Archive for Rosh Hashanah

Hints on Sin Dodging

Posted in belief, Bible, culture, faith, random, religion, scriptures with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 1, 2015 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 by crafty schemers.

By chapter three of Genesis, after 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 in 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 thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” Cain, not understanding this concept of sin–perhaps because mom, Eve, had already tainted all life with “original sin,–by the very next verse (8) Cain kills his brother Abel. Now that is divine speed-plotting. But God’s earlier condemning judgment upon sin is then shown with Cain to be impulsively amendable by God’s reluctant setting a protective mark upon Cain’s head. Thus did “sin” become incorporated as the meal ticket for the CEOs of any western faith system.

The great pivotal moment in sacred “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 happening 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 characteristic–even though in that distant timeframe Judaism was not yet an organized faith. Not fully answered; was Isaac to be a sin offering? It is never clearly said why God would have asked for such an unmotivated act. Some have suggested that it was simply a test, but if God is omniscient (all-knowing), what could he be uncertain about? As the story is depicted, neither God nor Abraham inspire any spiritual admiration. And why would Isaac be such a spineless wimp? For some, however, Isaac is held to be the first Jewish martyr (and again, ignore that Judaism was not then an organized faith system). 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 purpose in the priest-written tale is aimed to encourage submission and obedience of all seekers to the priest-manufactured faith system.

In the later priest-written book of Leviticus (18:6-7) this priestly lust for ugly showmanship is highlighted in the supposed shifting of personal sin–allegedly with God’s okay–from the guilty party to some hapless victim. The alleged God-approved instructions read: “And he 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 lot for the Lord, and the other for Azazel.” We should note that the word “tent” was an occult reference in pre-history Creation lessons for primordial energy involvement out of which Creation is made manifest. To retain their authority the self-important priests indulged themselves in the slaughter of one goat upon the Temple altar and sent the other hapless goat into the wilds to be torn apart by predators. Or, depending on their 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: Azazel was said to be imprisoned beneath the mount.

Nowhere is it ever explained in Hebrew or Jewish myths 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 honored without the other. What this tale inadvertently reveals is that the Source-power cannot create and bring anything into existence except through a process of positive/negative energy 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 life (such as chickens) in an appeal to God for personal forgiveness of sin. In Los Angeles, California, for example, there are Orthodox Jews who seek to sidestep responsibility and save themselves from sin by victimizing defenseless animal life.

The Roman “fathers” and “saints” of Christianity (such as Paul, Jerome, Augustine, etc.) enthusiastically took up the sin ensnaring tactic which carries with it the submit and obey features of the faith by relating how Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of the world. On that occasion, however, God did not see any reason to substitute a ram or goat for the spectacle. The reason for such spiritual indifference? It is the claim that God so loved the world that he should allow it to sidestep responsibility for its sins by letting his “only begotten son” be sacrificed. It seems a bizarre way to teach that everyone must stand responsible for their own acts if they are ever to evolve.

Why should this surrender and torture of God’s “beloved” and “only begotten” son inspire the world with any spiritual love and trust? Such a concept hinges upon pre-Christian societies 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 the redemption of the king’s people. That superstition was impressed upon Roman awareness around 60 BCE when the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem, which was then weakened due to a power struggle between the two sons of King Aristobulus. Pompey installed one son, Hyreau, as high priest and took the other brother, 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.

As noted, exploiting scapegoats, as promoted in Leviticus, was often subtly upheld in Hebrew Scriptures. Unfortunately, the only thing that such alleged godly allowance of using a substitute for the guilty sets up as standard practice is for the faithful to alway seek out ways to sidestep responsibility for themselves. However, passing the blame to another provides only the illusion that such “sacrifices” will free one to fly to Heaven on a comfortable mattress of lies. As for everyone else they supposedly go to Hell.

Sacred Hints on Sin-Dodging

Posted in Atheist, belief, Christianity, faith, Hebrew scripture, history, life, random, religion, scriptures, theology with tags , , , , , , , on December 19, 2013 by chouck017894

Sin, the alleged estrangement from God due to transgressing what is claimed to be God’s “known will,” is the age-old whip of faith system chieftains. The superstition that offending some god, directly or inadvertently, brings 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 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 by crafty schemers for their means of control.

By chapter three of Genesis, after 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 endless indulgence in vengeance! Sin is then installed as a vicious circle in Genesis 4:7 with God allegedly saying to Adam and Eve’s son, Cain, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not 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”–by the very next verse (8) he kills his brother Abel. Now that is divine speed-plotting. But God’s earlier condemning judgment upon sin is then shown to be amendable in his setting a protective mark upon Cain’s head so he can avoid consequences. Thus did “sin” become the meal ticket for the CEOs of any western faith system.

The great pivotal moment in sacred “history,” according to 8th century BCE priest-authored accounts, hinges upon the Lord’s alleged call for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering to receive special blessings. The Jews celebrate that alleged irrational incident of Abraham’s unquestioning obedience (Rosh Hashanah) as representative of their faith system’s especial characteristic–this despite the fact that in the Genesis timeframe Judaism was not yet an organized faith system. Was Isaac to be a sin offering? It is never said precisely why God would have asked for such a depraved act. Some suggest that it was a test of Abraham’s devotion, but if God is omniscient (all-knowing) as claimed, what could he possibly be uncertain about? As the story is depicted (by the priest authors), neither God nor Abraham inspire any spiritual admiration. And why would Isaac be such a spineless wimp? For some spiritual cowards, however, Isaac is held to be the first Jewish martyr (although Judaism was then far from its 8th century BCE invention as an organized faith system). 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 purpose in the priest-written texts is aimed at encouraging submission and obedience to the priest-manufactured faith system.

In the later priest-written book of Leviticus (18:7), jammed between Exodus and Numbers, this priestly lust for ugly showmanship is highlighted in a shift-the-guilt rite–allegedly with God’s okay–from the guilty party to some hapless victim. The alleged God-approved instructions read, “And he 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 lot for the Lord, and the other for Azazel.” We should note here that the word “tent” was commonly used as an occult reference to the primordial energy planes out of which Creation is made manifest, which is why it is referred to as the “tent of meeting.” To retain their authority the arrogant priests indulged themselves in the slaughter of one goat on the Temple altar, and sent the other hapless goat out into the wilds to be torn apart by predators. Or, depending upon location, the other goat was hurled by priests from a cliff to be cruelly dashed upon the jagged rocks below. Supposedly Azazel was imprisoned beneath the mount.

Nowhere is it ever explained in Hebrew or Jewish myths 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 considered to be 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 honored without the other. What this tale inadvertently reveals is that the Source power cannot create and bring all things into existence except through an interactive process of positive/negative energy 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 ancient 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 seeking to save themselves from sin through such indulgence in animal abuse.

The Roman “fathers” and “saints” of Christianity (such as Paul, Jerome, Augustine, etc.) enthusiastically took up the sin entrapment tactic along with the submit-and-obey features of the faith by asserting how Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of the world. On that occasion, however, God did not see any reason to substitute a ram or goat (or whatever) for the spectacle. What is the reason for such spiritual injustice? Allegedly because God so loved the world that he would allow mankind to sidestep responsibility for its sins by letting his “only begotten son” be sacrificed!

Why should this alleged God-approved torture and homicide of his own “beloved” and “only begotten” son inspire the world with any spiritual love or trust? Such a concept hinges upon pre-Christian societies of the Near and Mid East in which no rite was seen to hold more august power than the sacrifice of the king or the king’s son for the redemption of the king’s people. That was impressed upon Roman awareness around 60 BCE when the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem, which was then weakened due to the power struggle between the two sons of King Aristobulus. Pompey installed one son, Hyreau, as high priest, and took the other brother, Antigonus (along with his sons), to Rome as displays of triumph. Eventually, however, it was Antigonus who became priest-king of Jerusalem 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 the people. The whole mystery ritual of redemption seemed to the Jews to be played out once again for them when Antigonus himself was scourged, then bound to the stake, and then beheaded. The Jews chose to see in this his sacrifice to redeem his people.

As noted, exploiting scapegoats, as promoted in Leviticus, was always subtly promoted in Hebrew Scriptures. Unfortunately, the only standard that such alleged godly allowance for subjecting a substitute for the guilty is that it encourages the faithful to always look for ways to sidestep responsibility for themselves. All they need do in either Judaism or Christian practice is pass the buck or find a scapegoat–then they will be free to ascend to Heaven on a comfortable mattress of lies. The rest of God’s creations can go to hell.

39 Comments »

Jonah and the Whale Myth

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, Hebrew scripture, prehistory, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , on October 1, 2011 by chouck017894

Storylines in biblical tales are utilized repeatedly, but are cunningly disguised.  The whale of a tale of Jonah, the 32nd book in the Old Testament production lineup, is another case in point.  The story of Jonah in the belly of the whale is presented in Judaism as a model of human ability to repent and the willingness of god to forgive.  The book of Jonah is regarded to be so profound by the Jews that the entire four chapter book is read in the synagogue each year on the Day of Atonement (10th of Tishrei).  Indeed, Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the year for them, and atonement and repentance are the central theme.  This period of observance was mandated in the priest-written book of Leviticus 16:29, but there is only bleak  acknowledgement of its connection with the Autumnal Equinox.  A new year is calculated from this period, but, curiously, the Torah makes no mention that 1 Tishrei is to be regarded as marking the start of a new year.  Christianity puts its own spin on the Jonah myth, imagining that the alleged deliverance of Jonah from the belly of the “great fish” was a foretoken of the resurrection of Jesus.

A short synopsis: – Jonah was charged by god to go to the city of Nineveh to cry out against it.  But Jonah was not too thrilled at the idea of going to Nineveh and indulge himself in rabble-rousing, so he hopped the first available ship out of Joppa that was headed for Tarshish in attempt “to get away from the service of the Lord.”  Never considered in Judaism or Christian acceptance of the Jonah myth is the fact that in older Greek myth the demigod Herakles (Hercules) was also swallowed by a whale, and he too had departed from Joppa!  Add to this curious coincidence that it was at Joppa also where, in Greek myth, Andromeda was bound beside the sea as a sacrifice to a sea monster.  So where was Joppa located?  In Greek myth Joppa was located in Aethiopia.  No, this is not the same as the African nation of Ethiopia.  Aethiopia symbolized the dark, mysterious primordial energies out of which Creation is initiated.  Figuratively speaking Joppa was the capital of that region of primal energies, thus a seaport city.

This means that the  book of Jonah is another “holy” tale utilizing coded elements from prehistory wisdom which taught how elemental energies issue out of Source and begin involvement in their formation of matter.  Nineveh, therefore, represents energy involvement at the third pre-physical stage of development.  But Jonah is portrayed as longing to escape to Tarshish—which just happens to be identical with the Tarshish of the Solomon myth and identical with Tartarus in Greek myth.  So Jonah’s hoped for destination comes from the zodiacal sign of Taurus, in which the lessons of Creative Energy had been taught in prehistory time.  Thus Jonah, as he is meant to be, is fleeing  upon the waters (elementary energies) of Creation.  The chaos within the creative energies is accounted for by relating “…the Lord hurled a great wind upon the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the sea, so that the ship was threatened to break apart” (Jonah 1:4).  The sailors aboard the ship surmised that Jonah was somehow to blame for the tempest and so tossed him overboard.  He was, of course, supposed to be a part of the Creation energy-waters.  This, too, was in older Greek myth.

God cannot be outsmarted, and so the Lord had prearranged that a “great fish” would be stationed nearby to swallow Jonah, and the reluctant “prophet” wound up in the belly of the “great fish” for three days and three nights (echoing the first three days of Creation).  So the three days and three nights allegorize the first three dimensions out of quantum conditions, as had been taught in pre-history Creation lessons.

The greatest puzzle of this story for the theologians and biblical scholars is not the assertion that Jonah lived for three days and three nights in the guts of a “great fish,” but they puzzle over the prayer that Jonah allegedly recited while inside the belly of the “fish.”  Jonah did not repent his refusal of god’s command to go to Nineveh, he did not beg for forgiveness, and he did not beg for deliverance from his predicament.  Instead Jonah gives praise for being saved, and this baffles the biblical experts.  How, the devout wonder, could he say while in the fish’s belly, “For thou didst cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood was around about me, all thy waves and thy billows passed over me…Yet you didst bring up my life from the Pit…” (from out of the quantum conditions).

Lost in the sacred language style of holy storytelling is the fact that genetic consciousness (personified as Jonah) must be immersed in primal creative energies and “swallowed” to become active as the Life Principle.  Once the third energy phase is accomplished, genetic consciousness then becomes active and is “vomited” forth upon the next dimension of creative energy to progress into and through the four energy planes that will involve as dense matter forms.  This is why Jonah, while in the guts of the “fish,” is portrayed as expressing praise rather than seeking forgiveness.

The Jonah myth continues with the “great fish” vomiting him upon “dry land”—the same “dry land” mentioned in the Genesis myth after the “firmament” had been accounted for.  And it is the same “dry land” attained by Noah at the 40th day.  At this point Jonah must then trudge his way to Nineveh to fulfill his duty.  In other words, it is not material-matter land as we think of it, but is the developing prototypal form of matter.  This is why Jonah is then totally content to follow god’s orders and proceeds to Nineveh, which represents the powerful primal energy stages through which the Life Principle is to manifest all life forms.  Ignored by the bewildered faithful who are distracted by Jonah’s prayer is the assertion that it took three days to cross the city of Nineveh: no manmade city takes three days to go across.  It does, however, take three cosmic “days” for the Life Principle to span the primordial energy stages to approach involvement as matter–just as the first three “days” in the Genesis account of Creation.  And this is why Nineveh must be saved, and Jonah then plays the “prophet” saying an eight word prophecy, “Yet forty days (the next four phases of energy development), and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” (Jonah 3:4)  This modest “prophecy” allegedly caused “…the greatest of them to the least of them…” to repent immediately, and they “perished not.”

All such biblical myths dramatize the fact that the Life Principle originates through the elementary planes of energy to manifest as diverse matter-life forms.  The most important revelation of these mythic accounts is that everything which is made manifest is refined in this way, and the very same energies go into all things living and inanimate, and are therefore equally honored by the Source.  This truth horrifies those who are puffed with spiritual pride.

In Christian myth Jesus personifies the Life Principle, so Jonah gets referred to in the book of Matthew 12:40: “For as Jonas was three days in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of Earth.”  Thus life rises triumphantly out of elemental circumstances.  This is nothing other than sacred language methodology which repeatedly rework a small selection of storylines throughout the entire collection of Old and New Testament books.

5 Comments »