Archive for the Bible Category

Scriptural Hints on Sin Dodging

Posted in belief, Bible, By-the-book belief systems, ethics and morality, faith, religion, scapegoats, scriptures, sin-dodging on July 1, 2017 by chouck017894

Sin, the alleged estrangement from God due to transgressing God’s “known will,” is the age-old whip of faith system chieftains.  The notion that some god could be directly or inadvertently offended and thus bring about disastrous consequences seemed plausible in the hostile conditions of primal forests or in the depths of gloomy caves.  That trait, born of fear of the unknown, is apparently cast into the DNA of animate life as a self-preserving attribute.  That natural preservation trait, unfortunately, can be mined like a vein of gold for crafty schemers.

By chapter three in the holy book of Genesis, after the the compressed account of Creation is dispensed with, the plot jumps rapidly into the introduction of sin with Eve nibbling fruit from the do-not-touch Tree of Knowledge.  For this alleged sinful incident not only was Eve, Adam and the serpent given a death sentence, but all life forms were condemned to experience God’s continuous indulgence vengeance.  Sin was then established as a vicious circle in Genesis 4:7 with God allegedly saying to Adam and Eve’s son Cain, “If thous doest well, shalt not thou be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.”  Cain, not understanding the concept of sin–perhaps because mom, Eve, had already tainted all life with “original sin” anyway–by the very next verse (8) Cain kills his brother Abel.  Now that is divine speed writing!  But God’s earlier condemning judgement upon what he considered to be sin was impulsively made amendable by God setting a protective mark upon Cain’s head.  Thus did “sin” become incorporated into “faith” and become the meal ticket for the CEOs in the business of belief.

The great pivotal moment in  “sin history,” according to 8th century BCE priest-interpreted accounts, hinges upon the Lord’s alleged call for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering to receive special blessings.  In Jewish recognition of this momentous event of Abraham’s unquestioning obedience is celebrated with Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.  Abraham’s devotion is held as representative of their faith system’s especial characteristics even through Judaism as such did not exist in that distant timeframe.  Never fully explained is why the son Isaac was to be sacrificed: to stimulate Abraham’s greed?   It is never clearly said why God would have asked for such a senseless act.  Some devotees have suggested that it was simply a test.  But if God is omniscient (all-knowing) what could God be uncertain about?  As this story is depicted by priest authors, neither God nor Abraham inspire any spiritual admiration. And why would Isaac be such a spineless wimp?  For some devotees Isaac is held to be the first Jewish martyr (again ignore the fact that Judaism as such did not exist in that timeframe).  Functionally there can be only one purpose for this tale: since God, the personification of the Life Principle, would never condone such child abuse the story’s purpose in the priest-written texts is aimed to encourage submission and obedience of seekers to the priest-manufactured faith.

In the later priest-written book of Leviticus (18:6-7), the priestly lust for control is highlighted in the supposed shifting of sin guilt–with God’s okay–by transmitting personal guilt to some hapless victim.  The alleged God-approved instructions read, “And he (a priest) shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting.  And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one for the Lord, and the other for Azazel.”  We should note that the word “tent” in prehistory cultures was an occult reference to primordial energies of Creation which are to passed over into  manifestation as matter forms.  To retain their authority over the seekers the priests indulged themselves in the slaughter of one goat on the Temple altar, and sent the other ill fated goat into the wilds to be torn apart by predators.  Or, depending on site location, the other goat was hurled by priests from a cliff to be cruelly dashed upon the jagged rocks below.  The alleged reason for hurling the goat from a cliff?  Supposedly Azazel was imprisoned beneath the cliff.

Nowhere is it ever explained in Hebrew or Jewish texts why the “Lord”–a self-admitted jealous god–would ever sanction such a custom of equal offerings, for by presenting identical offerings it is openly admitted that Azazel was indeed considered the equal to God.  Consider also that the name Azazel is said to mean “God strengthens,” so the implication seems to be that one aspect of the creative Source, active as the Life Principle, cannot be Creative without the other (positive/negative generation).  What this tale inadvertently reveals is that the Source-power cannot create and bring anything into existence except through a process of positive/negative exchange and interaction.

Even in this twenty-first century of space flights and instantaneous communications around the planet there are still Orthodox Jews who practice the bloody ritual of slaughtering hapless animal life (such as chickens) in an appeal to God for personal forgiveness.  In Los Angeles, California, for example, there are Orthodox Jews who seek to sidestep ethical responsibility and save themselves from sin through victimizing defenseless animal life.

The Roman Empire “fathers” and “saints” of Christianity (such as Paul, Jerome, Augustine, etc.) enthusiastically took up the sin ensnarement tactic.  As reworked by the “fathers” this aided the submit-and-obey features of the faith by relating how Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of the world (the Roman world).  On that alleged occasion (as with Abraham) God did not provide any reasonable explanation for substituting Jesus for the sake of the world’s indulgence in sin.  But in accepted texts, God so loved the world that he would allow it to sidestep immoral conduct by permitting his “only begotten son” to be sacrificed.  It seems a rather bizarre game move if God hoped it would teach that everyone must stand responsible for their own acts if they are to evolve.

Why should this implied God-approved torture and slaying of his own beloved son inspire the world with any spiritual love or trust?  Such a concept hinges upon a pre-Christian concept among societies of the Near and Mid East in which no rite was seen to hold more august power with the people than the sacrifice of the king or the king’s son for redemption of the king’s people.  That superstition was impressed upon Roman Empire culture around 60 BCE when the Roman general Pompey (106-48 BCE) captured Jerusalem, which was then weakened due to a power struggle between two sons of King Aristobulus.  Pompey installed one of the king’s sons–Hyreau–as high priest and took the other son, Antigonus (along with his sons), to Rome as displays of triumph.  Eventually, however, it was Antigonus who became priest-king, and in his short reign before being taken by Marc Antony in 37 BCE he had slain his own two sons–presumably as sacrifice for the welfare of his people.  The whole mystery ritual of redemption through such sacrifice then seemed to the Jews to have been played out again when Antigonus himself was publicly scourged, then bound to the stake, and then beheaded.  The Jews accepted that his extermination was to redeem his people.  It was this spiritual influence that colored the writings of Christianity’s early authors.

So the notion of using a scapegoat for dodging sin, as first promoted in the priest-written book of Leviticus, is subtly upheld throughout holy texts.  Unfortunately, the only thing that is set up for the faithful in using a substitute for personal guilty is that they will always seek out ways to sidestep personal responsibility for themselves.  However, passing the blame to another invokes only the illusion that such “sacrifice” frees one to fly to Heaven on a comfortable mattress of lies.  Makes one wonder if such a Heaven can be trusted.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Rise of Holy Agitators (in USA)

Posted in belief, Bible, corporate style faiths, faith, Fundamentalism, Government on March 2, 2017 by chouck017894

In the early 1950’s, television was a new craze.  Quick to note the craze some enterprising guys, still clutching their freshly printed Bible-mill studies diplomas, sought to serve the Lord by preaching their revealed wisdom using that promising medium.  The Lord seems to have been well pleased.  Later, for example, by May of 1985 the evangelical marketer Pat Robertson was even featured in a cable magazine called On Cable.  Filled with boundless self-righteousness and spiritual vanity Robertson declared that he sought to remake America into a “biblical based nation.”  His fiery right-wing politics was characterized by him as “conservative, religious, and a biblical point of view.”  He didn’t  mention the authors of those biblical views had written their point of view in the Bronze Age.  Blissfully unconcerned,  Robertson latched onto that view and it was so slickly packaged that by 1985 his organization efforts was siphoning in more than $70 million a year from bedazzled followers.

The long-standing Constitutional ideals and values the nation’s founders placed upon diversity, variety and plurality for the American people were regarded by Robertson as being “extreme dangers” to a secular state.  Respecting the rights of minorities was being threatened in his lofty opinion of how a “biblical based nation” was to be run.  Robertson pontificated that children in  public schools were being taught “a collective philosophy that would lead citizens away from God toward Marxism, socialism or a communistic type of ideology.”   Oh he was good at scaring the be-Jesus out of the gullible.  In his humble opinion, therefore, he found it logical to denounce the Department of Education as being “unconstitutional”!

Not shy about telling the nation what God wanted for it, Robertson asserted that the United States Supreme Court had departed from history and the Constitution.  He reasoned and worried publicly about the “encroachment” of the judiciary.  They just didn’t seem favorable to his idea of a theocracy.  Thus Robertson charted course to “engage” in what he termed “advocacy journalism,” and his Christian Broadcast Network news teams began spewing out reams of propagandist mini-documentaries with heavy “conservative” (read theocratic) messages.  Later, he must have been delighted when the Supreme Court became composed with five of the nine Justices being Republican and staunch Roman Catholics. And it was a later Republican dominated Supreme Court that would step in and tell the nation that our redeeming leader was to be the Born Again George W. Bush.  Hallelujah!

Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network news teams were headed by a man who was once editor of The Washington Times, which just happened at that time to be owned by the “Reverend” Sun Myung.  This strange bedfellow happened to be loaded down with questionable North Korean connections.  Not to fear, for the “born again” population, Robertson averred, was seriously under-represented in our national government.  Posing as a caring messenger, he declared, “The basic thing people do not understand is that evangelicals in America are not plotting to take away the rights of everyone else.”  (Trying to eliminate the Department of Education would therefore simply be a money saving move.)

Robertson worked hard at presenting himself as the modern age version of a biblical prophet.  For sure the biblical prophets had dared to mix it up with politics–which just happened to always be in regard to a very select bunch of people.  True to form, Robertson declared, “God is going to thrust his people (the fundamentalists) into positions they never dreamed they were capable of taking on.”  (George W. Bush & Company certainly did seem to fill that prediction.)  If the heavy tilt of religiously obsessed persons in governmental positions today is any indication, and if their corruption of true democratic principles is an example of a “biblical based nation,” can we truthfully say that their sly take over of the
Republican Party in 1996 was “fairly benign”?

Well, today, several decades later, Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network and Regent University pulls in over $400 million a year peddling the same old far-right political propaganda and implications of heaven’s special favoritism.  But his empire is today upstaged by an old rival from the same earlier era which is now marketed as the Jerry Falwell Ministries/Liberty Counsel/Liberty University.  That deceptive use of the word “liberty” in their promotional marketing disguises the fact that the aim of their “liberty” is to sabotage the U.S. Constitutional safeguard of church-state separation–the nation’s father’s guarantee of religious freedom (liberty) for everyone.  Peddling this anti-democratic baloney the family Falwell empire today rakes in over $600 million a year.

Amazingly there are other claimers of God’s especial favoritism who wage war on every person’s freedom  to worship only as they choose.–all of which rake in multi-millions a year for being staunchly un-American and pro-theocratic.  Take the so-called Focus on the Family that has the gall to endorse Right Wing political candidates; it is lucrative and nets the Dobson family over $92 million a year.  And there’s their Family research Council (an off-shoot of Focus on the Family) that holds an annual “Value Voter Summit” which draws in over $14 million against anti-Constitutional protections.

Still another self-declared biblical representative is the American Family Association that is against about everything that grants American’s civil freedoms. The Reverend Donald Wildman who heads this “Association” boldly proclaims that separation of church and state was invented by Hitler!  Duh!  For that type of heavenly enlightenment his anti-Constitutional bias nets over $17 a year.

Other grandiose named outfits include American Center for law and Justice/Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism.  That imposing mouthful defined the purpose, which is to force–force–fundamentalist beliefs into all public schools.  Allied with the Pat Robertson empire in spirit and money-love, it pulls in over $57 million a year.  Justice is again implied with the so-called Alliance Defending Freedom, but the only Council for National Policy aimed for by them is to allow them to ax the federal law which guards tax-exempt churches from actively intervening in partisan elections.  God, it seems, favors that antidemocratic stance to the tune of over $47 million a year.

Ahh, but there are even more would-be religious oppressors out there.  It’s all strictly spiritual guidance, of  course.  Take the bewildering Concerned Women for America (affiliated with the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee) which indulges in heavy prejudices against the Creator’s intentional wide-ranged diversities and variety of life.  This anti-feminist lobby was founded by Beverly and Tim LaHaye, who (in 2015) raked in over $14 million for their discriminatory activities.  Not content with that, Tim LaHaye also headed up the Council for National Policy which presumed to evaluate prospective GOP presidential candidates.  This membership-only outfit drew only a little more than $2 million.

Still another agitator operation is Ralph Reed’s Foundation and Freedom Coalition whose primary purpose for existence is to attract more fundamentalists to vote.  Their holy reward–over $3 million per year.

Oddly, these material obsessed, self-appointed faith merchants seem to have little appreciation  for what Jesus is alleged to have preached about such conduct.  For example, in Matthew 6:5 (King James version–among the many other translations): “And when you pray do not be like the hypocrites for they pray standing–so that they may be seen of men. They (in that manner) have their reward.”  And in Matthew 7:1-3 “Judge not, that ye be judged.  For with what judgment ye judged and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.”

Perhaps those faith merchants of fundamentalism should get their greedy noses out of their elaborately constructed feeding troughs and actually follow the teaching they claim to epitomize.

Making Holy Myths

Posted in belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, Mother Nature, Pagan gods, religion, sacred texts, scriptures on February 27, 2017 by chouck017894

Of all the Creation myths of ancient peoples, the opening of the book of Genesis stands in a class by itself.  Unlike all cultures Before (our) Common Era the priests of Yahweh in the 9th/8th century BCE Jerusalem  were busily indulging themselves in setting up the self-serving premise of divine discrimination.   The Creator they presented in Genesis who walked in his garden and talked to himself is thus depicted as either not omniscient (all-knowing) or as an unfeeling schemer.  For example, where is the wisdom of placing two tempting fruit trees as the focal point of this garden landscape and then forbidding two uncomprehending newly created creatures the freedom to eat of them?  It is weak story-plotting.  But it didn’t much matter to the priest authors, for the underlying purpose of the story was to channel the Hebrew people away from belief in numerous gods and goddesses to gradually (and with much difficulty) indoctrinate them with the premise of one human-like being (male of course) who created limited identities without the necessity of energy intercourse.

In more ancient time frames the civilizations such as Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria, etc.recognized and respected the interactions and inestimable universal energies and it was these unseen but interrelated and interacting primal creative forces which the ancient cultures personified as a pantiscracy of “gods”.  This was allegorized as a Utopian society in which all were equal and each had governing power.  It is an insight which is also the heartbeat of democracy.  The creative energies which interact throughout nature and all through the observable universe do often appear in opposition, hence the “gods” which personified those energy actions were often depicted in Pagan cultures as in competition or in a state of lust.  There was never any doubt among these Pagan cultures, however, that such  creative energies originated out of a  singular Source..

The Yahweh priest-authors in the 9th/8th century BCE slyly contrived the claim that the amoral all-embracing source-power of Creation had singled out only one group of people in the world  (them of course) as the sole recipients of his blessings.  To accomplish this pretext of divine discrimination and purported prejudice the wily priest editors referred  to those same primal and diverse energies which were responsible for all manifested life as having been their historical ancestors by dubbing those primal creative energies as Isaelites–the alleged descendants of Jacob/Israel.  The various gods and goddesses that were recognized by the surrounding cultures and which symbolized for them the same diverse creative primal energies, were then ridiculed as being too lacking and had not been chosen by the power that the priests named Yahweh.  But this assault on Pagan wisdom necessitated finding a means to explain the diverse energy attributes that had been represented and personified with Pagan gods and goddesses.

The priest-editors who mined and reworked ancient teachings given with constellation figures, old oral Hebrew myths and Cabal texts certainly knew that the Pagan gods represented forces of creative energy.  They knew as well that those energies, although unseen for the most part, interact throughout the universe and have an effect on all life. The clever scheme of the Yahweh priest authors of demoting the the numerous Pagan gods and goddesses was to simply give those primal forces a different designation. Consequently those diverse creative forces were reassigned from godly status by Yahweh’s priests and were hailed as angels in the service of Yahweh.  For all extent and purpose, the attributes and special duties of the spurned Pagan gods were simply transferred to angels and were envisioned as acting under the direction of a divinely indifferent power-source which they personified as Yahweh.

Other Pagan recognition of primal energies were similarly disguised.  In the earliest part of the priest-authored book of Genesis (3:20) the character of Eve is referred to as “Mother of all living,” which suggests the rank of a near-sacred being.  This title that Adam allegedly bestowed upon Eve happens to be identical to what the ancient Sumerians had bestowed upon their love goddess Aruru, for she was regarded in their culture as the creatrix of all life.  And strangely also, the authors of Genesis never mentioned an account of Eve’s death, and the reason for that is no death occurred–we know her today as Mother Nature.

Eve’s implied eminence in Genesis, even after the alleged fruit picking mistake, reflects the Pagan perception that creation of all life can take place only through a process of polar energy interactions.  This is why various neighboring cultures which the priests of Yahweh envied–such as Sumerian, Babylonian, Phenician, Hittie, Ugaritic, etc.–gave homage to goddesses as being equal in divine power as the gods.  But Eve, according to the Yahweh priest authors, was also demoted and allegedly designed by Yahweh to simply serve as Adam’s helpmeet (Gen 2:18-20).   This was a deliberate capsizing of Pagan’s correct understanding that creation of any manifestation occurred only from exchange of opposite but equal polar energies.  The premise presented by the priests of Yahweh, however, was that Yahweh-Jehovah simply muttered things into material existence, and that story feature had no parallel in any other Mediterranean or Near Eastern myths.   The advantage of this story flight of fancy  was that it placed man (especially the political minded priests) in the authoritarian position.  Unfortunately, by demoting the feminine (negative) polar aspect which is equally necessary for life production, the Genesis myth of Creation essentially rejects the scientific polarizing energy principle by which energy manifests as matter.  And western religious understanding has been plagued with confusion, controversy and misunderstanding ever since.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncertainties in Sacred Texts

Posted in Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew scripture, religion, sacred texts, thoughts on February 18, 2017 by chouck017894

For the majority of persons of the western cultures today who have been indoctrinated into the Christian faith systems, few are aware that there is yet to be found any original copies of any of the books which are honored as the New Testament.  There are age-old copies to be sure, but they are just that, copies.  Usually made from copies.  And the Hebrew Scriptures, so proudly declared to be meticulously accurate reproductions of god-dictated holy word, many uncertainties happen to linger there which necessitates footnotes (as in the New Revised Standard Version).  In fact various passages are integrated where translators were uncertain what the original text really was (as for example, in 1 and 2 Samuel).  This presents a tragic predicament for world cultures, because the many uncertainties which continue to hover and cloud all man-written “sacred” texts have been used as models upon which were fashioned each culture’s moral, ethics and spiritual trust.  Thus it is actually sacred uncertainties which have served as foundations for the three by-the-book faith systems which routinely reflect their holiness in constant murderous conflicts.

Basic beliefs, most of which originated in Bronze Age tribal cultures, were heavily colored by fears and superstitions.  In addition, the words which have been handed down through century after century have been altered–sometimes accidentally, more often deliberately–by countless interpreters and translators who put their own spin on the declared meaning in those words.  Predictably the declared meaning said to be god-relayed in those man-written texts was always interpreted from the events of the interpreter’s  particular time frame.  The fundamental philosophy which brought about all the age-old written “holy” works conveniently allowed for such self defensive flexibility and manipulative license.  And it is precisely this philosophical elasticity which stimulates the addictive fascination for what is revered as holy word.  It provides anxious seekers with ego gratification–which is commonly praised and promoted as spiritual fulfillment.  In extreme antiquity the stories were carefully penned to illustrate cosmological and/or life-purpose instruction. Regrettably these were often indirectly–or more often than not intentionally–colored by later scribe’s personal likes, dislikes, envy, jealousies and political aims which consequently provoked irrelevant posturing and theatrics rather than radiating any genuine spiritual enlightenment.

The faithful who cling unquestioningly to “sacred” texts (Hebrew scriptures, New Testament of Quran, as examples) like to believe that those compositions which have been accepted as revealed and sacred, contain no mistakes, no textural booboos, and no faulty assessments.  But every such textural “holy” work was produced by human hands, and even the most faithful humans fall far short in cosmic awareness to serve as infallible spokesmen for the perfection and broad diversity which is the creative and sustaining power which is the all-enfolding Source.

The discovery in 1947 of a number of parchment scrolls which contained Hebrew and Aramaic scriptural texts and liturgical writings of an asectic community which dated from c. 250 BCE to about 70 CE are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The intensive research on these scrolls brought to light the startling fact that those texts, which are around a thousand years older than any previously known “old texts” contained a stockpile of significant differences from the Hebrew Scriptures which are today considered to have always been inviolable.  Time and circumstances since the era of the Scrolls’ authorship brought with them alterations that resulted in textural content which became more or less standardized only around 1000 CE.  Thus the western world today has become victim to what may be termed sacred shell games.

Genuine history is routinely forgotten in what has become accepted as holy word.  For example, the OT book  of Esther was rewritten from an older version which some scholars have said had been composed by some Roman source.  Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (c.50-132 CE) was one of the most eminent teachers of his timeframe, and he headed the school at Jaffa: It was he who rewrote the text known as Esther.  And the Jewish code known as the Mishnah was developed by him partly on the basis of his own teachings.  In the original Roman account of the Esther tale there was a character named Haman (or Aman or Hamin) who vows to kill all Jews.  Some scholars say that Haman was modeled upon a Roman aristocrat named Arius Piso.  The Jewish holiday feast of Purim was established ostensibly to celebrate the deliverance of the Jews from the alleged massacre by Haman.  The rewritten book of Esther and the association  of Haman with Roman aristocracy therefore served as the covert reminder to all Jews of the alleged conspiracy of the Romans to destroy the Jews.

Once a faith system has compiled its self-serving literary collection and stamped it as “canon” (an ecclesiastical code or laws), that man-written anthology has been advertised and marketed as containing all knowledge which is ever necessary for a believer to attain godly protection, salvation or entrance into Paradise.  Thus have sacred theatrics and man-devised by-the-book directives been set in place as the edifying mechanism over mankind’s social and spiritual evolution (or lack thereof).

Today, contented that the faith systems which we have been taught as holding divine knowledge and which supposedly extends privileged access into a higher and exclusive domain, we are kept uninformed of how and from what that belief slowly and haphazardly evolved.  Every man-contrived faith system has been built upon the awe and wonder that our ancient ancestors had felt for the celestial panorama which was then unmarred by the light and air pollution we humans produce today.  In our self-enveloped bubble of technology we have been manipulated away from the ancient’s awareness and veneration the universal phenomena, and those observations and practices became intentionally modified and disguised.  Why?  Because the “Pagan” sources from which those holy words were “borrowed” had openly respected such things a solstice periods, time of the equinoxes, phases of the moon, constellation grouping of stars, and their associated cycles of Nature.  These and other such natural observable facts thus played calculated influences in every man-contrived faith system which dominate cultures and societies today, and those natural wonders are camouflaged and smothered under priest-invented “histories” and theatrical rites.

Man!  That is almost enough to drive an atheist to attempt a prayer!  Lord, rest your hand upon the heads of earnest seekers of enlightenment, and your other hand over the mouths of the braying self-possessed proselytizers.

 

Questioning Bible Style Creation

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, Bible, days of Creation, faith, Hebrew scripture, life, prehistory, random, scriptures, theology on October 16, 2016 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say “Let there be…” this or that and then this and that appeared.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever he commanded magically appeared.  No trials, no errors, just zap.  Although Earth seems to be God’s center of focus, not only was Earth thus conjured up but all of infinity was set in place in only seven “days.”  However, the authors of “revealed wisdom” never bothered themselves to clarify which of the two  differing Creation specifics  (Genesis l and/or 2) are to be considered most proper.  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence.  This is what some Bible fanatics (in the USA) insist must be taught in our schools!

In order for all of God’s varied and diverse forms which were thus allegedly brought forth by God talking to himself, some form of regeneration also had to be put in place for the continuation of manifesting such diverse and varied handiwork.  That renewal system of each and everything created by word of mouth required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation.  Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that reproduction diagram as DNA.  Life, whether micro or macro, each follows specific developmental (evolutionary) processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Social cultures that preceded the “revealed  word” of God by thousands of years, and therefore not privileged to biblical enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance of how everything became created.  It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the revealed facts of Creation.  In that later timeframe the entire population of the world, which has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, the Creator was apparently interested only in enlightening a tiny percent of those humans in regard to his acts of Creation; and those “chosen” ones just happened to live around Jerusalem.  Oddly, God chose not to bother himself with any specifics, such as what went into his creative process—things like the chemical compounds and such which he utilized for manifesting everything and which continues the re-creation process. Again the authors and devotees of those revealed words counsel us not to question God ways.

Still, we can’t help but wonder.  Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet, as “revealed word” implies.  But that fact of our planet’s  chemical makeup, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation.  However, scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago.  Within only a few hundred million years the simple life forms were already in existence on Earth–an incredibly short time in Creation terms.  To science a few hundred million years after Earths‘s formation and simple life forms were already appearing ? It seems a case of too much too soon.  Ahh, but all that was just one “Day” in the Genesis account.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were indeed present well over three billion years ago, and these simplest life forms had, as science has shown, molecules of biological origin, some dimension of Creation seems to be overlooked.  Life on this planet seems to have arisen and developed from some source other than a combination of inert gases and chemicals that were then predominant on the infant planet. Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium.  If biological life originated in such an abundant chemical composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more plentiful elements (like nickel and chromium) would figure in the composition of any life forms that developed in that primeval stew (the “dust” in biblical vernacular)–if not prominently, then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatsoever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet.  Of course, they are not needed in the Genesis account.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the Chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless that rare element plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggests that a variety of genetic codes would have resulted.  But that did not happen either.  Instead, all life forms on Earth developed from a single genetic code–and all life forms on Earth share this single genetic composition.  To those who idolize the biblical tales this genetic singularity can be easily brushed aside as proof of God’s verbal commands as related in Genesis.

Long before the authors of sacred writ were around, some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts provided more authoritative information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on primal Earth.  According to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge planet that made at least two passes through our developing solar system.  The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid or other space object, and that roving planet was defined with the name Marduk.  The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.”  This information later became reworked by the succeeding Babylonians, and was the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk. This god is known in the Bible as Merodach (Jeremiah 50:1-2), who was credited by the Babylonians with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth.  Could that possibly be the inspiration for the god that the post-Sumerian story tellers in 8th century BCE Jerusalem referred to in Genesis as commanding the activation of all life?

Oddly, in recent modern science a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account.  A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, dared to offer the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from minuscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth.  Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical six “days” of Creation?  Or was God simply playing a solo game of billiards those “days”?

 

 

 

 

s

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.