Archive for sin

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.

Advertisements

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.

Lucifer Falsely Accused

Posted in agnoticism, Astronomy, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, Hebrew scripture, prehistory, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , on January 15, 2011 by chouck017894

In the misinformation passed off as holy word, a name used in the book of Isaiah (14:12, written in the 7th century BCE) was Lucifer, which acknowledged a troublesome comet that, after many generations, had recently attained an established orbital pattern among the other planets.  We know that awesome celestial object today as the planet Venus. (See related posts listed at end.) Faith merchants latched onto the comet/star’s alleged “fallen” status, reworking and personifying it into an archangel cast from heaven for leading a revolt of angels.  That 7th century BCE revisionist project is a prime example of the quality of interpretation that is honored as “revealed wisdom.”

Not much better, our encyclopedias assert that Lucifer was a name used in ancient astronomy for the  morning star, meaning Venus when it appears in the morning before sunrise.  But the reference to “ancient astronomy” is obviously calculated from the general period of Isaiah, which at best goes back no further than the 8th century BCE, for in authentic prehistory charts the planet Venus was not then included.

The general consensus among Bible scholars in regard to the Isaiah verse is that the “prophet” was referring to the king of Babylon.  That is a bit of a stretch to suggest that the Israel “prophet” would think of the king of Babylon as “…son of the morning.”  The early Christian fathers chose to interpret the Isaiah verse differently, saying the verse in question was a reference to Satan’s fall from Heaven!  Considering the name’s association with a comet’s transformation into a planet alluded to in Isaiah, the “fall from heaven” was an easy image to sell.  Thus did the name Lucifer become a Christian alias for the  imagined Satan/Devil, the “prince of darkness.”  This, we shall see, was a deliberate inversion of the original meaning in the name.

In the later Christian cult interpretation of Lucifer, we should take into account the timeframe in which the original verse and the Christian interpretation were presented.  The pre-Christian name is best understood from the Latin words lux or lucis, meaning “light,” and ferre, meaning “to bring.”  This attests to the more ancient meaning from the lessons on Creation that were once illustrated with constellation figures, and which explained the glowing life energy that scriptures say “shown in the darkness” of the Absolute. 

It is from the formation of pre-physical elements into visible matter that we received the scriptural fiction of the “chief angel,” Satan, falling from grace and who “…kept not his first estate.”  The “first estate” in the ancient teachings given with the astronomical figures referred to the pre-physical elements that energize into everything that manifests as matter form.  There could never be any advancement or evolutionary movement unless that “first estate” was discarded.  Priests in their cunning used this as their meal ticket by declaring that free will was used to “rebel,” and as a result all persons had to be saved from the “sins” of that imagined rebellion.  Their hobgoblin Satan-Devil-Lucifer was declared to have been the  first to rebel, and all this, it is avowed, accounts for original sin that was dumped upon Adam and Eve—and all the rest of us!

  • Related posts: Years of Heavenly Havoc, July 2010;  Threats From Heaven, September 2010.

Neo-Cons’ Concept of Evil

Posted in Atheist, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, Government, history, humanity, life, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , on November 5, 2009 by chouck017894

Neo-conservatism has burrowed into the American psyche and guts through the last few decades and has flourished due primarily to the juvenile Christian perception of evil.  As a result, the nature of American politics evolved increasingly into a radical and warmongering style that in turn infected and attacked the very roots of our democracy.

The neo-conservative attitude seems to consistently struggle upon the quicksand-assessment that human beings are innately wicked, and the heart that pumps this attitude rests in the ribs of biblical myth that presents the idea of original sin.  That fairy tale approach to what is the natural interfacing and resultant friction met in everyday life permits them only the premise that humans do “evil” for the perverse gratification of it!  Consequently they themselves have come to embody and exemplify that virulent interpretation that they so vehemently denounce.

Of course the neo-cons insist that they alone faithfully embody only the good and wholesome attributes favored by god, and all others are aligned with Lucifer and are irrational villains.  From this sand fortress they then feel secure enough in god’s graciousness to hurl grenades of slander and libel against any life expressions that do not match up with their narrow understanding of Creation’s diversity.  Thus self-blinded it became only a skip and a jump to selling weapons of mass destruction to other authoritarians, making deals with brutal dictators, counting corporate profits from invasions of foreign countries, and shrugging off the innocent civilian lives lost from indulging in bombing “infidels.”

Through the decades as radical religionism contaminated American government there has grown, for the neo-cons, an awkward bewilderment expressed in their plaintive question, “Why have they (the foreign nations) come to despise us so?”  Self righteousness is a peculiar form of blindness.  Compromise through negotiations with the “enemy” is held by the neocons to be unacceptable, for it allows respectful coexistence of diverse elements.  They refuse to recognize or accept that the activation of countless diverse forces served as the foundation of Creation and is what continues to sustain it—a truth lightly alluded to in the book of Genesis and confirmed by science.  Nonetheless, the neo-cons and the Christian radical right formed an adulterous relationship under which diplomacy and negotiation was rejected for apocalyptic-style military solutions.

By biblical standards this is judged to be fully acceptable.  After all, in biblical tales god repeatedly erupted in wrath and punished all of Israel for the transgressions of a few, as elaborated in Joshua 7:1-12, and 2 Samuel 21:2.  Under such Bible guidance it is deemed okay to strike at anyone who oppose neo-cons’ plans, even the patently unjust ones, under the self-delusion that they are “doing god’s work.”  In that stance, however, all they are declaring is their impatience with god, for he, god, is in the habit of taking intolerable amounts of time to express his will.

Victimizing Gays is to Mock Jesus

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, humanity, life, logic, random, religion, sex, sex taboos, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , on October 26, 2009 by chouck017894

There are attitudes of religion, and an attitude, we should remember, is not a given truth, it is simply an affectation of cultured disposition.  This assessment was spawned by the recent news that opposition to same-sex marriage had been whipped up in the state of Maine by the very same bigots that managed to pervert equal justice in the state of California.  Behind the scenes those Christian groups claiming to hold exclusive access to Heaven’s discrimination list were, by their practiced intolerance, mocking the teachings of the one they claim as their savior.  In their self-absorbed practice they intentionally subvert the early teachings credited to Jesus in the New Testament of love one another and have canonized prejudice instead.  Jesus’ words of love and tolerance simply are not good enough for them!

There is, of course, extreme hypocrisy in their attitude.  This is most glaringly apparent in those known collectively as the Religious Right or Fundamentalists who love to pick and choose Bible verses out of context to stir up hatreds.  For some unexplainable reason they seem to believe that their sins will be  forgiven by God’s grace, but that some other persons who by circumstance of their “intelligent design” chromosomal makeup are inclined to same-sex attraction are held to be rejected by their designer.  In spite of the man-written Bible verses of God’s supposed “laws,” the chromosomal arrangement of a person cannot truthfully be said to run counter to those “laws,” nor is the resultant lifestyle of those persons merely their “choice” to live rebelliously.

Perhaps we should note that research on marriage has shown that around fifty percent of those who subscribe to the religious right happen to be divorced and have remarried.  And of that category over eighty-five percent of those who divorced have remarried.  According to the man-composed book of Luke 16:18, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”   In other words, those using the Bible as a weapon have themselves chosen a sinful lifestyle according to that interpretation of spiritual worthiness.  So the right-wingers choose to indulge in hypocrisy to gratify their ego but demand that gays must turn from their “sinful” lifestyle.  It is much more blessed in their opinion to “go forth and multiply” and contribute to world overpopulation.

The earlier NT account of the teacher (as given in Mark and Matthew) that became restructured into corporate religionism said this: “Judge not, that you be judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” (Matthew 7:1-2)

Shouldn’t the devotees of “my way only” religionism explain just how homosexuality is a greater “sin” than the unholy adultery indulged in through divorce?  How are gays such a threat to “family values” or a menace to children?  Very few homosexuals are actually pedophiles, except maybe in the church.  Since the bulk of those who divorce remarry, the result is that over fifty percent of the children in the nation are victims of torn-apart families and endure the trauma of having to merge with strangers as “family.”  Add to this that step-parents are too often the culprits in a high percent of child abuse cases.  That is a lot of abuse, and it is not due to gays in society.

Attacking a small percentage of society to cover up their  own transgressions is an appalling way to demonstrate an alleged faith in higher wisdom.  Making war on a minority segment of society that simply loves their own does nothing constructively for society.  Slogans such as we love the sinner but hate the sin” is nothing more than empty, pompous rhetoric.  As Einstein observed, “You cannot simultaneously say you love someone and use your power against them.”  And why do the right-wingers consistently ignore the famous quote attributed to Jesus: “Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone”?  To indulge in the attempt to rationalize their own sins away while spouting hatred for other lifestyles “in god’s name,” the Right Wing and Fundamentalists choose to mock the one they claim as their savior.

It is written in Mark 12:31 that Jesus said, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.  There is no greater commandment.”  Not only are a percentage of neighbors probably homosexually inclined, but so too it is likely that one or two are in your immediate family as well.

The “Original Sin” Scam

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, history, logic, Middle Ages,, random, religion with tags , , , , , , on July 13, 2009 by chouck017894

Some private response to the article “Born in Sin” (July 10, 2009), a theory which is also alluded to as “Inherited Sin” or “Original Sin,” has prompted a few more notes.  Specifically, attention is drawn to the eighteenth ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church that assembled in Trent, Italy on December 13, 1545.  It was a tiresome affair that lasted intermittently until 1563!  Eighteen years!  Indeed, three pontificates, Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV would sit upon the papal throne before the council would finally fold up shop.

Hammered out among god’s alleged representatives were such things as disciplinary decrees regarding Episcopal duties, the religious orders of the church, the education of the priesthood, and the censorship of books.  Doctrinal decrees were also issued on the Mass, purgatory, the veneration of “saints,” and the doctrine of indulgences.  Thus the long, dragged-out “council” set the corporate standards of the Roman Catholic faith and for practices that remain to this day.  Of course decisions set in place by that council infected even the religious reformation blocs.

For starters, it was in the fourth session (1546) that sacred tradition was put on a par with Scripture, as were also all the books contained in the Vulgate (edited by “saint” Jerome c. 392).  This version of the scriptural presentation is known as the Vulgate because it employed the language of the common people in Jerome’s time.  It contains not only the sixty-six books of the Authorized Version but also eleven books of the Apocrypha, which the Catholic Church holds as being divinely inspired, but which most Protestants reject as not in keeping with the most ancient authority.  In other words, of doubtful religious significance.

At this overly long ecumenical council, there was much haggling whether the story of Susanna and the Elders belonged in Scripture, for example.  Ultimately it wound up as an apocryphal addition to the book  of Daniel (which happens to be a Hebrew retelling of a Babylonian tale).  The Vulgate was then declared to be “authentic,” and affirmed to be canonical.

Now, back to the main point: it was with this council that the no-escape clause of “Original Sin” was heartily embraced.  Dressed in holy phraseology the council announced, “From the fall of man until the hour of baptism the Devil has full power over him and possesses him.”  What a perfect scam: holding all mankind as hostage as blemished from Adam’s nibbling fruit from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Nothing much has been changed in the assessments made in the Middle Ages by the eighteenth council on what constitutes holy “truth.”  In the nineteenth century things were updated with insertion of clarifying additions: added were two definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the declaration of the infallibility of the pope.  It is on such authority that we are told that we can be cleansed of “sin” (life’s inevitable boo-boos) only by a religious business machine.