STARTING CAPTIONS:
A reader writes:
Hi, I hope you are doing fine today. I have a question regarding the book of Ruth. [Naomi says to Ruth regarding Boaz:] “But when he lies down, take note of the place where he does so. Then go, uncover a place at his feet, and lie down. He will tell you what to do." What is the meaning of uncovering his feet? Why is that Noemi told Ruth to uncover his feet?
Okay, there are two theories here. The first takes the expression literally and assumes that Naomi was telling Ruth to take the blanket off Boaz’s feet and then snuggle up to his feet and wait there for him to wake up, find her lying at his feet, and then propose marriage to her (to be signified by him spreading his garment over her and symbolically claiming her as his own).
And that’s what the text describes as happening.
Problem is, this is a really weird way to catch a man (not that I’d be opposed to it myself; I’m not criticizing).
Now, it’s possible that this is based on some cultural practice in ancient Israel and that by snuggling up to Boaz’s feet, Ruth was making her intentions clear, but we don’t have any independent evidence of such a cultural practice as far as I’m aware. The text is still just weird. That suggests that there may be something else going on here.
What that something else could be is suggested by a bit of knowlege of the Hebrew language.
Hebrew, like every language, has certain terms that are considered indelicate to use in polite society and so, whenever people needed to use one of these words, they’d say a better sounding word instead. Kind of the way in English we sometimes say that someone has "passed on" when we mean that they died.
Hebrew had euphemisms like this, too, and in biblical Hebrew the word for "foot" (regel) was used as a euphemism for . . . er . . . well . . . uh . . . er . . . (ahem) . . . for a certain piece of the male anatomy, y’see. In order to keep matters delicate, the Old Testament elsewhere uses "foot" when it really means . . . y’know. It also uses the word in the plural–"feet"–when it means the same thing.
And so some interpreters (including some very respectable ones) think that in this passage Naomi is directing Ruth to sneak up on Boaz in the night and uncover his . . . anatomy . . . and then seduce him–which is a well-known method in many cultures of trying to obtain a spouse (though it is immoral and does not usually yield quality results).
If that’s what’s going on in this text then Ruth is behaving very ruthlessly in pursuit of her goals (sorry, couldn’t resist) and the biblical author is reporting what happened (he certainly portrays her as One Determined Woman in the book), but he’s cloaking the story to make the telling more delicate.
He thus speaks (both in the passage you cite and later on) as if Ruth was just snuggling up to Boaz’s feet but expects the Hebrew-speaking audience to recognize his use of euphemism.
From what I can tell, this is a possible interpretation, and it certainly would explain an otherwise weird text.
Notice also that in verses 13 and 14, Boaz first invites Ruth to stay the night but then hustles her off before it gets light enough for people to recognize each other, because he doesn’t want it known that a woman came to the threshing floor. Ruth also waited until everyone was asleep before she came, suggesting secretiveness on both their parts.
As y’all may have heard, B16 issued a plenary indulgence for those taking part in World Youth Day.
Unfortunately, that leaves most of us out.
But he also offered a partial indulgence for the reast of us!
EXCERPT:
A partial indulgence is available to all the other faithful, wherever they may be during World Youth Day, if, with a contrite heart, they pray fervently that Christian youth
– be strengthened in the profession of the Faith;
– be confirmed in love and reverence toward their parents; and
– form a firm resolution to follow "the holy norms of the Gospel and Mother Church" in living out their present or future family life, or whatever vocation they are called to by God.
If there is disagreement about J.K. Rowling’s literary legacy, she should at least be given credit for inventing something really fun, and the people at Jelly Belly are to be commended for bringing her idea to life.
Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Beans are sure to bring your family, friends or co-workers hours of fun at one another’s expense.
For those who may not be familiar with Bertie Bott’s Beans, they are (in the Harry Potter stories) basically jelly beans that have a magical property that makes them able to take on the flavor of, well, almost anything. They are unpredictable, and the only way to tell what flavor one may be is to taste it and see. A green one might be Lime Sherbert (yum), or it might be Broccoli or Slime Mold – there’s no telling.
In the muggle world they are real jelly beans that come in a bizarre range of flavors inspired by the candies in the books. They are available in candy stores nationwide.
Our family had a great time sitting around daring one another to try different flavors (this is more fun if the flavors and corresponding color schemes are not known to the taster, but not absolutely necessary).
Some flavors are just interesting (Bacon, Grass…), some are not as bad as they sound (I found Vomit mercifully toned-down and Booger just kinda salty…) and some are wickedly nasty (Sardine would not go away and Rotten Egg was truly revolting).
How a candy company like Jelly Belly goes about manufacturing and testing such a product is a mystery. I am not sure I really want to know how they decided what Booger was supposed to taste like. How do you know when you’ve got Earthworm just right?
We enjoyed them, if you could call it that, and not all the flavors are gross. Buttered Popcorn was pretty good. Still, I will be a little more cautious from here on out if offered jelly beans.
I’m just gonna go brush my teeth… again…
If there is disagreement about J.K. Rowling’s literary legacy, she should at least be given credit for inventing something really fun, and the people at Jelly Belly are to be commended for bringing her idea to life.
Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Beans are sure to bring your family, friends or co-workers hours of fun at one another’s expense.
For those who may not be familiar with Bertie Bott’s Beans, they are (in the Harry Potter stories) basically jelly beans that have a magical property that makes them able to take on the flavor of, well, almost anything. They are unpredictable, and the only way to tell what flavor one may be is to taste it and see. A green one might be Lime Sherbert (yum), or it might be Broccoli or Slime Mold – there’s no telling.
In the muggle world they are real jelly beans that come in a bizarre range of flavors inspired by the candies in the books. They are available in candy stores nationwide.
Our family had a great time sitting around daring one another to try different flavors (this is more fun if the flavors and corresponding color schemes are not known to the taster, but not absolutely necessary).
Some flavors are just interesting (Bacon, Grass…), some are not as bad as they sound (I found Vomit mercifully toned-down and Booger just kinda salty…) and some are wickedly nasty (Sardine would not go away and Rotten Egg was truly revolting).
How a candy company like Jelly Belly goes about manufacturing and testing such a product is a mystery. I am not sure I really want to know how they decided what Booger was supposed to taste like. How do you know when you’ve got Earthworm just right?
We enjoyed them, if you could call it that, and not all the flavors are gross. Buttered Popcorn was pretty good. Still, I will be a little more cautious from here on out if offered jelly beans.
I’m just gonna go brush my teeth… again…
Trivia for the Day: The coffee chain with a franchise on every corner — and even a few drive-thrus, one of which I was both stunned and amused to see near my home — takes its name from the first mate in the Great American Novel Moby Dick by Herman Melville. In the novel, Starbuck tries his best to stop Captain Ahab from pursuing the great white whale, a quest Starbuck apparently realizes is doomed.
Starbuck’s namesake now has its own futile quest: To normalize homosexuality by advertising the musings of a homosexual writer on its disposable coffee cups:
"The world’s most famous coffee shop chain has begun a program called ‘The Way I See It,’ which is a collection of thoughts, opinions and expressions provided by notable figures that now appear on Starbucks coffee cups, according to the chain’s website.
"But one particular quote — #43 — blatantly pushes the homosexual agenda. It’s by Armistead Maupin, who wrote ‘Tales of the City,’ a bestseller-turned-PBS drama advocating the homosexual lifestyle, and it reads:
"’My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don’t make that mistake yourself. Life’s too [expletive] short.’"
Aside from wondering what the fictional Starbuck — or his creator, Herman Melville — might have thought of his namesake’s doomed quest, it occurred to me that it is both sad and utterly appropriate that these "thoughts" are being disseminated on disposable cups destined to be tossed into the nearest litter receptacle once the coffee is gulped down. Rather apropos of the ephemeral nature of false ideologies, isn’t it?
Trivia for the Day: The coffee chain with a franchise on every corner — and even a few drive-thrus, one of which I was both stunned and amused to see near my home — takes its name from the first mate in the Great American Novel Moby Dick by Herman Melville. In the novel, Starbuck tries his best to stop Captain Ahab from pursuing the great white whale, a quest Starbuck apparently realizes is doomed.
Starbuck’s namesake now has its own futile quest: To normalize homosexuality by advertising the musings of a homosexual writer on its disposable coffee cups:
"The world’s most famous coffee shop chain has begun a program called ‘The Way I See It,’ which is a collection of thoughts, opinions and expressions provided by notable figures that now appear on Starbucks coffee cups, according to the chain’s website.
"But one particular quote — #43 — blatantly pushes the homosexual agenda. It’s by Armistead Maupin, who wrote ‘Tales of the City,’ a bestseller-turned-PBS drama advocating the homosexual lifestyle, and it reads:
"’My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don’t make that mistake yourself. Life’s too [expletive] short.’"
Aside from wondering what the fictional Starbuck — or his creator, Herman Melville — might have thought of his namesake’s doomed quest, it occurred to me that it is both sad and utterly appropriate that these "thoughts" are being disseminated on disposable cups destined to be tossed into the nearest litter receptacle once the coffee is gulped down. Rather apropos of the ephemeral nature of false ideologies, isn’t it?
One of the things that we’ve inherited from the low-fat diet nonsense is the idea that eating fat will automatically raise your cholesterol level.
Since on the Atkins diet you end up getting a higher percentage of your calories from fat than you did before (which is bound to happen if you diminish carbohydrates as a calorie source) many low-fat diet zombies have tried to scare people off the Atkins diet by saying that their cholesterol will shoot through the roof.
Not!
What actually happens is that when you decrease your carb intake it causes your body to go into fat burning mode. When that happens, your body burns up the fat that otherwise would get turned into cholesterol and harden your arteries.
When on a low-carb diet, your cholesterol may actually go down.
That’s what mine did.
My cholesterol has never really been high, but after going low-carb, my cholesterol readings decreased markedly.
Here’s what they read after I had them tested recently:
Total Cholesterol: 128 (best category: Less than 200 is "Desirable")
High-Density Lipoprotein, a.k.a. "good cholesterol": 31 (good: My ideal would be 37 given my Total Cholesterol level)
Ratio of Total Cholesterol To High-Density Lipoprotein: 4.13:1 (less than 5:1 is the goal, 3.5:1 is optimal)
Low-Density Lipoprotein, a.k.a. "bad cholesterol": 85 (best category: Less than 100 is "Optimal")
Triglycerides (really bad cholesterol): 60 (best category: Less than 150 is "Normal")
Since my cholesterol is not bad, I haven’t researched the meaning of all these readings in detail, but I am given to understand that they are not only good, they are very good and would be perfect if my HDL was a few points higher. My total cholesterol is apparently so low that it’s very uncommon for people to have rates that low.
HERE’S THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES.
Now, in the interests of full disclosure:
So, I thought I’d report these numbers in the interests of Science (. . . Science!) and to say that if you’ve been thinking about low-carbing but have been deterred by claims it will make your cholesterol skyrocket, don’t let that stop you. Only balderdash can be heard from guys who say that, and no one should give any ear to their tongue-wagging.
My cholesterol (which wasn’t bad) decreased markedly after I went low-carb.
A bit of lunchblogging. . . .
Suppose there is a person who:
Does this pattern sound familiar to any of y’all?
It might because it is exactly the kind of thing that Erik Johnson did last month (though not all of the details in the pattern, like the time of the morning at which Erik would e-mail, have previously been public). Following this behavior, I wrote on the blog:
Now a word to Erik: I have been patient with you beyond any reasonable expectation. It
appears that you are a troubled individual who may be in need of
counselling, as is the case with many people making the transition to
adulthood. I suggest that you talk to a counsellor.However that may be, you are no longer welcome on this blog. Do not post further comments here.
I also told Erik (repeatedly and by e-mail) to stop e-mailing me.
Now, lo and behold, "Tom Brokaw" a.k.a. "James Carville" is doing exactly the same thing. The e-mailing mentioned above was done by him last night.
This morning he’s been trying to hijack one of Michelle’s comthreads by repeatedly posting the same comment even when she’s deleting it, a clear signal to him to lay off.
Furthermore, "Tom Brokaw" a.k.a. "James Carville" is doing all this from the same computer networks in the San Jose area that Erik Johnson used.
I submit to you that "Tom Brokaw" a.k.a. "James Carville" is a.k.a. Erik Johnson.
This means that Erik is in violation of the instructions not to e-mail or post further comments.
That means that Erik is committing Internet abuse.
This means that Erik is open to having action taken against him for Internet abuse.
That means that I am now giving Erik one last warning before filing complaints against him with his Internet service providers. (As well as requesting others not to respond to comments by "Tom Brokaw" or "James Carville" or other aliases he may cook up.)
Erik: I have already spoken with more than one of your Internet services, and they have assured me that they take abuse by those using their systems very seriously and will respond promptly to evidence I present to them that you are in violation of their Terms of Service by using their systems to engage in harrassment and abuse of others on the Internet.
If you do not immediately cease to e-mail and post comments, under whatever aliases, I will contact them and forward them the proof of what you have been doing.
I am not kidding.
A reader writes:
Putting aside all the paranoid conspiracy nonsense,
what is the modern church’s view on the supression of the Templars?
Especially since we now know that confessions made under torture are
essentially useless. Let’s be honest this is not one of the shining
moments in church history, if for no other reason than Pope Clement
V’s moral cowardice in the face of King Philip’s bullying.
The Church doesn’t really have an official view on historical incidents like this–at least not usually. Normally the Church leaves the evaluation of particular historical incidents to the conscience of the individual and to historians.
It does, however, comment in a general way on historical events that raise the considerations that the Church would bring to bear on the question if it were to comment on particular events (as it does on some occasions).
Some of the principles that the Church brings to bear in evaluating historical events are spelled out in the document
MEMORY AND RECONCILATION: THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST.
In general, the Church tries to acknowledge objectively wrong moral behavior but it also tries to evaluate the behavior against the character of the time and not hastily condemn individuals whose consciences, ultimately, are known to God alone. It thus tries to hold in tension the need to acknowledge the moral truth about particular behaviors alongside the need to acknowledge the historical factors affecting individuals and the fact that we cannot know their hearts.
One can see these being played out in the following passage from the Catechism, which addresses the subject of torture:
Respect for bodily integrity
2297 . . . Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. . . .
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
This establishes the Church’s general take on such historical realities without juding particular cases (in which individuals may have been more culpable or less culpable). It would be up to historians and private individuals to apply these principles to particular cases like what happened with the Templars and see how they stand up.
For an informed Catholic indivual’s attempt to do just that, SEE THIS ARTICLE. It was written almost a hundred years ago, and the author has a very negative view of what happened to the Templars (including the torture). I doubt if very many today would take a positive view of the situation.
