Let's get real about Bible stories...!

[Penelope]

the Hebrew Scriptures – the Old Testament of the Christian Bible

I have been told by well-meaning semi-religious friends, that when I read this Book – I should read it as great literature.

I read literature for pleasure. I'd rather read Faulkner.

I have read the Qur'an from cover to cover, and much of the Christian New Testament. Slogging thru them might be tedious, like working one's way thru historical sources of any kind. Yet it is not hard going.

The Old Testament, though, is a nightmare!

I have a choice.
1. To try to deeply empathize, and embed myself within the original anthropological context of the texts. Or ...
2. To read the texts with a modern eye.

Frequently, I become so deeply appalled by what I read, that whatever empathy I have mustered – takes flight.

I am not a doctrinaire feminist nor multiculturalist, by instinct. I have an open mind. But the degree of misogyny and racism I find there is unendurable. Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. I cannot be objective and overlook what is pushed - often page after page - in my face. Nor just sigh, and focus instead upon other issues within the text. No.

Ironically, the actual archeological evidence, I've seen, casts the Jewish people from 1200bce thru the Babylonian captivity in a much kinder light – than does their own Sacred writings. In the times of Moses and Joshua, the Israelites could not raise vast armies (100,000 from each tribe? Get real!). This is pure bunk. (An inflated back-projection by writers after the supposed glory days of the kingdoms of David and Solomon.)

Some evidence suggests that the Israelites did not need to invade the Holy Land. They were already one of its indigenous peoples.

Migratory Israelites of this early period, other evidence suggests, took to the hills where they and their flocks would be safe from the armies of the region's two super powers (Egypt & Assyria). During the good years, when there was rain – and the grass grew – the Israelites could go down in the valley and trade with the farming peoples there. In bad years, they would raid these same people for supplies. Then as a power vacuum developed thru the region, the Israelites moved down into the valley and integrated with the peoples there. Some trading of trinkets and sharing of customs, some intermarriage – this is what being a good neighbor is about. (Not reviling the customs of one's neighbors - which Scribal writings written later would lead us to believe.)

And the best archeological evidence suggests that the Israelites were good neighbors with the established farmers there. The Israelites were not - as the Scriptures trumpet-gloriously - sacking walled town after walled town, executing every last male (over the age of 12) in those defeated towns and taking the women and youngsters as slaves. Why did later scribes feel it necessary to make out that the Israelites before David's time were so warlike, so savage? So uncompassionate, so utterly cruel? What was the point of perpetrating this lie? Was it merely to fire-up the fighting spirit of later generations for conflicts they then faced?

Or was it just something which developed entirely during these later times? ... Phallocentric bravado? A hatred of women? A hatred of all other races?

A hatred of peace?

& & &

I am a modern reader of Sacred scriptures – from various religious traditions. I cannot keep my emotion tied up and tumbled into a closet. This ain't no secular pastime, for me. I am not after "old but good" literature.

I am after truth.

& & &

There is some truth in this Book. I know there is!

But how much underbrush am I going to have to clear away first?

 

[Tao_Equus]

you're just interested in deconstructing scripture as if it were paperback fiction.

Come on now. There really is no call for insulting fiction writers the world over in this way!

 

[Dream]

Lets slow down. I am not even sure what response you are looking for, Penelope; but no I have not said everything. I will humor a fellow seeker though we are strangers. Many great truths are most easily found in Proverbs.

As for THE truth, I really think that we are all going to die and that only ideas and children live on, but I will not use the Bible to try to prove it to you here. I think ghosts don't exist. I would prove this to myself, but I refuse to prove it to you. I cannot explain away psychic phenomena, because I have experienced them slightly. I think mothers that have children who have died should not be forced to think about death unless absolutely necessary, and I think whoever values the Bible should be allowed to do so unmolested. It is valuable, powerful, probably the best hope for the future of the world. Its greatest value is in showing how to live with others and how to appreciate being alive. More and more people can live together peacefully, and when someday death is destroyed the Bible will be one of the tools used to do it. The future is bright. The present is ours.

It is also fun to torment Tao Equus with the Bible.

I believe in life, life, and more life. Part of being alive is preparing the next batch so they know how to live. This is not atheism but theism. Every second is good and unique, yours forever. There is no easy way to get another person to see your point of view. When a friend is stuck, sometimes you have to make a choice. Between the dead and the living, choose the living.

 

[iBrian]

I have an open mind. But the degree of misogyny and racism I find there is unendurable. Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. I cannot be objective and overlook what is pushed - often page after page - in my face. Nor just sigh, and focus instead upon other issues within the text. No.

Yes, but you mentioned you were reading it with an anthropological context in mind - in which case, we're reading about a potentially bronze age culture, and one for which harsh survival in the deserts, between mighty empires, is a recurring theme.

When you look towards cultures attributed to similar time scales - Mycenaean, Hittites, Assyrian, even Egyptian, we are not looking at cultures big on equality, mercy, or the value of human life.

Ironically, the actual archeological evidence, I've seen, casts the Jewish people from 1200bce thru the Babylonian captivity in a much kinder light – than does their own Sacred writings.

Indeed - it makes them pretty unique as religious writings, I think.

In the times of Moses and Joshua, the Israelites could not raise vast armies (100,000 from each tribe? Get real!). This is pure bunk. (An inflated back-projection by writers after the supposed glory days of the kingdoms of David and Solomon.)

There have been interesting arguments from Christian apologetics that many of these figures can be significantly reduced if it's accepted that a basic misunderstanding of the early numbering system was carried through in later copies. 'Fraid my sources on this subject are offline.

 

[bananabrain]

I'm not a moron. I get that. (Give me some credit here.)

you have to understand, penelope, that we get all sorts here. some people ride in with very clear opinions, big chips on their shoulders and a Point To Make. this is a dialogue site, which means, in my experience, asking questions in an open way, not in a "have you quit beating your wife?" kind of way.

now, in terms of your agenda, i couldn't say. i could probably hazard a guess at this point, but my most important point is this. when engaging in polemic about someone else's sacred texts, it is as well to be aware of a) what the texts actually say and b) what they actually mean according to the people who hold them sacred. now in reference to this:

The luxurious woman, which God's-intermediary-Ezekiel addresses, is not a person. She is a symbol for all Jerusalem – rich and prosperous and reverting to pagan ways. At least, in Ezekiel's mind. The infant city which God picked up from the dirt of the desert, then clothed in riches and made mighty. And which is now turning away from God.

in fact, she is a symbol for the jewish people. our relationship to G!D is seen like a marriage in which we are, essentially, the very worst kind of cheating spouse. it is significant, incidentally, that the jewish people are seen as a sort of "collective woman", not as a man, but that is probably a different discussion. the issue here is one of betrayal, of G!D's Feelings of abandonment, of understanding how we hurt One we profess to love.

This story Ezekiel spins is a product of poetic license. Is literature. Literature is, by definition, fiction. I am not interested in "literature," where the Bible is concerned. I am interested in truth. Where is the truth here?

i would certainly disagree with your definition of literature. my undergrad mentor once gave the rather pithy definition that "literature is writing which contains something more than just the story". now, certainly, the Tanakh has literary qualities, but then again so does legislation, or history. both have at least some relationship to truth, if not a straightforward, clear-cut one. in terms of what you are interested in, you have not made it clear what you would consider the criteria for "truth" - you have thrown it out there as if it was obvious, when in fact it is something that taxes the best of philosophers and takes up thousands of books, so i would certainly pick you up on that.

Ezekiel wants to destroy the luxury. And he blames women for it.

that is not what the Text actually says, however. the Text speaks of "you". so what is the "you"? how can you deduce from the actual wording that he means "women", not the jewish people?

It is quite clear that Jewish women are considerably more powerful now, in 600bce, than they were in Moses' time.

how? have you heard of the daughters of zelophechad?

Ezekiel hates their clothes, their jewelry, their ability to travel, their independent life-style.

again, the actual Text says "you", not "they".

Ezekiel saw it on the streets of Jerusalem everyday.

ezekiel didn't write it in jerusalem, though. he wrote it as an exile, i think you'll find. so, from his PoV, he was talking about why the exile had taken place and blaming it on the people's *religious* faithlessness, the hurt of which is conveyed by comparing it to the hurtfulness of *marital* faithlessness.

His imagery is too vivid for it to be otherwise.

really? i think you'll find that, for example, shakespeare did not in fact live in ancient rome, yet he seemed to have no trouble casting vivid imagery in those terms.

Ezekiel wants to turn the clock back to the good-old-days of deprivation, when men's wickedness was more worrisome than woman's legal - but seemingly sinful - ways.

this is assertion and, again, not based in the actual Text.

Turn the clock far back in time when women were invisible, because women didn't even have a stake in Jewish society.

again, the daughters of zelophechad give the lie to this. the laws of marriage, divorce and property enshrined in the Torah quite simply do not reflect such an analysis. women, from the earliest times, managed households, engaged in business deals and owned goods and property in their own right, not merely as a chattel of their husbands. women were prophets and leaders - look at miriam and deborah. i'm not saying it was a sort of feminist utopia but the Text does not support this position.

This is the subtext of Chapter 16, as I read it. This is its truth.

actually, it comes across as you reading a subtext into it that not only isn't there, but isn't consistent with how women are seen elsewhere.

It hurts to feel I am ... not taken seriously.

you will be taken seriously if you support your assertions and engage seriously with the Text.

The woman of Ezekiel 16 is best understood when overlaid as a template upon other Biblical women accused of adultery -- all of the 'Tamars'

i'm not sure this is true either, there are two tamars, the one from kings and the one from genesis. the tamar in kings is a bit of a victim, but is not punished for it. the one in genesis is quite an assertive person, who uses the system to extract her from an invidious position as the despised wife of two sinners and one non-entity, to become instead the source of the bloodline of the messiah himself.

In fact, vs. 52 could be an allusion to Jacob's two wives, Leah and Rachel.

no, if you look further up in v.46, the older sister is "samaria" and the younger "sodom"; these are clearly non-jewish, albeit related "peoples", who are, despite their general presumption of wickedness, by comparison with "jerusalem" shown to be worthy of praise after all. in other words, by israel's poor conduct it has made G!D Feel compassionate towards peoples that would normally be held up as very bad indeed.

I do not know, for instance, if Ezekiel even existed or not. Is there any independent evidence (outside the Bible) that he did? (Say in Babylonian records?)
You see, I don't myself know. But it seems, to me, like an important question to ask.

that is an important question for bible scholars, of course. for a jewish believer like myself, it is obvious that *someone* existed and that they wrote this book, so whether he was really called ezekiel or not hardly matters compared to what he has to tell us, which is of far greater interest.

There are a multitude of people, places, and events in the Bible which have been verified by archeology. But there is also much that couldn't possibly have happened, too.

again, that is very much dependent on where your starting point and axioms are, as well as what you would consider to be true. if your standard of truth is a scientific one of reliably-dated evidence supported by independent verification in peer-reviewed publications, then, yes, i dare say almost anything would fall short that was written more than about 500 years ago. however, proof is not, philosophically speaking, the same thing as truth. it is simply a measure of the balance of probabilities and the reasonableness of a hypothesis. this is not my measure of the "truth" of sacred texts, however. my measure of their truth is whether they can be shown to be reliable prophecies which can teach us something about why the world and humanity and the jewish people are the way they are and, in this, ezekiel has a great deal to offer us.

Ezekiel is described as "a prophet."
What does that mean?
1. That he genuinely "saw into the future"?
2. That he is a madman (a paranoid schizophrenic)?
3. That he is conservative moralist?
4. Or just a "loud mouth" as I describe him.

from my PoV, it means that he received a high level of inspirational vision from the Divine which was subsequently written down. not as high as moses, incidentally, but higher than, say, habbakuk. we have technical ways of defining the level, based mostly on ezekiel chapter 1, which properly understood, is actually the gold standard manual for prophetic experience.

I suppose it could be argued, Chapter 38 - "Valley of Dry Bones," that Ezekiel anticipated modern genetics. He foresaw a time when the dead Jewish people - their bones scraped for DNA and put in test-tubes - are then brought back to life. Or, rather, a genetic clone of the original person. Do we, today, cite Ezekiel as a religious reference in support of human cloning?

i dare say some people might, it sounds a bit jurassic park for me. i would prefer to see it as a people that was symbolically "dead" returning, symbolically, to "life". therefore we would have to understand what the statuses of "dead" and "living" signify in terms of ezekiel's perception of how he understood what he had been shown.

"His message is a transmission from God." We have only Ezekiel's word for it. Hundreds of thousands of schizophrenics down through the ages have made this claim.
Did they all have a pipeline to God? If not, what makes Ezekiel different?

firstly, you don't actually have evidence that "Hundreds of thousands of schizophrenics down through the ages have made this claim", because i don't believe that has been documented. we believe it because that was the conclusion the sages (and the church) came to during the process of the canonisation of the jewish Tanakh and the christian "old testament" respectively. our sages received this tradition from their teachers - and the chain of tradition goes back to moses. that is, if you trust the sages not to have lied. fundamentally, this is what we mean by faith. either one trusts the people who have got us where we are today, or one doesn't. it isn't really faith in G!D, as such - it's trust in people.

Very fluid symbolism. That's cool.
(Was Jewish culture that sophisticated then?)

if that is a serious question, then you really need to learn a bit more about jewish culture. the answer to that is "yes - and it may surprise you to learn just how much".

2. This is a literary conceit (Postmodern theory) I disapprove of.

you are entitled to your own opinions, naturally.

There is no (independent) truth for Ezekiel. Only continuity of (here, Jewish literary) tradition.

philosophically - and here, i would appeal to robust philosophical method rather than to postmodern literary fidgy-widginess - there is no such thing as "independent" truth, not least because there is no such thing as "independence" either.

At least, in my disrespectful way, I am scratching about for truth.
(Somewhere in the Bible, I expect to find it.)

well, that is pretty commendable. i wouldn't say that is far different from my opinion, but the difference may be that you're not that clear about what truth might actually be.

If the typeface bugs you, look to your own writing, my son ...
You use the same font as I. Yes, TE ... "Verdana." And, yeah, most of the guys I know ... prefer to see the world in black & white, too. (Why is that?)

it's not just guys, penelope. it's because it's easier on the eyes. have you ever heard of "usability" or the "human-computer interface"? why do you think most books aren't in coloured inks? sheesh. talk about a subtext.

The Old Testament, though, is a nightmare!

I have a choice.
1. To try to deeply empathize, and embed myself within the original anthropological context of the texts. Or ...
2. To read the texts with a modern eye.

Frequently, I become so deeply appalled by what I read, that whatever empathy I have mustered – takes flight.

this is because you have avoided a choice you haven't noticed, namely:

3. to try to understand how people who love the texts read them within their *current* anthropological context, which includes (at least if you trust the sages) the original context within it.

have you heard of prof. james kugel's "four assumptions"? you might start with those. in fact, his "how to read the bible" is where i suggest you should go to understand why you think you only have those two choices - and what the other choices might be.

Ironically, the actual archeological evidence, I've seen, casts the Jewish people from 1200bce thru the Babylonian captivity in a much kinder light – than does their own Sacred writings.

hmph. i would suggest that this might be due to your not especially understanding how jewish people actually relate to our own sacred writings.

might i respectfully suggest that the first thing to do is to stick not just to this broad brush approach, but to start with the essentials. rather than rewriting vast swathes of NaKh in rather tendentious and accusatory, terms, pick one verse, just one (from Torah preferably) and then we can start to work on unpacking its context, meaning and significance.

b'shalom

 

[Dream]

The woman of Ezekiel 16 is best understood when overlaid as a template upon other Biblical women accused of adultery -- all of the 'Tamars'

i'm not sure this is true either, there are two tamars, the one from kings and the one from genesis. the tamar in kings is a bit of a victim, but is not punished for it. the one in genesis is quite an assertive person, who uses the system to extract her from an invidious position as the despised wife of two sinners and one non-entity, to become instead the source of the bloodline of the messiah himself.

Maybe 'Best understood' isn't the best way to describe it. I can see why it isn't clear what I meant. There are differences between those Tamars. Also I include more women in there as 'Tamars' than just those that were called Tamar, so it is a simplification.

 

[Penelope]

Yes, but you mentioned you were reading it with an anthropological context in mind - in which case, we're reading about a potentially bronze age culture, and one for which harsh survival in the deserts, between mighty empires, is a recurring theme.

When you look towards cultures attributed to similar time scales - Mycenaean, Hittites, Assyrian, even Egyptian, we are not looking at cultures big on equality, mercy, or the value of human life.

I,B
This is what I call the ...
Big Dog in the Neighborhood Theory of History.

The assumption is:
Dog with the biggest bark and biggest bite rules.
The smaller dog is cowed by the big dog, but this smaller dog will nonetheless lord it over the very smallest dogs (in just the same way as they were lorded over by the biggest dogs). The smallest dog will bark once and run, to prove (only to themselves) their virility.
Cruelty is the name of the game. Everyone is cruel, it is the only game in town. The strongest are the most cruel.
A Darwinian "survival of (not so much the 'fittest' as) the fiercest," as applied to Late-Bronze/Early-Iron Age history.

& & &

Take as counter-example the American Great Plains, circa 1700ce:

The successful Native American tribes who lived in the region - Pawnee, Mandan, Caddo, Arikara, Hidatsa, others - grew corn along the Mississippi or Missouri or Platt rivers, and would trek on foot a day or two into the Plains to hunt bison. These buffalo herds numbered in the millions. No tribe traveled deep into the grasslands of the "great American desert" due to the scarcity of water and wood, there. None lived there. Best historical indications are, that each of these tribes had their own territory (stretch of river, and its fertile land), traded with each other, got along well together. (And women were valued agriculturalists.) Life was good.

Then came the horse.
During the 1700s, the Spanish started trading the horse for corn, buffalo hides, and precious metals in Spanish-controlled Texas and New Mexico. Herds of wild horses were also making their way north from Mexico proper.

Jump 150 years into the future.
The horse cultures of the Comanche, Kiowa, and Apache dominate the Southern Plains while the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Blackfoot dominate the Northern Plains. These are migratory cultures without clear-cut territory, who grow to be mighty and feared. They raid - at will and without serious reprisal - the corn-growing agriculturalists/hunters at the fringes of the Great Plains. These migratory peoples are proud, fierce, and cruel. These tribes, as they grew strong, had developed a contempt for "weakness." Their culture would develop rules of behavior which were not just cruel toward any people they consider "weak," but toward their own women, as well. Women can be traded with or stolen from other tribes, like horses. (Between their horses and their women, the horse was by far the more important.)

The "weaker" tribes welcome French and British traders, and Spanish missionaries to their home territory. Later welcome the Americans, too. These bigtime allies become their protectors against the warlike migratory tribes. These peaceful peoples settle intentionally around Spanish missions or American forts - behind whose walls they can retreat in safety to when the raiders come. To cement this relationship, Pawnee warriors (for instance) will scout for the American cavalry, making the "blue-coats" a much more effective military organization. (The Pawnee people by mid-19th century suffer greatly, and face possible extinction as a people - due to continuous raiding by the Sioux.)

& & &

In my own backyard, the Pacific Northwest, sustenance was easy west of the Cascades. Tribes would burn off sections of forest to create small prairies, to make hunting game easier. Seafood and edible vegetation was plentiful. Life was good. They got along well with other tribes in the neighborhood, because each stuck to their own territory.

The only fear they had were of fierce masked raiders coming down from Alaska in their big boats with colorful totem imagery. These raiders plundered these peaceful peoples' villages every summer, and killed stragglers for the fun of it - those who weren't quick enough to hide in the forest at first sign of danger.

The arrival of Russian and Spanish ships and traders, later British and Americans with their trading posts, provided refuge for these peaceful peoples. And these big ships with white sails eventually scared off these raiders in their blood-colored rowboats from plying the same waters.

For peaceful peoples, history is a series of calculated compromises.
Big dogs belong to the Devil. Not God.

& & &

What I'm thinking is, I,B, that the original Israelites in 1200bce got along well with their fellow Canaanites (in a land much more fertile than it would be 600 years later, or today). Paid their taxes to the big dog in the neighborhood (Egypt or Assyria). But chose not to behave like them. Just ran for the hills when the big dog gets really mean. But they refused to engage in the dog-eat-dog competition. The Israelites, like their fellow Canaanites, were great survivors at the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age.

And maybe it was this well-practiced survival skill which made it possible for Diaspora Jews to persevere successfully within the harsh confines of alien cultures in Europe and around the Mediterranean.

Whereas the firebrand ethic - which rose-up the Jewish people to armed rebellion against their Roman and previous masters, and each time proved a fatal failure - was a product of the Jewish people belatedly buying-into this patriarchal big-dog ethic. An ethic started sometime after the onset of the Babylonian Captivity. Then, load-mouth Jewish scribes (like Ezekiel) started to promote this firebrand ethic. They would steal fierce, virile stories from all the big-dog Iron-Age cultures of the region - changing names of characters and locale to an Israeli Canaan of several centuries prior.

& & &

I may be wrong, I,B.
But I think you can see that a good case can be made for this interpretation of Israelite history. Particularly, from what we are beginning to learn from archeological evidence.

 

[bananabrain]

Best historical indications are, that each of these tribes had their own territory (stretch of river, and its fertile land), traded with each other, got along well together. (And women were valued agriculturalists.) Life was good.

is that an operational definition of "good" that you expect to be universally valid, including during the bronze age in the middle east?

For peaceful peoples, history is a series of calculated compromises.
Big dogs belong to the Devil. Not God.

well, i think that would rather depend on what they actually do. you are assuming that all big dogs always in the end turn out to be unjust, or whatever it is. now, according to this theory, our policy of non-confrontation with, say, sennacherib, nebuchadnezzar, alexander the great, or indeed pompey magnus started off OK, but then went sour on us, to quote lando calrissian: "this deal's getting worse all the time". i can see how this might be quite an interesting thread to follow. the question would then be OK, you've got your big ally, what happens when it does go sour?

on the other hand, we acquired the persians as masters when they overthrew the babylonians and that turned out rather well, in that cyrus the great allowed us to return to the land and rebuild the Temple; that relationship didn't really go sour as an overall thing despite a number of localised problems, as per the book of esther. how does the theory hold up in the face of that example?

Whereas the firebrand ethic - which rose-up the Jewish people to armed rebellion against their Roman and previous masters, and each time proved a fatal failure - was a product of the Jewish people belatedly buying-into this patriarchal big-dog ethic.

that isn't the case - what you have there is the weak and corrupt hasmonean dynasty, with little popular support, bolstering their internal muscle by inviting the romans in and then succumbing to their overwhelming power - the jewish *people* actually didn't have any say in it, it was the ruling class that got into bed with the romans; there is no evidence that the *people themselves* with particular relevance to who eventually became the leadership - i.e. the sages - being distinguished by their wish to have no part of roman domination, NOT in order to impose their will on their local enemies. the jews never thought they could dominate rome, we just wanted them off our backs. i am not sure how this works with your theory, but you may be able to argue otherwise, i rather like this theory.

An ethic started sometime after the onset of the Babylonian Captivity. Then, load-mouth Jewish scribes (like Ezekiel) started to promote this firebrand ethic. They would steal fierce, virile stories from all the big-dog Iron-Age cultures of the region - changing names of characters and locale to an Israeli Canaan of several centuries prior.

you see, dress this up any way you like, it still comes across like you really want to paint my culture as made up of a bunch of knuckle-dragging, vainglorious, lying plagiarists. now you seem to be determined to make ezekiel out as one of these despite your lack of support from the actual Text, as i've already pointed out (to which you have not actually responded, incidentally) but i struggle to see how this narrative can be applied to jeremiah, hosea, amos, job or even isaiah, let alone the way in which Torah itself is interpreted by the sages.

i suggest, therefore, that your case isn't nearly as convincing as you think, given that it appears to be based on a tendentious misreading of a number of minority sources (which, in the case of samson, are not exactly held up by the tradition as behavioural exemplars) rather than how we actually approach the texts in question.

i still like the "big dog" theory - it doesn't necessarily explain everything, but it is quite interesting.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Penelope]

BB

Today, Sunday (21 June), is Father's Day here in America.
(If you, yourself, are a father, BB, I commend you. It is very difficult work. Being a good one, that is.)

This is the third year I and my two children are celebrating Father's Day without their father. (Les, yes, was a good one!)

Les is being eaten by the fish somewhere at the bottom of the South China Sea. The small airplane he was in, disappeared off the face of the earth a month shy of three years ago. (Due to this vicissitude, I could be bitter toward God. Or refuse to see Deity within the scheme of things. But neither response is how I view life. Whatever my personal theology is, it is not a reactive one.)

Les lived most of every year in East Asia, teaching (university level) and helping an American company set up business offices in Taipei, Shenzhen and other Mandarin-speaking boom-cities in Asia. Les's resume said on it "Fluent in Mandarin." Which was true for business meetings and social events, where everyone enunciated clearly. But I saw Les falter countless times encountering street Mandarin, and particularly so when some regional dialect was involved.

Les got back home to our house in the American Pacific Northwest, several times a year for a week or two. Once a year we'd vacation with him in Asia. The kids and I did spent one year with Les overseas (Penang). Aside from that very unusual year, the four of us had not lived together as a traditional family since the year we bought the house. Emails and the daily phone call were the glue that cemented our family. But the day-to-day family decisions were largely up to me. (Entirely so, now.)

& & &

BB, I am humbled by the care and detail you have given to my postings - all the more so because they are postings which you obviously consider immature, half-thought out, perhaps callous. You have given me lines of research to follow up, much to read. Things I do need to try to understand. I sense something deeply felt and nuanced in how you understand your tradition. And responding to you, deserves the same care on my part.

(And you expect a timely reply from me? J)

It was almost a game, in college. I would propose a "broad sweep" idea. The guys would attack my idea by detailing me to death. It was a strategy, on their part, to win the debate.
("I see 20 problems with that argument." I carefully answer each of these 20 debate points. Then they come back, "I find each argument questionable at 20 different junctures." Now I have 400 answers I need to give.)
The guys (its mostly a guy thing, a male thing) - they never got that I am not "into winning." It is not the reason I make arguments. Victory ("winning") is very hollow. Beyond an ego-boost, it leaves you nothing (well, leaves me nothing, anyway).

My vibe is, BB, that "winning" is not your gambit here. Perhaps that your "detailing me to death," above, is out of scholastic habit. Not a matter of "scoring points for your side." This isn't a soccer match (not football), for you either - is my gut feeling.

One of these days, I will locate a verse we each can analyze in our different ways. Till then ...

Bear with my "broad swath" a little longer:

& & &

Yesterday morning (Saturday), I would like to have sat down and spent a couple hours replying, BB. But the cherries on our cherry tree had turned dark red ripe. And the weather report said rain this afternoon or evening. It became a case of pick them or lose them.

So Troy and Brandi and I got out the chairs and ladders and buckets and bent coat-hangers to grab branches by, and picked everything we could reach off the high branches. At noon, we marched around to the neighbors with samples, inviting them to come pick as many they wished from the lower branches. Several neighbors did. This was a gonzo crop, by far the biggest crop this tree put out.

Les and I planted the tree the year we moved into the house. Growing, it put out small batches of cherries each June. Three and half years ago, I pruned back the upshoots and the various wayward, ungainly branches. The next June, no cherries. Zero. I thought I'd killed the tree. "No, it'll be alright," Les reassured me. Les was right, but he never lived to see it. Bumper crop now.

This is just a tree, BB.
But this cherry tree is valued. Not for itself, really. But, instead, because it has become an important part of our family lore. Means something to me and Brandi and Troy.
This family lore is emotionally satisfying to the three of us, because their father, my husband, is still a present force in our present-day life. But there is no Deity in this cherry tree, no deep truth. It is a fiction the three of us have constructed, one that makes us happy.

There is, on one side, the tree. And there is, on the other side, the literature (a story) about the tree. They are not connected (except incidentally). Me and my children have made a choice to connect them. You see?

This is not truth. It is lore.

& & &

I cannot tell a lie. I cut down that cherry tree.

Did George Washington in his youth cut down a cherry tree, and then own up and take responsibility for it?

It is a lessen in good values. But it also portrayed this sober, somber Father-figure as having a bit of shenanigans in him as a youth (which is doubtful, if you read his biographies). Most historians doubt the truth of this story. Even before Washington died in 1799, a great deal of lore had grown up around him. He was the "Father" of a struggling young republic, a nation trying to define itself and who it was. Stories were begged, borrowed, stolen, or invented out of whole cloth.

In this struggle at this moment in time, the truth was less valuable to the American people than some family (or familial) lore, to unify it, provide a sense of common purpose.

But time passes and this initial survival-need fades. But the lore sticks around like a spider's web in your hair. This near-worship of George Washington, now, belies what made him a great human being in trying human times. That's why historians find the need to separate the lore from the truth. What does it take to create a great human being in difficult historical times? Almost all lore outlives its usefulness in helping us to understand how the world genuinely works. The formula of lore is, in the end, too easy. Real life is g'damn hard work!

& & &

(The deep effect my children's father had on Troy and Brandi ...
And the deep effect Les had on me as a person ...
- even if mostly, this decade, via long-distance telephone -
Has nothing to do with that cherry tree in our yard.)

& & &

To the degree that they actually did exist, the Patriarchs and Prophets of Judaism/Christianity/Islam and all other religions deserve to be known by how these individuals actually were, as people. As struggling human beings in difficult historical times. Known not by all the lore that continues (like a cobweb) to surround them. Not by their cherry-tree stories, as nice and amusing as these anecdotal stories are.

Enough time has passed, BB. Can't you see that? The lore does them - does every one of them - no justice!

So far, BB, all I can see is clutter. All I can see is the lore.

 

[citizenzen]

The guys (its mostly a guy thing, a male thing) - they never got that I am not "into winning." It is not the reason I make arguments. Victory ("winning") is very hollow. Beyond an ego-boost, it leaves you nothing (well, leaves me nothing, anyway).

I don't know about "winning", but I do enjoy playing.

How does one win in a forum?

It reminds me of Cowboys and Indians, where one would cry, "Shot you!"

And the other would reply, "Did not!"

"Did too!"

"Did not!"

"Did too!"

 

[bananabrain]

penelope,

first of all, i am very sorry for your loss and that of your family; that cannot be an easy situation. i wish you hope and healing.

There is, on one side, the tree. And there is, on the other side, the literature (a story) about the tree. They are not connected (except incidentally). Me and my children have made a choice to connect them. You see?

if i understand you correctly, you appear to be comparing the way we understand ancient religious texts and jewish culture to your relationship with this tree and your family culture, saying, effectively, that one should not mistake an emotional projection of perceived connection, no matter how meaningful and deep, for the truth of what the tree, itself, is.

i do not accept this comparison. more to the point, i could point to the fact that this tree would not exist, nor would it probably give fruit, but for your involvement with it. you are part of the story of the tree, you have shaped its reality just as it has shaped yours. perhaps the tree has no emotional reality (i know there are people, even scientists, who would disagree with that) but if the tree has a "soul", it is surely grateful to you. the fact that you cannot detect it does not mean it does not exist. in fact, one might even argue that the tree recognises on some level that you facilitate the propagation of its DNA, so provides you with cherries. personally, i think that is probably reaching, but i bring it up with a view to pointing out that it's not as good an example as you appear to think. a text is not a plant. it is a communication from someone (or Someone) to someone. i know it is fashionable in post-modern circles to feel that everything is in some way a "text" (thus the "text" of the tree is perhaps more the tree than the tree itself actually is) but to confuse derridean witterings with real meaning is the easiest thing in the world. if you want to talk about the living DNA of Torah and go into memetics, then perhaps this discussion might go into some philosophical areas about the nature of consciousness, but i don't think that's what you intend.

BB, I am humbled by the care and detail you have given to my postings - all the more so because they are postings which you obviously consider immature, half-thought out, perhaps callous.

not really - i don't think you've begun to understand what it is you're looking at yet, any more than i would be able to make a value judgement on the relative merit of a circuit diagram. without understanding what something is designed for, what its purpose might be and how it is intended to be used, you can encounter it only on the most superficial level. thus i might think the tree is "pretty", whilst missing out on its ability to feed me, shade me or prevent soil erosion. from my perspective, this is rather the way you appear to be encountering Torah. it is no less "true", i am sure, from your perspective and, insofar as you care about some very important things such as equality and morality, valuable. however, you are not even scratching the surface here. if you want to "get real", then you have to stop ducking this question.

I sense something deeply felt and nuanced in how you understand your tradition.

i presume you don't actually mean this to be as patronising as it actually comes across. i can assure you that it is is not uncommon for a religious person to understand their own traditional in a deeply felt and nuanced way.

It was almost a game, in college. I would propose a "broad sweep" idea. The guys would attack my idea by detailing me to death. It was a strategy, on their part, to win the debate.
("I see 20 problems with that argument." I carefully answer each of these 20 debate points. Then they come back, "I find each argument questionable at 20 different junctures." Now I have 400 answers I need to give.)
The guys (its mostly a guy thing, a male thing) - they never got that I am not "into winning." It is not the reason I make arguments. Victory ("winning") is very hollow. Beyond an ego-boost, it leaves you nothing (well, leaves me nothing, anyway).

look, this is something pretty basic about all fields of debate and i think it's somewhat sexist for you to define this as a "male victory tactic". a "broad sweep" is a hypothesis, a theory. but according to the laws of logic, theories and hypotheses are only valid if they cannot be proven inapplicable by specific objections. in other words, you could say "broadly speaking", "all men are interested in football". i am not. that would mean that whilst it might be a reasonable heuristic to assume that a specific man (ie myself) would be likely to be interested in football, as a hypothesis it can be disproven and hence invalid. there is a difference between a heuristic and a hypothesis and it is a valid one.

Perhaps that your "detailing me to death," above, is out of scholastic habit.

in fact, the suggestion i gave you to pick one verse alone was designed precisely to avoid this "400 answers heuristic". i am not into "winning", either. however, i think that if someone makes broad assertions about my sacred texts, i would prefer them to be based on knowledge rather than ignorance. but if you can't back up your assertion, then what is the "truth" of it? truth, penelope, is based on the balance of probabilities supported by peer-reviewed evidence. that, i am afraid, requires the evidence to be provided. and if your lack of understanding of the detail leads you to make tendentious and sloppy assertions, then i am entitled to point out that those assertions are baseless.

now, as to your ideas on "lore"

This family lore is emotionally satisfying

Torah is not merely lore. it is also law. we decide how to live our lives based on how we interpret the wishes of the Divine out of this Text. sometimes it is very hard to find this emotionally satisfying. nonetheless, it is the result of a very practical and resilient peer-reviewed process of interpretation. where you are going wrong is in understanding Torah merely as a set of etiological narratives, things to explain "how things be", without understanding how they are used in practice to determine concrete moral, physical and spiritual action in the world.

That's why historians find the need to separate the lore from the truth.

and, in doing so, often throw out as "lore" things which later turn out to have been holding up the "truth". i mean, imagine yourself as an anthropologist arriving in the village of a remote south american tribe. are you qualified to separate their "law" from the "truth"? how do you know if some odd little way of walking is not merely a piece of law but something of practical value in the modern day - say, a way to avoid the habitat of a particular snake?

Enough time has passed, BB. Can't you see that? The lore does them - does every one of them - no justice! So far, BB, all I can see is clutter. All I can see is the lore.

speaking as someone who knows more about it than you do, i understand the purpose of much of this "clutter". with respect, penelope, it might be your ability to determine whether something is "clutter" or not that is somewhat deficient here. do you remove and throw away batteries and circuit boards from electrical appliances because you don't understand the connection between them and the display panel on the front?

so far all you have really appeared to do is state, without backing your argument up, that how something appears to *you* is your criterion of "truth", without reference to your ability to look beyond immediate appearances and snap judgements. i find that a difficult point of view to value when coupled with an insistence that your lack of competence somehow confers a greater degree of insight. i know who i'd trust to fix my radio.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Penelope]

...immediate appearances and snap judgments...

BB

I am taking a jog. I see four big kids beating up one smaller kid.
If I have my cell-phone with me, I get it out and call the cops.

Sure. I may have misinterpreted what is happening here:
Four bad kids, one innocent victim.

Maybe the little guy was molesting one of the big kid's sister, and the four are meting out street justice.
Maybe it is a gang initiation, and the little guy has consented to being beaten raw.

BB
I still call the cops!

I don't get sophisticated and try to be sensitive and figure it all out, first. I let the cops and courts sort it out.

Normally I am pretty hesitant to make snap judgments. I like to think past immediate appearances. But 90% of the time, those "immediate appearances" are exactly what they seem to be.
My late husband was more comfortable than I at making snap judgments. It is a trait my eldest, Troy, picked up from his father. I DO NOT discourage that trait in Troy. Les was almost always right.

BB
I am not going to apologize for making the calls that I make.

 

[Penelope]

(historians) often throw out as "lore" things which later turn out to have been holding up the "truth". i mean, imagine yourself as an anthropologist arriving in the village of a remote south american tribe. are you qualified to separate their "law" from the "truth"? how do you know if some odd little way of walking is not merely a piece of law but something of practical value in the modern day - say, a way to avoid the habitat of a particular snake?

BB

I can imagine my grandfather as an Anthropologist PhD, 50 years ago, being totally clueless to the "snake-avoidance walk." (Unless Grandmother had gone with him. She'd have noticed, and told him.)

I can also imagine myself as an Orthopedic MD sent to this now modernized small town, with some paved roads, drained swamps, filtered drinking water. Where snake habitat has been pushed to the ecological fringes.

The townfolk, as they age, complain of joint and muscle pain. They come to me. I tell them it is their posture and the way they walk which causes this pain. "We were taught to walk this way by our parents."

"It is time to teach your own kids some new habits. I will give you a pamphlet."
The reason to walk that way is deep in the past. This is the modern world. We do not do things ... because they have always been done that way.

Sure, this medical solution might sound culturally insensitive, BB.
Tough! This is the modern world.

 

[Penelope]

What does it take to create a great human being in difficult historical times?

Often what is not addressed is as telling as what is:

BB
You keep nibbling around the edges, but avoid my main argument here.

What makes for a great human being?
Someone it would be wise to model one's own behavior upon?

Who should each of my children model their behavior upon?

& & &

Should I encourage them to model their behavior on cardboard "Cherry-Tree" George Washington?
Or upon "Hard-Decisions-in-Difficult-Times" George?

Upon a probable sociopath (or terrorist) like "Sam the Bully"?
(The Internet Movie Database lists 12 Samson movies, and 57 more based upon Samson's character. An ancient Biblical figure who has become a modern success story.
A model for our children. Yes, BB?)

& & &

Who, BB?

Who, in the Bible/Torah, do modern parents cite as a worthy example for their child to follow in her/his own moral/behavioral development? And why?
Who do I point each of my children to, BB. And why?

& & &

You keep reminding me, BB ("look deeper, read deeper"), that I am shirking "the (deeper) issue," out of ignorance of that which lies behind what I am reading. Yes, I admit my ignorance.

But, BB ...
You are continuously shirking my main argument, too.

What makes the Bible/Torah a document useful to modern individuals in her or his moral/spiritual growth?

 

[Penelope]

Torah is not merely lore. It is also law.

[size=+1]Okay, BB ...
This did get to me.

& & &

It ripped its way thru all the analytic got-ya's ...

This connection tore open a bolt of light, for me to see in.

& & &

(Past all the analytic got-ya's which, I am beginning to realize, are cover for your own moral evasiveness regarding the contemporary relevance of the ancient wisdom you - and many others - treasure.)

& & &

The lore is not the self-referential tradition, as Dream described it to me, of endlessly rhyming leitmotifs. A hall of mirrors. No.

The lore has one firm cornerstone, set in bedrock, which everything refers (and defers) back to ...

The Law.

& & &

The lore has a direct - and deep - link to The Law.
Lore rhymes The Law. It illustrates it - not literally, but thru thematic vibrations.

The lore is more than just empty stories which contain only a bygone historical relevance. The link to The Law gives the lore a contemporary relevance to those reading it. The lore embodies The Law in a concrete way.

& & &
[/size]

(1) God told Moses to tell the men of Israel,
They should not conduct themselves as is customary in Egypt (from where they left) nor as done in Canaan (to where they are going).
They shall reject those abominable customs and follow My higher standard of conduct.
...
(17) You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives.
It is lewdness.
...
(30) Do not defile yourself with them.

[size=+1]Bit more than lewdness, I'd say.

This is a Mosaic proscription against incest.

(And possibly against rape.
At least within the family unit.
Raping non-Israelites is just fine. Such peoples have no connection to genuine Deity, and thus are hardly people. This rationale can be found in Tribal peoples the world over. Not behavior unique to the Israelites.)

The Law carries with it a devotional value.
A moral sanctification.
In theory, if you clean up your behavior, you clean up your spirit.

& & &

This section of Mosaic Law, here, has moral, even hygienic (good-DNA) purpose.

(If indeed incest was common practice for Egyptians and Canaanites, there is indeed a high moral purpose here that set the Israelites apart from other peoples in the region. If ...
How did the scribes writing six or more centuries later know what the health and sexual practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites were like, back then? How much was intentional distortion and propaganda - even if handed down from generation to generation? Still ...
A good law is a good law!)

(Verse 23, of this same Chapter 18, also bans bestiality.)

(Verse 22 is the infamous ban against homosexuality. Is this law, I have to wonder, ever been a good law? Was there some deeper purpose, in Moses' time or later times for the existence of this law? Or just bigotry?
Static distorts the connection when Moses tunes-in this message, and he hears it wrong?
A bad law is a bad law, even if it was Moses who thought he heard it!)

& & &

(Moses talked with God so frequently that he must have had a scribe on retainer full-time. Did God allow this scribe to eavesdrop on what He told Moses? Or did Moses have to trot over to the scribe every few moments and repeat to the scribe what God just told him? When did Moses have any time to get any work done? )

& & &

There is power in good laws.

Moses wrote the religious equivalent of a Constitution and Bill of Rights.

& & &

How do you Amend this Constitution, to meet the challenges of new moral standards that come with a new age?
Did the later scribes take that duty secretly upon themselves, and not tell anyone they had been using an eraser?
Or did it happen like it did to Ezekiel: "Hey, folks. Moses ain't the last word on this subject. God's been a-talkin' to me too." Latter-day prophets.
(That's why Zeke the Loudmouth felt the need to proclaim a new law that wasn't ancient. Wasn't Mosaic. That created a new category of sin for a new age.)
And these extra-Mosaic laws. Were they backward-looking laws or forward-looking ones? Were they morally advanced laws, or laws afraid of change?

& & &

Aristotle penned Laws of Science which were revered for 2000 years, before Newton and others began to see their weaknesses.

Today Aristotle is revered as a forbearer of modern science. But his actual science is entirely ignored, by serious scientists, except in History of Science classes. Aristotle's science is a bygone science.

& & &

The wisdom of the Hebrew Scriptures should, likewise, probably be revered as a wise moral force (by-and-large good laws) of a bygone era. But, like Aristotle's science, Mosaic Law may well be thoroughly irrelevant when set beside modern moral standards.

& & &

Laws today - modern moral standards - are for Individuals, not Tribes. Moral standards, today, are planet-wide in reach.
(Tribes, today, are gangs. Their members are, by definition, gangsters. Their laws are in-group laws, sectarian laws. Us-versus-them laws. Bigoted laws.
In a global world, tribal laws are bad laws, vile laws.)
Mosaic Law was Tribal Law.
Once, perhaps the moral cutting edge.
Today, in the modern world, all Tribal Law - by definition - is Vile Law.
Mosaic Law is no exception.

& & &

The equation:
... The lore reverberates with - and serves - The Law ...
Is, today, inverted.

The Law is a monument. It is history which should be studied. But the morality it contains is one which should no longer be practiced.

The lore is now cut-off from its bedrock. The lore needs to stand on its own. Or be consigned to the tombs of a library, the tomes in a history museum.

& & &

The lore needs to find independent truth.
Because The Law can no longer support it.

[/size]

 

[Penelope]

Tell me, Phiny. How did it all begin?
We circled in from the south and the east. Several scouting camps to the north and also our advance guard. The main camp stayed across the river, out of sight.

Moe was with the main camp?
Indeed Moe was. Think he expected trouble. We saw vast herds of sheep and cattle, unattended. Turns out, most of the native Midian people here were away, beneath their sacred Peor Mountain celebrating the changing of the seasons, or something. A brigade of our advance guard stumbled onto the shindig. Tense moment, I was told. We were greatly outnumbered. Then their leader, Abby, asked our men to join them. Bunch of the fellows did. Had a hell of a good time, I'm told. Had some swell ladies. Heard it from runners. These Midian gals were a trip. (laughing) Ha.

Why didn't the main camp move nearby? Join in?
Moe was pissed. He thought it some kind of trap. Had the guardsmen who partied court-martialed and shot when they returned. Dereliction of duty. One of the runners, Zimmmer, brought back a Midian gal with him to the main camp. Her name was Cozi. Sweet kid. Zimmer took Cozi to his family tent. I ran my lance thru the two of them, while they were kissing in bed.

How come?
Moe's orders.

Weren't you related to Zimmer?
Moe's orders.

Heard everyone hesitated when Moe gave that order...?
Not me.

Moe reward you?
A one-in-fifty concession, any future take. For life. And don't need to do hardly nothin'.

Just for killing those two kids?
Just for killing those two kids.

Moe asked for a census ... ?
He thought Cozi's failure to return would alarm Abby and the Midians. Wild child. Truth is, Midians hardly missed Cozi. Moe wanted to conscript all 20-something guys not in uniform, reinforce the 12 battalions. Then hit the Mideans before they hit us.

That work out?
Like a peach. Defeated them in little over a day. Moe gave me the trumpet and I made for high ground. So I saw everything. We captured far more than we killed. Put all the Midian men against the wall and shot them.

The next morning?
The next morning. And the afternoon. And the next morning after that. And the next afternoon. A lot of killing we had to do.

How many casualties on our side?
Zero. Not a one... Well, heard of a couple guys getting skinned knees when they fell down, carrying away some loot.

So God was with us in the fight?
The idiot Midians. They were all unarmed.

So Moe needn't have worried?
Listen. Moe said the Midians were tricky bast'rds. And this was our revenge for them trying to trick us.

How were they trying to trick us?
Beats me... Be friendly with us?

So Moe was pleased with the results, then?
You'd think so, wouldn't ya?... He was angry as sin. We brought the women and children captives back as slaves. "You've spared the women?!" Moe shouts. Jeez, that guy's got a temper! "Kill every male among the little ones. Kill every woman who has known a man intimately!" Moe commands.

So?
So we just spent two and half days killing. Now we spend the next three days killing. An' killing. An' killing. And burying the cadavers. What a stench! "All the little girls who have not known a man intimately, spare for yourselves." Moe tells us. As reward, I guess... Hey...?

Yeah?
(leaning in, whispering) Keep it under your hat. But I got two. Figured I'd wear the first one out in a year and have to bury her. (back to normal voice) All the Midian gals that are left ... are such small, fragile things.

Heard we took in quite a haul, Phiny...?
675,000 sheep. 72,000 cattle. 32,000 virginslaves. 61,000 donkeys. 523 pounds of precious metals: gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead. Mostly jewelry... Half went to the main camp and outlying camps, other half to those of us who did the killing. 1/500th cut of everything went to Moe, of course. 1/50 cut was divided amongst the priests, me included. Seemed fair.

Didn't return to camp for quite awhile, seem to recall. None of you soldiers...?
Had to clean the blood off'n ourselves. And off the jewelry. Round up the herds. Distribute the booty to outlying camps. Then Moe made us ritually clean ourselves, top of everything else.

Why's that?
Wring the stench of blood out of our soul.

- Numbers 25 & 31
​

 

[Dream]

The lore is not the self-referential tradition, as Dream described it to me, of endlessly rhyming leitmotifs. A hall of mirrors. No.

Sorry about that. I like being described as poetic, so thanks for that. My take on what you've posted this time is that its important to keep culture, and that I think you are acting paranoid. Analytic gotchas? Halls of mirrors? Nobody here has shut you down or up or hidden anything from you. You just are new to the subject. What is the rush?

 

[bananabrain]

penelope:

I don't get sophisticated and try to be sensitive and figure it all out, first. I let the cops and courts sort it out.

and i would do the same. the trouble is you seem to be treating a text like a live situation that you have to make a call on instantly. sure, if someone hands you a shakespeare sonnet and says "right, i need in 10 seconds to know whether it's a good or bad poem, get going!", you can make a call. is it the right call? perhaps. have you had time to understand the poem, certainly not. so is it the right question and the right approach? undoubtedly not. and what is the value in this exercise? what does it demand of you as the reader other than to go with your gut instinct? have you heard of "confirmation bias"? now, instead of a shakespeare sonnet, it's an emergency situation and someone hands you an open C19th medical textbook and asks you to decide whether to follow the procedure on the page in front of you? is that then still a valid exercise? does it make sense if you haven't gone to medical school?

what i am saying, here, penelope, is that you are stacking the deck. you are refusing to recognise the possibility that there might be more to it than meets your eye. perhaps in the 90% of instances that you cite, you are operating in a field in which you are competent and, therefore your gut instinct is valid. but you ought to know that that is hardly a hard-and-fast argument to eschew context and analysis in all situations. you're entitled to make the calls you make - and i'm entitled to point out why they don't make any sense if you are in possession of a more appropriate set of inputs.

"It is time to teach your own kids some new habits. I will give you a pamphlet." The reason to walk that way is deep in the past. This is the modern world. We do not do things ... because they have always been done that way. Sure, this medical solution might sound culturally insensitive, BB. Tough! This is the modern world.

except that, in this case, the pamphlet may be nonsense, you may not actually understand the real reason and because something is "modern" does not make it right. you sound like the sort of person that relocated the australian aboriginals to fixed settlements because it was inconvenient to have them running around any which way (although, from their point of view it made perfect sense, not just culturally, but morally and spiritually). who is to decide that YOUR standards are universally applicable in all stations, penelope? doesn't that sound just a teensy bit arrogant? native americans all dying of smallpox? tough! this is the modern world.

You keep nibbling around the edges, but avoid my main argument here.

nonsense. your main argument appears to be "i am modern. being modern is good. i have modern instincts. my modern instincts outweigh any need to analyse the texts i am judging or understand how they work." i find this argument laughable. however, this is more interesting:

What makes for a great human being?
Someone it would be wise to model one's own behavior upon?
Who should each of my children model their behavior upon?

now *this* is *exactly* the question we are asking. it is interesting that you pick up samson of all people, when he is never held up as an exemplar of behaviour by our tradition, except i dare say in situations which require survival skills. biblical figures, above all in the Torah, are presented "warts and all". when they engage in conduct that puzzles, infuriates, repels or saddens us, that is a challenge to us to understand:

a) what they're really up to
b) why they're doing it
c) what the consequences are and
d) what situations that might be comparable to for the Talmudic sages or for more contemporary figures, or for ourselves.

by no means does everyone get an easy ride, not the patriarchs, not moses and not david. (there are schools of thought, naturally, which do try and whitewash everyone dodgy but it is not by any means the majority viewpoint). the point i am making here is that these are human beings who make mistakes, despite their incredibly present connection with the Divine. they also face the consequences of their mistakes - abraham and isaac are estranged from their firstborn sons, jacob is forced to confront the probable death of his favourite child, miriam is punished with "tzara'at" disease for racism, moses dies without entering the promised land, david is not allowed to build the Temple because of the blood on his hands. each is an exemplar of a certain sort of attribute, characteristic or behaviour, but few (if any) are held up as models to follow in all situations at all times.

Should I encourage them to model their behavior on cardboard "Cherry-Tree" George Washington?
Or upon "Hard-Decisions-in-Difficult-Times" George?

why not understand the application of both to different situations?

Who, in the Bible/Torah, do modern parents cite as a worthy example for their child to follow in her/his own moral/behavioral development? And why?
Who do I point each of my children to, BB. And why?

it really depends on what point you are illustrating. if you are talking about generosity and openness of spirit, abraham. if you are talking about self-sacrifice and dispassionate judgement, isaac. if you are talking about balance, moderation and contextual sensitivity, jacob. if you are talking about courageous leadership, perhaps david. if you are talking about inspired leadership, perhaps deborah. if you are talking about trustworthiness, perhaps aaron. if you are talking about humility, moses. if you are talking about wisdom, solomon. if you are talking about making tough choices, samuel - and so on and so on. and the same goes for the other way round: if you are talking about selfishness, jealousy, harshness, violence, indecision, cowardice, arrogance - all of these have biblical exemplars. and it doesn't stop there. by the time we get to the talmudic sages we are then talking about more rounded, more recognisably human figures, figures with even more familiar quirks, failings and admirable qualities.

What makes the Bible/Torah a document useful to modern individuals in her or his moral/spiritual growth?

the way it functions as an authoritative source-text within the context of the Oral Law which becomes the practical guide to action to this very day.

the analytic got-ya's which, I am beginning to realize, are cover for your own moral evasiveness regarding the contemporary relevance of the ancient wisdom you - and many others - treasure.

what utter nonsense. if it were morally irrelevant i would not have taken the decision - as an adult - to live my life by its precepts and bring up my family according to traditional values. if you want to understand "contemporary relevance", then look no further than the Sabbath. ever heard of "work-life balance"? well, there you go. there's your source.

The lore embodies The Law in a concrete way.

now you are beginning to understand something about it - but first of all you need to understand the relationship between the Written Law of the Torah and the Oral Law - and the culture and tradition that the Oral Law lives within. the culture and tradition are not the same as the Law; sometimes they conflict, sometimes they are in harmony. where we exist is in the interface between all of these complex systems.

Raping non-Israelites is just fine. Such peoples have no connection to genuine Deity, and thus are hardly people.

no. it is NOT. perhaps you think i am going around raping non-israelites? perhaps you'd like to show me how exactly you are able to draw this conclusion?

How did the scribes writing six or more centuries later know what the health and sexual practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites were like, back then? How much was intentional distortion and propaganda - even if handed down from generation to generation?

i presume you're looking for another answer than "the Law is older than you suggest and the scribes didn't write it six or more centuries later"? perhaps if you produce a text from the original time that shows that the Law intentionally distorted and propagandised the health and sexual practices of the egyptians that were being objected to? no? well, there's a surprise, no such text has been produced, which makes the propaganda merely your own theory.

Verse 22 is the infamous ban against homosexuality. Is this law, I have to wonder, ever been a good law? Was there some deeper purpose, in Moses' time or later times for the existence of this law? Or just bigotry?

i suggest you go and read some of the numerous passages i have written on this site on how this law is actually interpreted in practice. needless to say it is not understood in the way it is understood by, say, christian literalists (who, may i say, tend to be selective in which bits of the Torah they choose to make an issue over). look up the gay orthodox rabbi steve greenberg and find out how he analyses this text.

Static distorts the connection when Moses tunes-in this message, and he hears it wrong?

interestingly, this is considered as a possibility for the later prophets, if not moses himself, who saw "as through a clear glass", whereas they saw "through an obscured glass". there's plenty of static, however, between what moses wrote and how it is interpreted by bigots and homophobes in practice.

Moses talked with God so frequently that he must have had a scribe on retainer full-time. Did God allow this scribe to eavesdrop on what He told Moses? Or did Moses have to trot over to the scribe every few moments and repeat to the scribe what God just told him? When did Moses have any time to get any work done?

a question which greatly exercised the sages, particularly in the case of the verses describing moses' death. some say that joshua took dictation. others say that moses, being a prophet, had excellent recall. either way there are various traditional theories on when and where he transcribed various bits of the text.

How do you Amend this Constitution, to meet the challenges of new moral standards that come with a new age?

well, i have yet to see a moral standard that was terribly "new". an interpretation, perhaps, or a position on a particular issue, but that is not a new moral standard. the way we deal with that is twofold. one is the Torah principle of "after the majority shall you incline" - this leads directly to the Talmudic principle of preserving the opinion of the *minority*, in case one day it becomes the majority and the decision has to change. the other is the Torah principle of "the Law is not in heaven but right here in front of you, so choose", which leads directly to the Talmudic principle of "both the interpretations of the school of hillel and those of the school of shammai are the words of the Living G!D, but the [lenient] decision goes with hillel". that basic structure has served us very well indeed.

Did the later scribes take that duty secretly upon themselves, and not tell anyone they had been using an eraser?

well, that is the assumption of bible scholars, obviously. rather oddly, however, they neglected to remove the bit in jeremiah where the prophet tells people off for doing that. you'd have thought that would be the first bit to go.

Or did it happen like it did to Ezekiel: "Hey, folks. Moses ain't the last word on this subject. God's been a-talkin' to me too." Latter-day prophets.

during the canonisation of the hebrew bible the sages decided what was in and what was out. ezekiel made the cut, whereas the stuff in the apocrypha didn't. the song of songs nearly didn't make the cut; the details of that argument are, of course, recorded in the talmud.

Zeke the Loudmouth felt the need to proclaim a new law that wasn't ancient. Wasn't Mosaic. That created a new category of sin for a new age.

you've got no basis for this assertion. what law do you mean?

And these extra-Mosaic laws. Were they backward-looking laws or forward-looking ones?

everything we had was reviewed in the course of the redaction of the Oral Law into the Mishnah (C2nd) and Gemara (C5th); the Torah "source code" was examined and the provenance and validity of everything - and i do mean everything - was assessed and evaluated in minute detail, if anything was found to be insufficiently supported by the Torah it had to be re-evaluated. that is why the Talmud stretches over 60 tractates.

Were they morally advanced laws, or laws afraid of change?

it really depends on the specific law, what you consider to be "morally advanced" (this is highly subjective, naturally) and the nature of the change. and the process of evaluation has never been completed, it continues to this day. judaism is not so much a culture as it is an ongoing argument.

Aristotle penned Laws of Science which were revered for 2000 years, before Newton and others began to see their weaknesses.

quite - because they're scientific. the Torah is not a science book - but it has nonetheless been subject to a continuous, 3000-year process of independent peer review.

But, like Aristotle's science, Mosaic Law may well be thoroughly irrelevant when set beside modern moral standards.

well, that's what they thought in the C18th, but oddly enough it's still going strong. i wonder why people still find it relevant?

Laws today - modern moral standards - are for Individuals, not Tribes.

what nonsense. laws are for COMMUNITIES. if we live in the same place, there is not one law for you and one for me when it comes to the speed limit. not all laws today are concerned with moral standards either, look at the difference between the laws of alcohol and tobacco and those on different "party chemicals". yet a chemical substance is morally neutral. it is the behaviour that is moral or not.

Tribes, today, are gangs. Their members are, by definition, gangsters. Their laws are in-group laws, sectarian laws. Us-versus-them laws. Bigoted laws.

well, i'm so glad you're approaching this without having made your mind up in advance or knowing any of the content.

dream is right - what is the rush? do you really want to understand something about Torah, or do you want to waltz in here, preach glibly at us like the worst sort of soapboxer and then bugger off feeling like you've achieved some great moral victory? how laughable.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Penelope]

... Nobody here has shut you down or up or hidden anything from you. You just are new to the subject. What is the rush?

Dream

Thanks for your "take a breath" nudge.
You're right, I needed to mellow out.

I'd been up for over 24 hours when I started yesterday's five pieces.
Couldn't sleep.
I miss my husband.

& & &

Two families in our development have side-by-side lake cabins, north of here. So we packed tents and sleeping bags, went up there last weekend. Several families. Brandi and Troy stayed on at the lake, I came back. Technically, the District has me on-call - though I don't expect any work this summer. (Normally summers, no one wants to teach. This year too many spouses are out of work, so regular fulltime teachers need the extra income.) Cell-phone reception up at the lake is spotty to non-existent. So I'm down at the house, alone.

This winter I started posting on a small niche-movie website, which also features computer-generated art and short-fiction. I post movie reviews (old movies), and (mildly experimental) short stories. It is fun to post there. People actually read my writings. I am liked and appreciated (plus three good friendships, now). It is a home away from home.

This summer, I came to IO with largely the same hopes in mind. Have fun. Home away from home. Maybe establish some genuine friendships. As I researched the IO site, this spring, I realized there were a lot of good minds here. But I am not interested in debating philosophy. There is some deeper need within me which drew me here.

& & &

After Les died three summers ago, I had trouble sleeping. For months, I subsisted on two-three-four hours sleep per night.
(In a strip-mall just down from Fred Meyer is a CD/DVD store which sells old VHS tapes for a dollar each. But on sunny days, the tapes would sit on tables outside at 4/$1.) Watching one old movie after another is how I filled the graveyard hours ...

41 seemed like an awfully young age to start thinking about death. I first met (well, slept with) Les 20 years previous. Bumped into Les again a year later. That was it, for both of us. No more searching necessary. No doubts. (Lived together. Married three years up the road.) Death was something I never expected, this early in our marriage.

... Watching movie after movie, I was trying thru the long nights to understand death.

It's funny, though. I never thought about Religion. Not once.

& & &

My parent are ex-hippies. Still are, in many respects. Born Christian, they dabbled in Transcendental Meditation and Yoga and Sufism, were Zen Buddhists for awhile. But the closest thing to Deity for them was ganja. My earliest memories as a child are of bringing friends over to my house to play. Of making them wait on the front porch while I went inside alone. I needed to sniff the air to see how bad the acrid-sweet odor was in the house, and to check to make sure my parents were fully dressed. (Needless to explain, I never got interested in doing drugs, myself. Had 18 years of aversion therapy before I went off to college.)

When I hit my teenage years, like a lot of kids, I became interested in Religion. Christianity, because that was what was around me. Couple different churches, study groups. That went on for two or three of those trying-to-find-yourself years.

My late grandmother was the rock in my young life. And so was my Aunt Aileen. Aunt Aileen was a scientist and she and her husband were well-to-do. What I did not know, was a few years previous Aunt Aileen had become a Born-Again Christian. She had always been a very "good" - very decent - person. So when the conversion happened I never noticed any change (any "improvement") in her.

One summer, Aunt Aileen invited me and a mutual cousin to join her and her kids up at their lake cabin for boating and hiking and fishing. My parents gave thumbs up. I had a wonderful time!

Then, my last day there, everyone surrounded me - full of love. I needed to be "born again," they told me. I was not an evil person, or a self-destructive person - there was no reason for me to change. But the pressure on me was so warm and caring, that my natural resistance melted. I gave in.

The next day when I got home (and was back in my right mind), I started talking to God a lot. The first thing I did was repudiate my conversion. Stockholm Syndrome. (I've never allowed anyone to back me into a corner again. Not even loved-ones. Particularly not loved-ones! ... Dream, when you see me getting testy here, at IO, that may be the deep reason for it.) Eventually I stopped talking to God. And by the time I went off to college, religion had no part in my life. Zero. I would take classes in religion, but only out of academic interest. Read the Tao Te Ching, selections from the Upanishads, etc. Part of being an educated person.

Les was not religious either. He was a strict materialist, in the best sense of the word. (When the commercial jet, he was flying in, was going down over the ocean, I know with certainty Les was not in his seat, praying. He was probably up with pilot efficiently and calmly brainstorming how to fix the problem.)

& & &

Aunt Aileen died this past winter, just after the first of year. I couldn't make the funeral, but sent long (strange) letters of condolence to her four children. The floodgates opened up inside me, regarding Religion. And they have been open ever since.

& & &

"What's the rush," you ask.

A dam has burst inside me, Dream, and I am caught (helpless) in the flood, propelling me down a strange, alien river valley.

THAT is the rush!

& & &

{More, next post.}

 

[Penelope]

I don't find the Bible particularly moral.
It has a different agenda.

Dream

There is another reason for the "rush."

Religion begins, for me, in a morally complicated universe.
A morally complicated universe where you have, only, the raw edge of emotion to guide you.

I feel like morality, and the emotions morality ignites, constitute about (the lower) 40% of religion.
This is what I am in a rush about, and trying to deal with, now.

The rush ... is because I want to work thru it and get to the (upper) 60%. The part of religion which is currently opaque and unknown, to me.
Don't know what I expect to find there:
Maybe God.
Maybe Nothing.
Maybe 'something else' entirely.
I know it has something to do with death. But I don't know what.

& & &

I believe morality and the emotions supporting morality (and even those supporting supposed "immorality," in some instances) are deeply religious emotions. A first stage of religious feeling, maybe. But still a very important stage.

Seems as if no one read it this way, but I see my piece Zeke the Loudmouth as a piece of religious writing. Not literature. Not literary criticism. Not philosophy.
Maybe not a very good piece of religious writing (I wouldn't know) but a piece of religious writing, nonetheless.
I see Sam the Bully as a piece of religious writing.
I see My Name Is Connie as a much much better piece of religious writing.
I see Tell me, Phiny as also a pretty good piece of religious writing.

These latter two. Why I think they are actually pretty good religious writings ... ?
Because my emotions were fully engaged, as I wrote them.
(And, in a sense, pure - my emotions. I was not trying to do something or say something. I was just responding to the text I was reading. I was just going where my emotions took me.)

I was having a religious experience.

& & &

By your standards, Dream, and BB's standards ... it is probably a pretty low-grade religious experience. The real deal comes when I jump out of the 40% arena and into the 60% arena. And my 40% ('starter' religious-experience) probably seems pretty immature to you. But it is what I got right now.

And nobody is responding.
All anyone sees is Zeke, and how I appear to be trashing Sacred Scripture. Ezekiel had a revelation from God. I've had a revelation from Zeke, from Ezekiel.
Ezekiel's revelation is probably up in the 60% terrain - stuff I know next to nothing about yet. My revelation sits down in the lower realm of religious experience, a moral revelation.
But I still believe this is a valid religious experience.
Not the same religious experience you or BB has from Ezekiel's text. But, I think, still a valid one.
My experience.

My understanding of the text has changed quite a bit, since I wrote the post. (Thanks, genuinely, to you folks.)
But my feelings about this piece I penned have not changed.
My emotion, my sense of moral engagement, has not changed.
I feel, deep within me, just the same about it as I did when I wrote it.

I don't know:
But if that is the test of a genuine religious experience, then this piece of writing has passed that test.

I stand by it.
With all its immaturity and lack of understanding.
I stand by it.

& & &

My other writings, on this thread, I see a little differently.

These are not frontline religious writings, so much, as they are an attempt to build a theological context that I can believe in. Hoping, in this stumbling process, to stumble upon something significant.

In my post on Mosaic Law, I think I did.
(Looking at BB's long post - which I am dreading to read - I'm sure BB thinks otherwise.)
Native American tribes - plains tribes, particularly - live by a very similar Tribal Law. Street gangs, if you read sociological reports, live by a very similar Tribal Law. Old-style mafia organizations were run by a very similar Tribal Law. Tribes in Borneo. Tribes in the Amazon. Tribes in Mongolia.
(I will have to take another look at the Qur'an to see if it is governed by Tribal Law, too. Or whether it goes a different way.)
(New Testament-based - liberal? - Christianity does appear to go a different way. Buddhism, too?)

I'm still talking about Mosaic Law down in the 40% (moral) zone. Mosaic Law may mean something entirely different up in the 60% zone.
But as a moral force, Mosaic Law is Tribal Law. I would bet my entire reputation, thin as it is (as an 8th-10th Grade historian), upon that fact!
I am that positive I am correct!

& & &

Other ideas I have posited upon these pages, Dream, I go back-and-forth on. But I think they are provocative ideas. Worth thinking about.

Even ... if nobody acknowledges that.

& & &

{post-script to this, next post}