Creation Truths vs. Religious Myths

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, days of Creation, faith, Hebrew scripture, logic, prehistory, religion, scriptures, theology on August 13, 2016 by chouck017894

The principal theme of literature that is distributed as sacred writ throughout the world is commonly in regard to the origin and interactions of energies which we perceive as the universe.  In the study of “holy” myths there is commonly a distinction made between Creation myths (elemental cosmology) and myths of origins, which focus more on the later evolved features within Creation such as animals, humans, social orders, etc.

Study of the origin of anything is properly only a continuation of Creation’s activity which marks the progress of the original creative energy outpouring.  And this continuation of Creation activity accounts for the progressive arrangement of scriptural myth presentations.  The mythic style is useful for instructing minds which are not fully capable of grasping the theoretical complexity and multidimensional characteristics which we speak of as Creation.  The technique of myth-telling and the use of sacred language was originally the attempt to bridge the abyss of comprehension by personifying creative energy dimensions and their involvement as being characteristics of god, demigods, heroes, and/or divinely favored mortal beings.

The tragedy of this means of instruction is that the original scientific understanding behind the stories easily became sidetracked and the accounts then became accepted as authentic reporting.  Even more dangerous for those whom the myths were invented to aid them comprehend primal energy actions, the stories were restructured as having been actual historic ancestors.  Once the bogus “history” technique for teaching became the standard our role within Creation became trapped in the dark theological maze that has no off-ramp by which one could return to rationality.

Creationists, those Bible-thumping fanatics incapable of abstract thought who insist that Creation took place literally in six 24 hour Earth-time days, remain oblivious to  pertinent clues provided within the tale itself.  The clues reveal that the Genesis version of Creation was based upon an older and broader understanding of the true involution/evolutionary development of primal energies-into-matter.  There is a telling peculiarity in the writing style of the Genesis account of Creation which is consistently disregarded by Creationist fanatics concerning the measurement method of those “days” of Creation.  It is perhaps too subtle for those incapable of abstract thought.  By verse 5 of the first chapter of Genesis, immediately after God created light, the account declares: “And God called the (initial) radiance Day, and the darkness (primal energy conditions) Night.  And the evening and the  morning were the first Day.”  Interestingly Day is emphasized by a capital D, and Night is similarly stressed with a capital N, and the emphasis is for a reason.

In man’s standard time measurement practice, a solar-centered day is not reasonably calculated or defined as being “the evening and the morning.”  Nonetheless, the “holy word” extremists happily ignore the fact that in the priest written sacred account Earth was not even conjured up until verse 10; so the first “Day” obviously is not supposed to be calculated from how our puny little planet would measure time.  This is the complex reckoning by which each “Day” of Creation is erroneously interpreted in scriptural terms, however.  Creation of the “firmament” is the subject in verse 6 (the second Day) and is accentuated by the division of “waters” within which. scientifically speaking, creative energies involve with specific frequencies.  Then in verse 8 the “firmament” itself was allegedly labeled “Heaven” by God.  With the establishment of the “firmament,” verse 8 sums it up, and again “…the evening and the morning were the second Day.”  The account is worded in this manner in an anxious attempt to convey to non-technical minds the understanding that everything that was/is made manifest out of a void (primordial or virginal) condition.

Creation’s primal energy dimensions of what we may here term quantum activity are not involvements of Creations’s energies that can be assessed in terms of solar-reckoned days. This period of Creation activity, defined in scriptures as “Days,” is often circumvented by literal minded faith merchants by referring to the immeasurable time of Creation activity as “days of the Lord.”  That elusive attempt to sidestep explanation of the immense progressive phases of Creation’s energy involvements and expansion into defined forms necessitated the familiar day/night sequence they personally experience.  Thus the Days of Creation–or each primordial energy dimension of involvement (or involution)–which progresses out of a virginal void–was  conveyed in allegorical style and presented as “holy word.”

But what did the priest-authors mean in verse 8 by a “firmament” being established?  The Hebrew word which is translated as “firmament” is rakia, which actually means a vast expanse–or what we think of as space.  The word “firmament” is traceable back to the Latin word firmare, which happened to mean something that supported or strengthened something (from Latin firmus, “firm”).  And thus was holy word rendered into a stew pot of mismatched ingredients.

The priest authors of “holy word” were intent upon obtaining and maintaining their control over the tribal setup (Hebrew) and in order to this they had to mask what they did not know. Thus did they assert that a strangely human-like God labored six days over Creation.  This has served western cultures as “holy revelation” for around three thousand years, during which many bright youngsters have innocently asked, “But where did God come from?” The common response to that childish rationality has been, “We must never question God.”  Unfortunately, by adulthood too many formerly bright kids have been thoroughly brainwashed and their inclinations to question such things are directed to the No-No list.  And the trusting believers now committed to the literal presentation of “holy word” are understandably traumatized when their taught assumptions are challenged by archaeological research that uncovers evidence of a totally different picture of true history.

 

 

Belief in Godly Favoritism

Posted in Abraham, Atheist, belief, Bible, Easter, faith, Passover, religion, scriptures, theology, Zodiac on August 1, 2016 by chouck017894

The Jewish festival of Passover and the Christian observance of Easter occur in the same general timeframe each year following the vernal equinox.  Neither of these self-focused faith systems extend any recognition to the obvious seasonal transition that dominates  the Northern Hemisphere of our planet in its orbital movement.  Instead, each faith system has fashioned self-serving myths to present the illusion that they hold exclusive position with the Creator-God.

For Judaism, the seasonal changes are disguised and celebrated for eight days, allegedly in honor of the Israelites escape from Egypt. In encyclopedic and most reference material the explanation of Passover will say the festival commemorates the escape of the Jews from Egypt under the leadership of Moses.  In the timeframe in which the Moses saga is traditionally placed, c. 1576 BCE, Judaism as a ritualistic faith system certainly did not yet exist; indeed, Jews as followers of a ritualistic faith system are not even referred to in scriptural tales until 2 Kings (12:26).  Interestingly, that first mention of a Jew is not even favorable (the implied insolence).  Nonetheless, in typical revisionist fashion it has become common practice to use the words Israelite, Hebrew and Jew as meaning the same thing, which is intentionally and tragically misleading.

Originally the priest-authors writing the alleged “history” of their nomadic forebears cast them as “Israelites,” implying the descendants of an alleged historical patriarch named Jacob who, for no clearly defined reason, had his named changed to Israel by God.  This, however, is a heavily mythologized version anchored in ancient teachings once illustrated with imagined figures outlined upon different constellations.  Jacob characterizes the Life Principle within which self-aware consciousness becomes activated as a matter-life form out of primal energies.  Hence the name change.  Therefore, the use of the word Israelite is always in reference to the primal energies out of which life is made manifest.  As such the story character of Jacob/Israel actually represents the “forebear” of all self-aware life forms, not just some “chosen” group of faith system believers.

In older reference books the habit of lumping Israelite, Hebrew and Jew as one-and-the-same allowed for the implication that Hebrews appeared more or less out of nowhere.  In actuality they seem to have emerged out of the polytheistic Semite people who probably originated in the northeastern regions, and who became widely scattered due to their searches for grazing lands for their herds and flocks.  And Judaism, as such, arose as a splinter sect among those polytheistic tribes people, and the fact is that one of the tribal gods, Yahweh, whose division settled around Jerusalem, was never the sole god of all the Hebrew people–a fact that is now disregarded.

Even before the priests of Yahweh, in Jerusalem c. 9th-8th century BCE, set the time for observance of Passover, the ancient Egyptians and Persians (to name a few) had celebrated the same equinox period with a sacred feast.  This was prepared prior to the occurrence of the full moon at the spring equinox.  In Egypt, on the 14th day of that moon phase, the nation joyfully celebrated the Dominion of the Ram, the sign of Aries.  This same general time of the full moon in Aries associated with the Vernal Equinox is now celebrated in Jewish adaptation as Passover (and in Christian lore as Easter–so-named after a Pagan goddess of Spring).  Aries became symbolized as the “Pascal Lamb” that is slain and eaten in recognition of the mythical Passover story.

From the ancient lessons once given with constellation Aries, there arose the sacred interpretation of the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” and this became personified as Jesus in the Christian faith system.  It is from this dimension of creative primal energy involvement that energy-as-life is “redeemed” through transition of this dimension of energy to be, in effect, “resurrected” (evolved) as a more refined energy form.  Jesus thus personifies the Life Principle that is within all matter forms, and he is thus acknowledged as Angus Dei, Latin meaning Lamb of God.

The worldwide use in prehistoric times of the Ram/Lamb as a symbol of sacrifice comes directly from ancient lessons once given with what we now refer to as the zodiac, which actually taught scientific principles of creative energies being readied to begin manifestation into matter life (the real reason for Jacob’s name change).  This understanding was widely understood in more ancient times, and even into late BCE times in a few areas.  Certainly Confucius (about 551-479 BCE), who spoke of this Ram/Lamb sacrifice was not thinking of an alleged ram sent to any foreign person named Jacob as a sacrifice substitute for his son Isaac.  Nor could he have been referring to some future sacrifice of a Jew named Jesus in Roman Empire times.  Confucius’ assertions came from understanding the ancient lessons with constellation Aries which taught scientific principles of where creative primal energies are bound into a prototyptic form which commits it to its manifestation as an energy-matter life form.

 

Religion and Social Ills

Posted in Atheist, belief, faith, logic, monotheism, random, religion, scriptures, theology, thoughts on July 12, 2016 by chouck017894

Mankind’s many, many faith systems are each self-advertised and promoted as the positive method that inspires people to live their lives with more respectfulness and righteousness. But are practices which are formulated to pivot upon judgmental and prejudicial behavior toward “God’s” intended diversity really the untainted “narrow path” to attain Heaven or Paradise?

When faith systems teach seekers that all human entities skate on thin ice at the edge of the black hole of “sin” the minds of the faithful are persistently maneuvered into a submerged fear-based emotional state.  Faith system merchants often lace their promotional spiels with heavy condemnation over minor differences which human entities are prone to.  The “flock” has then been “blessed” with inappropriate belief that their faith system holds some especial and exclusive favor with the all-inclusive  Creative Source.  It’s an excellent tactic for the faith merchants, but it is hell on a devout person’s rationality.  The sly inference of never quite measuring up to God’s expectations for you tends to fester in the subconscious, and that negative energy is inclined to gestate over time and give birth to little deformed demons of resentment.

Since personal consciousness rests within a god-ordained animal configuration during its limited matter life experience the natural response to all the subtle negativity packaged into faith system merchandising is a stimulation of the hypothalamus which often triggers an inbred fight or flight response.  But the crafted “religious” dictum is that you are allowed to do neither.  The internal physical/mental mechanism then must adjust something like this: The blood vessels become constricted and blood pressure rises; stomach acidity increases; and body muscles remain tense to get ready for physical confrontation.  The most immediate result of all this built-in internal defense activity is that it serves to suppress the immune system which is the body’s defense against genuine life-threatening conditions.

Western organized by-the-book faith systems prosper because they have always sermonized that there is a constant threat which allegedly exists between each persons’s soul and the possibility of oblivion.  Cultivation of fear for the unknown makes for an easy target for faith merchants to hit.  And the built-in advantage is that it also keeps the faithful suspicious of any minor but natural (God ordained) differences which individualizes each person’s interests or lifestyle.  It is a scientifically proven fact that over eighty percent of all human dysfunctions have been traced to emotional stress.  So is mankind’s higher potential really being served by such cultivation of fanaticism, suspicion and intolerance as is religiously churned out by man-invented faith systems?

Organized faith systems regularly stand guilty of emphasizing and passing judgment on what are but minor natural differences rather than counseling tolerance and inspiring understanding of God-intended diversity and variety.  These by-the-book faith systems generally give much lip service to tolerance and charity, but this is too often disproved by their typical attitude that their faith system alone–and it alone–holds some exclusive position with the Creative Source which they personify as “God.”  The inappropriate cultivation of belief that their faith system possess some exclusive expressway into  an imagined Creator’s favor generates only inappropriate expectations, both of others and of self.  The indulgence in such belief programming brushes extremely close to what may be termed true sin, for it sets believers upon a path of negative life occurrences–i.e. judgmental attitudes, feelings of guilt over natural desires, practicing conditional love, avoidance of personal responsibility, lack of forgiveness, lust for material things, and a host of other favorite themes of faith system merchants.

The concept of monotheism is actually a practice of personifying the all-inclusive Creative Source as a principled, judgmental human-like being (God).  This allows for the conducting of corporate-style business under the assertion that the powers which created and sustains everything is human-like and plays favorites with the diverse and varied energy combinations that are manifested as the human species.  This is a conman tactic which is then slyly intensified by grafting a foreboding of death and judgment into their sales pitch.  This further allows those claiming to hold the moral high ground to peddle their faith system’s insurance which promises a glorious afterlife.  Unfortunately mankind can never attain its higher potential through such ego-stroking indulgence.

Such faith system practices will never ensure that peace, tolerance and brotherly love will actually be achieved by followers of hard line faith systems.  Any acceptance and true charity for the intended diversity that is active as life would deprive those self-appointed god-ambassadors of their pretense of god-blessed authority.  Thus man-made faith systems commonly teach judgment passing, hairsplitting, self-serving rites and rituals, spiritual exclusiveness, and similar ego-stroking propaganda.  For seekers it all comes at a steep price: loss of the true access into higher alignment with universal power which is gained only through tolerance–which then flowers as enlightenment.

 

 

From A Jewish Cult To Christianity

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, Hebrew scripture, Joshua, random, religion, scriptures on June 5, 2016 by chouck017894

In the timeframe of the expanding Roman Empire the aristocrats and literati in Roman society became more and more uneasy at the intense antagonism that flared repeatedly in the region of Palestine.  The unease of these prominent Roman citizens was not simply political concern but, for several, it also involved relationships through marriage to important families in that region.  This interrelationship provided closer perception to underlying conditions there which simmered in that occupied territory, and it was thus known that there was an active but subdued movement in Jewish culture among the Nazarene which focused on a messiah-like being called Jesus, a name derived from the legendary Joshua (Jeschu).  As uprisings steadily increased throughout Palestine the Roman aristocrats and literati sought a means to counter the Jewish conviction that they alone possessed exclusive godly guidance which their priest-written scriptures avowed.  There were some in Rome’s upper echelon who began to ponder over the possibility that the Jesus cult which was already active in Palestine could in some way provide the wedge that might be used to modify the Jewish obstinacy and thus a more cooperative conduct would be established.

Among those few privileged class Roman citizens the idea of such a wedge led to research and their findings showed that a number of attributes credited to Joshua were also shared by Pagan solar gods such as Apollo, Helios and others.  Joshua was, after all, credited with halting the sun in its course.  That alleged feat was certainly at least equal to any miracle that had been ascribed to Pagan sun gods or to Moses.  Joshua was also revered among Jews as a deliverer, a messiah–albeit a violent, murderous one–whose holocaustal conquests were claimed to have been approved and brought about by their Lord.  What would happen, the privileged Romans wondered, if a new deliverer/messiah appeared, one through whom the Lord would offer a new covenant?

A ticklish proposal of drawing upon the underground Nazarene cult’s fascination with Jesus rested in the Roman authors attempting to provide Jesus with a biological lineage.  In hope of appealing to Jewish sensibilities the Roman authors sought to provide one genealogical version in Matthew 1:1-16, written c. 70-75 CE, which traced Jesus’ decent from Abraham. This genealogy seems intent upon showing that Jesus was of royal lineage–from Abraham to David–even going so far as to refer to Jesus as “son of David” throughout the book of Matthew.  This version of biological background includes four women–a curious accounting whey you consider that in the priest-composed Hebrew Scripture the listing of lineage was always traced back only through male forebears.  Even more curious is that in the later Luke version three of those four females happened to be non-Israelite women.  Was that provision possibly calculated to open the way for gentiles to also be accepted as among God’s alleged “chosen”?

The genealogy as offered in Luke 3:23-38, written c. 84-90 CE, made the attempt to trace Jesus’ biological background even further to Adam!  Luke’s genealogy introduced a different tack by using Jewish textual traditions such as incorporating numerological exercises to present the family tree of Jesus.  This led to various speculations over time.  According to some old Greek manuscripts there was thus declared to have been 11×7 generations from Adam to Abraham. Other Greek manuscripts, however, as well as the Catholic Vulgate and the Syrian Peshito, assert there were 76 generations between Adam to Abraham, while other Latin genealogies list on 72.  Regardless of the quibbling over how many generations between all the impossible-to-trace biblical characters, the purpose of the claims  was to show that Jesus was not only the fulfillment of the history of Israel but to illustrate that Jesus was also the savior of the (Roman) world.  The fly in the ointment, we might say, is that such genealogical lines are utterly pointless if Jesus was, as claimed, born of a Jewish virgin name Mary who was unsuspectingly impregnated by divine spirit.

But why assert a miraculous “virgin birth” claim at all?  Not so coincidentally many ancient Pagan cultures had myths of their major god impregnating a virgin who bore him a demigod son.  The Greek god Zeus and  Roman god Jupiter, among others, were said to have impregnated other women.  All such virgin birth myths had originated out of extremely ancient teachings regarding causation and creation–in lessons using stars of various constellations as illustrations.  Those lessons taught the scientific principle which is now known–that primal energies–virginal conditions–involve and evolve to manifest as matter.

The focus of the Roman authors of Gospel remained upon Jewish examples, partly because the very first Gospel book which had been written, Mark, c.50-55 CE, had referred to a “prophecy” from the Jew’s revered book of Isaiah.  The Roman author of Mark happened to slyly misquote Isaiah 7:14 as “Behold, the Virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.”  Why did the Jewish prophet say Emmanuel if he meant Jesus? The name Jesus is derived from Joshua, and a prophet worth his salt would know that.  The actual priest-written book of Isaiah simply stated, “…a young woman with child…” and implying the event described was to occur in the timeframe of Isaiah.  So the text that Mark borrowed did not exactly verify that Isaiah prophesied a coming messiah named Jesus.

Thus around 70 CE the Roman author of the Gospel book of Matthew (now listed canonically as the first Gospel) labored very hard to update both the earlier book of Mark as well as his own first edition of Matthew.  And the author indulged himself as well in some holy slight of hand, and Lo! –today those blind with belief still believe that Jesus was the mortal son of god who was born to a virgin Jewish girl.

A Few Biblical Crimes

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, Hebrew scripture, random, religion, scriptures, thoughts on May 13, 2016 by chouck017894

For some two to three thousand years the Bible has been advertised and promoted as being the ultimate in moral guidance for mankind.  But anyone with genuine respect for moral conduct and ethical behavior toward their fellow man often staggers away in bewilderment after reading some holy accounts.

Indeed, the opening chapters of Genesis brusquely kick things off with a highly questionable take on common ethics.  The naive couple, Adam and Eve, the last of the Creator’s handiwork, were seemingly fashioned only for fun and games.  Naked and clueless they were placed in a deceptively paradisaical setting–a setting which featured two breathtakingly beautiful fruit-bearing trees as it focal point.  Ah, but these were declared to be off limits as a food source for God’s not-too-bright last creations.  This is clearly a case of crafty entrapment, not omniscient wisdom.  But God is pictured as outraged and declared that death is to be their punishment–and not just for Adam and  Eve, but for all matter-life forms!  The first human couple had absolutely no experience as life beings, so how could they have possibly comprehended what the threat of death meant?

Ethics and compassion soon got another below-the-belt attack in the “revealed” record of Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve.  Cain was a farmer and Abel was a sheepherder. For all the bounty that God had graciously allowed them God expected both of them should bring material offerings to him in gratitude.  Abel slit a sheep’s throat and God found this to be extremely pleasing, but Cain’s gift taken from laboriously tended fields, was scorned by the Creator.  Cain, of course, smarted at this discrimination and in a jealous frenzy killed his brother.  According to the Bible there were no actual criminal laws established in Paradise, nor had there been need for such law in a family of four.  So the homicide of Abel cannot be termed murder or even manslaughter.  So the Omniscient One banished Cain from his native land and Cain was commanded not to till the ground anymore.  Apparently Cain was expected to starve himself to death.  Or perhaps that was the Omniscient One’s plan for Cain’s evolutionary success, for Cain became wonderfully successful as a builder of cities after that..  Still we can’e help but wonder–is infinite punishment for “sins” committed by a finite being’s brief life really the caliber of a Creator’s justice?

The same loose concepts of holy moral/ethical conduct is continued throughout holy word.  Aggression is highly praised in divine tales, and war crimes pass as acceptable practice–if carried out for the security of a man-invented faith system.  For example, under Moses’ generalship the Israelites are glorified for having killed off all the Midianite men, their kings and the prophet Balaam.  Joshua is portrayed as reveling in holocaustic violence in which even thousands of noncombatant women, children, and the aged were slaughtered.  Deceitful David exterminated men, women and children in various stories, even sawing victims in half or hacking them to pieces.

In a number of holy stories characters are admired for homicide.  The alleged “prophet” Elijah, for example, is glorified for killing 450 priests of Baal to “justify” Jehovah and is held as exemplary.  And there is Elisha, Elijah’s successor, who called upon God to send two bears to kill children who had dared to mock his bald head.  And there is Esther who is praised for plotting the mass murders of Persians.  And there is Jezebel who trumped up false charges against a father and his two sons so they would be slain.

Sexual misconduct, as long as it is strictly heterosexual, is routinely sniffed over. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, and his two daughters merit no chastising for acts of incest.  The maltreatment of Sarah whom Abraham loaned out to the king for material benefits is brushed over. Isaac, their son, followed dad’s example and passed his wife off to the king as his sister for favors.  Good old David, indulged in adultery and had the husband set up for assassination.  Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, too young to give legal consent, was defiled by her half-brother, prince Shechem.  How do these tales and many other similar holy tales teach anyone how they are to achieve a personal state of grace?

Strangely, impurity is a constant counterpoint played upon in holy tales, but the “impurity” is always about following some man-invented routine of pretentiousness and mannerisms as being the only method that God approves.  The impurity angle is more of a concern in Judaism and Islam, but subliminally it lingers in Christianity also.  This springs primarily from the claim that just being born–expelled from a woman’s body–renders each person impure.  It’s that old “original sin” scam.  It is never explained why, if the Creator is omniscient (all knowing), “he” could not have devised a more practical manner for multiplying new life.  Nonetheless, that little oversight allows for his self-appointed representatives to have steady employment in their self-devised theatrics.  For example, to make up for original impurity some sects insist that one’s hair must be trimmed in a strict prescribed manner, or certain foods must be avoided or prepared in a ritual way, and of course certain theatrics (man-contrived rites, rituals, ceremonies, etc.) must be performed.

Such is the enticement and lure of man-written holy books.  The emphasis is commonly placed upon following some man-devised routine as though it was magically set down in stone and perhaps delivered on some mountain top.  That, however, is not the all-inclusive nature of true spirit.  Rigidity and inflexibility happen to be the conditions of something that is dead.

 

 

Holy Machismo!

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, faith, random, religion, scriptures, sex, theology on May 1, 2016 by chouck017894

The three major religions (and their many faith system schisms) of western cultures were all structured by male authors upon a not too subtle animosity toward the active bearing principle (regarded as passive/feminine) which functions within Creation’s source.  This juvenile attitude is inexcusable since that energy-production principle is critically essential for continuing expansion.  It is also rather cowardly rhetoric for male “shepherds of the faith” to apply the “put the blame on woman” argument in an attempt to absolve themselves from all the error and sin in the world.  Such rationale and finger pointing fails to camouflage the fact that it is the man-is-superior propaganda of man-written sacred texts which has accounted for the bulk of mankind’s wars and atrocities.  Certainly feminine curiosity or womanly wiles or motherly patience have not inflicted such continuing despair and grief upon the world scene as has the fraudulent male-is-superior depictions of holiness.

The holy books of the three major western faith systems–the Torah, New Testament and Quran–inelegantly place the alleged curse of “man’s fall” and “original sin” upon the slender shoulders of the feminine sex with the astonishing alibi of a  talking serpent!  Well, imbibing too much holy wine can certainly inspire guys to invent excuses.  Despite the necessary bearing-forth principle within Creation’s source being characteristically defined as negative by the male authors, that bearing forth aspect was deemed to be feminine and was an affront to priestly pretense of their positive spirituality.  Nonetheless, that womanly strength still manages to somehow keep life’s foundation functioning with some semblance of stability.

The three faith systems of western cultures, all of which are rigorously “run-by-the-book,” grudgingly allow women only partial redemption for their alleged lesser position: women are intended, so say the man-written “revealed” holy word, only to marry and bear their boastful providers with offspring (preferably male).  In this way these three interrelated man-superior faith systems assign the responsibilities and chores of domestic life and child rearing as almost compensating for the feminine genders’ (Eve’s) responsibility of man’s alleged “fall from grace.”

In the priest composed Torah account of Creation, Genesis 2 gives a slightly different account than is in Genesis 1.  In the second version (as in Genesis 2:21-22) the Creator’s concern for Adam’s loneliness seems to have necessitated the surgical removal of some part of Adam’s anatomy to initiate a means of human reproduction.  Apparently by that phase of the Creator’s craftsmanship the Creator had run out of creative “let there be” words to recite.  What this hackneyed version of human life production reveals, unintentionally so, is that it is polar (positive/negative energies) exchanges which account for the manifestation of any and all matter-life and inanimate matter.  The generative systems that the alleged male Creator supposedly set in place for the continuance (propagation) of any life species was a built-in feature which specifies only that every manifested material thing automatically carries both those generating polar opposites within themselves.  There are no exceptions to this “go forth and multiply” law of Creation.

That the male authors of “holy texts” were obsessed with their own genitals is clearly evident with the character of Aaron (whose name just happens to mean “to conceive”) in the book of Exodus (chapter 28).  The fascination with their physical generative equipment ranked by the priest authors as their prime paraphernalia, is spelled out in that particular chapter of Exodus.  There the instructions for the curious “sacred garments” which are to be worn for generating their faith system are suggestive, to say the least.  To assess the true meaning of all the peculiarities in holy tales remember that euphemisms are employed repeatedly throughout all scriptural texts.  In Exodus, for example, the “holy” garments that are to be worn by the high priest included such paraphernalia as the ephod, two onyx stones, a pouch of gold, and a breastplate.  There is a side note to be considered here, and that is that the word “sacred” is itself derived from the Hebrew word sacre, which refers to the phallus.  In the “garment” metaphor used in Exodus as to what God’s representatives are to wear, the feminine aspect is something which is entered into or put on, as “golden rings.”  We will leave to your analysis any metaphoric explanation as to what “holy oil” alluded to in this “holy” account.

What the formulated sacred language style reveals to us is that the sacred texts such as in Exodus utilize a lot of adolescent sexual role playing to explain gentic purity–i.e. reproduction after its own species.  If life was originally a condition of hermaphroditism–i.e. two polar aspects in one energy form (Adam) as the opening of “holy word” claims–then each division of that singular form had to keep some characteristics from each energy pole (positive/negative) within each separate parts if creative purpose was to be actively maintained within those parts.  This means, as a consequence, that no man is ever one hundred percent male, and no woman is ever one hundred percent female.  For example, men still retain nipples, and women possess a clitoris, which is erectile tissue.  That’s just the outer odds and ends of physical personification; there are even more energy-exchange features within every physical form.  Indeed, hormone treatments can alter one’s physical structure.

Because sacred texts do not deal honestly with sexual polarity the practice became established for passing judgments over various kinds of sexual magnetism, and these are grossly and needlessly exhibited in social problems to this day.  The genderless Life Principle (commonly personified as a male God), as demonstrated in Nature itself, cares nothing about sexual chastity: its only concern is genetic purity, meaning that the only limitation that the Life Principle (God) placed upon sexual relationships was only in regard to species consistency.  In other words, each species must create only after its own kind.  Sacred texts refuse to honestly admit that there are allowable variations of sexual polarity and exchange.  The scheming male authors preferred instead to labor over the reproduction aspects of sexual activity–to insure the steady increase of followers.  Willfully ignored and adamantly denied are the equally inherent and important revitalizing and emotional characteristics of sexual expression.  This pretty much assures that the genuine abiding principle of magnetism known as love will be kept focused in the reproduction perspective to insure a continuous supply of seekers.

The Life Principle (called God) gave considerable attention to producing many diverse forms of life expression, and in the priest composed scriptural tales this variety and diversity of Creation activity and diversity of Creation activity is personified as the numerous Levites, the successors of Aaron.  It is, therefore, ironic and a tad hypocritical to make use of such scriptural characters and the alleged situation in which they are presented as a means of launching condemnation of any non-productive sexual activity.  Such characters as Aaron and the Levites, etc. are sacred language metaphors for the revitalizing  (generative) energies of Creation.  If doubtful, just remember the exotic details of the garments that the high priest (Aaron) was supposedly instructed to wear when ministering “in the holy place” (Exodus 28:6).  Listed are the ephod, two onyx stones, a pouch of gold, breastplate, golden rings, and holy oil, all of which refer to the physical means of life creation and revitalization.  Some apologists have suggested that the word “ephod” was derived from the Akkadian word epattu (plural epadatu), which referred to some type of expensive garment.  In the third century BCE modification of holy word, the Septuagint, an attempt was made to whitewash the original sexual inference by altering ephod to suggest a shoulder strap of a tunic; in this way the ephod could be linked with the breastplate of judgment (which happen to act as a pouch containing the Urim and Thummin), Exodus 28:30.  Thus did holy world evolve through a series of deviations and disguises.  Beneath the whitewash of sacred language, however, the titillating flavor remains.  So, the next time you see some pompous Bishop strutting around in his elaborate costumes and balancing that phallic-imaged miter upon his head, try not to snicker.

*related post: Sex in Sacred Disguise, March 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“St” Paul’s Curious Book of Romans

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, history, random, religion, secularism, theology on April 18, 2016 by chouck017894

“Saint” Paul is credited with formulating the language and systematizing of doctrines of Christian theology.  His epistles are claimed to have been written to congregations of the outlying churches he is said to have founded, and these communications dealt with theology, church procedures and discipline.  The uncertain time of his birth, given as “about 3 BCE”, and the alleged time of his death in the coliseum in Rome in 68 CE do not seem to fit snugly within that particular timeframe of all writings attributed to him–especially the book of Romans.

The New Testament book of Romans has an aura of a slightly later period–most likely c. 98-100 CE. But Paul, remember, is said to have died in 68 CE.  The Jesus cult that existed in that later 98-100 timeframe was then being vigorously directed toward regimented practice, and was being cunningly implemented among the poor, slaves, soldiers and misfits.  In the later historic events Marcus Ulpius Trajanus (Trajan) became emperor in 98, and the Jews in Palestine were once again rebelling against the Empire.  The content of the book of Romans does not fit in comfortably with known historic events of c. 60+ CE, but Paul from Corinth is nonetheless credited with the work which was put in place as the sixth text in theoretical chronological order of the Epistles.  The book of Romans is the longest of the “letters” supposedly written by Paul, and is the only one in which no companion or co-author is mentioned.  From this particular text Paul is credited with having formulated the language, doctrinal system and theology which then became the game plan for the Jesus cult after 100 CE.

The promotional line regarding this Christian organizer, doctrinaire and missionary is that Paul, a Jew from Tarsus, was on his way to Damascus in Syria to track down Jews who had abandoned Judaism and turned to the Jesus cult.  On his journey he is depicted as having experienced a remarkable phenomenon–a blinding light vision of the crucified Jesus.  The incident so traumatized him that he became a passionate servant.  This encounter, which had no verifying witnesses, has an eerie similarity to Moses getting God’s message from a burning bush.

The book of Romans is described as being in seven parts, exclusive of the introduction.  The tenor of the first parts is the crafty establishment of intimidation with the theme put forth that the whole world (meaning the Roman world) stands guilty before the Creator God.  Everything which then follows is like a concentrated sales pitch for the faith system that was being completely restructured in that 100 CE timeframe and which spells out the terms for the offer which amounts to little more than a contract for salvation insuranceT

The book of Romans, like the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, seems jarringly out of place with the general flow of the story line.  Indeed, many who read the NT find themselves wondering about contradiction in Romans in regard to what Jesus is depicted as teaching in the earlier Gospel texts (Mark and Matthew).  Whether this epistle was written in c. 60 or 100 CE, the writer claims that he had never visited the Christian community in Rome although he had long desired to do so.  From chapter one, verse 18 onward, Paul deliberately stirs up fear and, quite unlike the peaceful Jesus of earliest books who he allegedly honored, Paul launches into comments on the “wrath of God”!   The pattern is thereby set in place for passing judgement upon God’s intended diversity of life and Paul then fondles his ego with self-righteousness.  Even stranger, the assertions made in Romans actually contradict much of what is included in other letters attributed to him, such as in Corinthians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Colossians and Ephesians.  Chapter nine, for example, denies free will.  Chapter ten distorts the claim of salvation.  Chapter thirteen actually justifies rulers, even the wicked ones, as being divinely infallible, and as serving as “ministers of God.”   There is an un-Gospel flavor to the book of Romans which carries an audacious power-based inflection that is more in character with Roman Empire ideology.

Remembering the Jewish insurgency during the 98-100 CE timeframe, there is sly warning behind the author’s alleged holy assertions in chapter thirteen of Romans, as mentioned.  Here is what is said:  “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be ordained by God.  2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves  damnation.  3)  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.  Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  4)  For he (implying any ruler, king, etc.) is the minister of God to thee for good.  But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not a sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Keep in mind the Jewish problem to Rome in 98-100 timeframe when reading the rest of this Pauline propaganda.  5) “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  6) For this cause pay ye tribute also; for they (the rulers) are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to who tribute is due; custom to who custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

At this point in this empirical-political spiel, anxiety is then craftily directed to the Ten Commandments as though those directives accented the claims just made for honoring the political top dog.  By these verses, which proclaim that “all rulers are ordained by God,” the hellish action of such “rulers” as Attila, Hitler, Anytolya Kamanni, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. can be excused as “ministers of God.”

Strangely, as noted here, the book of Romans presents strong contradictions to the earlier teachings that Jesus was portrayed as teaching, and the book of Romans account is not exactly in “perfect flow and harmony” with other Gospels as it is accepted by naive believers.  For example, condemnation and practiced hatreds was not a message in the earliest Mark-Matthew books of the Christian movement.

Christians of today should give pause to remember that it is an absolute certainty that “St” Paul could never have read what we know as the canonical Gospels.  However, if Paul was indeed a real person, Saul/Paul of Tarsus would likely have been familiar with the Gnostic texts from which the general ideas conveyed in the Gospels originated.  Pagan and Gnostic influences color the whole of Paul’s literary works.  And the “letters” credited to Paul are more properly defined as preachments of the newly manufactured doctrine than defined as actual correspondence.

As with the attraction of the ancient mystery schools which flourished in the earlier and general timeframe of Paul, Paul did not preach of a physical Jesus as being Christ: rather the point of the Pauline approach was in regard to the attainment of Christhood, meaning the deified consciousness which must evolve within each individual.  As Christianity is widely accepted and practiced today, however, such personal attainment is made nearly impossible to achieve.  The inference which lingers in what has become traditional Christian practice is that one’s consciousness can achieve deified status only through delegated representatives (priests, preachers, pastors, ministers, etc).  Rightfully, the purpose of any faith system should be to guide seekers in developing principled qualities throughout each person’s life.  However, that noble goal is not achievable when faith systems are persistently used as discriminatory indulgences for material power plays.  Finding “sin” in everyone else but finding little in yourself makes for easy fertilizer to use in a hierarchical faith system, but it only nourishes such things as ignorance, poverty, egocentric disdain for life diversities, unremitting warfare, etc. etc.  Such is not the avowed “narrow path” into higher consciousness.

 

 

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers