Job 1-48: "Perfect" and "Upright"?

In many movies, there is always the plot line where the main character curses the day he was born since his life at the moment thoroughly sucks. Then because of destiny or reasons of origin unknown, this main character makes his life wonderful, becomes a hero and gets the girl, and gets the attention. With Job, this happened the other way around. His life was perfect, he was devoted to God, he had his wife and children, and he had it going for him. And then he let the devil in him. In Christianity or at least I've heard in some of the sermons the priests would give at mass, that we have the power to control whether we let the devil in us or not. Not like the real devil, it's not really the character that we see talking to God in Job, "Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." (1:8). We have the will to decide whether we let the bad things get to us and affect us (not that Job had much of a choice), according to the sermon. But, of course, this is very different in Job. Job was the "perfect" man, why would he need to suffer the consequences? What I learnt was that what the Catholic Church was trying to tell all Catholics was that we all have to suffer eventually, it doesn't matter if we've killed ourselves to get closer to perfection, such as Job.

The Satan or Devil that I am talking about manifests itself in bad things such as jealousy and anger or in more extreme measures murder and crime. I don't believe in the actual form that is the Devil in the bible like I don't believe in God as a bearded old man watching us from atop sitting on his cloud shaped throne. I believe that the Devil is all of the things that we believe are wrong in this world and the spirit of evil that causes the bad things to happen. And God is all of the love and the values that exist in order to keep the world sane and intact from man's greediness. Not that it has worked for most of what exists now, but still. The point is that while in the Bible we are shown all of the representations in actual characters, I interpret it all as symbolism. God is good and Satan is bad. Job is a poor human that has to suffer the consequences.





I found this picture on the Internet and I thought it described religions very accurately, kind of dark humor, but still true. From what I know from the history of Christianity, it starting spreading after the decline of the Roman Empire, what I think was convenient for rulers, emperors, or kings was to say that you absolutely have to suffer simply because you deserve it. The reason they give or gave was because we are born sinners thanks to our loving parents Adam and Eve, the thing forbidden fruit, how God got beyond pissed, etc... The real reason why was because Europe was in total decline during the Early Middle Ages (when Catholicism started gaining popularity and rulers were mostly Catholic) losing trade and population. The division between the rich and the poor was evident and there were more rich than poor. So it was convenient for the rich to say that everyone (most of the population) has to suffer (not the rich) just because they exist. In present day we are told it's because we are sinners. So I found that this phrase, "Catholicism: If S**t happens, I deserve it." describes very accurately what must have been going on in Job's mind when he decided to keep worshipping God after the numerous things that happened to him, including having his whole family killed off. Job was thinking he totally deserved it, even though according to the bible he was “upright” and “perfect”.

Aren’t Catholics encouraged to get as near perfection (nearest to God) as possible? Yes. And isn’t this story telling us that it won’t do us any good since we’ll have to suffer anyway? Yes. So why would we want to be absolutely perfect for God, if in the end he will still punish us for our “original” sin? So I came up with this other idea. Maybe we suffer for others. Maybe we suffer so that others can be good. Maybe all of the people dying in wars and of starvation suffer so that the rest of the world can be OK. Then we are introduced to other ideas and religions and possibilities. “Buddhism: When S**t Happens is it Really S**t?” What if in this life I’m supposed to suffer, but in my next life I’ll be perfectly happy? What does it feel like to be an insect anyway, maybe it’ll be happy? What is happiness? Is it just an illusion that we have to keep ourselves from going insane? Isn’t religion just like happiness, since they are both supposed to keep us from going insane? In the end it’s all OK though, since God gives Job everything he had taken away from him back, so that brings in a whole set of new questions and changes everything. Are we supposed to suffer only for a little while and then we’ll stop suffering? Will God make half of the world hungry just so they know what is feels like to suffer only to later feed them and make the other half of the world suffer afterward? And again, what is happiness? What is perfection? To me it all seems like what we think is perfect. And wouldn’t you have to be a little imperfect in order to be 100% perfect since perfection is everything? With no flaws? But there are so many bad things happening in the world that no one really wonders whether a reason exists for it. It just does because that's the way the world is. A place with good and bad in order to create a balance. Even though mostly bad is not the way to balance things.

Exodus 3-20: Moses

I can always relate the stories of the bible to some movie I watched before or a distant childhood memory. Recently, I've been remembering so much about the stories I had been told that are in the bible and I realize that then I saw them so differently. While before I saw them as some kind of story that had a lesson at the end and that told you what not to do if you wanted God to be in peace with you, now I see them as entertaining stories, actual literature, and characters you can interpret.

With Moses, I was glad how he got the chance to live even though he was a Hebrew, at the highest of society, coming from the lowest. I really wonder how it must have felt growing up in this environment knowing he didn't belong there or getting the feeling that God did not want him there, plus the bonus of knowing that he had Hebrew roots. I must have taken courage and real belief in himself and the power of God to just leave. And not just to leave, but to forget the way he was raised and return to his roots. Just leave Egypt and become some kind of a priest. But all of this is before God asks him to lead the Jews out of Egypt.

This is where the fictional parts of the bible come in that I find extremely hard to believe. You just can't picture a burning bush appearing out of nowhere, starting to emit a voice talking to Moses. But I mean, you can't also picture a snake persuading a woman, but in that case maybe you can picture the snake persuading with his eyes or something like that. It's also like believing angels really did appear or something like that. Does the bible mean all of these things literally or are they supposed to be some kind of symbolism that we need to interpret in order to know how to act? Was the bush intimidating or almighty to Moses if it really did appear to him? This is when Moses asks God something that directly refers to all of my questions: "Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?" (Exodus 3:13) What is the proof that God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush and asked Moses to free the Jews? Won't these people also be wondering whether to believe him or not? Isn't it all a question of faith rather than proof? Because what we call proof is nonexistent in the bible.

The "answer" God gave to Moses, to me, just left the question unanswered. "I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:15) "I am that I am." ...OK. So we know that you are. But how will they know? So God decides to give Moses supernatural powers, giving him the capacity to turn a stick into a snake, and a more impressive feat, infesting Egypt with 10 different plagues. I wonder if it was hard for Moses to do all these things to the land he was raised in? What if the Pharaoh had been someone he's known in his childhood? But I guess these things didn't matter anymore since his loyalty and promises now lay with God. But overall, I really thought Moses' feats were admirable and impressive. A great example to believers and a story that though hard to believe, can be believed in a different way.

Genesis 25-35: Sibling Rivalry

Another sibling rivalry was presented, perhaps similar to Cain and Abel’s when Isaac and Rebekah have Jacob and Esau. The difference this time is that Rebekah has a preference for Jacob and Isaac prefers Esau. But really these two characters can be very much compared to Cain and Abel. I dislike the way in how Jacob asked Esau to sell his birthright. I didn’t really understand the importance Jacob gave to birthright or why Esau claimed to hate his birthright so much. “And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.” (Genesis 25 Verse 33-34) Later I realized that the birthright meant absolutely everything at the time of Isaac’s death. Esau selling his birthright later meant nothing. Having the birthright or being the first-born son meant that one could have Isaac’s blessing. And this blessing was so important because it came from Abraham and before from God. It was the destiny of your heirs. In this I blame Rebekah. If it weren’t for her strong preference for Jacob, Esau maybe would’ve been able to receive his blessing from Isaac, as was due.

We are then told of Jacob’s story and how he had to work for the woman he loved. To me, this was an act of love and I couldn’t understand how when he was cheated on by Rachel’s father, he worked for another seven years. They make seven years seem like such a short time, to me that seems like so much. They also make bearing 6 children as little, when it must be a lot and very painful, indeed. Then when Jacob agrees to marry Leah as well as Rachel; God makes Rachel barren. This must be such bad luck since Isaac first had to marry a woman he didn’t love and then when he got to marry the one he truly loved, she could bear no children. This is really annoying, I just can’t find another word for it. Isaac must be feeling like, “It’s like I have killed myself for fourteen years working for her, and then she can bear me no children!? So basically, if I want to continue my father’s line I have to have children with the woman I don’t really love?” And Rachel wasn’t going to let her sister win, just because she was barren. She let her husband sleep with her maid, except the maid was only the means to achieve an end. She named the children and treated them as her own. So it was like she did have children with Jacob.

Giving birth sounds so casual in the bible. Of course, it is normal to “be fruitful and multiply” in the modern world as well. But it is not a competition to see who has more children. It’s not like we keep a tally or something. In fact, having more children does not help over-population, poverty, and global warming. So “the more the merrier” cannot be applied. I realize why the oldest is always given the most importance and the “birthright”. It’s because there are so many children it’s just easier to pick the first-born.

Rachel and Leah’s father was a greedy man. He left the husband of his daughters completely broke and searching for another land to live in, after 14 years or more of hard work. Unbelievable. But then I remind myself that this must be Jacob’s punishment for stealing Esau’s birthright. “And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?” (Genesis 27 Verse 36)

Genesis 17-24

I have to start saying that I think Lot's daughters are absolutely sick. Just insane. They must have been raised to think that being "fruitful and multiplying" must have been the most important thing. I believe it is because it represents power and place in history. The more heirs, the more lineage and the more power for the future generations. Or something like that, anyway. So Lot's daughters were probably resented by Lot because they were girls and maybe often complained about it. The girls, wanting their fathers love, wanted to preserve his lineage. But still, I wonder what the heck was going on in their heads when they decided to sleep with their father. I mean, they must have known that he would have thought it was wrong since they had to get him drunk. And it was their father. I feel bad for Lot's wife that turned into a pillar of salt. This gets me thinking about male power and it is so frequent in the bible. In fact, I don't think we've read yet about a woman being more powerful or controlling than a man. I feel so sorry for these girls, how they were taught that being "fruitful" is so vital, that sleeping with your own father is OK.

Again, we are presented with another odd/repulsive idea. Abraham said that Sarah was his sister. And then he got angry because Abimelech king of Gerar slept with Sarah. I don't understand what the point was. Why couldn't he have said that Sarah was his wife? I mean, would it have made a significant difference? Maybe a fight wouldn't have taken place. But then, I understood. "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Gen.20 Verse 12) So what Abraham meant, was that we are all brothers and sisters. Or that is what I understood. Here I remembered my countless times at mass when the priest exclaims, "Welcome brothers and sisters!" So maybe that is what Abraham meant when he referred to Sarah as his sister?

So Sarah could finally bear a child after all those years of suffering and gave birth to Isaac. Sadly Ishmael was completely neglected afterward. He became the other son, an illegitimate one. In this sad story, I see a little evil in Sarah. First she is very glad to let her maid sleep with her husband as she can't conceive, but when she is able to, Ishmael is completely forgotten? This reminds me again of when I was a child reading biblical stories for children. When I read this one and Ishmael was like entirely skipped and somehow we are now talking about Abraham sacrificing his only son with Sarah to God. "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest..." (Gen.22 Verse 2)I wondered, and what happened to the other son? What if Ishmael and Isaac had grown up together? Would there still be some kind of resentment as there was? Would this have changed the relationship between Abraham, Hagan, and Sarah? But again, it was society. It simply would have been wrong of Abraham to treat Ishmael as an equal when he wasn't the son of his only wife, but the son of a servant, that was the only choice Abraham had if he wanted to continue his lineage.

But still, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his "only" son for God. He was about to do it when he stopped. I really do not think this is a very good lesson for humanity. That we could sacrifice anything and everything for a superior being. If we are here, together, interacting, shouldn't we be able to be in peace with each other? If it is something as important as your only son, why sacrifice it? If it is good why leave it? It is a sacrifice, but why would God want to create suffering instead of diminishing it?

Genesis 10-16

These chapters made me understand the reasons why man would follow God and why it makes sense for him to. God made promises. One notable example was when Abram had to drag his family all around just to find the land that God had asked him to find. The reason why he is doing this is because God is promising him protection and safety, which had him, convinced. "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."(Chapter 12 Verse 2)
What kind of a man would deny his family the delight to be blessed? To lose all of your enemies? Why reject the protection of a more superior being? A man would rather take a chance at faith and have the possibility of stopping his suffering or making his quality of life better than the one he currently has.

Another matter that got my attention was fertility and how it is absolutely necessary for future generations. To be able to continue spreading religion, Abram had a huge amount of children, even though his wife, Sarai, was not able to have more. I really thought the according to Christian beliefs, a relationship has to be completely monogamous. But apparently, in order for Abram to continue his Christian bloodline, he was completely allowed to cheat on Sarai. I clearly remember seeing an adaptation of Abram's story on some kind of documentary and they showed Abram as a butt-hole that cheated on his poor wife that wasn't to blame for her infertility. But then later they showed Sarai taking revenge on the woman that carried Abram’s children. It was stated that “Sarai was barren; she had no child.” (Chapter 11 Verse 30)

But actually, Sarai understood Abram’s needs and gave him her slave so that he could reproduce and “multiply exceedingly.” She supported Abram’s “infidelity”. What I cannot understand is how God approved of this, only to later grant Sarai fertility at 90 years old, and cause further problems that were sure to come in future generations.

Genesis 3-9

When Eve was tempted to eat from the tree and God stated that "I [He] will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee", the feminist in me completely freaked out and felt insulted by this. Is the bible a main reason why women suffered for years (some still do) for being considered less than men, being tied to household chores and staying uneducated? Why was Eve the one to be tempted by the snake? Why couldn't it have been Adam? The bible must have been a major influence in the world and it must have contributed to a woman's place in society. Being less than man for being tempted by a snake and than tempting her husband. As if all women were so interested. I am surprised by the way God, the merciful, would treat a woman. But also, she had the responsibility of being the first woman ever, so maybe God had the right to begrudge her for screwing up. And what about the snake? Was the snake ever punished? Or did it just escape and hide back in the tree like cartoon villains do? I don't think people treated snakes badly in the middle ages because of what the bible said (even though they probably were mistreated, their ghastly appearance is enough).

Adam and Eve, commit sin after sin, what kind of an example are they to humanity? That if we make mistakes we'll end up like them? We are like this because of them. Their next mistake was Cain. They must have been telling themselves every day, "Why couldn't Cain have been like Abel, hard-working and friends with God?". That probably made Cain bitter. But he repented and generations of Adams and Eves followed until we got to Noah.

I simply cannot understand the Bible sometimes. In my way of seeing things, you can't just kill humanity because there was some "evil" in it. There was bound to be. Adam and Eve, the tree, the snake, remember? But then, suddenly, God found the perfect man? So it was all going according to plan with Noah. But what I don't understand is, if God destroyed man, wasn't it to remove evil from the world? There is plenty of evil, Noah probably had evil in him. I wonder if it is odd that all of this makes no sense to me and I don't find all of the lessons here to be good lessons. I don't believe humanity can reach perfection. Imperfections are a part of what man is. Don't you need imperfection to be absolutely perfect, too? Well, at least it "grieved him at his heart."

Genesis 1-2

I was already familiar with this text when I read the King James version. Except this time I payed attention to other details that I wouldn't have noticed before. I think my way of seeing the bible has changed a lot since the last time I'd read it which was in 7th grade. This time, I tried to read it not as a Catholic reading her guidebook but like someone interpreting the text, religious affiliation irrelevant.

Genesis 1 was like an order of they way things happened, sort of stating the facts. Clearly stating that God is the creator and the almighty. I noticed that some lines often ended with "and God saw that it was good." As if God sought for his own approval and immediately admired his work. Something else that it might be is that it was all "good", until Adam and Eve ruined it all by eating fruit from the tree of Eden, that when God specifically asked them not to. So things were no longer good, perhaps now they are bad, or just not so good.

I look forward to reading the rest of the story with this different point of view and interpreting other things I might have not noticed before.

Baucis and Philemon

I had already heard this story before and I think it was when I was about 7 years old. My grandmother told this story one night after I fought with one of my sisters because she refused to give me a piece of her gum if I didn't give her a piece of my gum. Basically, this is what Baucis and Philemon is about.

I think that maybe the Gods subconsciously wanted to know how people treated each other knowing that they would receive nothing in return from the other person. But I think that if humans would have tried this test on the Gods they would have found that the Gods would not take pity on them. I see them as this race that thinks themselves superior and almighty, and maybe not aware that they also have their own imperfections. But at the same time, they reward the humans that contradict them or prove them wrong with their actions by showing them good.

Zeus and Hermes disguised as poor people that needed a place to stay, so the person helping them out would have to be a saint. Hermes was about to give up before they knocked on Baucis and Philemon's door. But Baucis and Philemon proved that there are good people, even if there are few. In this song, Alanis Morisette states that she will expect nothing in return for her good actions, like Baucis and Philemon.





Anyway, the lesson my grandmother was trying to give my sister and I, was that we should give, without expecting anything in return (and then maybe life will reward you later like it did for Baucis and Philemon). But still, if you know you will get rewarded you will obviously make a better effort or treat everybody nicely no matter how poor they are.