Archive for Sodom and Gomorrah

Fallacy of Sinful Sodom

Posted in Atheist, Bible, freethought, prehistory, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , on November 1, 2011 by chouck017894

Nowhere in biblical tales is there ever any mention as to what was happening across the rest of planet Earth or in other civilizations during the timeframe-settings used in the priest-composed stories.  The tale of the “sinful” city of Sodom (and Gomorrah, etc) is found in the scriptural book of Genesis, a title meaning beginnings, i.e. Creation.  So the tale of Sodom is another disguised account of the Creation process.  That ancient “city” in the region of Palestine is traditionally accepted as having been located just south of the Dead Sea and was destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the Lord (Genesis 19:24-25), allegedly due to its occupants’ incorrigible wickedness.

That some actual worldwide traumatic event(s) occurred in past eras and were later recounted from the limited perspective of one group of people in one limited locality should always be taken into account.  Those prehistory events, passed down through oral legends and drawn upon for plotlines to serve as a history for the nomadic Hebrew people, were not perfectly reworked.  Whatever the legends origins may have been, the Genesis tale of Sodom and Gomorrah has been presented through millennia as the ultimate symbols of human wickedness and divine retribution.  The peculiar aspect of this biblical tale is that the city’s implied “sinfulness” is never specified; it all hangs on insinuation.  The titillating suggestion that the men of Sodom were primarily same-sex oriented was an interpretation of a later interpreter of holy word, injected no doubt to spice up a monologue to get people’s attention—or perhaps to express some repressed desire.

To repeat, the priest-written book of Genesis is about beginnings, the process of Creation, particularly the buildup of energies that manifest as matter.  (This is encoded in Einstein’s formula E=MC2.)  Each developmental stage, or what ancient teachings referred to as a patriarchal principle of Creation, is thus disguised as some Hebrew/Israelite “patriarch” throughout the book of Genesis.  Each of the claimed “patriarchs” actually represent some developmental stage of energy involvement; and each level of energy has certain inherent limitations, thus each subsequent level of creative energy supersedes the previous one.  This is the meaning behind all the “begats” of unknown characters that are listed.  And this brings us to the disguised meaning behind the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim (Genesis 18-19), each of which represent a pre-physical energy level.  In the subplot of Lot, the nephew of the “patriarch” Abraham, Lot is the focus on the transitional phase of energy into the next level of creative energy which is accounted for by the “Lord” allowing Lot to flee to the fifth “little” city of Zoar, which is stressed as being “nearby.” (Genesis 19:20)

So what traumatic period of real planetary history was used to give this story its apparent background legitimacy?  There are two general timeframes that have been used in attempts to find confirmation of Sodom’s existence and destruction: Those dates are 29 June 3123 BCE, and the other is a timeframe between c. 2800 and 2300 BCE.  In more recent times researchers have concentrated more on the earlier 3123 BCE timeframe.  Interestingly, the first year of the Jewish calendar is placed in the year 3760 BCE, which allows a mere 637 years for serious accounting of alleged Israelite events leading to Sodom being obliterated by god’s wrath.

There is proof that throughout the narrow timeframe of 3200-3100 BCE a very serious planetary trauma was being played out.  On the opposite side of planet Earth, for example, a precise date was recorded in a Mayan account: It records a terrifying period of long darkness that began in the night of 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, which corresponds to modern reckoning as the 13th of August 3114 BCE.  And curiously the earliest “omen tablets” of the Sumerian/Babylonian cuneiform tablets have also been dated from this general timeframe!  Something of worldwide importance alarmed all world cultures.  Scientific investigation has detected that a large meteorite was  involved earlier on the date 29 June 3123 BCE.  Whatever occurred nine years later in 3114 BCE was likely a secondary event set off by that earlier heavenly disturbance.  Strangely, in this timeframe the celestial body we know as the planet Venus suddenly gained holy importance to many world cultures.

Was that celestial object we call Venus the cause, or did it act as a deflecting influence?  Venus does have some strange characteristics that do not match with the rest of the solar family lineup.  For example, Venus is the only planet to revolve on its axis in an opposite direction from any of the other planets.  Furthermore, Venus is unique in that it has the most sluggish rotation in the solar system: it is some 250 times slower than the rotation of Earth.  But for whatever the reason for Venus’ difference, the timeframe of 3123 BCE is a highly unlikely time for the Sodom saga in relation to all the other Israelite tales.

Most likely the five “sinful” cities of Genesis fame met their destruction in a later time period.  Using the traditional dating set for the Noah flood, archeological science has determined that the so-called “Cities of the Plain” in the Valley of Siddim could have existed only in a five hundred year span between 2800 to 2300 BCE.  It is verifiable that there were towns along the shore of the Dead Sea in this timeframe, and they were established for the collection of and trade in quantities of asphalt that was abundant in these surroundings.  Asphalt was highly prized in many ancient cultures as waterproofing material for boats, roofing and mortaring stone works.

Global disruptions and unusual celestial activities were still occurring and being recorded in this 500-year timeframe.  It should be noted that the Dead Sea region where the five “cities” were situated was, and still is, prone to earthquake activity.  The “wickedness” of these towns actually lay beneath the sandy soil upon which they had been built.  The sandy soil would weaken in what is called liquefaction when subjected to severe earthquake pressure.  In an earthquake of magnitude six or more, the buildings in the city would have sunk into the ooze by at least three feet, and a considerable expanse could have flowed into the sea.

The locale of this biblical tale was, throughout the 2000s BCE, an active asphalt production area, and pockets of methane gas trapped beneath the surface would have burst into devastating firestorms when flying sparks ignited them.  Thus the holy account  says, “…and lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.” (Genesis 19:28)  Within twenty minutes the stricken cities could have vanished from the face of the Earth.  It was too ripe of a legend not to use when the priests were fabricating their Israelite history.

With this dramatic backdrop the character of Lot personifies the Life Principle which moves in transitional stages of manifestation toward matter development.  This meaning is also supported in Genesis 19:29 where it says that Lot was “…sent out of the midst of the overthrow, when he (god) overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.”  To dwell in five cities would mean constant movement.  In this subplot of the Abraham character, the five cities therefore represent nuclear involvement which gives rise to chemical elements—the catalyst for all life force and mental activity.  It is from these elements that there is generated a vast horde of different compounds which are necessary for life.  And so the story continues with Lot fleeing to a cave situated above Zoar; in myths caves traditionally represent pre-physical conditions (the virginal void), and there, ardent for life, Lot is made drunk (just as was Noah when he attained matter).  Abraham’s nephew then has an incestuous relationship with his two daughters (representing energy substance), who subsequently bore sons, one named Moab and the other named Benammi.  Thus an extended plotline is provided to build upon later, and Lot, his daughters and their claim to legitimate history abruptly disappear from the stage.

Homosexuality and the Bible

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, gay culture, history, humanism, humanity, life, random, religion, sex, sex taboos, thoughts with tags , , , , , on December 12, 2010 by chouck017894

(After reading of an alarming rise in suicides among gay youths badgered by religious ignorance.  Add to this the stupidity of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in military service, as well as the insane attempt to insert legal sanction to murder homosexuals in Uganda.)

One of the things that those who are gorged with holy hatred continually indulge in is to take verses out of context from Bible stories to express disapproval of some circumstance of life that does not measure up to some cultivated judgment they use to gratify their egos.  The alleged “sin” of same-sex attraction is one of their orgiastic fantasies.  To inflame themselves in this pious pornographic flight of the imagined immorality they will, of course, drag out their dog-eared Bible and expound heatedly over three or four favorite inferences.  Totally ignored by the gay-bashers is that there are well over 300 disapproving verses to be found on heterosexual indulgences in comparison.  This raises the issue, which of these “sinners” should we be concentrating on? 

The first example is generally taken from chapter 18 of Genesis, which tells of when the omniscient god was depicted as impatient to obliterate Sodom and Gomorrah.  In that tale we read that two angels who had shape-shifted into human male form are asked by the men of the village of Sodom  to  come out of Lot’s house so the men of the village might know them.  The phrase to “know them” has been deliberately twisted into a sexual connotation, such as the scriptural phrase so-and-so knew his wife.  This twisted concept is seemingly supported in chapter 19:8 for Lot, the story goes, then offered his two virgin daughters to them so the girls might clarify why privacy was necessary for the two visitors, for they bore vital information that concerned only the immediate family.  Remember, the early books of the Bible were not collected into written form until around the seventh century BCE, and sexual interpretation of “to know” can be traced back to a Jewish Midrash designed to inject reprehensible imagery into an otherwise  humdrum address.  That inference was not in the older Hebrew telling.  But invoking a forbidden suggestive image was more attention-grabbing for those who wanted to wrap themselves in an illusion of righteousness.  Careful there: another implication can be drawn from the story—one that alarms the self-righteous fundamentalists—and that implication is that if men are to be rescued from same-sex familiarity, God endorses the giving of virgin daughters for men’s sexual use as a gang-bang distraction technique.

Quickly skipping away from such an unnoticed Genesis inference, those determined upon holy hatred then dive into the book of Leviticus, one of the most hateful and discriminatory compositions ever passed off as “holy writ.”  In the sickness of spirit indulged in that book, which was mandated by priests to priests, it is asserted that it is a sin to eat pork, for example, or to eat water creatures without fins or scales; and leprosy was to be regarded as “unclean,” and that such a skin condition is caused by sin; parents could slay unruly children; and there are presented 28 ways approved to kill victims for any conduct that the priest-author alleged that God found reprehensible.  One has to wonder how the priest-author was privy to all the many “abominations” to which the Lord allegedly expressed aversion.  Surely it couldn’t be priest invented “abomination” because no offspring would be produced for the priests to brainwash?

As for God’s supposed disapproval of same-sex involvement, it is expressed in only one short verse in chapter 18 of the hate filled Leviticus.  The nine words of verse 22 says only, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind…”  If this is such an “abomination” to the Lord, isn’t it peculiar that this commandment expressed in Leviticus was not set forth in the Ten Commandments that were allegedly handed down to Moses?  Or did the omniscient one not foresee such probabilities that could arise from splitting a hermaphrodite into two sexes?  (Genesis 1:27, or especially Genesis 2:21-23)

Finding only such skimpy ammunition for practicing hateful judgment in the Old Testament the fundamentalists will swoop upon the New Testament in their cherry-picking endeavor, landing upon 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is alleged to have been written by the self-proclaimed apostle Paul.  Among the sins that allegedly keep one from attaining membership in Heaven’s country club, there is listed in two verses: 9) “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Vague condemnation, indeed, if “effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind” are to be made to define what constitutes the “sin” of same-sex attraction!  Those characteristics and every other one in Paul’s list can be used to define nearly all fundamentalists.  Most are fornicators; worshiping the man-composed Bible amounts to idolatry; divorced person remarrying are adulterers (according to Luke 16:18); thievery includes using other people’s tax money for private religious indulgence; covetousness includes wanting to impose their demands upon other people’s lives; drinking heavily is far from rare among fundamentalists; reviling others (such as gays) is a religious addict’s standard practice; and extortion or seeking to obtain their way under duress is always the stock-in-trade practice of the religious right.

In desperation the fundamentalists will fall back and cherry-pick the book of Romans, plucking out chapter 1, verses 26 and especially 27 for attack purposes.   Ignored is the fact that the lines carry no authority when compared with the early teachings attributed to Jesus’ ministry.  As with 1 Corinthians, the book of Romans is attributed to the self-appointed apostle Paul.  Again the list covers an abundance of “sins” that seem to apply more to the fundamentalists themselves than does the single vague verse they use to vilify homosexuals.  Indeed, from verse 21 to the last verse, 32, the fundamentalists stand guilty of all the far darker sins.  To them the  first verse of chapter two which follows seems especially applicable: “Therefor thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:  for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

To that truth let us add,  Amen.

Related posts:

  •   Sex Attraction, A Bogus Spiritual Dilemma, Oct. 2009
  •   Victimizing Gays is to Mock Jesus, Oct. 2009
  • * God Didn’t Mention Chromosomes, May 2010 *

Biblical Patriarchs

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, culture, faith, history, humanity, prehistory, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 6, 2010 by chouck017894

Patriarchs: the names given to the alleged heads of families in early Scriptural “history.”  Any of the progenitors of the human race before the Deluge, from Adam to Noah: the post-Flood characters of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or any of Jacob’s twelve sons, said to be the eponymous  progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israel. 

It has been noted in these Time Frame posts that the 8th and 7th centuries BCE covered a period of intense writing in Jerusalem of those “sacred” tales regarded as patriarchal narratives.  In this period of dynamic priest writing the nation of Assyria dominated much of the Mid East region; it was, we should note, only in this timeframe that camels became common enough as beasts of burden to merit mention only incidentally in trader’s reports.  Archaeology research has shown that camels were not domesticated until after c. 1000 BCE., which makes it awkward for some Genesis tales. 

In Genesis 37:25, for example, the story goes that Joseph, the eleventh son of the patriarch Jacob (generally claimed to have lived c. 1700 BCE) is alleged to have been sold into slavery by his brothers and taken to Egypt.  In the scene that is set with the slavery sale, there is mention of camels as beasts of burden as well as products such as “gum, balm and myrrh.”  In the 7th century BCE, at the time of the writing, these were main products in active  trade under Assyrian supervision—but not in the alleged time-setting of the Jacob-Joseph story.

Given mention in Genesis 20:1, in the alleged Isaac narrative, is found reference to a Philistine center named Gerar in connection with the Abraham saga, which implies it was a center of some importance in Abraham’s time.  By some accounts the time projected for Abram and Sarai was c. 2150-2100 BCE.  Others insist that Abraham departed from Ur in Chaldea around 2100 BCE.  And  others assert that Abraham made his way to Egypt c. 1935 BCE.  In the Isaac narrative Gerar is not actually identified as a Philistine center by the authors—probably because that location did not gain importance until about the time of the priestly composition of patriarchal lore—the 7th century BCE—when it was a heavily fortified Assyrian administrative stronghold.  Nonetheless, in Genesis 26:1, we are told that Isaac, son of Abraham, encountered King Abimelech of the Philistines, the very king who had taken to his harem Abraham’s wife Sarah.  And Isaac is said to have dwelt the Gerar because the Lord had told him, “Go not down into Egypt (verse 3).  But archaeological evidence shows that no city of the Philistines flourished until after c. 1200 BCE; they did, however, continue into Assyrian times.

Obviously the alleged patriarchal narratives were late compositions, for the incidental details that set the scenes, such as camels, non-existent cities, caravan products, etc, are out of  place for the timeframes of the alleged patriarchal characters.

The priests of Yahweh, in authoring their version of “history,” also freely indulged themselves in reproachful commentary on any and all cultural neighbors—especially those to the east such as Moab and Ammon.  With holy hatred they declared that the nations of Moab and Ammon arose from sons born to the two daughters of Lot who had an incestuous union with their father following the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:30-38).  This was clearly invented propaganda by the 8th-7th century BCE priests to inflame followers with hatred for those rival nations across the Dead Sea.

Thus today do the three organized religions of the west still dish out the legacy of crafted lies and practiced hatred as the sacred path into God’s acceptance!