I finally finished! I have overcome God's will to bore me to death. He came close, but I prevailed. Now we can move on to Numbers, which I think has some more real murder in it.
Old Testament
Book Three: Leviticus
The Law of Holiness
Chapter 25: Jubilee! Give it all back.
Chapter 26: Piles of Rotting Carcasses
Chapter 27: One more chapter about vows
Chapter 25 was interesting, and chapter 26 was awesome. The latter was the first appearance of the God we all know and love from Jules in Pulp Fiction. Chapter 25 is interesting from a property law point of view. God sets up an interesting system, "jubilee." The authors of the Old Testament enjoyed numbers (see Pi). So in chapter 25, God says that every seventh day shall be the sabbath for rest. Then every seventh year you shall not farm the land, to let the land rest. Then, after seven cycles of seven, after the 49th year, is the year of jubilee. (Sounds a little like Harvest Home, doesn't it?) During jubilee, all land returns to the patriarch. What that means is, no land purchases are actually purchases; they are more like leases. The patriarch (by which I think they must mean the twelve tribes) own the land (through God). Whatever economic activity happens during the 49 years is fine, but then everything is reset in the 50th year.
This system extends to all property, including humans. If a member of a tribe falls on hard times and sells himself into slavery, it is only until the next jubilee. So, if something is sold close to jubilee you calculate how many years are left before it has to be returned. (This is actually rather obvious and God probably didn't need to explain it to us--I think the market would have taken care of it.) Anyway, it's an interesting system, that, it seems, allows for a market economy, but still keeps the land tied to the community. Of course, although God says to do it, no one does this today (I assume they don't even do it in Brooklyn or Israel, right?) It would be interesting to see how disruptive such a system would actually be. Let the rich gather wealth for 49 years, then respread it and start over. I like it.
Chapter 26, God, for the first time, gets medieval on our ass. After 25 long long boring chapters of rules, he tells us what will happen if we disobey. My notes say that this section was a common practice in ancient contracts. First come the terms of the contract, then comes a section of curses in case you breach. I like that too. I think if as an attorney I ever do transactional work I'm going to advocate for a section of curses at the end of every chapter.
God is so good in this chapter, I just want to quote some of it for you. Almost the whole thing is worth repeating, but I will try to pick out the best parts. Oh, it's important to point out once again before I get started that God has already breached his contract with Israel on at least three occasions, and this entire Levite contract is unenforceable because a contract cannot be unilaterally modified without further consideration offered. But anyway, as always, God is nothing if not hypocritical. But he really goes off on Israel here!
First, in verses 3-13, God says all the wonderful things that will happen if we do conform to his statutes. We will get rain at the proper time, he will rid our lands of dangerous beasts, etc. Well, how exactly will this work? After he says all the good things, he says the consequences of disobeying his statutes. Well, does this system work person by person? Or the whole community? Then we get back to the problem he had at Sodom and Gomorrah--what if some people are good and some are bad? The consequences of being bad are hardcore. But if one person is good, how's he going to make it rain on one farm and not the others? How is he going to rid one farm of wild beasts and not the others? Clearly by "you" in this passage he means the collective "you" of all of Israel, but how does an entire community conform to statutes as one?
Anyway, here are the consequences:
"I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting disease, recurrent fever, and plagues that dim the sight and cause the appetite to fail." V. 16
"Those who hate you shall hound you on until you run when there is no pursuit." V. 17. I love that.
The structure of this section is what the notes call "progressive intensification." So first, I'll do these things. If you still disobey, I will do the following, and so on. Above was the first round. Then:
"I will break down your stubborn pride. I will make the sky above you like iron and the earth beneath you like bronze. Your strength shall be spent in vain." V. 19-20.
Next intensity:
"I will multiply your calamities seven times." V. 21.
"I will send wild beasts among you; they shall tear your children from you, destroy your cattle and bring your numbers low; and your roads shall be deserted." V. 22 (Is Cormac McCarthy's book referring to this verse?)
Now it ratchets with every threat.
"If in spite of this you do not listen to me and still defy me, I will defy you in anger, and I myself will punish you seven times over for your sins. Instead of meat you shall eat your sons and daughters. . . . I will pile your rotting carcasses on the rotting logs that were your idols, and I will spurn you." V. 27-30.
"I will scatter you among the heathen, and I will pursue you with the naked sword; your land shall be desolate and your cities heaps of rubble." V. 33.
"I will make those of you left in the land of your enemies so ridden with fear that, when a leaf flutters behind them in the wind, they shall run as if it were the sword behind them; they shall fall with no one in pursuit." V. 36.
That's about it for the fire and brimstone language. But another verse makes it explicit how God repeatedly goes back on his word. "If then their stubborn spirit is broken and they accept their punishment in full, I will remember my covenant with Jacob [and Isaac and Abraham]." He already made this promise; he has no right to put conditions on his performance now!
Leviticus ends with a whimper, with a few more rules about payments and things.
--bibletoenail
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Its Testicles Have Been Bruised, Crushed, Torn, and Cut Off
Only three more chapters after this one! Then, the to complete the Pentateuch I have 36 chapters in Numbers, and 34 chapters in Deuteronomy. That's 18 more days. I think unfortunately both these books are going to continue the boredom of Leviticus. If I can get through them, next is the "historical books," which I would hope will be better. It is frustrating, though, because it is so difficult for me to have anything interesting to say about these insanely boring books! Anyone coming to read this blog will fall asleep as quick as I do. It's not me! I'm interesting! It's God who is putting you to sleep! I guess I could talk about what a wonderful woman Julia Child was?
"You will not offer the Lord an animal if its testicles have been bruised, crushed, torn, or cut off." --Leviticus 22.24
Old Testament
Book Three: Leviticus
The Law of Holiness
Chapter 21: Priests and Prostitution
Chapter 22: Holy Food
Chapter 23: Holidays
Chapter 24: The Community Must Stone Those Who Curse
Well, these chapters are boring--we are in the wilderness. There's really just not much to say, and I am going to keep it short. Chapter 24 has one interesting interlude. It is the first moment of narrative in many chapters. A man blasphemed God's name and cursed it. The man was taken to Moses, then they waited till God told Moses what to do. (I thought that was funny. You basically leave a message for God; he will get back to you when he has a moment. That reminds me of the joke, a guy is talking to God, and God tells him that for him a million dollars is like a penny, and a hundred years is like a second, and the guy says, can I borrow a penny, and God says, sure, just a second.)
God tells Moses another version of the rules and punishments. Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death (this is Lev. 24:16)--the whole community will stone him. Anyone who strikes down another human being will be put to death. Anyone who injures a neighbor will receive the same in return--eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Lev. 24:19-20. So, on Moses' word of what God told him, the community took the man out of the camp and stoned him. (One thing I must say is I am not sure stoning someone meant killing them. In these passages there seems to be a difference.)
But here is what I want to ask. Isn't there an incongruence? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Fine--I actually think that is not a bad justice system. It is not particularly liberal or enlightened, but I think there is a logic to it. But then, to take the lord's name in vain the offender is stoned? How is the punishment equivalent to the crime? Is God really equating a simple curse, in anger, with severe physical punishment or not death? This passage indicates once again the hypocrisy and childishness of God.
One might argue that it is severe enough to warrant that punishment, because "God" is the thing that keeps the community together. It is not the offense to God, it is the danger to the community. If such behavior is allowed it could begin the unraveling of the cohesion of the community. Interestingly, in that way cursing the "lord" is worse than killing a man. Killing a man is a personal, individual crime, not a crime against the community.
This explanation would also account for the public stoning. It is not enough for the curser to be punished, the entire community must do it, as one. It is interesting, is it not, how once again, when looked at through the lens of the leaders implementing rules to maintain the cohesion of the community, everything makes perfect sense. But to take the stories literally, the bible almost immediately falls apart in a morass of absurdities.
Is there a meaningful distinction between stoning and being "put to death"? (Stoning is the same, see Lev. 20:3.) What I cannot tell is whether when God says "put to death" is that again an operation for the entire community, or is it for some executioner. This question has interesting implications for the religious right murdering women's healthcare providers these days. God, in this section, is clearly saying that certain infractions are punishable by death. How do we square that with the rule of "an eye for an eye"? It only makes sense if the crime is a crime against the community. But if that is the case, there is a very clear reason for stoning: the community is responsible for killing the offender, no individual is responsible. If that is the case, any murderer to take it into his own hands to kill a healthcare provider in God's name is utterly misunderstanding the bible. (Not to mention the fact that Jesus was utterly opposed to everything in these rules.)
Again the bible is such a simple, cohesive (sorry I've used that word a little too much this post!) whole when seen as the product of a group of priests figuring out the best way to keep their flocks in line. Seen as the word of God? It absolutely defies explanation. Interestingly, the problem is I am looking at the bible too closely: I'm trying to dig into the truth behind it, where it really came from, what it is really saying. It's not supposed to be read that way! The audience for the book are exactly the unthinking plebeians, on whom such subtleties are lost anyway. Once more: the book makes perfect sense, on both levels. If you are one of the morons the book is intended for, it's great: "eye for an eye," easy to understand. If you are one of the wiser ones, it's beautiful: look at how they are controlling the masses right now over something as plainly "Christian" as "healthcare for all"!
--bibletoenail
Chapter 24 was about the punishments discussed above. Chapters 22 and 23 were very boring, one about how to eat food, one about the religious holidays. Chapter 21 was slightly interesting, because it again dealt with women and "unclean." Priests were allowed to marry, but only virgins. Actually, there are two levels of priest. Regular, and high octane. The high priests could only marry virgins. The regular priests could marry a woman, apparently, who had had sex, but not one profaned by prostitution, nor one divorced by her husband. It is interesting that they leave out the part about premarital sex. I think what they intended to say was that a widow would be okay. The point is that there were interesting property and "blood" rules. The priests shall not make themselves unclean by touching a corpse, except their closest relatives--father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or virgin sister. But not a married sister. The reason (according to the notes) is that marriage changes the "blood relation" of a woman, she becomes more closely attached to her husband.
Do you get tired of hearing me point out that no one in the world still believes this crap? Yet people claim the bible is the word of God. Absurd.
"You will not offer the Lord an animal if its testicles have been bruised, crushed, torn, or cut off." --Leviticus 22.24
Old Testament
Book Three: Leviticus
The Law of Holiness
Chapter 21: Priests and Prostitution
Chapter 22: Holy Food
Chapter 23: Holidays
Chapter 24: The Community Must Stone Those Who Curse
Well, these chapters are boring--we are in the wilderness. There's really just not much to say, and I am going to keep it short. Chapter 24 has one interesting interlude. It is the first moment of narrative in many chapters. A man blasphemed God's name and cursed it. The man was taken to Moses, then they waited till God told Moses what to do. (I thought that was funny. You basically leave a message for God; he will get back to you when he has a moment. That reminds me of the joke, a guy is talking to God, and God tells him that for him a million dollars is like a penny, and a hundred years is like a second, and the guy says, can I borrow a penny, and God says, sure, just a second.)
God tells Moses another version of the rules and punishments. Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death (this is Lev. 24:16)--the whole community will stone him. Anyone who strikes down another human being will be put to death. Anyone who injures a neighbor will receive the same in return--eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Lev. 24:19-20. So, on Moses' word of what God told him, the community took the man out of the camp and stoned him. (One thing I must say is I am not sure stoning someone meant killing them. In these passages there seems to be a difference.)
But here is what I want to ask. Isn't there an incongruence? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Fine--I actually think that is not a bad justice system. It is not particularly liberal or enlightened, but I think there is a logic to it. But then, to take the lord's name in vain the offender is stoned? How is the punishment equivalent to the crime? Is God really equating a simple curse, in anger, with severe physical punishment or not death? This passage indicates once again the hypocrisy and childishness of God.
One might argue that it is severe enough to warrant that punishment, because "God" is the thing that keeps the community together. It is not the offense to God, it is the danger to the community. If such behavior is allowed it could begin the unraveling of the cohesion of the community. Interestingly, in that way cursing the "lord" is worse than killing a man. Killing a man is a personal, individual crime, not a crime against the community.
This explanation would also account for the public stoning. It is not enough for the curser to be punished, the entire community must do it, as one. It is interesting, is it not, how once again, when looked at through the lens of the leaders implementing rules to maintain the cohesion of the community, everything makes perfect sense. But to take the stories literally, the bible almost immediately falls apart in a morass of absurdities.
Is there a meaningful distinction between stoning and being "put to death"? (Stoning is the same, see Lev. 20:3.) What I cannot tell is whether when God says "put to death" is that again an operation for the entire community, or is it for some executioner. This question has interesting implications for the religious right murdering women's healthcare providers these days. God, in this section, is clearly saying that certain infractions are punishable by death. How do we square that with the rule of "an eye for an eye"? It only makes sense if the crime is a crime against the community. But if that is the case, there is a very clear reason for stoning: the community is responsible for killing the offender, no individual is responsible. If that is the case, any murderer to take it into his own hands to kill a healthcare provider in God's name is utterly misunderstanding the bible. (Not to mention the fact that Jesus was utterly opposed to everything in these rules.)
Again the bible is such a simple, cohesive (sorry I've used that word a little too much this post!) whole when seen as the product of a group of priests figuring out the best way to keep their flocks in line. Seen as the word of God? It absolutely defies explanation. Interestingly, the problem is I am looking at the bible too closely: I'm trying to dig into the truth behind it, where it really came from, what it is really saying. It's not supposed to be read that way! The audience for the book are exactly the unthinking plebeians, on whom such subtleties are lost anyway. Once more: the book makes perfect sense, on both levels. If you are one of the morons the book is intended for, it's great: "eye for an eye," easy to understand. If you are one of the wiser ones, it's beautiful: look at how they are controlling the masses right now over something as plainly "Christian" as "healthcare for all"!
--bibletoenail
Chapter 24 was about the punishments discussed above. Chapters 22 and 23 were very boring, one about how to eat food, one about the religious holidays. Chapter 21 was slightly interesting, because it again dealt with women and "unclean." Priests were allowed to marry, but only virgins. Actually, there are two levels of priest. Regular, and high octane. The high priests could only marry virgins. The regular priests could marry a woman, apparently, who had had sex, but not one profaned by prostitution, nor one divorced by her husband. It is interesting that they leave out the part about premarital sex. I think what they intended to say was that a widow would be okay. The point is that there were interesting property and "blood" rules. The priests shall not make themselves unclean by touching a corpse, except their closest relatives--father, mother, son, daughter, brother, or virgin sister. But not a married sister. The reason (according to the notes) is that marriage changes the "blood relation" of a woman, she becomes more closely attached to her husband.
Do you get tired of hearing me point out that no one in the world still believes this crap? Yet people claim the bible is the word of God. Absurd.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Men with Vaginae
I'm back! After a nine-month period of convalescence to recover from the extreme boredom of the last four chapters, I am ready to dig my way through four more. And these are much better than the last several, because we are back to sex and murder. God should just stick with sex and murder, he is much better with those topics than with mould and fungus.
Old Testament
Book Three: Leviticus
The Law of Holiness
Chapter 17: Don't eat the blood!
Chapter 18: Don't have sex with your sister! (Or your mom.)
Chapter 19: The Ten Commandments Redux
Chapter 20: Whom to kill, and when
With chapter 17 begins the "Holiness Code," and parts of it are actually pretty interesting and useful, almost Christian. First, though, chapter 18 is all the sex prohibitions. Somewhere in Israel's history God made a terrible, unfun, anti-perverted turn that really put a damper on the whole party. Chapter 18 is a long list of the people you're not allowed to have sex with. It really boils down to two rules: no incest, and no adultery. But it lists every possible person--your father's wife, your mother's sister, your son's wife, on and on and on. Now, some of these regulations are okay--the rule against adultery, while antiquated, isn't bad, if recast: if you promise someone you'll be faithful, then do so. But a rule against having sex with a woman and her sister?! Against a woman and her daughter?! Come on, be fair! Entire issues of Playboy would have to be removed without the pictorials of mom and daughter! As we speak Hugh Hefner is auditioning a pair of twins to be his new girlfriends. I understand not having sex with your own sister, but someone else's sister? Come on! Especially when apparently even at this late date, having sex with a slave girl is still allowed. So the prohibition on adultery already is elastic, why eliminate the hot sister?
No, a girl and her sister is not a point on the purity test that I have yet managed to score, but I am still young and there is always hope. But that's not my complaint. So much of Genesis revolved around exactly these incestuous relationships. The three best sex stories in the bible are Lot and his daughters, Jacob and the sisters, and Judah and the wife of his son. Every one of them is now prohibited, but was not in Genesis. First of all it belies the complete arbitrariness of this idea of "God."
You know, I have now read about 130 pages of the old testament. The book is so obviously just a collection of myths, it's not even very interesting to consider the "debate" between believers and atheists. It's just so obviously not true. Why is it that every other fantasy is so easily rejected? Why is it that in third or fourth grade when someone pulls you aside on the playground to let you know that Santa doesn't really exist, it's just your parents, why is that claim IMMEDIATELY believed, without a second thought, followed by anger at your parents for tricking you. The truth is you know it 's not true by the time you are told, and once others tell you so, the belief just flies out the window. Why is the same not true with God? I find that very puzzling.
Chapter 18 is like commandment 7, don't commit adultery, exploded into an entire chapter. (Brief interruption: wow. I'm at home right now, so I was reading from the "New American Standard Bible" online. They are shameless about rewriting the text! My bible has Chapter 18 all about sex--don't have sex with your mom, your sister, etc. This version says it's all about "nakedness"--don't uncover the nakedness of your mom, your sister, etc. In a way, by trying to hide what the chapter's about, they have made something far more sexy and perverted: all this undressing is quite titillating. But nevertheless, clearly the "NASB" is not to be trusted, I'm going to try a different one.) (Well, I just tried the "English Standard Version." It's the same, about "uncovering nakedness." Maybe I'm naïve, and I know the New English Bible has been criticized for its translation, but for whatever reason it seems more trustworthy to me. It's more scholarly, and doesn't try so hard to hide what was really written. "Don't uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife"? What does that even mean?)
Anyway, almost everything in this chapter was done by the protagonists of Genesis. For instance, Lev. 18.18, you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister. Well, that's the entire story of Jacob and his four competing wives. We wouldn't have the twelve tribes of Israel without that rivalry.
Now comes one of the more widely scrutinized passages of the bible these days, the putative prohibition on homosexuality. What it says is "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman." Well, most of us lie with a woman by sliding our penes into their vaginae. Men don't have vaginae. This rule is nugatory. What else can "as with a woman" mean? In other words, how could you "lie with a man" that is not "as with a woman," unless "as with a woman" means vaginally? If you're not convinced, look at these other passages: Lev. 20.15, "If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death"; Lev. 20.16, "If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal"; Exod. 22.19, "Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death." In no case do they say "whoever lies with an animal as with a woman." Why the omission? Clearly any kind of sex at all is wrong with an animal, while only vaginal sex with a man is wrong. Oral and anal sex with a man are both okay.
Chapter 19 is the first passage of the bible that is actually instructional or inspiring in the slightest way. The advice in this chapter is so good I actually think it bears repeating. Now, the following is also in the bible: why do we concentrate on the dumb ten commandments, when these are so much more useful?
1. "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest." In other words, don't be gluttonous. Interestingly this is the opposite of "waste not, want not."
2. "And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner." I think this is wonderful advice. Don't be selfish and niggardly: take what you need, but don't take every bit, leave some for the poor.
3. "You shall not steal."
4. "You shall not deal falsely."
5. "You shall not lie to one another." These last two are especially important, and are glaringly absent from the ten commandments.
6. Blah blah don't take the lord's name in vain.
7. "You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him."
8. "The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning." I find this one to be particularly interesting. By extension, this is how banks make money. You make a payment, it doesn't show up on your account for 7 to 10 days, and guess who makes interest off your money in the mean time?
9. "You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind."
10. "You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." I am of course guilty of being partial to the poor (any moral person is), but this isn't a bad admonishment: be fair.
11. "You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor."
12. "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him."
13. "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself." This, of course, it the golden rule.
Look at how VASTLY superior these rules are to the ten commandments! It says something interesting about religious leaders who would privilege them over these. I split them up, but these could easily be boiled down to ten as well.
--bibletoenail
Chapter 20 is also important. It gives the punishments for the various crimes. The important thing is that God says that you shall kill the offender, but "their blood shall be on them." In other words, you will not be responsible for killing them, they will be responsible for it. This unfortunate passage, arguably, justifies atrocities such as killing abortion doctors. It is important to note, however, that this chapter is precise: it defines the punishment for specific crimes, it is not a general admonishment to kill sinners.
Old Testament
Book Three: Leviticus
The Law of Holiness
Chapter 17: Don't eat the blood!
Chapter 18: Don't have sex with your sister! (Or your mom.)
Chapter 19: The Ten Commandments Redux
Chapter 20: Whom to kill, and when
With chapter 17 begins the "Holiness Code," and parts of it are actually pretty interesting and useful, almost Christian. First, though, chapter 18 is all the sex prohibitions. Somewhere in Israel's history God made a terrible, unfun, anti-perverted turn that really put a damper on the whole party. Chapter 18 is a long list of the people you're not allowed to have sex with. It really boils down to two rules: no incest, and no adultery. But it lists every possible person--your father's wife, your mother's sister, your son's wife, on and on and on. Now, some of these regulations are okay--the rule against adultery, while antiquated, isn't bad, if recast: if you promise someone you'll be faithful, then do so. But a rule against having sex with a woman and her sister?! Against a woman and her daughter?! Come on, be fair! Entire issues of Playboy would have to be removed without the pictorials of mom and daughter! As we speak Hugh Hefner is auditioning a pair of twins to be his new girlfriends. I understand not having sex with your own sister, but someone else's sister? Come on! Especially when apparently even at this late date, having sex with a slave girl is still allowed. So the prohibition on adultery already is elastic, why eliminate the hot sister?
No, a girl and her sister is not a point on the purity test that I have yet managed to score, but I am still young and there is always hope. But that's not my complaint. So much of Genesis revolved around exactly these incestuous relationships. The three best sex stories in the bible are Lot and his daughters, Jacob and the sisters, and Judah and the wife of his son. Every one of them is now prohibited, but was not in Genesis. First of all it belies the complete arbitrariness of this idea of "God."
You know, I have now read about 130 pages of the old testament. The book is so obviously just a collection of myths, it's not even very interesting to consider the "debate" between believers and atheists. It's just so obviously not true. Why is it that every other fantasy is so easily rejected? Why is it that in third or fourth grade when someone pulls you aside on the playground to let you know that Santa doesn't really exist, it's just your parents, why is that claim IMMEDIATELY believed, without a second thought, followed by anger at your parents for tricking you. The truth is you know it 's not true by the time you are told, and once others tell you so, the belief just flies out the window. Why is the same not true with God? I find that very puzzling.
Chapter 18 is like commandment 7, don't commit adultery, exploded into an entire chapter. (Brief interruption: wow. I'm at home right now, so I was reading from the "New American Standard Bible" online. They are shameless about rewriting the text! My bible has Chapter 18 all about sex--don't have sex with your mom, your sister, etc. This version says it's all about "nakedness"--don't uncover the nakedness of your mom, your sister, etc. In a way, by trying to hide what the chapter's about, they have made something far more sexy and perverted: all this undressing is quite titillating. But nevertheless, clearly the "NASB" is not to be trusted, I'm going to try a different one.) (Well, I just tried the "English Standard Version." It's the same, about "uncovering nakedness." Maybe I'm naïve, and I know the New English Bible has been criticized for its translation, but for whatever reason it seems more trustworthy to me. It's more scholarly, and doesn't try so hard to hide what was really written. "Don't uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife"? What does that even mean?)
Anyway, almost everything in this chapter was done by the protagonists of Genesis. For instance, Lev. 18.18, you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister. Well, that's the entire story of Jacob and his four competing wives. We wouldn't have the twelve tribes of Israel without that rivalry.
Now comes one of the more widely scrutinized passages of the bible these days, the putative prohibition on homosexuality. What it says is "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman." Well, most of us lie with a woman by sliding our penes into their vaginae. Men don't have vaginae. This rule is nugatory. What else can "as with a woman" mean? In other words, how could you "lie with a man" that is not "as with a woman," unless "as with a woman" means vaginally? If you're not convinced, look at these other passages: Lev. 20.15, "If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death"; Lev. 20.16, "If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal"; Exod. 22.19, "Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death." In no case do they say "whoever lies with an animal as with a woman." Why the omission? Clearly any kind of sex at all is wrong with an animal, while only vaginal sex with a man is wrong. Oral and anal sex with a man are both okay.
Chapter 19 is the first passage of the bible that is actually instructional or inspiring in the slightest way. The advice in this chapter is so good I actually think it bears repeating. Now, the following is also in the bible: why do we concentrate on the dumb ten commandments, when these are so much more useful?
1. "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest." In other words, don't be gluttonous. Interestingly this is the opposite of "waste not, want not."
2. "And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner." I think this is wonderful advice. Don't be selfish and niggardly: take what you need, but don't take every bit, leave some for the poor.
3. "You shall not steal."
4. "You shall not deal falsely."
5. "You shall not lie to one another." These last two are especially important, and are glaringly absent from the ten commandments.
6. Blah blah don't take the lord's name in vain.
7. "You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him."
8. "The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning." I find this one to be particularly interesting. By extension, this is how banks make money. You make a payment, it doesn't show up on your account for 7 to 10 days, and guess who makes interest off your money in the mean time?
9. "You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind."
10. "You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor." I am of course guilty of being partial to the poor (any moral person is), but this isn't a bad admonishment: be fair.
11. "You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor."
12. "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him."
13. "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself." This, of course, it the golden rule.
Look at how VASTLY superior these rules are to the ten commandments! It says something interesting about religious leaders who would privilege them over these. I split them up, but these could easily be boiled down to ten as well.
--bibletoenail
Chapter 20 is also important. It gives the punishments for the various crimes. The important thing is that God says that you shall kill the offender, but "their blood shall be on them." In other words, you will not be responsible for killing them, they will be responsible for it. This unfortunate passage, arguably, justifies atrocities such as killing abortion doctors. It is important to note, however, that this chapter is precise: it defines the punishment for specific crimes, it is not a general admonishment to kill sinners.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Skin-disease, mould, and fungus
I hereby vow to complete Leviticus! It's so boring I might need a break after that, but I am going to finish! Unfortunately after tomorrow I won't be able to write more until Jan. 15, and then school starts. But still, I only have four days left including today, so I will get it done. Boy, when an infinitely powerful being decides to be boring, it is REALLY boring!
"This is the law for skin-disease, mould, and fungus." --Leviticus 14:57
Old Testament
Book Three: Leviticus
Laws of purification and atonement (cont'd)
Chapter 13: Zits!
Chapter 14: More disease
Chapter 15: More pervy rules
Chapter 16: Yearly catch-all expiation
However, sprinkled throughout there are still some nuggets. Chapter 13 is all about zits. If you get a discoloration on the skin of the body, a pustule or inflammation, then you have to go to the priest, and the priest will look at it to determine if it's unclean or not. If the hairs on the sore have turned white, that means it is malignant. Unfortunately I don't know what they are actually talking about. It's obviously not really acne--but what disease makes the hairs turn white? And is it true? Or is it another old wives' tale? I don't know, I just think it's funny that even adolescents with an acne problem have a chapter in the bible. Unfortunately, acne, like menstruation, is unclean!
I just did a quick search, as one might guess, the disease they were looking out for was leprosy. That page is kind of silly, but mildly interesting.
So you think it's just me that finds this book boring? It is so boring that for the first time in the entire bible, the scholars themselves found it so boring there are no footnotes on the zits page!
Leviticus 13:37--there are no blond people in the bible. That's interesting, isn't it? According to this chapter, you have to have black hair to be declared clean!
This rule is great: "One who suffers from a malignant skin-disease shall wear his clothes torn, leave his hair disheveled, conceal his upper lip, and cry, 'Unclean! Unclean!'" Except for my exposed upper lip, this is pretty much how I look every day! I will start yelling unclean whenever anyone comes close to me.
The rest of the chapter is about mould stains in buildings. Just a quick question: why didn't God just give us cleaning supplies, say, bleach, for instance?
Chapter 14 is more on disease. It's a little bit kinky--if someone gets sick they have to shave all their hair off, even their eyebrows!
Oh, I do have a question. (I apologize for the utterly disjointed nature of this post, but there is nothing interesting enough in these chapters to sustain a real conversation--I'm just throwing out whatever thoughts I have.) Why is God so concerned with "unclean"? That's one of those things that if you really think about it, makes no sense at all. Think about parents with their children, or people with their pets. Parents aren't disgusted when they have to suck snot out of their baby's nose with an eyedropper--why would God be disgusted by leprosy that he created? The rather obvious answer is that there was a point to these rituals, to keep disease from spreading. But if that's the case, why not attack the problem? Why not go into the tent, pray for 30 seconds, and God cures you? WHY make them go through this rigmarole? Just one more of an endless line of examples of Occam's Razor. There is an obvious answer: it was the priests who were trying to prevent disease. The alternate explanation, that God commanded it, makes no sense at all.
Does it make sense for God to be concerned about "unclean"? What could that possibly mean to him who made everything?
Chapter 15 is interesting. It is all sex rules. First it's apparently about gonorrhea, with a lot about what a guy should do with discharge from his penis. But then it goes into when a guy emits semen! Even I've done that before. When a man emits semen, and a woman has semen emitted upon her, both are unclean for the rest of the day. Finally, women having a period are also unclean.
The notes say the purpose of these rules is to effect a complete separation between sexual activity and cult worship. "This separation is in sharp contrast to some forms of religious expression among ancient peoples, for whom fertility rites were not uncommon." (15:16-18n) All these cool old religions with virgin sacrifices and so on, why did we get stuck with this stodgy old thing? Those other religions sound much more fun. But it is another example of the purpose of this book--to give this tribe something to believe in, something to distinguish it from the others.
Chapter 16 is nice, it's the yearly catch-all cleansing, to take care of any sins that were missed during the year. Note that all this is utterly antithetical to Christian belief.
One last thing, an example of how these things really are based on mythology, in 16:8, the priest is to prepare two sacrifices, one for God and one for Azazel--a demon who had been exorcised from the community. Again in verse 14, they throw the uncleanness eastward, in the direction of the desert, where demons were thought to dwell. (All that is from the notes.)
The rituals in this chapter are interesting, but so obviously mythical, it really boggles the mind that people could think this book is real. In this chapter, in order to rid the community of sin, the priest transfers the sins to a goat, then they release the goat out in the wilderness away from the encampment.
Again, as a simple guide of morality, and as a source of interesting stories, the bible is fine. But for anyone to believe either 1) that the bible is literally true, or 2) that it is the word of God, is just absurd.
All right! Three days to go! I hope we are at the end of the wilderness, and Deuteronomy is more interesting, but I have a feeling not.
--bibletoenail
"This is the law for skin-disease, mould, and fungus." --Leviticus 14:57
Old Testament
Book Three: Leviticus
Laws of purification and atonement (cont'd)
Chapter 13: Zits!
Chapter 14: More disease
Chapter 15: More pervy rules
Chapter 16: Yearly catch-all expiation
However, sprinkled throughout there are still some nuggets. Chapter 13 is all about zits. If you get a discoloration on the skin of the body, a pustule or inflammation, then you have to go to the priest, and the priest will look at it to determine if it's unclean or not. If the hairs on the sore have turned white, that means it is malignant. Unfortunately I don't know what they are actually talking about. It's obviously not really acne--but what disease makes the hairs turn white? And is it true? Or is it another old wives' tale? I don't know, I just think it's funny that even adolescents with an acne problem have a chapter in the bible. Unfortunately, acne, like menstruation, is unclean!
I just did a quick search, as one might guess, the disease they were looking out for was leprosy. That page is kind of silly, but mildly interesting.
So you think it's just me that finds this book boring? It is so boring that for the first time in the entire bible, the scholars themselves found it so boring there are no footnotes on the zits page!
Leviticus 13:37--there are no blond people in the bible. That's interesting, isn't it? According to this chapter, you have to have black hair to be declared clean!
This rule is great: "One who suffers from a malignant skin-disease shall wear his clothes torn, leave his hair disheveled, conceal his upper lip, and cry, 'Unclean! Unclean!'" Except for my exposed upper lip, this is pretty much how I look every day! I will start yelling unclean whenever anyone comes close to me.
The rest of the chapter is about mould stains in buildings. Just a quick question: why didn't God just give us cleaning supplies, say, bleach, for instance?
Chapter 14 is more on disease. It's a little bit kinky--if someone gets sick they have to shave all their hair off, even their eyebrows!
Oh, I do have a question. (I apologize for the utterly disjointed nature of this post, but there is nothing interesting enough in these chapters to sustain a real conversation--I'm just throwing out whatever thoughts I have.) Why is God so concerned with "unclean"? That's one of those things that if you really think about it, makes no sense at all. Think about parents with their children, or people with their pets. Parents aren't disgusted when they have to suck snot out of their baby's nose with an eyedropper--why would God be disgusted by leprosy that he created? The rather obvious answer is that there was a point to these rituals, to keep disease from spreading. But if that's the case, why not attack the problem? Why not go into the tent, pray for 30 seconds, and God cures you? WHY make them go through this rigmarole? Just one more of an endless line of examples of Occam's Razor. There is an obvious answer: it was the priests who were trying to prevent disease. The alternate explanation, that God commanded it, makes no sense at all.
Does it make sense for God to be concerned about "unclean"? What could that possibly mean to him who made everything?
Chapter 15 is interesting. It is all sex rules. First it's apparently about gonorrhea, with a lot about what a guy should do with discharge from his penis. But then it goes into when a guy emits semen! Even I've done that before. When a man emits semen, and a woman has semen emitted upon her, both are unclean for the rest of the day. Finally, women having a period are also unclean.
The notes say the purpose of these rules is to effect a complete separation between sexual activity and cult worship. "This separation is in sharp contrast to some forms of religious expression among ancient peoples, for whom fertility rites were not uncommon." (15:16-18n) All these cool old religions with virgin sacrifices and so on, why did we get stuck with this stodgy old thing? Those other religions sound much more fun. But it is another example of the purpose of this book--to give this tribe something to believe in, something to distinguish it from the others.
Chapter 16 is nice, it's the yearly catch-all cleansing, to take care of any sins that were missed during the year. Note that all this is utterly antithetical to Christian belief.
One last thing, an example of how these things really are based on mythology, in 16:8, the priest is to prepare two sacrifices, one for God and one for Azazel--a demon who had been exorcised from the community. Again in verse 14, they throw the uncleanness eastward, in the direction of the desert, where demons were thought to dwell. (All that is from the notes.)
The rituals in this chapter are interesting, but so obviously mythical, it really boggles the mind that people could think this book is real. In this chapter, in order to rid the community of sin, the priest transfers the sins to a goat, then they release the goat out in the wilderness away from the encampment.
Again, as a simple guide of morality, and as a source of interesting stories, the bible is fine. But for anyone to believe either 1) that the bible is literally true, or 2) that it is the word of God, is just absurd.
All right! Three days to go! I hope we are at the end of the wilderness, and Deuteronomy is more interesting, but I have a feeling not.
--bibletoenail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
