God gives permission for gentrification.

Today’s Readings:
Numbers 33-36; Hebrews 7

Numbers 33:
[51] “Say to the people of Israel, When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, [52] then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places; [53] and you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it.

Old Testament God is not very cool.  There is no love thy neighbor here.  This is all out displacement.  Take their land because it is yours now, I have given it to you.  How is this just?  Later, God explains in detail to Moses the cities he will need to build for the displaced people.  Moses is required to erect 48 cities, some specifically for the “manslayers” of the region, where they are to be cast out and exiled.

It’s just aggravating because it’s passages like this that give people permission to wage territorial war.  Sacred text hardliners can use wording such as this to justify taking land that is no longer their own.  Yes, I understand that land is not what many of these disputes are centered around, but shit like this doesn’t help.

I’m going to be completely unrealistic for a moment.  In Numbers 35, God details to Moses what the boundaries are to be for the city.  He doesn’t say share the land and work it together.  He says this is what you own.  This is what he and he and he owns.  This is what everyone single one of you gets and what everyone else does not get.  Now, don’t fuck it up.

Borders have existed since crops have existed since damn forever, but the whole system seems so futile.  We think of everything in terms of these imaginary lines that don’t exist.  Physical maps and satellite images are sometimes incomprehensible to the modern person because he or she is so used to seeing everything with borders that don’t really exist.  Humanity’s obsession with property and unadulterated ownership causes so much grief and pain, yet it has almost nothing to do with who we are as individuals.  You are not the things that you own.  You are the things that you are.  You are made of your emotions, your interactions, your experiences, your love.  You are not made of your possessions.

This passage is frustrating because I feel God is telling Moses you are the land that you live on.  It seems the same general principle that the Catholic Church perceives that you are the church that you go to.  The Church is not a part of who you are, or your community, but the location that you step foot into on Sunday mornings.  The Church is not your personal devotion or the sharing of your connection with God with other people, but how intently you listen to the priest for his seven to eight minute homily.

We are not the things that we own.
We are not the national outlines upon which we stand.
Our lives should not be contained by boundaries that don’t exist save on paper.

I got nothin’.

Today’s Readings:
Isaiah 52-53; Galatians 6

I really don’t enjoy reading Isaiah.  The first time I started reading his book a year ago, I got really into it.  Everyone else in the Bible is always talkin’ about the prophet Isaiah.  I wanted to know what it was all about.  In the end, I find it incredibly hard to read as a non-scholar.  Figuring out what the hell Isaiah is talking about is next to impossible.  At least, that’s how I felt for all of chapter 52.

Chapter 53 was a little less confusing.  There were certain parts where I understood that Isaiah was talking about Jesus and God allowing his son to his life for our sins.  That part made sense.  As I often do, though, I went to find a little more information on the Book of Isaiah and its author.  From what I understand, there are those that believe that chapters 40-66 of Isaiah may not have been written by the prophet himself.  They may have been written by someone else, and that someone else may have lived after the life of Jesus.  It’s all very confusing, and doesn’t lend itself well to my thinking that Isaiah actually prothesized this.  I have little faith lately; it’s upsetting.

Paul was also difficult to understand.

Moses as a Hebrew in Egypt

Today’s readings:
Exodus 1-2; Mark 8:1-26

There isn’t a moment in the Bible when Moses finds out that he is a Jew. It says he is raised in Pharaoh’s household and then suddenly he is looking over his people:

[11] One day, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people. [12] He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

All of a sudden, he just knows. I guess the only reason I find this interesting is because I tainted by the modern depiction of Exodus in the animated movie The Prince of Egypt (which I loved). Someone once told me that the only thing biblical scholars disapproved of in that movie was the theme song. “There will be miracles when believe…” It’s kind of a human hope fallacy that if you simply believe, God will provided you with a miracle. It’s be nice if he did, but it ain’t always gonna happen just because you believe that it will.

Does this go under the same category as Jesus finding out that he’s the Son of God? That can take us to another modern movie reference. In Dogma (which I also loved), they actually tackle this issue. There is no mention of Jesus’ life between the age of 12 and 30. The movie speculates that at this time, he was coming to terms with the fact that he was both divine and human (which would be enough to put anyone into a state of psychosis). File it all under “Things the Bible leaves unclear”.

Quite the Blessing

Today’s Readings: Genesis 47-50; Mark 7:24-37

I finished Genesis today. I have to say that I really enjoyed reading it (I think enjoyed is the word I want). Whoever wrote it is quite the storyteller. I know that I’ve read it before, but I found it more engaging this time than I ever did previously.

At the end, Jacob dies and leaves his sons with a blessing. For some, it is quite the blessing:

[16] Dan shall judge his people
as one of the tribes of Israel.
[17] Dan shall be a serpent in the way,
a viper by the path,
that bites the horse’s heels
so that his rider falls backward.
[18] I wait for thy salvation, O LORD.
[19] Raiders shall raid Gad,
but he shall raid at their heels.
[20] Asher’s food shall be rich,
and he shall yield royal dainties.
[21] Naph’tali is a hind let loose,
that bears comely fawns.

Jacob then goes on to praise Joseph (which he probably deserves to some extent). If I were these brothers, though, and these were my father’s dying words, I’d be more than a little pissed. Yes, they screwed up in any number of ways, but the man is dying for crying out loud. He could be a little nicer on his way out. Additionally, If I were Gad, Asher or Naph’tali, I’d want more than a passing phrase.

But I’m being overly critical of a dying man. Tomorrow is another day and we being Exodus. “Let my people goooooo.”

Your Body as a Temple

Today’s Readings: Genesis 43-46; Mark 7:1-23

“…there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”
Mark 7:15

I was a part of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes when I was in high school. I didn’t cut it for very long (more because I stopped being as much of an athlete than because I stopped being a Christian), but there are some things that I remember well. One of them was the argument that teens shouldn’t drink – and nor should anyone else really – because it destructed our bodies as a temple of God’s creation. I thought it was somewhat bullshit at the time, and this teaching of Jesus’ kind of brings that home for me.

It is not what you put inside your body that matters…it is what comes out of it. Now granted, if you drink to the point of making an enormous ass out of yourself, you’re missing the point. Even so, it wasn’t the alcohol that was the problem. You were the one that drank too much and your altered state is not an excuse for your actions. It is not what you put inside you that matters, but what comes out of you afterwards.

Mary, the (Perpetual?) Virgin Mother

Today’s Readings: Genesis 33-36; Mark 6:1-13

There are few things in the Catholic faith that confuse me more than the idea of Mary, the Virgin Mother. The fact that she was a holy woman, there’s no doubting that. You don’t get to be the Mother of God without being a worthy person. A good person: obviously. A good mother: most likely. A good wife: only if she didn’t remain a virgin for the remainder of her marriage.

Joseph would have to have been a great man for Mary and Joseph never to have had sex after Mary had a baby with God. I’m not saying the virgin birth didn’t happen. I’m just saying that I don’t think Jesus didn’t have any brothers or sisters afterwards. And to be honest, I don’t think the Gospels disagree:

[2] And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

How does that become any more clear? I believe there are other references to this in the other Gospels, though I can’t swear to it just yet. Everything culturally also points to Mary and Joseph having other children. Wouldn’t it be difficult to be accepted in their time and setting without other children?

I also know that I’m not the only one confused by this issue. In two books I read in the last couple years, this was a main theme, among others, about the life of Jesus as a more human than divine being. The first is The Gospel According to Jesus Christ by José Saramago, which is an absolutely amazing read. The other is Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore, which is along the same lines, but instead of reflective and meditative is absolutely hysterical.

I actually tried to read some evidence (albeit online) for both sides of this issue. Let me tell you, that only makes it more confusing. There isn’t a whole lot of logic in biblical scholarship. It’s so much interpretation, which is often how we end up in the debacles.

Biblical Questions and Skepticism

I’ve begun to realize that I have a lot of questions and skepticism when it comes to the Bible (and obviously I’m the first, right?). At some point, this might be productive questioning. It might actually lead me to do some research and scholarship work. However, right now, it’s just causing problems.

I have a lot of previous knowledge about religion and Christianity. I was raised in a Christian household, went to CCD, even took some courses in college on all religions, Judaism, and Christianity. That being said, I’m no biblical scholar. There are many things I don’t know about my faith, religious history, and biblical meaning. Keeping this mind, I’ve realized that the Bible is not user-friendly. It’s a lot like using Windows Vista when you were hoping for Mac OS Leopard. You are constantly surprised at how you have to interpret whatever your computer is trying to tell you or help you do.

I’m not reading a study bible. There aren’t footnotes or interpretations to help me get through this. I guess that’s a good and bad thing. On the one hand, I’m able to just read and really feel as though I’m accomplishing something by reading the Bible to completion. On the other hand, I don’t get any help. Moments of confusion are left open to whatever interpretation I can muster myself (with my limited knowledge base). Hence my last entry. When Lot has sex with his daughters and there is no external commentary or consequences, it’s hard to take it – especially when a bunch of homosexuals just had their entire village burned to the ground for having same sex relations.

I am trying to have faith that what I’m reading really does apply to my life. I’m trying to have faith with healthy skepticism and questioning. But it ain’t easy.

Jacob’s Ladder

I read about Jacob’s ladder today. You know, the one with angels going up and down (Genesis 28:10-17). Considering how much the toy intrigued me, the story was kind of anti-climactic. I mean, sure, seeing angels going back and forth from heaven was probably fairly awesome for Jacob, but I just didn’t get the awesome form the description. Where’s the narrative here?

And I’m bitter today.

Remember that time that Lot had sex with his daughters?

Homosexuality is bad, right? An abomination. Crazy awful and all that. How do we know this? Well, from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, of course. Genesis 19 tells the story of the angels and Lot and the men that wanted to “know” the angels (which means sex, presumably, though there is much debate about that) and then God destroyed the two valley towns. Lot and his family were saved because of God’s promise to Abraham to not destroy the righteous of the city. But Lot’s wife looks back as they flee and turns to salt. All this I know and remember well from my Children’s Illustrated Bible. However, in the Children’s Illustrated Bible, they manage to somehow leave out this next part.

Lot and his two daughters escape into the hills and live out their lives there. With their mother gone and no men in the hills to wed, the girls get their father drunk and then somehow manage to get him to sleep with them so they can continue the bloodline.

Wait. What? SERIOUSLY?! I MEAN, SERIOUSLY?!

Rage.

How is it that this story is used to denounce homosexuality the world over, but it’s okay to be INCESTUOUS WITH YOUR FATHER?! Oh, sure, they’re continuing the bloodline and all. So just because they’re breeders, everything is fine? Yeah, I get it.

BUT SERIOUSLY?!

That’s just wrong. (And by that, I mean both the act and the modern-day usage for hypocrisy, prejudice, and discrimination).

Isaac and Ishmael

When it was on television, I used to watch a lot of The West Wing. It remains, in my mind, one of the best shows ever presented (at least certain episodes and seasons). After the September 11th attacks, they aired a special episode entitled “Isaac and Ishmael.” It had nothing to do with the actual attacks, but was instead a discussion (read: lecture) on terrorism, jihadism, Middle East relations with the U.S., and Arab-Israeli relations. The title, of course, refers to the two sons of Abraham, the son of Sarah and the son of her maid Hagar.

Brief synopsis: God says Abraham’s descendants will be as many as the stars in the sky. Sarah sends in Hagar to Abraham because she’s not bearing any children to her husband. Hagar has Ishmael. But then Sarah has Isaac and now she wants Hagar and Ishmael out. So, Abraham gives them the boot (see picture).

Until today, I had never actually read this story. As with much of my knowledge that comes from The West Wing (such as all the inner workings of the Secret Service), I never bothered to do any research of my own to substantiate their (read: Aaron Sorkin’s) arguments and research. Now, I’ve actually read this story in Genesis, and it kind of blows. I mean, the situation blows, not the story. Or is it both?

Did a feud between two races truly begin because of the jealousy between the two partners of one man? Is that really how this all works? I know there’s more to it, and I understand that many things have fueled this constant battle, but if we are in the middle of wars because Sarah wanted the descendants of her son to be as many as the stars and not Hagar’s, than I’m angry.

I’m just sayin’ is all.