16:22, 16:46-50, and 21:7. His great humility is exemplified in 11:26-29. For his pains, 20:11-12 sees God barring him and Aaron from ever entering the promised land for a very minor disobedience: when the Israelites cry for water, Moses strikes a rock twice with his staff (which he had been commanded to do once on a previous occasion) instead of speaking to it. For eighty years of constant, dedicated service he is given nothing at all! I feel as though no Jesus would ever be needed, as Jesus lived but 33 years in relative comfort to Moses whom toiled nearly all of his life for the good of others and all for no personal gain. Even after God informed him and his brother that they should receive no payment, they continued to work every day for the rest of their lives. When God tells Moses that the end of his days were nigh, his only concern is for the good of his people (27:12-16). The only point at which my respect for this character was diminished (and I must declare it an immense grievance) was after the defeat of the Midianites; the army of Israel had spared all the women and children. This show of mercy angers Moses and he instructs them to kill all the boys and every non-virgin woman (31:9-18). (You know, because women are like toothbrushes and nobody wants a used one.) Then the prisoners are divided as spoils along with the sheep, cattle, and donkeys (31:32-47).

There is an interesting story of Balaam, a sorcerer of sorts. According to the notes in the book, Balaam may have been a real person as he had at least one divination recorded in non-Biblical texts. Balak, king of Moab, had seen the multitudes of Israel camped near his lands and was convinced that they had come to defeat him. Because he does not think that he can defeat them, he sends for the famous Balaam to curse them. Israel’s god, however, forces Balaam to bless them instead. I especially liked the bit about his donkey, probably because it is the first regard I have ever seen paid to a non-human up to this point in the Bible. I include it forthwith:

²¹Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab. ²²But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. ²³When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, she turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat her to get her back on the road.

²⁴Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between two vineyards, with walls on both sides. ²⁵When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it. So he beat her again.

²⁶Then the angel of the LORD moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. ²⁷When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff. ²⁸Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

²⁹Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

³⁰The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”
“No,” he said.

³¹Then the LORD opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

³²The angel of the LORD asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me. ³³The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If she had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared her.”

-22:21-33 (emphasis mine)

We see at a couple of points something resembling movement toward a truly just society, too. At the end of Numbers, six Levite cities are established to serve as sanctuaries for accused murderers seeking a fair trial (35:22-30). Of course, it’s not perfect – even an acquitted person must stay in the Levite city until the high priest dies or they may be subject to vengeance, but this is clearly better than the total lack of judicial oversight experienced before. I was very happy to read 27:1-11, which contains the story of a brother-less group of Manasseh sisters seeking to one day redeem their father’s inheritance. Moses applies to God and God agrees that they should not be denied, henceforth establishing an inheritance system which resembles male-preference primogeniture: if a family has no sons, the daughters shall inherit, if no children, a brother, if no neither children nor brothers, an uncle, and so on. Again, it’s not perfect but it’s a start.

Of course, women can’t even completely savor this crumb of consideration thrown to them by their owners. The very last chapter of the book, chapter 36, is entirely about the men of the tribe of Manasseh complaining to Moses that if said women marry outside their own tribe, their property will be turned over to the other group. God’s solution to this is to say that women in such circumstances must only marry within their own tribe so as to keep one tribe’s property from changing hands. Even the NIV note claims the book to end “on a happy note” because all of the sisters obey God and subjugate themselves by marrying within Manasseh. (Fuck you too, Zondervan!)

The eternal tyrant’s crusade against egalitarianism continues in full force in Numbers. Indeed, much of Moses’ appeal is due to his opposition to God’s cruelty. Chapter 30 is entirely about how if a woman decides to serve God, her owner (a husband or father) can completely negate her decision at will. The war on justice does not end with women, of course. In 15:32-36, God commands that a man caught gathering wood on the sabbath be stoned to death. The ground split apart and swallowed not only three men trying to usurp Moses and Aaron, but their innocent families, as well (16:31-33). When the Israelites tell God that his food stinks he sends snakes to kill them (21:4-9). This last one leads to as stupid and convoluted a remedy as ever there was: God instructs Moses to fashion a bronze snake’s head and put it on a stick so anybody bitten may look at it and will survive. Um… wow, you are the brilliant one who invented calculus? So much Byzantine silliness clearly indicative of the simple-minded superstitions of ignorant people grasping for a sense of control over a world they could not even begin to comprehend with their ingrained methodology of un-reason. The being with all these useless regulations and panaceas cannot be an intelligent being, let alone an omnipotent one.

In 25:6-15, Phinehas, a priest-designate, sees a fellow Israelite with a Midianite woman, follows them to their tent, and runs them both through with a spear. For this he is rewarded greatly – apparently his countrymen believed that their consorting with the Midianites displeased God and brought upon them a plague. In this cold-blooded double homicide the ignorant people believed he quelled God’s anger and released them from the infectious disease killing their population. Again, more Bronze Age silliness about godly displeasure bringing illness. Anybody with half a brain and an sixth grade education can see that it is patently false.

The biggest thing I’ve taken away from Numbers is the general feeling that Moses is more moral than the god he served. Loyal, hard-working, trustworthy, never jealous, and miles more compassionate than his contemporaries, he is clearly the least reprehensible in the Bible thus far.

And on a strange note, Serah, descendant of Asher, who was mentioned in Genesis 46:17 was mentioned again in Numbers 26:46. It is too bad we’ll probably never hear her story. For a woman to be so mentioned among her brothers and male cousins in a 400-year-old account of her family must mean that she had a fascinating story.