Archive for the prehistory Category

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

Advertisements

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.

 

 

Biblical Characterizations

Posted in Bible, Hebrew scripture, prehistory, random, religion, scriptures on February 8, 2016 by chouck017894

How reliable are biblical texts?  Common sense whispers to spirit that because every “revealed” account was penned by human industry the potential for trip-ups may be obscured in the prose like landmines that could blow up the crafted stories.  A critical assessment of scriptural accounts can often reveal to the curious reader that few, if any, characters in accepted sacred texts actually represent any verifiable historical persons. After the Genesis characters have established the “chosen ones” plot line the scriptural tales seemingly venture into later alleged historical events where some sparse documentation might be possible.  Peculiarly, the only characters included with any evidence of having had verifiable existence are always presented in peripheral roles. It is in this manner that the suggestion of historic authenticity is offered.  This is a writing technique that has always been used in composing believable story-lines of fiction, and is still in use in the novels, stage plays, movie formats and television plays today.

The character of Abram/Abraham, for example, is the earliest personality provided in Genesis (11) who is presented as having had a vague correspondence within world history. However, even his homeland as sketched out in Genesis 12:1-5 was only vaguely alluded to with the mention of of Haran and Abram’s moving southeast …”unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh.  And the Canaanite was then in the land.”  The implied movement is in the direction of the Chaldean port city of Ur.

We should not forget that the scriptural works so highly honored as holy narrative actually concerned only one very small segment of the world’s population in prehistory and those biographical drafts were not gathered into book form which could be referred to until Iron Age times, c. 9-8th centuries BCE.  That means that the bulk of literature which is revered as the Old Testament was not composed and promoted by priest authors until many, many centuries after the events they depicted.  Again, of the entire world’s population in the earlier timeframes as presented by the priest-written stories concern only one small group of people–their alleged ancestors.  When the scriptural tales seemingly venture into later alleged historical events where some sparse documentation might be possible the only characters with any evidence of having had verifiable existence are, as noted, always presented in peripheral roles.

Add to this that there is strong indication that the priest-authors also drew upon earlier teachings from several different cultures.  It is not coincidence that in Persia there were stories told of a deity named Ahriman; curiously, his original name was Abriman and the substituted letter H in the name for the B indicated the attainment of his pass over into a matter-defined personality.  Ahriman (with the H) was regarded to be a deity who ruled over the kingdom of darkness–in other words the void out of which Creation issues.  We should note as well that the Babylonians were familiar with a like character from their similar literature who was named Abarama.  And the authors of Genesis also knew of the eastern writings in which Brahma is given as the Creator of the universe and is first in a trinity which included Vishnu and Siva.*  The H (two vertical lines held together by a horizontal line) in the name indicated the involvement of polar principles necessary for advancing Creation.  Thus the letter H was also incorporated into Abram as Abraham to indicate when primal energy passed over and manifested into matter life. (*Siva is commonly presented as the principle of destruction: more correctly the transformation out of the illusion of energy as matter.)

Abraham, like all the Genesis characters such as Adam, Noah, Jacob, Isaac, etc., etc. are but personifications for the creative Life Principle as it passes over the various energy dimensions of development and which culminate in matter form where it is to be qualified.  Consider the various myths that surround Abram/Abraham which certainly could not apply if this character had been an actual mortal being.  Supposedly the name Abram means “exalted”  or “lifted up.”  Again this is sacred language being used to personify and portray scientific principles of Creation which were earlier taught in extreme antiquity which the authors of Genesis did not understand.  Abram (not yet Abraham) personifies earliest primal energy involvement which is to pass over from an energy prototype into definable form.  Those ancient scientific teachings upon which the story is based had become lost due to various planetary disturbances, and myths arose in an attempt to explain the invisible powers of Creation.  Thus among the many footnotes to holy accounts we are expected to believe that the angel Gabriel fed the infant Abram for ten days with milk from his little finger!  This conveniently dismissed the need for any scientific understanding of the primal energy dimensions that lead into development as energy-matter forms.  And another tale related that when Abram was born his face was so radiant that it lit up the entire cave in which he had been born.  The “cave” in all such myths and sacred stories always symbolized the void (Source) out of which all Creation issues, and is why so many saviors and heroes of ancient myths were claimed to have been born in caves.

This manner of characterizing the dimensions of primal energies as actual physical ancestors of an alleged “chosen” people is the technique used to give apparent legitimization to the books now known as the Old Testament.  Although misleading in its underpinnings the literary works do hold many self-evident truths.  So inspirational were these priest-crafted tales which seemed to legitimatize the ancestral claims due to written word that a whole belief culture arose that stubbornly stood defiant against many kingdoms and empires.  It was not coincidence therefore that it was during the timeframe of the Roman Empire that a Jewish character was chosen by Roman authors to be the superstar in collected narratives now know as the New Testament.  These crafted tales begin with Jesus’ birth being set in a manger, and for centuries mangers were then commonly located within caves.  And the sequence of his recorded miracles—from his first water into wine to his ultimate transfiguration —allegorize the involving energy dimensions of Creation into cosmic harmonization as once given in prehistory times with lessons illustrated with heaven’s constellations

Failure of By-The-Book Faith Systems

Posted in Astronomy, Hebrew scripture, prehistory, religion, scriptures on January 1, 2016 by chouck017894

Genuine history shows that each of the three sister monotheistic faith systems of western cultures were launched as an insurrectionary movement against an established social order which had tended to honor a broad-based tolerance for diverse spiritual practices.  The hard-line monotheistic faith systems which dominate western cultures today expanded and have maintained their power structures only by indoctrination practices which have included perceptible intimidation tactics and even terrorism (such as is brutally demonstrated in Muslim extremists to this day).  The underlying fact is that the whole purpose of monotheistic practice was to establish a closed environment in which each person is doggedly conditioned to submit and obey an upper echelon of the system’s hierarchy.

The method of any by-the-book faith system’s empowerment is to inject subconscious fear of godly retribution by his withholding any promise of attaining a glorious afterlife if any seeker fails to obey the faith system’s representatives.  With this improvable assertion of a paradisiacal afterlife for the alleged favorites of God , the “flock” is persuaded to sheepishly submit and obey.  To keep faith system discipline the contention is put forth that the all-enfolding Life Principle (which is personified as “God”) favors them alone: however, this assertion is the very antithesis of spiritual freedom, inner peace, tolerance, compassion, fairness, justice, ethics, morality, and all other true qualities which elevate spirit into an evolved state of existence.

As a consequence the formalized by-the-book “religions” that are today presented to us as spiritual guidance are faith systems which are constructed and characterized by their constant arguments over artificial objectives, empty symbols, phony prophets, shallow judgments of others, prejudices over superficialities, and pompous ritualism which intentionally keep seekers blind to our personal interrelatedness to all the rest of the universe.  What this shows is that man-made faith systems are essentially geared to regulate material greed and self-promotional events, not to actually guide seekers into personal attunement with Creation’s forces.  When man-composed “holy word” texts are primarily assertions about godly nit-picking and jealousy, accounts of wars, invasions, killings and similar irreverent acts toward all interrelated intelligent beings something is tragically inappropriate for authentic spiritual counselling.  Certainly the glorification of such provoked conflicts with life’s intended diversity and variety only encourage the practices of prejudice and self-indulgence, and should not be held as the foundation of ethical/moral attitude for social interchange.

Only in fairly recent times has the means been established to provide the capability to check the reliability and truthfulness of many “holy word” accounts.  That painstaking science is biblical archaeology.  For well over a century of digs throughout Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon there have been uncovered factual details of everyday life during the timeframes and events that make up the bulk of Hebrew Scriptures.  The discoveries have often stunned and dismayed even the archaeologists, and the implications have horrified those who wish to believe that the books thought of as “holy word” are actually God’s revealed truth.  The  books known as the Old Testament were not actually codified until around the eighth/seventh centuries BCE–or generations after the alleged events.  And the reason for that labor of systemizing such works was the political crisis which loomed over Judah in the timeframe following the fall of the kingdom of Israel to the north which had fallen to Assyria.  Thus the origins and purpose for writing the stories of “God’s chosen ones” have to be reassessed with an eye kept upon the political crises that motivated them.

Likewise the New Testament composed within the Roman Empire timeframe should be reassessed with an eye on the political crisis that the Jewish fanatics in Palestine presented to the Empire.  During the Roman occupation of Palestine the Jews pointed to their priest-written “Scriptures” as proof that they were answerable only to God and divine exclusivity, and not surprisingly this brought the Jews into constant friction with the  Roman Empire.

In assessing the “holy book” of western culture faith systems it should also be remembered that the Arab region had no prophet or written work to unite the people until the timeframe of Mohammad (570?-632 CE).  The fundamental tenets of Islam are: 1) There is one God (Allah):  2) Man must to submit and obey Allah: and 3) The world will end with a great judgment.  These tenets have direct and undeniable association with Judaic and Christian systems of belief–which Mohammad just happened to have heard and built upon during his many caravan merchant travels.

Lost in these by-the-book faith systems’ contrived rituals, unfortunately, is any means of perceiving one’s own personal spiritual alignment with the highest essences which are the foundation of our real self. The exploration of our inner self with the motivation to establish meaningful balance with nature and the universe is not a feature of any of the three regimented faith systems of the  western world.  Everything remains focused upon the faith system itself which subconsciously tells the seekers that the individual is not of any particular importance to the all-too-human-like deity. Nothing in this form of faith system commerce is even suggestive of addressing the actual spiritual qualities which are inherent within every being.  Instead every seeker is instructed to submit and obey their man-written holy book instructions but are not really shown any means of opening themselves for the experience of spiritual evolving.  The difference between practicing a religion and making oneself open to spiritual vitality is a different as taking or receiving.  If emphasis is upon ideology and ritualism, then it is religion, for religious practice can only take its authority from those who relinquish their spiritual energy to it.  On the other hand, that essential spiritual quality which is the essence of each personal identity can align with Cosmic Conscience only by achieving a reflective state of consciousness, for what we term spirit within our self is a reflective component of that higher Creative Conscience.  If personal attention is grounded in what is only a theatrical perfomance then the path into the higher state of spiritual awareness remains blocked.

Bluntly, A person’s genuine spiritual evolution begins to malfunction as soon as exterior authority is imposed upon it.

These website posts have often referred to ancient lessons which concerned Creation/cosmology and life purpose, and those lessons were once illustrated by using the universe itself as background–the use of groups of stars (constellations) to illustrate the lessons.  That prehistory means of instruction was not corrupted with any pretentious claims that universal truths were accessible only through some regimented, club-like membership-only faith system.  There was then no merchandising of our spiritual connection into that higher power; there were no claims of a monopoly on universal truths as made by the by-the-book faith systems today–systems that distinguish themselves primarily by their hostility toward each other for their own material gain.  Mankind must awaken to the fact that there can be no expansion or attainment of spiritual enlightenment from such corporate-style by-the-book faith systems, for they are demonstratively superficial in the universe as a whole and, on the smaller scale, too implausible and unnatural to technological cultures. Clearly what humankind is in desperate need of is not pretense of faith system exclusivity but a new dimension of consciousness.

Tangled Threads of Belief

Posted in Astronomy, belief, Bible, faith, prehistory, random, religion, scriptures with tags , , , , , on December 10, 2015 by chouck017894

The average person’s familiarity with scriptural texts (of any western style by-the-book faith system) is selective at best, and typical seekers are content to surrender the tricky situations of otherworldly powers to those representatives who claim to be blessed for interpretation. That leaves the range of “spiritual” control open for swarms of heaven’s self-promoted ambassadors who happily provide the detours around the many “revealed” messages which ordinary persons could often find to bristle with inconsistencies and contradictions. In other words, what we are led to believe as holy truth depends upon the perspective that is brought to bear by those self-promoted interpreters.

Judaic and Christian texts, as an example, tend to revolve around a longed-for coming of corrective influence by some anticipated messiah–i.e. a deliverer or liberator or savior. The Hebrew meaning of mashiah (messiah) is “the anointed,” which suggests that a qualification for being a messiah is that the person first has to be anointed (consecrated) by some heavenly certified person and thus made ready to take up the obligation of guidance. By some interpretations the act of being baptized has been erroneously regarded as virtually carrying the same significance, but baptism is the symbolic washing away of “original sin” so a soul may start with a clean slate, so to speak. An anointed one, on the other hand, was deemed to have been chosen, elevated and supposedly instilled with blessings to fulfill God’s higher purpose. The Old Testament kings Saul, David and Solomon were said to have been anointed, for example.

Unlike baptism, an anointing was a selective ceremony reserved to signify some alleged God-selected life purpose, such as royalty or dignitary or messiah. The esteem that was placed upon the anointed one was signified with the use of very expensive oil made available for the ceremony. It is this expense–the high cost–which clouds the depiction of Jesus’ anointing. In other words, it was a cosmetic luxury, particularly of the Near East and Greek cultures where it had been the highlight in a ceremony establishing kingship. The practice, however, was condemned in the OT book of Amos (6:6). In the Gospel texts Mark, Matthew and John, each gives a different version of where, when and by whom the anointing of Jesus occurred. All agree on one odd thing, however; that it was a woman who anointed Jesus. That is because in those prehistory Creation-cosmology lessons feminine qualities symbolized energy-substance out of which matter then evolves. According to John that anointing episode occurred only after Jesus had allegedly raised the dead man, Lazarus, who had “lain in the grave four days already,”

The name Lazarus appears only three times in New Testament texts; once in Luke 16 as a leper who was healed by Jesus, and twice in John 11 and 12 in regard to an alleged miracle of raising up the dead man. The name Lazarus is claimed to be abridged from the Hebrew name Eleazar, which is said to mean “God had helped.” Strangely it is only in John that the reinvigorating from the dead of the man Lazarus of Bethany is addressed, an alleged miracle which is suggestive of far greater power and consequence than any of the miracles presented in the book of Mark, Matthew or Luke. The plot purpose of Lazarus in John is to serve as a kind of prelude to Jesus’ own greater miraculous resurrection that was to come. As noted in a previous web-post, the characters of Lazarus and his sisters in John’s account have a peculiarly close relationship to a far older Egyptian story concerning a man name El-Azar-us and his two sisters named Meri and Merti who happened to live in a village called Bethanu. The Egyptian name of the village meant “house of god,” referring to the Egyptian god Anu. The god Anu happened to have been honored in the even older Sumerian culture and was known as the “first among the gods.” The Egyptian version also exposes where the Hebrew word beth, meaning “house” originated (and was re-interpreted as Bethany and Bethlehem in Gospels).

It should be recalled that the Genesis plotline leaned heavily on the prehistory Creation lessons which were once illustrated with groups of stars (constellations). That connection is guardedly apparent in John’s account in the seeming indifference of Jesus upon hearing of Lazarus being “sick unto death” and saying, “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God…” Then in John 11-17 it is averred that Lazarus had “…lain in the grave for four days already.” Only in understanding the ancient lessons concerning the pre-physical energies which involve as Creation do these story elements hold any rationality. In prehistory cultures it had been explained that the first four phases of primal energy involvement are to be passed over to congeal as matter; this was often likened to a grave or a tomb. The reason for that metaphor was because the primordial energy conditions hold only the potential for purposeful existence which must be raised into life by the Life Principle. The “four days”(as in the “days” timeframe of Creation) of Lazarus’ alleged entombment are therefore in reference to the four earliest energy dimensions–or pre-physical stages–of primal energy involvement. The mid-stage of energy involvement between the primary energy dimensions and first visible energy-forms was known in those ancient teachings as Devolution.

Verse 16 of John 11 then affirmed this meaning, saying, “Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto disciples, Let us go, that we may die with him.” This bizarre suggestion has long puzzled Gospel scholars. The name Didymus, the which not the who of the quoted verse, refers to the constellation Gemini (the Twins) with which was once taught the ancient lessons of Creation energies which were equated in those lessons to mental matter, and was taught with constellation Gemini. In zodiac depictions Gemini is said to govern the shoulders, arms and hands: Thomas, remember, had to see the two scarred hands of the resurrected Jesus to be sure he truly was Jesus.

Metaphorically, these four prototypal stages within the elementary energy planes must figuratively die (or be passed over) in order to involve as defined matter. Note also that near the conclusion of John’s version of the crucifixion events that the grave of Jesus was described as: “It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.” (John 11:38) In those prehistory Creation-cosmology lessons upon which John’s version was based the void (quantum energy source) out of which Creation takes place was commonly allegorized as a cave. The stone which is said to be laid upon the cave symbolized the taking on of the involving primal energies as Dense Matter form, which is to say it is a reference to this energy plane where each of us becomes conscious of self as biological matter-life.

This example serves to indicate how all faith systems have been woven from threads of very ancient science-based teachings which had once offered genuine technical understanding of the energy principles which involve as Creation. Unfortunately those threads of true wisdom tended to be intentionally and systematically tangled and recast into contorted assertions. As an example of how extreme “faith” merchants chose to rework ancient wisdom as “holy word” consider the alleged Lazarus incident mentioned here–it is something of a stretch. A tradition in the Roman Catholic Church has it that the resurrected Lazarus, who had been dead for four days, later became first bishop of Marseille. And from such tangled threads of ancient wisdom has been woven the fabric known as holy truth.

Disguised Background of Moses Epoch

Posted in belief, Bible, culture, faith, Hebrew scripture, history, prehistory, random, religion, scriptures, theology with tags , , , , , , , on January 17, 2015 by chouck017894

The timeframe upon which the Moses epoch was loosely structured was most probably c. 1576-1490 BCE. This was a particularly rough period for planet Earth and turmoil had continued for centuries following the earlier frightening event when a rogue planet-sized comet had lunged out of the skies from the general direction of planet Jupiter. Electromagnetic imbalance in the solar system resulted in interplanetary disturbances, and cultures worldwide were dramatically affected. In the following timeframe 1490-1480 BCE, for example, the royal city of Ugarit went down in flames, and in this same timeframe the cities of Troy, Knossos and the walled cities in the Indus Valley were also destroyed. Using the 1480 BCE date as anchor-point (which lasted to at least around 1200 BCE) not only the Hebrews (who were cast by priest authors as Israelites) but people everywhere suffered through worldwide calamities.

If this was the broad timeframe in which Moses allegedly heard God speak to him personally from a burning bush, he would have been around eighty years old (if he had been born c. 1576 BCE–one of the numerous dates that are debated). The approximate earlier date 1486 BCE is also often associated with the Exodus and the Moses tale. Still another date often theorized as the Moses saga is the 1480 BCE timeframe, which happened to be when Thutmose III came of age and officially became pharaoh of Egypt; until then his mother Queen Hatshepsut, wife of Thutmose II, had overseen her son’s duties in his name. (Note the mose part of the names.)

The plagues which Hebrew Scriptures (Exodus) claim was God’s way of affirming his favoritism for the Israelites and his divine prejudice against the Egyptians is largely priestly liberty with actual planetary circumstances. The plagues in the setting used for the Moses epoch were not peculiar to that narrowly focused region of the world. Worldwide upheavals in this period also plunged the Phoenician trading empire into decline due to the fall of so many trading partners. Indeed, much of this was recorded by Chaldeans, Hebrews, Greeks, Minoan Cretans, Egyptians, East Indians, Chinese, and even the South American Mayans. In the priestly accounts (as in Jeremiah 7:20) God is quoted as saying, “Look! My anger and my rage are being poured forth upon this place, upon mankind and upon domestic animals, and upon the tree of the field and upon the fruitage of the ground; and it must burn, and it will not be extinguished.” This is how holy hatred is glorified.

The unstable planetary conditions which lasted for generations were drawn upon by later priest authors for their own advantage. As portrayed by the priests, God is claimed to have spoken to Moses from a thick cloud upon Mount Sinai saying, “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage (some translations incorrectly interpret this as out of the “house of slavery”). About this time, according to scriptures, God promised the Israelites that if they obeyed his “laws” (as interpreted by the priests, of course) they would prosper from what amounted to his conditional love. Thus were the Exodus 19:4-6 verses reinforced in which God supposedly said, “…you shall be to me a nation of priests and a holy nation.” The tone of this claim of selectivity rather tarnishes its credibility as spiritual truth.

The date most commonly given for the death of Moses is 1456 BCE. In the book of Deuteronomy 32:49 and 34:1, written long after the depicted wandering events (probably written by the High Priest Hilikiah in Jerusalem in seventh century BCE) Moses is averred to have died atop Mount Pisgah after viewing the Promise Land. This mount is identified with Mount Nebo, a mountain in Moab near the north end of the Dead Sea (and where later Jeremiah supposedly hid the Ark of the Covenant). This Mount was from ancient times held to be dedicated to the Sumerian-Assyrian-Babylonian god Nebo, the son of Marduk chief god of ancient Babylon, who bore the title of “Ilu-tashmit,” meaning god of revelations, and he was regarded as a soothsayer or prophet. From this the Hebrew word for prophet became nabi or nebi.

Many features of the Moses saga clearly indicate that the priest-written “history” actually concerns the process of energy involvement and development into matter form (Creation activity), not of some selected human leader who escorted “bound” Hebrews to a new location. Just as with the parting of water in Genesis, the waters are parted for Moses and the Israelites (elementary particles) to move into diverse and defined life archetypes. Indeed this is what is alluded in Exodus 33:20-23 where Moses, symbol of the Life Principle, is told by God, “Thou canst not see my face…” “…thou shalt see my back parts”—a clear reference to the primal condition from which life is made manifest. The fabled character of Moses can never see God’s front parts–the evolutionary results–because he symbolizes the energy action of the Life Principle up to where pre-physical energies begin to congeal and transform into material-matter form. And this is why Moses must “die” when that objective is within sight. It is therefore a certainty that “…no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day.” (Deuteronomy 34:6–written c. 8th century BCE)

Among the divine mysteries of this tale none is more puzzling than the manner in which the Lord is alleged to have fed the starving Israelites in the “wilderness.” According to the priest-written account over six hundred thousand Israelites were miraculously fed with manna. The Israelites were depicted as on the verge of annihilation and a somewhat indifferent Creator sent them only a microscopic form of nourishment. As claimed in the text, “And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as hoarfrost on the ground. And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is Manna; for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given us to eat.” (Exodus 16:14-15) HUH? Is it wise to believe that over six hundred thousand starving persons were given “bread” as small as hoarfrost as sustenance? This story feature clearly attests that the chronicle of Exodus is not history but is allegory of the Creation process, and the “hoarfrost” refers to elementary particles being infused with subatomic elements. Everything which is made manifest as matter-form is nourished by subatomic particles.

Perhaps the most honored part of the Moses saga is of God making Moses the bearer of the Ten Commandments to the stranded Israelites. Strangely, these Commandments passed through several transformations of their own, and became guidelines for moral/ethical conduct only after 700 BCE–and which were again rewritten in 400 BCE. The earliest intention in the “Commandments” which Moses would have received and relayed from the personified Source of Creation certainly could not have been in regard to moral and ethical behavior in the “wilderness” (prototypal conditions). Moses, traditionally revered as the “Law Giver”, is depicted as having descended from an ecstatic rendezvous with the Lord on Mount Sinai. The law-giver is commonly pictured as standing erect with the “laws” which he carried etched upon two stones . This image indicates allegorically that the “laws” did not originally concern moral conduct among physical beings but concerned the principles of genetics. All that could have been decreed there in those primal circumstances (“wilderness”) would concern genetic purity–the “law” of Creation which established that like is to beget like. This is Creation’s powerful “law” which carries weight far beyond the principle of genetic reproduction; it applies equally to each individual’s thought patterns which determine each person’s lifestyle and how they interact with others. Lost in this self-serving scriptural storytelling style is that this “law” of like must beget like also brings reprisal after its own kind. Thus this “law” of reproductive energy indeed supports divine advice to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Soul Searching

Posted in belief, Christianity, faith, Hebrew scripture, life, prehistory, random, religion, scriptures, thoughts with tags , , , , on January 12, 2015 by chouck017894

In the presumptuous practice which is honored as theology, there is repeated discussion regarding “soul”–that part of each person’s being which is said to be immortal and separable from the matter body at the occurrence of physical death. This is regarded in religious theory to be man’s spiritual relationship with the creative power which is commonly personified as “God.” The theological concept of soul, unfortunately, provides little in the way of any instructive or satisfying means for contemplating this elusive part of our being.

The word “soul” is nonetheless used freely in theological speculations, and yet when seekers press for specifics as to what constitutes one’s soul answers remain vague. Generally the explanation avers that soul is the spiritual nature of an individual in relationship to God. What constitutes “spirit,” unfortunately, also remains inadequately defined, which gives theological speculators freehand to manipulate the mystified. By the typically vague theological proposition the soul/spirit is erroneously assumed to retain identical senses of happiness or misery, which conveniently allows the God merchants to guide their “flocks” through exercises of threat-and-promise tactics (damned or saved). In that version of what constitutes the soul, that elusive part of one’s being sounds suspiciously like one’s ego.

Primitive cultures, as well as classical Egyptian and Greek cultures, envisaged the soul as being comparable to some especially refined or ethereal substance such as breath or as ether. To the Egyptians that which we refer to as soul was known a Ba, and they considered Ba to be the essence of a person which has eternal existence after death. In their theory the Ba was closely associated with the Ka, i.e. each person’s double (energy pattern). Together with the Ab, the heart, these were regarded as the three most important elements in the physical and perceptive life of humans. Not understood by them was the organ of the brain, by which personal associations are determined in life. Thus the Ab was more highly valued than the brain, for it was thought that expressions of desire, courage, lust, wisdom, disposition, etc. were expressed by the heart.

To the ancient Hebrews the soul seems to have been vaguely identified with the creative principle of life which is embodied in living creatures, and this interpretation is honored throughout most of the Hebrew scriptures. Seeking to ease the vagueness of what constitutes the soul it was theorized as being the principle or vehicle of life of each individual, human or animal. So the”soul” was hypothesized as a substance, quality or efficient consciousness in general. In Hebrew Scriptures “spirit” was thus linked with, but considered distinctive from the soul. In this theory spirit was reworked as the principal feature of one’ higher–or divine–capacities and activities.

Christian thought regarding the spiritual nature of the human soul was shaped largely by “saint” Augustine (353-430 CE) who theorized soul existence as much from Greek philosophy as from any religious enlightenment. The theory he advanced as to what constitutes the soul was that it was of a simple, immaterial and mystical quality which is present within one’s being. It is this indistinct and unfocused concept of soul which has remained in scholastic Christian philosophy into present times. We have Augustine to thank also for doctrines concerning sin, divine grace, divine sovereignty, and predestination which have held an important place in the Roman Catholic and Protestant theology.

The concept of “soul” in theological speculation still hinges on the fact that the theory helps numb the fear of death. There is an inevitable catch in this speculative theological practice, however, which is the premise that a price is expected for saving what is professed to be the immortal soul, and that price is that seekers must follow a particular man-concocted faith system. The inevitable question is inescapable–just what is that immortal part to saved from? Theological sales propaganda has the audacity to claim that the soul must be saved from the fiery pits of hell and the eternal suffering which is allegedly doled out by an omniscient, loving Creator for a soul having goofed up in one brief fling at mortal life!

As is often the case in the speculative exercises practiced as religion, there is an intuitive recognition of some creative energy process, but that spark of intuition routinely flounders upon the experience of our temporary matter form. Fortunately, if man is not constrained with some self-imposed unyielding cult-code of belief he can learn to evolve into his higher potential. However, organized faith systems have the bad habit of teaching everyone to pass judgment upon everything and everyone who do not follow their restrictive, self-serving counseling. Hatred is thus continually spawned from such a discriminatory practice. That behavioral “guidance” springs from a deliberate refusal to acknowledge that diversity and variety is the second major law of Creation. But faulty religious instruction does not necessarily mean that the part of our being which is referred to as “soul” is only theological wishful thinking.

There is indeed the non-material criterion within everything which is made manifest as matter-life, and that fact of creative power which is present within all life is neatly summed up in Albert Einstein’s formula E=mc2. That simple formula is verification that any matter-form is actually an energy composite. And all forms of energy have the inherent nature of transformation, so in fact it does not cease to exist. Every energy-matter form radiates with an identifying energy frequency which becomes identifiable by reason of its interaction with the creative patterns in which it is a part. Thus an energy frequency, which is called “soul,” can be said to correspond to the energy frequency by which the identity of anything is maintained within the creative activity of infinity. In other words, Soul, like consciousness, is the continuing awareness of self.

And since personal identity is distinguishable only through its interactions with the creative forces around it, every incident in a person’s material experience actually does impose consequences upon that identity. At each dimension of a soul’s creative involvement and evolution every action which it imposes continues to have a reaction. That is not godly retribution; it is just the basic principle of energy in motion–or the minor law of energy in action–what goes around comes around.