Archive for the Abraham Category

Ambush of Spirit

Posted in Abraham, belief, Bible, Creation's democratic flexibility, ethics and morality, faith, random, religion, religious hatreds, sacred texts on April 1, 2017 by chouck017894

All scriptural “revealed” texts of man’s contrivance have a considerable amount of hatred ingrained throughout their scores of pages.  Early on even God is portrayed as bubbling with a degree of hatred at Adam and Eve for having been lured by the tempting trees which God had deliberately placed as the focus of his garden.  God chose to interpret the epitome of his creative handiwork as being disrespectful.  so he drove them away from the only home they had ever known after heaping a heavy load of guilt upon them.  The catch 22 to this original sin plot line is thus cunningly established early-on, which allowed the priest class a cautionary choke-hold on all subsequent generations of seekers.

All man-concocted faith systems have the tendency to pay tribute to themselves by routinely focusing on the differences and the dissimilar features and characteristics which give life its radiant and diverse range of Creation’s representation.  The creative, energetic, sustaining force in which life is expressed is too often imagined in “sacred” accounts to be mainly concerned with the dilemmas of only one narrow selection of human species in one small region on planet Earth, and which just happens to represent their particular man-invented faith system.  Such a narrow understanding of life’s intended diversity and spirit’s significance in relation to the rest of the universe has resulted in much carefully cultivated hatreds setting the stage for persistent and needless conflicts.

Reason and knowledge are seriously repressed when ego-serving faith systems labor to impose preconceptions of any kind to hover over people’s interactions with others.  In man-structured faith systems, for example, seekers are indoctrinated and continuously conditioned with claims that it is only through their particular dreamed up rites and rituals that seekers may ever attain the favoritism of that Source-power  which is personified as a human-like “God.”  But the universe and Nature do not happen to reflect that severely restrictive faith system’s disposition, for the Life Principle active within that Source-power continually formulates and makes manifest a broad diversity and variety of life.

Promoting the idea of godly hatred toward any manifested life expression by that creative Source is the greatest act of blasphemy that can be indulged in by any organized faith system.  An organized, highly structured hierarchical faith system inflicts orderliness, methodology, regulations, systematic posturing, inflexible rules, and narrow interpretations, most of which pretty much fly in the face of universal tolerance for variety and diversity within life experience.   But all these man-contrived faith systems take advantage of the fact that even their life-limiting posturing is tolerated in the democratic flexibility of Creation.

When the all-embracing creative Life Principle is imagined to be in man’s image, there is left scant room for any believer to ever attain their intended higher potential.  Since all man-concocted faith systems have long histories of indulging in each and every one of the alleged god-hated indulgences, the followers should remember that a spiritually wise man questions every extreme of passion.  After all, the creative Life Principle installed a brain in humankind with the expectation that humankind would learn and practice rationality for establishing his own relationship with that creative power.  It is alarming therefore that our personal connection to the Life Principle is so often negatively approached in the many man written “holy” books.  For example, as is in (OT) Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezra, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes hatred is barely disguised.  And hatred is expressed in (NT) Matthew, Luke, Ephesians, Romans, Titus, 1 John, Hebrews and Revelations.  And in the Quran there are well over one hundred verses of outright murderous hatred is encouraged.

Godly hatreds are cataloged as in Proverbs 6:16; “…six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination to him.”  The things that are subsequently listed by the priest-author certainly cannot be assessed as moral or ethical conduct, and so the list of God’s imagined hatreds are actually extreme negative social interaction practices.  Thus it is asserted by the authors that the Creator turns livid over: 1) a proud look; 2) a lying tongue; 3) hands that shed innocent blood; 4) a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations; 5) a false witness that speaketh lies; and 7) he that soweth discord among brethren.”  (*It was from this list that Pope Gregory 1, “the great”: [590-604] elaborated upon the “seven deadly sins,” which a lower priest had commented upon years before Gregory but who received no credit.)    All this carries a so-what attitude in Ecclesiastes 3 where divine insight is pretended by musing that everything has its appointed time, and thus lists “a time time to kill (3), and a time to hate “(8).

In the New Testament, Luke 14:26, even Jesus supposedly encourages hatred saying, “If anyone come to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple.”  That is rather disturbing validation that what was recorded in those avowed “revealed” tales is not divine disclosure which was relayed as coming from an omniscient being to a few privileged priest-scribes.  The words that were put into Jesus’ mouth by those power obsessed interpreters who had not witnessed the alleged incident is, however, the very principle which is routinely utilized in every cult style exploitation to keep seekers in   subjugation.

And in the Quran there are, as noted, well over 100 verses which irresponsiblly summon Muslims to indulge in violent hatred and outright murder of any diverse way of honoring the Life Principle.  Mohammad’s frequent “message” is the contention that everyone is an enemy of his spiritual tribe.  For example, in the Quran 8:65 it is averred, “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight.”  No Muslim dares ask why, if Allah knows all, sees all and created all, he should have to relay his maintenance directives through a caravan merchant when he, Allah, could directly instill in every brain whatever he desired.  The overused excuse is that Allah uses a prophet or messenger as a means to test seekers.  This is the same empty “test” that God allegedly imposed upon Abraham by God’s alleged instruction to Abraham to sacrifice his own son Isaac as a test of devotion.  But an omniscient god (all knowing) would have absolutely no reason to “test” anyone.

For the most part the three dominant faith systems of western cultures fail to understand that genuine enlightenment value is attained only from the tolerance for diversity and variety which the Creator intentionally instilled in all life’s expressions. That failing rests within all man-concocted faith systems which function under the corrupt premise of submit and obey all the faith system’s manipulative, self-serving stipulations.  Their self-serving regulations are little more than disguised threats of brute force (by the Creator of diversity), not by true spiritual enlightenment, and it is brute force that is promoted and encouraged above the principles of harmony.

To the credit of humankind, however, that which is assessed as “spirit” within man is nonetheless sluggishly evolving among the broader masses.  The allegations that the Life Principle, personified as a human-like God or Allah, would hold hatred toward any of the diverse and varied manifestations of life which “he” intentionally created are slowly evaporating under the pursuit of true enlightenment.  Unfortunately it is Bronze Age tribal-style hatreds and cultured distrust of the Creator’s intended diversity which still flavor so much of all man-written “holy” texts and continue to negatively pollute “spirit” like malignant cancer cells.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Examples of Scriptural Immorality

Posted in Abraham, Agnostic, Atheist, belief, biblical "values", ethics and morality, religion, scriptures, theology on December 1, 2016 by chouck017894

For some two to three thousand years the Holy Scriptures have been promoted through western cultures 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 stagger away in bewilderment after reading a few 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 paradisiacal setting–a setting which featured two breathtakingly beautiful fruit bearing trees as its focal point.  Ah, but these trees were declared to be off-limits as a food source for the  Creator’s not-too-bright last creations.  This is clearly a case of crafty entrapment, not omniscient wisdom.  But God was supposedly outraged when the innocent pair find the trees too alluring, and God declared that death is to be their punishment–just not for Adam and Eve, but for all matter-life forms!  The first two humans within the walled-in Eden had absolutely no experience as to what self-aware life meant, so how could they have possibly comprehended what the sentence of death meant?

Ethics and compassion (qualities of conscience) soon got another below-the-belt attack in the “revealed” record of Adam and Eve’s sons Cain and Abel.  Cain had become a farmer and Abel was a sheepherder.  For the bounty that God had supposedly allowed them God expected both boys to gather from their hard work and bring him offerings in gratitude.  That seems a tad materialistic for the Creator of all things, but what the heck.  Abel slit a sheep’s throat and God found that to be extremely pleasing, but Cain’s gift, taken from the laboriously tended fields, was scorned by the Creator.  Cain, of course, smarted at this bald-faced discrimination and in a jealous rage killed his brother.  There were no actual criminal laws established in Paradise, nor had there been need for such in a family of four.  So the homicide of Abel cannot be termed murder or even  manslaughter.  As punishment the testy 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 evolutionary success, for Cain became wonderfully successful as a builder of cities after that.How he populated them is never explained.  Still we can’t help but wonder–is infinite punishment for “sins” committed by a finite being’s brief life really the caliber of an Omniscient Creator’s justice?

The same slack concept of holy moral/ethical conduct is continued throughout holy word accounts.  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 their prophet Balaam.  Joshua, in turn, reveled in holocaustic violence in which even thousands of noncombatant women, children and 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 indulging in homicide.   The alleged “prophet” Elijah, for example, who allegedly killed 450 priest of Baal to “justify” Jehovah is held to be 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 the woman Esther who is praised for scheming 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.  Lot and his two daughters, for example, merit no chastising for acts of incest.  The maltreatment of Sarah whom her husband Abraham loaned out to the king for material benefits is brushed over.  Isaac, their son, followed dad’s example and passed his off wife to the king as his sister.  Good old David indulged himself in adultery and had the women’s husband set up for assassination at the war front.  Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, too young to give legal consent, was defiled by her half-brother, Prince Shechem.  How do these, and many similar holy examples teach seekers how they are to achieve a personal state of grace?

Strangely, impurity of spirit is a constant counterpoint played upon in holy tales, but the “impurity” is always about not following some man-invented routine of pretentiousness and mannerisms as being the only method to approach the  Omniscient One.  The impurity angle of one’s commitment to a man-made faith system is made the major concern in the three western corporate style faith systems.  This springs primarily from the claim that just being born–expelled from a woman’s body–renders a person impure.  It is never explained why, if the Creator is omniscient (all-knowing) and supremely merciful, “he” could not have devised a more practical way and less painful manner for multiplying new life.  Nonetheless, that little oversight broadly allows for his self-appointed representatives to have steady employment in their self-devised theatrics.  For example, to make up for their original impurity a man-made faith system may insist that  one’s hair must be trimmed in a strict prescribed manner; or other faith systems demand  certain foods must be avoided or prepared in a ritual way; and of course in all systems  certain theatrics (rites, rituals ceremonies, etc) must be performed by those who aver to be God’s selected representatives.

Such is the enticement and lure of man-written “holy” books.  The emphasis is commonly based upon following some man-devised routine as though it was magically set down in stone and perchance delivered on some mountain top.  That, however, does not reflect the varied and all-inclusive nature of true spirit.  Rigidity and inflexibility just happens to be the condition of something that is dead.

 

 

 

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.