Archive for Theology

Faith vs Reality

Posted in belief, enlightenment, faith, life, logic, random, religion, secularism, theology, thoughts with tags , , on February 1, 2016 by chouck017894

Reality–the everyday problems which are experienced in this dimension of limited energy which we call life–is not being well served when believers are assured that Creation’s laws can be set aside if only you believe in a certain belief system manner. The universe would implode into nothingness if exceptions were allowed for a certain chosen or saved few to bypass Creation’s laws.  Scientific truth is being ignored when such egocentric beliefs are being marketed as ego stimulants, for the higher truth is that every identity within Creation stands accountable for itself.  The creative laws responsible for the universe cannot be sidestepped or patched over by man-invented rites and ritual or ceremony.  The Heaven and Paradise so fervently yearned for by faith system seekers can never be gained by practicing disrespect for the diversity and variety of other life forms or life styles which share this temporary passage through this limited energy field we speak of as matter.

Faith, the kind that does not rest on logic or open to acceptance of studies of powers invisible to us, is pretty much an inherited thing passed down from the parents and/or society, and it habitually lumbers under the mantle of some faith system which has evolved while its promoters have unethically pursued worldly ambitions.  Unfortunately their drive is to prove to the world that some man-contrived institutionalized faith system is the only way that a person can storm the Creator’s Heaven: That only signals that the bottom line for that promoted faith system rests entirely in this world, not in any higher realm.

Pretending that cosmic powers aid only some particular man-made faith system in extending control over this material world’s tribulations is tragically misleading.  Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity whom they claim to represent be directly dependent upon militant actions of mere man to fulfill that all-powerful deity’s wishes?  That illogical assertion is not consistent with the all-inclusive capabilities claimed for that imagined deity.  The escape propaganda used to get around this theological flaw is the claim that such strong arm devotional indulgences are necessary to “test” the believers’ devotion.  That really answers nothing, for why would an omniscient (all knowing) being ever find it necessary to “test” anything that he/she/it had created?  The only reason for such a hot air claim rests in the ego-driven greed of the “spiritual shepherds: for exercising authority, not to provide any genuine spiritual enlightenment for seekers.

The three highly organized major faith systems of the western world’s cultures–faith systems which are all fragmented by schisms–have each been structured by priest or prophet authors upon a not too subtle prejudice against the bearing principle (considered feminine) that is within the Source which is necessary for life multiplication.  This self-serving and cowardly propaganda has been set in place to “put the blame on woman” in an attempt to absolve the engendering principle within Source (considered male) from all the error and sin in the world.  This propaganda that the creative action which is necessary for bearing forth of matter form is somehow the cause of man’s woes is glaringly antagonistic with the man-is-superior assertion that the male authors penned. It is “holy” guidance such as this of godly approval of inequity that has contributed heavily to mankind’s seemingly endless wars and atrocities.

If the Omniscient power, personified and characterized as a male deity, finds that he/she/it must “test” his/her/its creations for worthiness that divine inclination for questioning any created object or event should be fully acceptable as a human characteristic if we are, as claimed, made in his image.  It is peculiar, therefore, that man-fashioned faith systems tend to abhor questions–especially so in regard to any question concerning their claims of divine authority.  To seriously question the powers-that-be of that faith system can make for some disquieting  conclusions.  One logical conclusion is that only con artists write religious rituals and rites and ceremonies.  That is provable because no one else like you or I really need such crafted public theatrical indulgences to experience personal connection to the all-embracing power in which we exist.  Rites and  ritual and ceremony serve the spiritual pretenders, however, as a means of exercising authority through inflicting a kind of intellectual tyranny which asserts that they and they alone represent what can only be imagined as some Divine Avenger.  That implied avenger conjures up what can only be called superstition which is fleshed out with liberal doses of the supernatural.  This is the intentional crucifixion of rationality nailed upon duplicity.  In that methodology reason is intentionally dishonored for the benefit of theologies.

Despite their implied intimacy with the Creator, true spiritual instruction remains mysteriously nebulous within the tons of man-authored texts which dare to pretend to teach spiritual qualification.  With these texts seekers are taught to reject the varieties and diversities of life expressions, to dismiss any differing way of expressing spiritual consciousness, and to install within themselves a devotion to man-crafted prejudices, bigotry, hatreds, and their religious inspired massacres and wars.  The unifying power that underlies the entire universe and its diversity is totally ignored for the self-imposed illusion fashioned by EGO for imagined exclusiveness with the Creator of that diversity.

 

 

Advertisements

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.

Arrested Spiritual Development, AKA Theology

Posted in Atheist, belief, enlightenment, faith, random, religion, theology with tags , , , , , , on August 15, 2013 by chouck017894

Theology is generally defined as a methodically formulated “study” which dares to claim that it provides “knowledge” and the “science” regarding the nature of God. In actuality theology is more of a speculative exercise system of belief which builds upon the hypothesis that a supernatural being (with humanlike characteristics) created and sits in judgment of everything in Creation. This “study” is heavily promoted as religious truth and theological science which allegedly provides rational inquiry into religious questions. Oddly, all organized faith systems, especially those which are run by the book, pivot upon somewhat differing opinions as to what constitutes “divinity” and what humanity’s relationship is with that alleged “divine being.” The subject of theoloty is marketed as a study course which specializes in “religious research,” and is commonly obtainable at a faith-based university or seminary. In other words, the “science” (loosely defined) is a money oriented study for attaining a salary-oriented career.

The modern use of the term “theology” refers to a rather narrow approach to the universal powers which are imagined to correspond to a super-humanlike being. This is a self-serving mode of propaganda which insinuates that it teaches exclusive knowledge. But in more ancient timeframes such as classical Greece, theology, by the etymology of the word, signified a discourse about the divine Source as ultimate god by men such as Pherecydes of Syros (6th century BCE), a teacher of Pythagoras, and the man Epimenides of Crete (around 600 BCE), who is reputedly the “prophet” quoted by “Saint” Paul in Titus 1:12. Broadly speaking, theology includes the earliest classical understanding as being a discourse about God, but the study also theorizes man’s nature which seems to indicate a distinct (faith system) relationship with that theorized god. This is then easily expanded into speculation of how each person’s life experiences determine the relationship of each person’s destiny with God.

Theological studies assert that “other sciences” such as biology are incorporated, and these true sciences allegedly support and affirm “the scientific explanation of religious life.” Even so, this claimed “scientific” relationship still generates only a system of doctrines, dogmatism, and duties which support and promotes the faith system. Nothing in such a setup really elevates a seeker’s spirit into true enlightenment. It might be concluded, therefore, that theology is an elaborate practice which was invented for the bedevilment of reason.

There is, consequently, an abundance of terms and expressions that have been produced to promote the beliefs which each faith system offers. About the only thing that all these man-formulated systems (categorized under the umbrella of “religion”) actually agree upon is that anyone who does not subscribe to a supernatural explanation of universal powers is damned and those poor souls’ rational skepticism is spoken of as (gasp) “atheism!” In other words,a theist’s judgment is systematically and subconsciously programmed with hatred toward any differing search for enlightenment instead of being infused with spiritual tolerance. Meanwhile the vocabulary of faith system believers remains colored with its descriptive theist tag, meaning “god,” in words such as monotheist, henotheist, polytheist, pantheist, and even atheist, and the misunderstood term deist. Deism, as an example, is the belief that the truth of the existence of the creative Life Principle (which is commonly personified as God) can only be discovered by each individual through the evidence of reason and nature, and without resort to any particular church or to claims of revelation. The bulk of founding fathers of the United States were deists, not Christians, as example. Deism is from Latin, theism is from Greek.

Excesses of any faith system are inestimable, and they flourish under such proudly displayed emblems as two interlocked triangles making up a six pointed star, a dead body hanging on a cross, a crescent moon cupping a five-pointed star, and other faith system insignia. All too commonly religious devotion to imagined divinities has been slyly misdirected and that yearning by seekers for true enlightenment then becomes sacrificed for an indulgence in eccentric procedures. Theological construction utilizes (for it own ends) philosophical terms of value, but rationality is the least valued of those terms. At its best, theological study can only tippy-toe around philosophical dedication to rationality in its pursuit of theological tenets.

True philosophy is the attempt to uncover an ultimate truth by rational means; theology, however, is prone to limit (and heavily so) rational investigation, willingly sacrificing that standard of philosophy for the faith system purpose which strives to impose a submit-and-obey following. To accomplish this, theological study has to incorporate a philosophical starting point if it is to make the study appear rational. Thus are alleged “revelations” which have been handed down by tribal ancestors made to serve as the starting point upon which a pretense of “scientific study” of those revelations may be presented by imitating philosophical premises. Theology’s claimed affiliation with philosophy, we could thus say, is something like an occasional behind-the-barn intimacy. It is akin to a hormone-driven need to feel intimacy with rationality, but those moments of dalliance must be kept hidden from the gullible public.

Exegetical theology is a more recent attempt at trying to include genuine scientific principles in support of their belief system by accepting the evidence of evolution as being active in both the spiritual and material dimensions of creation. In other words, exegetical theology leans strongly toward universalism. By this means, however, the creative life-infusing power which is personified as “God” can never really be classified as Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other man-contrived membership belief system, for that Source power continues to indiscriminately uphold any and all aspects of whatever mankind may perceive from his limited observation of Creation.

So is it ever appropriate to bestow upon ethnic faith systems a collection of invented theological claims as being “scientific” or “facts”? The central tenets of any established faith system must, of necessity, provide some allusion of historical background for those tenets, but any in-depth investigation of any faith system will reveal that there is not one in existence which has not heavily whitewashed its true history. Ignoring true historical data does not enhance spiritual reliability.

Related post: Haggling Over What To Believe, January 2013

It’s All Her Fault

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, Hebrew scripture, life, nature, random, religion, scriptures, sex, sex taboos with tags , , , , , on July 11, 2013 by chouck017894

The three faith systems of western cultures were all structured by male authors upon a not-too-subtle animosity toward the active bearing principle within Creation energies. This is a rather nonsensical attitude since that bearing principle is critical for life multiplication. It is also rather cowardly rhetoric for male “shepherds of the faith” to apply the “put the blame on woman” argument in an attempt to absolve themselves from all the error and sin in the world. Such rationale and finger-pointing fails to camouflage the fact that it is the man-is-supreme propaganda in sacred texts which has accounted for the bulk of mankind’s wars and atrocities. Certainly feminine curiosity or wiles or motherly patience have not inflicted such continuing despair and grief upon the world scene as has the male-is-supreme view of holiness.

The “holy books” of the three western faith systems—the Torah, New Testament and Quran—inelegantly place the alleged curse of man’s “fall” and “original sin” upon the slender shoulders of the feminine sex with the astonishing alibi of a talking serpent! Well, guzzling too much holy wine can certainly inspire guys to invent excuses. At any rate, the feminine pole of Creative energy–characteristically defined as negative–has been made to carry the emotional baggage of man’s loose cannon theories while women still manage to somehow keep life’s foundation functioning with some degree of stability.

These three western culture’s faith systems, all of which are rigorously “run by the book,” allow women only partial redemption for their supposed degraded position: they are intended, so say their “revealed” holy words, only to marry and bear their boastful “providers” with offspring (preferably male). It is as though these three interrelated man-superior faith systems regard the responsibilities and chores of the household and child rearing to almost compensate for the feminine genders’ responsibility for man’s “fall from grace.”

The imagined second attempt by the Creator (as in Genesis 2:21-22) at initiating human production, according to the priest-authors assertions, was declared to have involved the surgical removal of some part of Adam’s anatomy. Apparently by that phase of the Lord’s craftsmanship he had run out of creative “let there be” words to recite. What this hackneyed version of human life production reveals, unintentionally so, is that it is polar exchange which generates any and all matter-life and inanimate matter. The generative system that the Creator allegedly set up for continuance (propagation) of any life species was a built-in feature which specifies that every manifested material thing automatically carries polar opposites within themselves. There are no exceptions to this “go forth and multiply” law of Creation.

That the male authors of “holy word” were obsessed with their own genitals is clearly evident with the character of Aaron (whose name means to conceive) in the book of Exodus (chapter 28). The fascination with their physical equipment, ranked by them as being prime paraphernalia, is spelled out in that particular chapter of Exodus with the instructions for the curious sacred garments that are to be worn for generating their faith system. To assess the true meaning of all the improbable tales remember that euphuisms are employed repeatedly throughout all scriptural texts. Holy garments that are to be worn by the self-appointed priests included a breastplate, ephod, two onyx stones and pouches of gold: so is it coincidence that the word “sacred,” derived from the Hebrew word sacre, happens to mean phallus? (Details are given in Sex in Sacred Disguise, March 2009 post.) In that “garment” metaphor of what God’s representatives are to wear, the feminine aspect is something that is entered into or put on, like “golden rings.” We will leave any metaphoric explanation to your analysis as to what “holy oil” actually represents in this “holy” account.

What this sacred language style reveals to us is that the sacred texts of the western cultures do not intelligently consider the Creator’s law of genetic purity, but prefer instead to idolize sexual role-playing. If human life was originally a condition of hermaphrodism–i.e. two polar aspects in one energy form, as holy word asserts–then the division of that singular form had to keep some aspect from each energy pole within both separated parts if creative purpose was to be active within the separated parts. This means, as a consequence, that no man is ever one hundred percent male, and no woman is ever one hundred percent female. For example, men still retain nipples, and women possess a clitoris which is erectile tissue. That’s just the outer odds and ends of physical personifications; there are more inside.

Because sacred texts do not deal honestly with sexual polarity the practice became established for fussing over all kinds of sexual misunderstandings, and these are grossly and needlessly exhibited in social problems to this day. The genderless Life Principle (personified as God), as reflected in Nature itself, cares nothing about sexual chastity: its only concern is genentic purity, meaning that the only limitation that the Life Principle (God) placed upon sexual relationships was in regard to propagation, which declared that each life species must create only after its own kind. Sacred texts which refuse to honestly admit the inherent variations of sexual polarity prefer to labor over the creation aspects of sexual activity (and used for priestly exploitation use), but adamantly deny the equally inherent re-creational aspect of sexual expression.

The Life Principle delights in producing many diverse forms of life expressions, and in the priest composed scriptural tales this variety and diversity of Creation activity is personified as the numerous Levites, the successors of Aaron. It is, therefore, ironic and hypocritical to make use of such scriptural characters and the alleged situations in which they were presented for condemnation of sexual attraction, for such characters as Aaron and the Levites, etc., are metaphors for sexual (generative) energy! If doubtful, just remember the exotic details of the “garments” that these characters were required to wear when ministering in the “holy place.” To keep holy mystery alive the breastplate, ephod, onyx stones and pouches of gold are kept concealed from public view under glitzy attire. Such modesty aside, the next time you see some pompous Bishop strutting around in his elaborate costume and balancing that phallic-styled miter upon his head, try not to snicker. Just remember, these guys are still avoiding truth and responsibility.

Curious Circumstances Regarding Jesus’ Trial

Posted in belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, random, religion, scriptures with tags , , , , , , on June 2, 2013 by chouck017894

There are a considerable number of questionable things in the accepted New Testament versions of Jesus’ ministry and the alleged events of his final days, especially the account of his blasphemy trial which was allegedly presided over by Pontius Pilate.  Pilate was indeed the Prefect of the Roman provinces of Judea, Samaria and Idumaea from c. 29 to 36 CE, having been appointed by Emperor Tiberius.  And yes, he was endowed with the power of supreme judge.  But it is highly improbable that the trial of Jesus’ alleged “treason” trial would have been conducted as portrayed in the crafted texts. 

There is the fact that the Prefect, a Roman governor who was not particularly sympathetic to the religious convictions or spiritual pride of the Jews, would have personally interrogated some gentle rebel of that faith.  The Roman jails held many other felons who merited more serious attention, and in addition it would have been the duty of the Prefect’s subordinates to interrogate the common-law violators.  Remember that Jesus was, for the most part, known only as a wandering preacher, and not yet renowned as someone bearing the exalted caliber of “Christ.”  (That designation originated in the Greek community of Antioch before the timeframe set as Jesus’ birth, which would not have been respected by Jews.)  Also, in cases which related to religious matters, the seriousness of an accused Jew’s offence was determined by the Sanhedrin–the Jewish supreme council and tribunal.  The Sanhedrin is portrayed as having found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, but that council did not have the power to sentence him with death.  Jesus was then allegedly brought before Pilate (Mark 15:5, Matthew 27:1-14, Luke 23:17, and John 18:29-38–all of which sustained several rewrites).

Pilate is portrayed rightfully as having refused to approve the judgment of death without Roman style investigation, and here again this duty would have been carried out by underlings.  This cautionary procedure purportedly inspired the Jewish priests to invent other charges against Jesus which allegedly led Pilate to interview Jesus privately.  On the surface this sounds reasonable, but nothing is ever conveyed how this interview with a jailbird could have occurred.  Jesus is said to have spoken Aramaic, and Pontius Pilate may have known some Hebrew, but his native language was Latin.  Did Jesus carry the omniscient gene of his divine father and thus understand everything about everything?  According to John’s Gospel, Pilate conversed with Jesus without need of an interpretor.  Curious.

According to John, the Jewish conspirators had led Jesus to the judgment hall but would not enter the Roman facility for fear of being defiled and thus rendered unqualified to partake of Passover.  Pilate obliged them and went outside to ask what accusations they made against Jesus.  Not particularly impressed with the Jews’ claim, Pilate told them to judge Jesus according to their own law, to which the Jews replied that it was unlawful for them to put any man to death (John 18:31).  At this point Pilate allegedly went back into the judgment hall and conversed with Jesus (without an interpretor), asking Jesus pointedly “Art thou the King of the Jews?”  Jesus never said yes exactly, and he didn’t say no; he said only that “My kingdom is not of this world.”  Pilate apparently just shrugged, saying, “What is truth?” (John 18:38) and went back outside to tell the accusers, “I find in him no fault at all.”

The situation then became a bit more muddled with Pilate saying to the Jews (verse 39), “But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at Passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?”  Verse 40 continues, Then cried they all again saying, Not this man, but Barabbas.  (We will ignore here that the name Barabbas means son of the father, which could be applied to the only begotten son of God.)  The chapter concludes saying, Now Barabbas was a robber.  Chapter 19 begins by saying that “Pilate therefore took Jesus and sourged him.”  Are we to believe that a Roman governor would personally scourge a jailbird?  For what offense?  Pilate had found no fault in Jesus.  The crime of Jesus is the allegation of treason, but it was not treason or blasphemy in the eyes of Roman law, so Pilate said simply, “Behold the man.”  To which the chief priests and officers allegedly cried out “Crucify him, crucify him.”  And Pilate is said to have replied to the malicious priests, “Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.”  In Matthew 27:19 Pilate is quoted as saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood.”

Now we get into even murkier territory.  Pilate had already announced that he found no fault in Jesus, and so the resposibility of a death sentence was passed back to the Jews.  But—and this is an important but—crucifixion was not a killing techique among the Jews; for the crime of blasphemy Jesus would have been, by Leviticus law, stoned to death.  Pilate sought to release Jesus (John 19:12), but for the Christian authors to get the crucifixion angle to work Pilate was pictured as being maneuvered by the priests who taunted Pilate saying, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend; (to) maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.”  This is pathetic story plotting: even if Jesus claimed to be a king, he would not have been seriously considered in Rome to be any threat to imperial authority.  On the other hand the Christian cult desperately needed a messiah capable of resurrecting without too much physical damage.  And so Jesus was, by Gospel accounts, nailed to a cross–allegedly by the order of Pontius Pilate.

Another weakness in this crucifixion plotline is that the disgraced victims–Jews or not–were rarely permitted to be taken down for burial as is described for Jesus.  Customarily victims were left upon the cross to the mercy of dogs and wild beasts, for the crosses upon which victims were impaled were not the high silhoettes that Christian artists love to glorify; the Roman instrument of slow murder was rarely more than eight feet tall once it was anchored in the ground in an upright position.  The remains of the executed victims were, in due course, dumped into a mass grave.

There is an interesting footnote to Pontius Pilate’s alleged role in condemning Jesus to death by crucifixion.  Back in the nineteenth century the records of Pilate’s court were still in existence, and a distinguished scholar-educator (rabbi) Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), was able to study those records in a search of evidence of Jesus’ famous blasphemy trial.  Rabbi Wise could find absolutely nothing concerning such a trial. 

 

Knowledge, the Forbidden Fruit

Posted in belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, Hebrew scripture, religion, scriptures, Social with tags , , , , , , on May 20, 2013 by chouck017894

Intelligence and knowledge get a sizeable amount of negative press in the “sacred” texts of western cultures.  Man’s existence, as the priest or prophet authors see it, has no other purpose but to submit and obey to what is claimed to have been “revealed” to the varied authors of man-written texts which are declared by them to be “holy.”  It almost seems as though God inserted a brain into man’s head simply to keep that emptiness in the skull from an annoying whistling in the wind.

Take the instructions supposedly given by God to Adam and Eve; they were commanded to not eat of the tree of knowledge! (Genesis 3:3)  So why would God have placed such a tree in the garden landscape at all?  No one seems to pay attention to the impication in Genesis: Adam and Eve, while in the garden, had only one taboo placed upon them–not to eat fruit from either of two trees placed in the center of his garden.  As anyone with half a brain could have foretold, they goofed, and so God tossed them out.  The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge symbolizes sexual awareness, the pivotal hub upon which all matter-life is defined and invigorated.  This natural energy is thus portrayed by conniving priest-authors as “the Fall of Man”–the so-called “original sin,” which just happens to mire everyone in inescapable “sin.”  This no-win situation provides the pulpit-cons with life-long career opportunity. 

All that God wanted, so the authors imply, is that man should simply submit and obey: God would communicate any further instructions through occasional revelations that he would pass on through a series of selected representatives.  Thus in Judaism it became virtually impossible to think or act or express faith outside the revelations of Torah, which is set forth as “law” with every detail of daily life specified!  To even question the rationality of some primitive aspects of those “laws” is implied to be soul-damning; all that can keep you in God’s good graces is to submit.  Now the extra sticky part of this setup is that ever since, according to pulpit guides, God has relayed his instructions to man only through a broken line of revealed taboos and implied threats.  Man is still expected to obey and submit via those self-proclaimed representatives, and man is never permitted any personal association with the Creator.  Something smells.

That commandment of submission proved so successful with the Hebrews’ revelations that it also became the strategy upon which Christian and Muslim faith systems were built.  The motto for each is identical: “Faith before knowledge!”  Under this rule whole libraries of knowledge have been reduced to ashes–for God’s sake, of course.  It is strange, therefore, that each of these interrelated corporate style faith systems should focus so intently upon their own priest-written books rather than attempting to guide by use of intelligence on how all beings could live more productively and peacefully by attempting to understand each  other.

It is much easier of course, especially for the alleged representatives of God, to define their belief by who they hate rather than to define positive refining values that can promote self respect.  Attention rarely labors over the detail that if a seeker cannot adequately define exactly what they believe in, that uncertainty loudly signals that they are insecure in what they profess.  It is alaming therefore that our personal connection to the Life Principle (God) is so often negatively approached in so many “holy” books such as in (OT) Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezra, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and also negatively expressed in (NT) Matthew, Luke, Ephesians, Romans, Titus, 1 John, Hebrews, and Revelation.  And the promotion of needless but cultivated hatreds (acts of ignorance) are also embodied in many pages of the Quran.  Consider: even the words Muslim means “to submit” and Islam means “submit.”  Like the Torah and the New Testament, the Quran does not place much emphasis on wisdom, tolerance, mercy or other positive qualities that truly benefit this matter-life experience.

We will here look at only a couple of OT examples of holy hatred, for lingering too long over such propaganda tends to agitate the mind and imbalances one’s sense of right and wrong.  Proverbs 6;16 lists “…six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination to him.”  The things that are subsequently listed by the priest-author certainly cannot be assessed as ethical behavior, and so what is listed are actually extreme negative social interaction practices.  To frighten followers into ethical conduct (which not ethical) the author assures them that the Creator turns livid over, 1) a proud look; 2) a lying tongue; 3) hands that shed innocent blood; 4) a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations; 5) feet that be swift in running to mischief; 6) a false witness that speaketh lies; and 7) he that soweth discord among brethern.  (It was from this list that Pope Gregory 1, “the Great” [590-604 CE], elaborated over the “seven deadly sins.”)  Not one word is offered suggesting that we should seek intelligent perception.  And in Ecclesiastes, chapter 3, divine insight is pretended by musing that everything has its appointed time, actually listing “a time to kill” (3), and “a time to hate” (8). 

In the New Testament, Luke 14:26, it is avowed that Jesus instructed followers, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple.”  Could the alleged “only begotten son” of the all-embracing Life Principle really say such a thing?These words put into Jesus’ mouth by the authors are the very principles that are routinely utilized in cult exploitation, for this imposes the orthodoxy of submit and obey.

Claims of divine “revelations” upon which the bulk of western world’s faith system observances have been built are shown to be suspiciously devoid of any serious awareness of observable universal facts.  Nowhere in holy word, for example, is there any recognition that this world is but a tiny part of galaxy, or that other galaxies exist, or that comets, asteroids and meteors often jostle the heavens and could threaten Earth.  To paraphrase St. John 21:25: “And there are aslo many other things…the which, if they should be written every one…even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”

The result of these man-concocted faith systems is their tendency to exalt only themselves by routinely focusing on the modest differences and the dissimilar features and characteristics which give life its radiant range of creative representation.  The creative unifying force in which all life is expressed is routinely imagined in “holy” accounts to be mainly concerned with the dilemmas of only one small representation of human species in one small region on planet Earth, and that force allegedly favors only their particular faith system.  Such a narrow understanding of  life and spirit’s significance in relation to the rest of the universe has resulted only in cultivated hatreds which only encourages indulgence in persistent and unnecessary conflicts. 

Reason and knowledge are seriously limited when self-serving faith systems labor to impose preconceptions of any kind over people’s interactions with each other.  In structured faith systems, for example, seekers are indoctrinated and continuously conditioned with claims that it is only through their particular dreamed up rites and rituals that one can attain favoritism from the Creative Life Principle.  Seekers are deliberately made blind to the fact that the observable universe and nature do not reflect that severely restrictive disposition in its excess and diversity and variety of life throughout Creation. 

When the Life Principle, i.e. God, is imagined to be in man’s image, there is scant room provided for mankind to ever attain its highest potential.  Since each and every man-conceived faith system has a true history of past indulgences in each and every one of the “sins” which their holy word condemns, followers would be much wiser to pay attention to the basic principle of science; Question Everything.  Pretending that a mystical power aids only their particular faith system for exerting control over this material world’s tribulations becomes questionable when the claimed omnipotent, omniscient deity alluded to has to rely upon the puny combative actions of mere man to fulfill his wishes.  Such argumentative procedures practiced by rival faith systems do not jibe with their claims of their deity’s divine capabilities. 

The declared especial access to that Being which the varied faith-system merchants profess to provide has a tendency to nudge simultaneous feelings of alienation in followers, for try as they may to abide by their faith systems’ instructions, there is always the sense of never quite touching higher potential.  Too often the result is the confusion of faith which becomes expressed in crusades of senseless acts of violence and hatred which is indulged in for no other reason than to impose their limited concept of “God” upon everyone else.

The faithful are skillfully kept distracted from the knowledge that evil does not really lie in wait in the variety and diverse expressions of life nor in any of the differing forms of awe and reverence for the Life Principle.  One’s moral fiber is plunged into crisis, however, when they are led into a conceit of spirit which is crafted upon the belittlement of knowledge.  This becomes glaringly apparent when those man-invented faith systems continue to leave the world around them in shambles.

Sowing Seeds of Holy Hatred

Posted in belief, Bible, faith, random, religion, scriptures, Social with tags , , , , , , on April 22, 2013 by chouck017894

The majority of people in any of the world’s cultures have never had the freedom to avoid exposure to all the priest-compiled holy scriptures before they were allowed to determine for themselves what is truly worthy of their belief.  For the most part we all grow up in a culture in which standards of belief are crammed upon us from every side even before we might eventually try to read through the texts that are offered as “holy truth.”  By then a person has already been coached and cajoled and indoctrinated into what is emphatically presented as superior belief, so any consultation of “holy” texts that one eventually carries out is usually but an attempt to justify some particular thread of belief.  This is glaringly  epitomized by the rants and judgments of the dogmatists and fanatics of all faith systems.

Such a means of teaching some prescribed spiritual understanding is clearly the well-cultivated (and fertilized) seed-ground for practices of hatred, not true spiritual enlightenment.  That tendency to justify hatred toward some differences in approaching the unknown is met early-on in the Old Testament book of Genesis, for even God is depicted as getting riled up and fuming with hatred over the trespassing upon the landscape feature of his garden by an inexperienced, blameless couple.  The two newly created beings were allegedly subjected to godly intolerance for not comprehending God’s vague rules regarding two forbidden trees.  We are left wondering how could two newly created life forms have any way of comprehending what God’s threat of death meant?  Either the pair had never been intended to have eternal life anyway, or else God is not omniscient (all-Knowing).

Every priest-conceived holy book of any culture contains some hate fueled elements within them, but the priest-composed book of Leviticus, which was jammed unceremoniously between the story-lines of the Israelites alleged wanderings in Exodus and Numbers is probably the most shameless counseling of hate-mongering in Judaic/Christian scriptures.  As a result of legitimizing hatred, the dogmatists and fanatics love to use the Bible as their weapon of intolerance against any human tendency that offends some faith system’s ego-dream of special favor. 

In the main, all “laws” presented in Leviticus are crude, shamelessly prejudicial and insensitive, for they were designed solely for the purpose of establishing uncontested priestly authority over the people under the pretext of godly installation.  A few of the Leviticus truths include:  It is an abomination to eat pork; likewise God supposedly forbids the eating of shellfish such as lobsters (Lev.10); drinking milk is a no-no; and God is allegedly offended by any clothing made of mixed fibers; etc.  And showing that the priest-authors really knew what they were talking about, verse 5 of chapter eleven forbids the eating of the coney “…because he cheweth the cud.”  The coney of the verse implies a rabbit, especially an Old World species, which certainly does not regurgitate from its stomach to chew again.  The authors probably really meant the hyrax, as was later corrected in Deuteronomy 14:7. 

Placed as the book of Leviticus is between the books of Exodus and Numbers, the priest-authors virtually thumbed their noses at the commandment given to Moses against killing, and devoted the bulk of chapter 20 to a list of offences for which God allegedly encouraged killing!  Indeed, in this holy book there are claimed to be twenty-eight God-approved methods for killing persons who happened to step upon priest rules.  And in chapter 21 the priest-authors provided still more of God’s alleged prejudices by listing the physical “blemishes” that supposedly nauseated God to such a degree that it barred them from priesthood.  That appalling allegation of God’s prejudices was expounded upon, declaring that God also detests the blind, the lame, or “he that hath a flat nose or any thing superfluous, or has a broken foot or a broken hand.”  Continuing their rant in chapter 21:18-20, the priest-authors elaborated further: God is displeased with “…the crook back, or a dwarf or (those) that hath a blemish in his eye, or scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones (testicles) broken.”  On the other hand, to gain God’s good graces it is claimed that God finds the burning of a bull on the altar to be delightful, because it creates a pleasing odor for the lord (Lev. 1:9); also approved was the burning of flocks (13), or of fowls (17).  It was simply coincidence that such barbecued sacrifices also happened to provide the priests with some pretty belly pleasing food.

There is a heap of other things that allegedly irks the Lord, according to Leviticus.  How about a neat haircut for males?  Heaven forbid!  Leviticus 19:27 states that trimming the hair around the ears and the temples is forbidden by God.  The reason is not made clear.  And farmers, take note: Leviticus 19:19 declares that you are committing gross sin if you plant two different crops in the same field.  And lordy! a man dares not curse nor blasphemy lest he be stoned to death by the people of the village (Leviticus 21:10-16).  And men take note, Leviticus 15:19-24 instructs men that a woman is unclean during her menstrual period, and men should avoid any contact with a woman during her menstrual period.  Another “law” revealed by God, so the priest-authors of Leviticus avow, was that if a man’s brother dies before he has sired a child, the man is commanded to take his brother’s wife as his own; he is expected to impregnate her in his brother’s name to keep the family line going.  It was only coincidence that the more followers that were thus provided happened to benefit the priests’ authority. 

Moral regard for anyone purportedly not chosen by the Lord for special favors permitted the naive devout plenty of room for aloofness and indifference in their treatment of outsiders.  That is why slavery could be tolerated, even though it was not widely practiced among the Hebrews.  Thus Leviticus, chapter 25:44-45, came to be held up as example of God’s approval of slavery by Christians in the southern parts of the United States in the mid-1800s.  The “holy” passage allows possession of slaves, both male and female, as long as they are purchased from neighboring nations!  By that standard, the citizens of the United States today should be free to purchase captured citizens from Canada or Mexico or elsewhere to use however they wish.  Heaven be praised! 

Today the book of Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 22, is still being used by egoistic bigots as the heavenly allowance for practicing hatred against person who are created with same sex attraction.  (An ugly example of this spiritual perversion is the homophobic hate-monger “reverend” in the state of Kansas.)  Never taken into consideration in such bigots’ use of cherry picked Bible verses for practicing hatred for gays is that scientific studies—let us call them revealed realities—expose the Leviticus proposition that attraction to members of the same sex is unnatural has absolutely no psychological, medical or psychiatric support.  And it is certain that such lifesaving medical procedures as blood transfusions, skin grafting, organ transplants, vaccinations, resuscitation, the Heimlich maneuver, etc. would be regarded by those priest-authors of Leviticus as abominations. 

Perhaps, just perhaps it is not particularly wise to cling so trustingly to bronze-age priest assertions in this age of space technology.