Sticks and Stones

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. What a crock right? I remember the first time my Mom told me that little fixer-upper for a poem. I was in Kindergarten and a boy who was in the 6th grade had been very mean to me, calling me names. His Mom was called into the Prinicpals office, but my Mom was never told of the incident by the faculty of the school. The boy was in the office when his Mom showed up to meet with our Principal. I was standing outside the door of the office when she arrived. Her first words were, "are you the one that got him into trouble?" What a joke! That kid didn't need my help to get into trouble. I nodded my head. She was a big woman and looked like a giant from where I stood. She asked me what he had said to me that could get her precious little deviant son in so much trouble. I told her, "he called me a little bitch." Of course, I had no idea what that word really meant at that time, but I get it now loud and clear. I knew it wasn't good though, from the tone in his voice and the look in his eye when he said it. When she heard what her son said she leaned down to me, squinting her eyes, wrinkling up her nose, her face growing more red from her anger, and her attitude was full of hate when she responded to me, "that's because you are a little bitch!" What a thing to tell a 5 year old huh? I went home that afternoon and told my Mom what had happened. Of course she ripped the administration a new one before she got to her speach for me, but she finally did get to it. She told me she loved me, that I wasn't "what her son had called you," and then began to recite that aweful poem. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. She explained what it meant, but she was wrong. My Mom was never wrong, yet she was that time! As stupid as it seems, those words still hurt me to this day. Not to mention the fact that "bitch" was my first learned cuss word. Yay me!

I thought about our discussion in class on Thursday, this whole weekend. Dr. Sexson is right. You never forget what hurts you when it comes in the form of words. But then I thought about it more when I went to the testicle festival last night. Words are very powerful, but the actions that back them up seem to be even more powerful. Like the look in their eyes when someone calls you a name or tells you no for a dance or how people walk as far as they can around you just so that they don't have to be near your pressence. So I started to think Dr. Sexon was wrong about words. Maybe words weren't really the thing that cut to the very core of a human-being, but maybe it was the action behind them. So this morning when I woke up I thought long and hard about it and I began to realize that actions are words. They just aren't spoken. The action of throwing a stick or stone is a nonverbal communication intended to hurt someone, whereas words are just a verbal usuage to do the same thing. That little poem, or whatever you'd call it, is contradictory. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. How are these two instances any different? If they are both looked upon as action and action is the equivalent of words then they are the very same thing. Maybe the saying should go, Sticks and stones may break my bones and words will always hurt me too. I realize this blog is supposed to be about the bible, but I thought this was relevant to class since we had been talking about language.

As for the bible part of this blog, let me just say, I'm at the very end of Genesis now and things are getting weirder. Jacob loving Rachel and having to marry Leah too. Finally making up with his brother Esau and then losing Rachel. Poor Dinah getting raped, and Jacob worrying about the consequences of his boys killing everyone in town more than how his daughter feels. I'm almost sickened by that story. Besides, why should Jacob even worry....or rather I guess his name is Israel, when God told him that he was going to be with him. If you have the greatest power in the world or universe or whatever on your side, why would you worry about what another man could do to you? It's so easy for Israel to forget God is with him and it takes getting on his knees, basically, to remember he is good in the sight of the Lord. Makes a person wonder why we forget the good things so easily.

The Mysteries of Genesis

I've been reading along in Genesis and truly trying to look at the authors along with the actual words used in the text. However, the story can be so "out there" at times that I c0mpletely forget to think about who the author could have been and I focus on figuring out how a text that is supposed to be used for righteousness can have so many crazy characters and experiences. Like for instance when the two girls sleep with their father, dang I wish I had my book with me right now, but it's in like Genisis 20 or 21. Dude, NASTY!!!!!! I understand that in the story of the bible, for man to produce and there to be so many humans on earth, that people were, well, "hooking up" with their blood relatives in order to do so, but when there's already a world full of people there is no excuse for sleeping with one's father. I almost slammed the bible down then and thought about dropping the class. I know we are supposed to be reading the bible as a text for literary purposes, imagery, and all that, but it's hard to let my faith go. This story shook my faith. Then to make things worse, the fact that Abraham gets to lie to people all the time, the man is kind of a screw up, although a God-fearing screw up, and he gets away with it. I always thought stories had a rhyme or reason to them. A meaning that, as a reader, would be seen and understood. I do NOT get why Abraham is in such good faith with God when he lies and is almost moronic acting. The story of the two girls and their father, were obviously a need to have in this text, but why? I mean really, why? Is it to show what not to do to disgrace God or is it some sick twisted story for some other purpose? Right now I'm in such shock from reading all this that I'm not sure I ever want to read anymore ever again. I find it interesting though, how the Old testament is so different from the New Testament. The New Testament shows a loving, caring God who shows the reader what lesson is supposed to be learned, but in the Old Testament, it's like God is jealous and vengeful. The Old Testament has stories that are hard to understand because there seems, to me, to be no reason for them. Nothing ever really gets explained. However, the words used to write these stories illustrate, in my mind, the perfect setting for all of them to take place. Right now, I'm not sure how I feel about this text.

Genesis-It's so wordy!

So I have been reading Genesis and although I thought I was bored, I realized I really wasn't bored at all. However, I am having a very hard time getting into it because I can't pronounce half the names. Like, Hagar? I'm sure it's spelled most likely how it sounds, but then we go on to Sarai and so on. Those two are probably the easiest ones out of the hard choices, but even they stump me. Not that I was ever really into names or anything, but it just makes it feel like I have to read 4,000 more words than there really are in each chapter. I have found some interesting stuff so far, like the cherubim and sword on fire thingy. That was interesting. I've always just thought of Michael, the Angel who watches over Satan and hell, to be the one with a flaming sword, but the sweet cherubim that most people think of sounds like a good new twist on the same old Valentine's ideals.
I have found the wording to be redundant, as was discussed in our first couple meetings in class, but it's even more apparent now just how redundant everything is because, of course, my eyes are more apt to see what I'm told about. That's been a bit of a pain. I've had to re-read so many names in the first few chapters of Genesis now that if I didn't have this blog to do all semester I probably would have stopped reading already.
I do like the idea of trying to read the bible all the way through in this semester. At first I thought it was completely nuts, but now that I'm getting into the imagery and words of the text I'm beginning to find it more interesting. Like how some verses are written more as poetry while others are written as a story broken up into sections. It seems easier for me and faster for me to read the poetry like verses because they seem to fly by, there are less words or something that seem to move the text along. Weird I know, because the punctuation would make one think there would be more stops, pauses, and breathes that would slow one down, but it works better for me. So I guess, surprisingly enough, I'm learning more about how I learn doing this than I am necessarily about the bible. HMMM, interesting.

P & J writers

As I read the first Chapter in Genesis I was looking for the "P" writer that we had discussed in class. I can see the order of things as if a priestly figure was talking and I can see how matter of factly the story goes. Because it is ordered in such a way that it acts as a list almost, I believe the first story to be easier to follow. It's logical, in the ordering of events. The second story does sound like a completely different author is being read. The "J" writer is more colorful, vivid, and entertaining in their account of creation. The story is one that makes a person more eager to read on, but the imagination has to be used more in this story. I'm all for that, but some people might not like having to think outside the box. The "J" writer moves events and is not specific as to what times or days things are being completed. The difference between the stories of Adam and Eve, to me, are not so far from each other that I would have noticed right away, without the lecture from Thursday's class. The "J" writer goes into more detail in how Eve was created, but the "P" writer, to me, makes Adam and Eve sound like they were created to help each other, just as the "J" writer indicates. Both stories are good, they express what is being done in a part of history so that anyone can follow them. Depending on what a person can relate to more, each story has it's advantages and disadvantages. Of course, they are both up to personal choice in which is more believable as well. I like the imagery of the second story better because it's a clear picture and more discriptive. The first story, however, is a step-by-step process that makes for an easy read in my opinion. The styles of writing are very apparent though, something I would not have caught onto as quickly if I had not been introduced to the "P" and "J" writers.

Thoughts on "The Slave"

"The Slave" by Singer was a bit of a shocker for me. I'm only on page like 48 or something, but wow, I was so not expecting there to be so much incest and uncuth behavior in this book. I like this book so far, but I'm still in shock of the direction it is taking. To me, Singer has portrayed the Christian faith as being nothing more than a rude mix of rituals and superstitions. He has portrayed the Jewish faith as if it were the only one and correct faith to have. That's fine, but I wasn't expecting to find that every "Christian" as he calls them, to be a murderer, cheat, liar, filthy piece of dirt, and mallicious creature where his character Jacob is made to be a glorified God almost. Of course this is only my opinion and I still am excited to finish this book. To see the twists and turns that I hope it will encounter and uncover, but for the most part, the two worlds that he describes are far from reality, again, in my opinion.