Cultures & Their Stories

From a broad viewpoint, all people seem similar: we all pursue the survival (or better, the “thrival”) of ourselves, our families, and our values. Viewed more closely, however, differences become apparent, in part because different people recognize different extents for their “extended families” and, more significantly, because different people choose different values.

For example, scientific humanists recognize all humans as members of the same “human family” and choose trying to solve human problems more intelligently as one of our highest values. In contrast, most religious people consider (at most) fellow members of their religion to be “family” (e.g., fellow Hindus, fellow Jews, fellow Christians, fellow Muslims, fellow Mormons, etc.) and essentially all religious people choose, as their highest value, serving their god (or gods). In turn, though, the choice of serving their god(s) is, in most cases, a camouflaged way of serving themselves and their families (e.g., seeking “blessing” for themselves and their families, such as the nonsensical blessing of “eternal life in paradise”).

For most people, their choices for the extent of their families and the priorities for their values are strongly influenced by their cultures, especially via childhood indoctrination. It can therefore be stimulating, informative, and potentially useful to consider how different experiences led (and still lead) to the developments of different cultures.

A contrasting case in point is the difference between the culture of the Ancient Hebrews, as suggested by the first five books (The Pentateuch or Torah) of the Old Testament (OT), versus the culture of the Ancient Greeks, as suggested by Homer’s two books (The Iliad and The Odyssey). I expect that, originally, differences in Hebrew and Greek cultures arose from different experiences of the people in their respective locations.

Thus, on the one hand, the Hebrews couldn’t have chosen a worse place to live. After wandering over from Mesopotamia, the Hebrews (a word possibly derived from Hebrew ‘ibrî meaning “one from the other side” or from Egyptian habiru meaning “wanderer”) chose to live on land that was on the direct path between the major warring nations of the ancient Middle East (viz., Egypt versus “all comers”, including the Hyksos, the Assyrians, and the Persians). It then seems consistent that, in general, the overrun Hebrews became fearful and introverted. That is, they seem to have adopted a “siege culture” (as revealed in the OT) that emphasized collectivism and obeying leaders.

Consistently, and inverting Hermes Trismegistus' famous "as above, so below" to the more appropriate "as below, so above" (e.g., man wasn't made in the image of God; God was made in the image of man!), the Hebrews assumed that their god was powerful and vengeful, leading them to adopt such a terrible concept as (from, e.g., Job 28, 28, Psalm 111, and Proverbs 9, 10):
Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Refuting such a horrible concept is Bertrand Russell’s:
Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.
Robert Ingersoll said it even more forcefully and poignantly:
Fear paralyzes the brain. Progress is born of courage. Fear believes – courage doubts. Fear falls upon the earth and prays – courage stands erect and thinks. Fear retreats – courage advances. Fear is barbarism – courage is civilization. Fear believes in witchcraft, in devils and in ghosts. Fear is religion – courage is science.
The Greeks, on the other hand, who probably wandered in from the northeast, settled in a variety of isolated river valleys in mountainous terrain (shielding them from land invasions) and with access to the sea (permitting explorations). Thereby, the Greeks became adventurers, sea traders, invaders, and settlers of other lands. It then seems consistent that they emphasized courage and individuality, that generally they were extroverts, that their gods were capricious (as was nature), and that they would adopt such wisdom (as given by the Seven Sages) as: “Know thyself”, “Nothing too much”, “Know the right moment”, “Not even the gods fight against necessity.”

In turn, in time, cultures commonly become defined in large measure by their stories, whether historical or fictional. For example, Homer’s stories (almost certainly derived from centuries of oral tradition; estimated to have been first recorded in writing sometime around 800 BCE) about Achilles, Agamemnon, Odysseus (or in Latin, Ulysses), etc. to a large degree defined the culture of Ancient Greece. As Richard Hooker wrote:
The [Ancient] Greeks in general regard[ed] Homer’s two epics as the highest cultural achievement of their people, the defining moment in Greek culture which set the basic Greek character in stone. Throughout antiquity, both in Greece and Rome, everything tended to be compared to these two works; events in history made sense when put in the light of the events narrated in these two works. As a result, then, these two epics [were] the focal point of Greek values and the Greek worldview despite all its evolution and permutations through the centuries following their composition.

There are two very important words repeatedly used throughout the Homeric epics: honor (timé) and virtue or greatness (areté). The latter term is perhaps the most reiterated cultural and moral value in Ancient Greece and means something like achieving, morally and otherwise, your greatest potential as a human being. The reward for great honor and virtue is fame (kleos), which is what guarantees meaning and value to one’s life. Dying without fame (akleos) is generally considered a disaster, and the warriors of the Homeric epics commit the most outrageous deeds to avoid dying in obscurity or infamy…
Such a suggestion doesn’t diminish the importance to the Ancient Greeks of, for example, their exposure to other cultures, their searches for meaning in life and explanations of natural phenomena, and their wisdom, but as I outline elsewhere, one can trace their searches (for adventure, for meaning, and for wisdom) to the Homeric tales, which in turn enhanced the stature of humans (while diminishing the stature of the gods), leading to the wisdom expressed by Protagoras (485–421 BCE): “Man is the measure of all things.”

Actually, cultures are to a large degree not just defined by their stories, but in some cases, even created from stories. For example, the Dark Ages in Europe were to a large degree created by the “otherworldly”, fictitious stories in the New Testament about Jesus. As another example, the current Dark Ages in the Islamic world are to a large degree caused by otherworldly, fictitious stories about Muhammad. In turn, both those otherworldly views can be traced back to Zarathustra’s wild fiction about a cosmic battle between good and evil and, further back, to speculations of prehistoric savages about gods, souls, and the oxymoronic concept of “life after death”. In contrast, much of what’s good in the world can be traced to ideas from Homer, Aesop, Socrates, the Buddha, Confucius, Democritus, Epicurus, Galileo, Bacon, Spinoza, Hume, and other humanists and scientists, too numerous to list.

Unfortunately for the Hebrews, they didn’t have a Homer to entertain them with stories about honor and virtue, they didn’t have an Aesop to instruct them with stories that instilled wisdom, and they didn’t have a host of philosophers and scientific humanists to lead them to question and try to understand human interactions and natural phenomena. Instead, they had Ezra and Co-Conspirators (Ezra & C-C), who were charged (by their Persian overlords) with ruling the Israelites. To accomplish that task, Ezra & C-C foisted a story book (or better, a “rule book”, i.e., the Torah, “the law”), onto the poor, unsuspecting Jewish people, a fictitious story that instructed the people how to serve and obey the priests (and their Persian overlords).

In earlier posts in this series, I summarized most of the stories in the OT’s first book, Genesis, about the Jewish patriarchs Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (aka Israel), Judah, and Joseph. In those stories (some of which may have had some historical bases, but even in such cases, the stories were essentially certainly massaged, manipulated, and mangled for priestly purposes), Ezra & C-C repeatedly conveyed to the unsuspecting Jewish people a despicable message of the form:
“You people aren’t to decide what’s right versus wrong; we clerics will do the deciding; you’re to do what you’re told. We clerics speak for the all-powerful, all-knowing Yahweh; people who mess with him don’t live to tell about it. If you do what you’re told, you’ll be blessed; if you don’t, you won’t.”
Unsurprisingly, the clerics didn’t state the message so openly, but that’s the message contained as the moral of most of their myths. Unsurprisingly, too, the horrible moral of all the myths in Genesis suppressed the individuality of the Jewish people, enslaving them to think as the clerics desired.

In this and the next post, I want to comment on some of the messages and morals that Ezra & C-C apparently tried to convey in their myths about Moses, which are found in the other books of the Pentateuch, i.e., in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Elsewhere, I already posted six chapters outlining the hideous policies allegedly promoted by Moses (but in reality, promoted by Ezra & C-C). As I’ll try to illustrate in these two posts, Ezra & C-C used fictitious, horrible stories about Moses to drag the poor Jewish people still deeper into clerical depravity: not just enslavement of the thoughts of individuals but enslavement of the entire Jewish culture.

At the outset I should acknowledge not only my limited knowledge of history but also the likelihood that the Hebrews did have some experience with someone trained by the Egyptian priesthood and whom they called “Moses”. In a later post I plan to address questions about who Moses might have been. The likelihood that there was a “real Moses” (and maybe even more than one!) seems especially probable, since for much of the 2,000 years before Ezra & C-C, the “land of the Canaanites” was ruled by Egypt. But just as there might have been “real Greeks” named Achilles, Agamemnon, Odysseus, etc., about whom Homer told fictitious stories, the stories told by Ezra & C-C about Moses are obviously fictitious, i.e., myths, i.e., “priestly fabrications”, i.e., lies.

That the stories about Moses are fictitious can be seen from three prominent features:

1. Gods don’t exist
As I’ve addressed elsewhere, the most reliable statement that humans can make (even much more reliable than the claim that we exist!) is that no god exists (or has ever existed). Therefore, any story about any god in any “holy book” (including the Bible, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon) is a false depiction of reality. Consequently, all the stories in the OT about Moses interacting with his god are at least hallucinations and far more likely to be “priestly fabrications”, i.e., lies.

2. There is no “supernatural”
As I’ve also addressed elsewhere, not a single miracle in the Biblical sense has ever been validated. In fact, even the concept of a miracle (in the Biblical sense, i.e., an event with a supernatural cause) is an oxymoron: if an event occurs, then perforce, it’s natural – not some “mysterious way of the Lord”. Consequently, any “miracle” described in any “holy book”, such as the claimed miracles in Exodus [e.g., Moses turning his staff into a snake, turning the water of the Nile into blood, parting the Red Sea (or, translated correctly, “Reed Sea”), etc.] is either a mistaken description of some natural phenomenon or a lie.

And actually, it’s crucial for humanity that no miracle (in the biblical sense) ever be validated, because if it were, then our fundamental basis for understanding reality would collapse: we could no longer trust our basic premiss of causality (i.e., that all events have causes). Of course, religious people argue that they don’t seek to violate causality (for example, they claim that their “prayers of intercession” stimulated their god to cause the tornado to bypass their church), but as Robert Carroll summarizes at his Skeptics Dictionary website:
In conclusion, there are logical, scientific, and metaphysical reasons for not seriously investigating such a notion as invoking a [Supernatural Being] or metaphysical force to alter external reality from its natural course. The idea is logically contradictory, scientifically preposterous, and metaphysically demeaning. It requires God to be perfect and imperfect, it makes a mockery of the notion of scientific tests of causality… it belittles the Omnipotent Infinite God, if such exists, and ignores the possibility of lesser supernatural powers or malevolent energies interfering with nature in untold ways.
Consequently, for people who are no longer children, all supernatural stunts described in all “holy books” [such as parting or walking on water, stopping the Earth’s rotation (or having it rotate backwards!), magically curing diseases (including death!), seeing and communicating with nonexistent supernatural beings such as angels, and so on, including specific prophecies (i.e., beyond general statements, such as the prediction that the sun will probably rise again tomorrow)] should be treated as just fluff, perhaps fitting for fairy tales and TV cartoons but not to be “believed” by adults who have even just half-functioning brains.

3. Historical and archeological studies
As can be found from reviewing even just reports on the internet, extensive and defensible historical and archeological studies have shown that the events described in the Pentateuch dealing with Moses (e.g., the mass exodus of enslaved Jews from Egypt) and, for that matter, most “important events” depicted in the entire Bible, never occurred. In fact, last night (2008/11/22) I watched a tape of the 2008/11/18 PBS-NOVA program “The Bible’s Buried Secrets”, and though it whitewashed the origins of monotheism and ignored the critical role of the Persians and Zoroastrianism, its review of archeological data rather completely showed that the Pentateuch stories are vast exaggerations of what actually occurred.

In the case of the alleged exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, for example, defensible historical studies of Egyptian history started soon after Champollion deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphs on the Rosetta stone in the early 1820s. Now, quite possibly more reliable information is available about Ancient Egypt than about any other ancient culture. For example (as one of many examples), see André Dollinger’s impressive website. From such information it has been reliably concluded that neither all the troubles that Moses’ god allegedly caused the Egyptians nor the mass exodus of the Jews from Egypt depicted in the OT’s Exodus ever occurred.

Similar conclusions (and much more) have been defensibly reached from archeological studies in “the land of the Canaanites” during the past half-century. The first century of such studies (starting roughly in 1850) were not only indefensible, they degraded the science of archaeology. As described in detail at Mike Magee’s thorough AskWhy! website (index here and, e.g., start on details here), as well as many other websites (e.g., here), the “archeologists” involved in earlier studies not only didn’t “let the data speak for themselves”, they destroyed archeological sites in their careless evacuations. Their goal wasn’t to understand but to find evidence to confirm their biblical biases.

During the most recent half-century, in contrast, defensible archeological research has led to the inescapable conclusion that the OT stories about Moses (as well as many other OT stories) are just “priestly fabrication”. The following is an illustrative summary, copied from an article by Bernard Katz and published in the 2003 January/February issue of the American Rationalist:
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader – a warlord – whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation. Such startling propositions – the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years – have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity – until now…

The notion that the Bible is not literally true “is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis,” observes Davis Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles… But some congregants, he says, “may not like the stark airing of it.” Last Passover, in a sermon to 2200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that “virtually every modern archeologist agrees that [the way] the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all.” The rabbi offered what he called a “litany of disillusion” about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses, and the absence of corroborating evidence…
It’s good to see that at least some Jewish clerics (such as Rabbi Wolpe) aren’t totally delusional, but unfortunately, fundamentalist Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Mormon clerics continue to claim that the fabricated stories about Moses (and the rest of the Jewish patriarchs) are “God’s holy truth”, indoctrinating still another generation of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Mormon children in biblical balderdash.

But be that as it is, an obvious series of question is: Why did Ezra & C-C (i.e., whoever concocted the stories about Moses) do it? What was their purpose in fabricating such stories? What morals and messages were Ezra & C-C trying to convey to the Israelites with their Moses myth?

And an equally obvious answer (details of which I’ll address below and in the next post) is that their purpose in creating the Moses myth was to prepare the Jewish people to be ruled by a new, Egyptian-style, Persian-approved priesthood, led by Ezra et al. To accomplish their objective, it appears that Ezra & C-C (deviously but intelligently) concocted a series of fictitious stories about Moses to simultaneously depict the Jews as oppressed by others and yet chosen as “special” by no less than the Persian god who allegedly created the universe.

In fact, the resulting cultural theme of oppressed superiority not only resonated with the poor Jewish people, it has reverberated throughout history (e.g., in communities of Christians, Muslims, Communists, Nazis, and Soviets) – and still today, it echoes in fundamentalist Jewish, Christian, Mormon, and Muslim groups (such as those affiliated with the “Christian Reich”, Zionists, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and Al Qaeda). Thereby, with their fabricated stories about Moses, Ezra & C-C (unwittingly) prepared the way for subsequent horrors perpetrated against the Jews and others by the Nazis (who felt oppressed superiority) and by Muslims, both past and present (who claimed and still claim to have a culture that’s superior but oppressed).

As for how Ezra & C-C might have conceived of the idea to concoct such stories about Moses (and the other “patriarchs”), I expect that they were strongly influenced by Persian stories (whether fictitious or not), especially the stories about Persian emperors. Of special interest would have been Persian stories about Cyrus the Great, for recall that he was a hero even to the Hebrews. [Recall that, at Isaiah 45, 1, Cyrus is described as God’s “anointed” (or “the Messiah”).] In one such story about Cyrus, a story relayed by “the world’s first historian”, Herodotus (484–420 BCE), in his book The Persian Wars, the infant Cyrus was saved from execution, ordered by the Median ruler Astyages – just as Ezra & C-C claimed in Exodus 2 that the infant Moses was saved from execution, ordered by the Pharaoh.

Another story about Cyrus, relayed by Herodotus and more relevant for Ezra & C-C’s manipulation of the Hebrew culture, describes how the young Cyrus instilled a feeling (in the Persians) of oppressed superiority (over the Medes) as follows.
Afterwards, when Cyrus grew to manhood, and became known as the bravest and most popular of all his compeers, Harpagus [who was ordered to kill the baby Cyrus, and when the ruler, Asytages (the grandfather of Cyrus the Great), found that Harpagus failed to do the deed, Asytages had Harpagus' son killed and then served Harpagus his son for dinner!], who was bent on revenging himself upon Astyages began to pay him [the young Cyrus] court by gifts and messages. His own rank was too humble for him to hope to obtain vengeance without some foreign help. When therefore he saw Cyrus, whose wrongs were so similar to his own, growing up expressly (as it were) to be the avenger whom he needed, he set to work to procure his support and aid in the matter.

He had already paved the way for his designs, by persuading, severally, the great Median nobles, whom the harsh rule of their monarch had offended, that the best plan would be to put Cyrus at their head, and dethrone Astyages. These preparations made, Harpagus, being now ready for revolt, was anxious to make known his wishes to Cyrus, who still lived in Persia; but as the roads between Media and Persia were guarded, he had to contrive a means of sending word secretly, which he did in the following way. He took a hare, and cutting open its belly without hurting the fur, he slipped in a letter containing what he wanted to say, and then carefully sewing up the paunch, he gave the hare to one of his most faithful slaves, disguising him as a hunter with nets, and sent him off to Persia to take the game as a present to Cyrus, bidding him tell Cyrus, by word of mouth, to paunch the animal himself, and let no one be present at the time.

All was done as he wished, and Cyrus, on cutting the hare open, found the letter inside, and read as follows: “Son of Cambyses, the gods assuredly watch over thee, or never wouldst thou have passed through thy many wonderful adventures. Now is the time when thou mayst avenge thyself upon Astyages, thy murderer. He willed thy death, remember; to the gods and to me thou owest that thou art still alive. I think thou art not ignorant of what he did to thee, nor of what I suffered at his hands because I committed thee to the cowherd, and did not put thee to death. Listen now to me, and obey my words, and all the empire of Astyages shall be thine. Raise the standard of revolt in Persia, and then march straight on Media. Whether Astyages appoint me to command his forces against thee, or whether he appoint any other of the princes of the Medes, all will go as thou couldst wish. They will be the first to fall away from him, and joining thy side, exert themselves to overturn his power. Be sure that on our part all is ready; wherefore do thou thy part, and that speedily.”

Cyrus, on receiving the tidings contained in this letter, set himself to consider how he might best persuade the Persians to revolt. After much thought, he hit on the following as the most expedient course: he wrote what he thought proper upon a roll, and then calling an assembly of the Persians, he unfolded the roll, and read out of it that Astyages appointed him their general. “And now,” said he, “since it is so, I command you to go and bring each man his reaping-hook.” With these words he dismissed the assembly…

When, in obedience to the orders which they had received, the Persians came with their reaping-hooks, Cyrus led them to a tract of ground, about eighteen or twenty furlongs each way, covered with thorns, and ordered them to clear it before the day was out. They accomplished their task; upon which he issued a second order to them, to take the bath the day following, and again come to him. Meanwhile he collected together all his father’s flocks, both sheep and goats, and all his oxen, and slaughtered them, and made ready to give an entertainment to the entire Persian army. Wine, too, and bread of the choicest kinds were prepared for the occasion.

When the morrow came, and the Persians appeared, he bade them recline upon the grass, and enjoy themselves. After the feast was over, he requested them to tell him “which they liked best, today’s work, or yesterday’s?” They answered that “the contrast was indeed strong: yesterday brought them nothing but what was bad, today everything that was good.” Cyrus instantly seized on their reply, and laid bare his purpose in these words: “Ye men of Persia, thus do matters stand with you. If you choose to hearken to my words, you may enjoy these and ten thousand similar delights, and never condescend to any slavish toil; but if you will not hearken, prepare yourselves for unnumbered toils as hard as yesterday’s. Now therefore follow my bidding, and be free. For myself I feel that I am destined by Providence to undertake your liberation; and you, I am sure, are no whit inferior to the Medes in anything, least of all in bravery. Revolt, therefore, from Astyages, without a moment’s delay.”

The Persians, who had long been impatient of the Median dominion, now that they had found a leader, were delighted to shake off the yoke. Meanwhile Astyages [the Median ruler, Cyrus’ grandfather], informed of the doings of Cyrus, sent a messenger to summon him to his presence. Cyrus replied, “Tell Astyages that I shall appear in his presence sooner than he will like.” Astyages, when he received this message, instantly armed all his subjects, and, as if God had deprived him of his senses, appointed Harpagus to be their general, forgetting how greatly he had injured him. So when the two armies met and engaged, only a few of the Medes, who were not in the secret, fought; others deserted openly to the Persians; while the greater number counterfeited fear, and fled.

Astyages, on learning the shameful flight and dispersion of his army, broke out into threats against Cyrus, saying, “Cyrus shall nevertheless have no reason to rejoice”; and directly he seized the Magian interpreters [i.e., the priests who, years earlier, had interpreted Astyages’ dream about the infant Cyrus becoming the ruler, and therefore, Astyages’ decision to kill the infant Cyrus] who had persuaded him to allow Cyrus to escape [after it was found that the infant Cyrus hadn’t been executed], and impaled them; after which, he armed all the Medes who had remained in the city, both young and old; and leading them against the Persians, fought a battle, in which he was utterly defeated, his army being destroyed, and he himself falling into the enemy’s [Cyrus’] hands…

Thus after a reign of thirty-five years, Astyages lost his crown, and the Medes, in consequence of his cruelty, were brought under the rule of the Persians. Their empire over the parts of Asia beyond the Halys had lasted one hundred and twenty-eight years, except during the time when the Scythians had the dominion. Afterwards the Medes repented of their submission, and revolted from Darius, but were defeated in battle, and again reduced to subjection. Now, however, in the time of Astyages, it was the Persians who under Cyrus revolted from the Medes, and became thenceforth the rulers of Asia. Cyrus kept Astyages at his court during the remainder of his life, without doing him any further injury. Such then were the circumstances of the birth and bringing up of Cyrus, and such were the steps by which he mounted the throne…
Regardless of the veracity of the story (and assuming that Herodotus relayed it accurately – since it seems he would have no reason to do otherwise), I expect that the reader who has some familiarity with the OT’s Exodus is amazed by both the similarities and the differences between the stories about Cyrus and about Moses.

The most stunning similarity, I would argue, is that Cyrus offered the rebellious Persians the same option that Moses (allegedly) offered the rebellious Jews. In essence the option was: follow me and be free (and blessed) or don’t and continue to be slaves (and cursed). In both stories, also, the leaders attempted to instill feelings of oppressed superiority in their followers.

As for some differences, notice in the above story that Cyrus is portrayed as intelligent, thoughtful, careful, practical, cunning, brave, and not vindictive – even forgiving – even to someone (his grandfather) who had ordered him executed when he was an infant. In the fictitious Exodus, in contrast, Moses is depicted as a cowardly murderer who ran from justice, who had no qualms about the alleged killing of all Egyptian firstborn children, executed fellow Jews for having the audacity to think for themselves, and ordered the slaughter, rape, and genocide of people peacefully living on their own land.

Further, notice not only that Cyrus paid no heed to “the supernatural” (e.g., he didn’t invoke support from some god) but also that, in the story, the priests (the Magi, who interpreted the dream of Cyrus’ grandfather and advised him to kill the infant but advised him to let the young man Cyrus live) were executed. Similarly, by the way, in his Odyssey, Homer had Ulysses execute the priest who feasted at his expense while waiting months to marry his wife, Penelope, to one of her many suitors. Moses, in contrast, was depicted as an Egyptian priest steeped in supernaturalism, of course including his many, fake “magic tricks”.

To concoct their stories, Ezra & C-C must have realized that their stories would need to be substantially different – if they were to discharge their duties (to the Persians) to rule the Jewish people. In contrast to the Persians (and Greeks), the Jews (or better, the people living in the land of the Canaanites) were immersed in “supernaturalism”, especially since, during much of that time, Canaan had been ruled as an Egyptian province – and perhaps no culture in the world (save perhaps the Indian culture) had ever succumbed so completely to supernaturalism as did the Ancient Egyptian. It was similar to the devastating influence of supernaturalism during the Dark Ages in Europe and in Islamic countries today.

Supernaturalism was, of course, common in the Ancient World, but differences are detectable and, I think, important. For example, their stories reveal that the Greeks, Persians, and Hebrews “believed” that dreams and “omens” were communications from their gods, but notice some differences in the following stories:

1. Hebrews
In one story in the OT, and similar to Egyptian and Babylonian stories from before 2500 BCE (when the pyramids were built in Egypt), Jacob (aka Israel) dreamt of a ladder (Genesis 28) or staircase, “erected on earth with its top reaching the heavens… the angels of God were going up and coming down it, and the Lord stood at its top.” As a result of his dream, Jacob decided that the location where he slept was “the gate of heaven” and he made the location a shrine. Also, Jacob’s favorite son Joseph was an interpreter of dreams, saying to the Pharaoh (Genesis 41): “It is not within my power [to interpret your dream], but God will speak concerning the welfare of Pharaoh.” That led to Joseph becoming the second most powerful man in Egypt (so the clerical authors claim). I expect that, upon hearing such stories, the Hebrews expected that their god communicated to them in their dreams. Such expectations were confirmed, for example, at Numbers 12, 6, where Yahweh allegedly says:
"Hear now my words: if there is a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision; I will speak with him in a dream."
2. Persians
In the above-quoted Persian story from Herodotus, the Magi (from which the English word ‘magic’ is derived) interpreted the ruler’s (Astyages’) dream about the infant Cyrus and interpreted his behavior when he was a boy, but for their interpretations, Astyages executed the priests. I expect that, upon hearing that story, the Persians were wary of interpreting dreams!

Another story from Herodotus (quoted below) illustrates the Persians' realization that interpreting dreams could be dangerous. It also illustrates the cunningness of the Persian (or Median) priests, i.e., the Magi (who Ezra & C-C probably emulated). This is the story about the next emperor after Cyrus the Great, i.e., Cambyses [Cambyses II, who ruled only 7 years, from 529–522 BCE, who conquered Egypt in 525 BCE, and who was followed by Darius (I, “Darius the Great”)].

As an introduction to this story, I should relay Herodotus’s opinion that Cambyses was “mad” (for murdering his brother Smerdis, violating custom and marrying two of his full sisters, murdering one of them for reminding him that he had murdered their brother Smerdis, murdering a boy to demonstrate how competent he was as a bowman, etc., including some disastrous expeditions with his army and his murdering many Egyptian priests). Herodotus then tells the following story (in his Book 3, starting at ¶61), which illustrates the realization that interpreting dreams could be dangerous.
While Cambyses, son of Cyrus, after losing his senses, still lingered in Egypt, two Magi brothers, revolted against him. One of them had been left in Persia by Cambyses as comptroller of his household; and it was he who began the revolt. Aware that Smerdis [Cambyses’ brother] was dead, and that his death was hid and known to few of the Persians, while most believed that he was still alive, he laid his plan, and made a bold stroke for the crown. He had a brother – the same of whom I spoke before as his partner in the revolt – who happened greatly to resemble Smerdis the son of Cyrus, whom Cambyses his brother had put to death. And not only was this brother of his like Smerdis in person, but he also bore the selfsame name, to wit, Smerdis. Patizeithes, the other Magus, having persuaded him that he would carry the whole business through, took him and made him sit upon the royal throne. Having so done, he sent heralds through all the land, to Egypt and elsewhere, to make proclamation to the troops that henceforth they were to obey Smerdis the son of Cyrus and not Cambyses.

The other heralds therefore made proclamation as they were ordered, and likewise the herald whose place it was to proceed into Egypt. He, when he reached Agbatana in Syria, finding Cambyses and his army there, went straight into the middle of the host, and standing forth before them all, made the proclamation which Patizeithes the Magus had commanded. Cambyses no sooner heard him, than believing that what the herald said was true, and imagining that he had been betrayed by Prexaspes (who, he supposed, had not put Smerdis to death when sent into Persia for that purpose), he turned his eyes full upon Prexaspes, and said, “Is this the way, Prexaspes, that thou didst my errand?” “Oh! my liege,” answered the other, “there is no truth in the tidings that Smerdis thy brother has revolted against thee, nor hast thou to fear in time to come any quarrel, great or small, with that man. With my own hands I wrought thy will on him, and with my own hands I buried him. If of a truth the dead can leave their graves, expect Astyages the Mede to rise and fight against thee; but if the course of nature be the same as formerly [i.e., if the dead still don’t rise from their graves!], then be sure no ill will ever come upon thee from this quarter. Now, therefore, my counsel is that we send in pursuit of the herald, and strictly question him who it was that charged him to bid us obey king Smerdis.”

When Prexaspes had so spoken, and Cambyses had approved his words, the herald was forthwith pursued, and brought back to the king. Then Prexaspes said to him, “Sirrah, thou bear’st us a message, sayst thou, from Smerdis, son of Cyrus. Now answer truly, and go thy way scathless. Did Smerdis have thee to his presence and give thee thy orders, or hadst thou them from one of his officers?” The herald answered, “Truly I have not set eyes on Smerdis son of Cyrus, since the day when king Cambyses led the Persians into Egypt. The man who gave me my orders was the Magus that Cambyses left in charge of the household; but he said that Smerdis son of Cyrus sent you the message.” In all this the herald spoke nothing but the strict truth. Then Cambyses said thus to Prexaspes: “Thou art free from all blame, Prexaspes, since, as a right good man, thou hast not failed to do the thing which I commanded. But tell me now, which of the Persians can have taken the name of Smerdis, and revolted from me?” “I think, my liege,” he answered, “that I apprehend the whole business. The men who have risen in revolt against thee are the two Magi, Patizeithes, who was left comptroller of thy household, and his brother, who is named Smerdis.”

Cambyses no sooner heard the name of Smerdis than he was struck with the truth of Prexaspes’ words, and the fulfillment of his own dream – the dream, I mean, which he had in former days, when one appeared to him in his sleep and told him that Smerdis sate upon the royal throne, and with his head touched the heavens. So when he saw that he had needlessly slain his brother Smerdis, he wept and bewailed his loss: after which, smarting with vexation as he thought of all his ill luck, he sprang hastily upon his steed, meaning to march his army with all haste to Susa against the Magus. As he made his spring, the button of his sword-sheath fell off, and the bared point entered his thigh, wounding him exactly where he had himself once wounded the Egyptian god Apis. Then Cambyses, feeling that he had got his death-wound, inquired the name of the place where he was, and was answered, “Agbatana.” Now before this it had been told him by the oracle at Buto that he should end his days at Agbatana. He, however, had understood the Median Agbatana, where all his treasures were, and had thought that he should die there in a good old age; but the oracle meant Agbatana in Syria. [And thus the dangers, the story is relaying, not only of interpreting dreams but also in trying to understand communications from oracles!] So when Cambyses heard the name of the place, the double shock that he had received, from the revolt of the Magus and from his wound, brought him back to his senses. And he understood now the true meaning of the oracle, and said, “Here then Cambyses, son of Cyrus, is doomed to die.”

At this time he said no more; but twenty days afterwards he called to his presence all the chief Persians who were with the army, and addressed them as follows: “Persians, needs must I tell you now what hitherto I have striven with the greatest care to keep concealed. When I was in Egypt I saw in my sleep a vision, which would that I had never beheld! I thought a messenger came to me from my home, and told me that Smerdis sate upon the royal throne, and with his head touched the heavens. Then I feared to be cast from my throne by Smerdis my brother, and I did what was more hasty than wise. Ah! truly, do what they may, it is impossible for men to turn aside the coming fate. I, in my folly, sent Prexaspes to Susa to put my brother to death. So this great woe was accomplished, and I then lived without fear, never imagining that, after Smerdis was dead, I need dread revolt from any other. But herein I had quite mistaken what was about to happen, and so I slew my brother without any need, and nevertheless have lost my crown. For it was Smerdis the Magus, and not Smerdis my brother, of whose rebellion God [i.e., Zarathustra’s principal god, Ahura Mazda] forewarned me by the vision. The deed is done, however, and Smerdis, son of Cyrus, be sure is lost to you. The Magi have the royal power – Patizeithes, whom I left at Susa to overlook my household, and Smerdis his brother. There was one who would have been bound beyond all others to avenge the wrongs I have suffered from these Magians but he [i.e., the brother he had murdered], alas! has perished by a horrid fate, deprived of life by those nearest and dearest to him. In his default, nothing now remains for me but to tell you, O Persians, what I would wish to have done after I have breathed my last. Therefore, in the name of the gods that watch over our royal house, I charge you all, and especially such of you as are Achaemenids, that ye do not tamely allow the kingdom to go back to the Medes. Recover it one way or another, by force or fraud; by fraud, if it is by fraud that they have seized on it; by force, if force has helped them in their enterprise. Do this, and then may your land bring you forth fruit abundantly, and your wives bear children, and your herds increase, and freedom be your portion for ever: but do it not – make no brave struggle to regain the kingdom – and then my curse be on you, and may the opposite of all these things happen to you – and not only so, but may you, one and all, perish at the last by such a fate as mine!”
Not incidentally, this option of a blessing or a curse described by Cambyses (similar to the option offered by his father, Cyrus the Great, to the Persians who subsequently overthrew the Medes) is the same option that Moses offered the Israelites – at least according to Ezra & C-C, who were writing their fictitious stories about Moses at about the same time Herodotus was writing about Cambyses. And in regard to Cambyses other option of “force or fraud”, Ezra & C-C clearly chose fraud.

3. Greeks
Homer's stories, similarly, provide several vignettes suggesting that interpreting dreams and omens was dangerous. For example, in Book (or Chapter) II of The Iliad, Zeus decided to help Achilles by sending Agamemnon “a lying dream”, purposefully deceiving him. Also, in Book XIX of The Odyssey, Penelope says:
“Stranger, dreams are very curious and unaccountable things, and they do not by any means invariably come true. There are two gates through which these unsubstantial fancies proceed; the one is of horn, and the other ivory. Those that come through the gate of ivory are fatuous, but those from the gate of horn mean something to those that see them.”
Upon hearing that
, I expect, most Greeks concluded: since one can’t tell which gate through which a particular dream has come, it would be wise not to base decisions on dreams; they may be “lying dreams”!

And I admit that I don’t want to resist adding the following quotations from Homer. One is the assessment of omens by the Trojan hero, Hector,
“What care I whether [the birds] fly towards dawn or dark, and whether they be on my right hand or on my left? … There is one omen, and one only – that a man should fight for his country.”
Another is the statement by Ulysses’ son Telemachus:
“My mother [Penelope] does indeed sometimes send for a soothsayer and question him, but I give his prophesying no heed… Go home, old man, and prophesy to your own children… I can read these omens myself much better than you can; birds are always flying about in the sunshine somewhere or other, but they seldom mean anything… You may preach as much as you please, but we shall only hate you the more.”
Then there’s the tremendous, humanist statement by Penelope:
“Men live but for a little season; if they are hard, and deal hardly, people wish them ill so long as they are alive, and speak contemptuously of them when they are dead, but he that is righteous and deals righteously, the people tell of his praise among all lands, and many shall call him blessed.”
And the cumulative statement that Homer put in Zeus’ mouth:
“See now, how men lay blame upon us gods for what is after all nothing but their own folly.”
As the Greek philosopher Diogenes (412–323 BCE) summarized:
When I look upon seamen, men of physical science, and philosophers, man is the wisest of all beings. When I look upon priests, prophets, and interpreters of dreams, nothing is so contemptible as man.
[… to be continued]



Clerical Enslavement of Thoughts

It may seem insensitive, but it can be argued that, compared with religious people, slaves were relatively fortunate: although their bodies were enslaved, their thoughts weren’t. They were free to think, and with skill, they could even express their thoughts.

For example, black slaves in the American South expressed their thoughts in songs and stories. Some examples of such stories are those collected, adapted, and compiled by Joel Harris in a series of Uncle Remus books, first published in 1881, in which the fictional character Uncle Remus tells stories in “Harris’ version of a Deep South slave dialect.”

Illustrative is The Story of the Deluge, and how it came about, but it’s too long to quote in full, especially since all Uncle Remus’ tales must be read slowly – actually, phonetically – to allow one’s mind to translate the language into English! But in summary, Uncle Remus tells a little (white) boy sitting near him that the cause of the worldwide flood was not as given in the Bible (i.e., because people were evil) but instead, one day when the animals were in assembly and the discussions became heated, an Elephant accidentally stepped on “one er de Craw-fishes”. The “other Crawnshes” complained (of course), but their complaints were ignored. Then (again by accident), “de Elephan squshed anudder one er de Crawfishes”, sending both the craw fish and their friends (mud turtles and spring lizards) into a frenzy, whereupon:
"So dar dey wuz, de Crawfishes, en dey didn’t know w’at minnit wuz gwineter be de nex’; en dey kep’ on gittin madder en madder en skeerder en skeerder, twel bimeby dey gun de wink ter de Mud Turkie en de Spring Lizzud, en den dey bo’d little holes in de groun’ en went down outer sight.”

“Who did, Uncle Remus?” asked the little boy.

“De Crawfishes, honey. Dey bo’d inter de groun’ en kep’ on bo’in twel dey onloost de fountains er de earf; en de waters squirt out, en riz higher en higher twel de hills wuz kivvered, en de creeturs wuz all drowuded; en all bekaze dey let on ’mong deyselves dat dey wuz bigger dan de Crawfishes.”

Then the old man blew the ashes from a smoking yam, and proceeded to remove the peeling.

“Where was the ark, Uncle Remus?” the little boy inquired, presently.

“W’ich ark’s dat?” asked the old man, in a tone of well-feigned curiosity.

“Noah’s ark,” replied the child.

“Don’t you pester wid ole man Noah, honey. I bonn’ he tuck keer er dat ark. Dat’s w’at he wuz dar fer, en dat’s w’at he done. Leas’ways, dat’s w’at dey tells me. But don’t you bodder longer dat ark, ’ceppin’ your mammy fetches it up. Dey mout er bin two deloojes, en den agin dey moutent. Ef dey wuz euny ark in dish yer w’at de Crawfishes brung on, I ain’t heern tell un it, en w’en dey ain’t no arks ’roun’, I ain’t got no time fer ter make urn en put urn in dar…”
And thus, at least some black slaves (de Crawfishes) rejected the Judeo-Christian religion of their masters (de Elephans) – and remained masters of their minds.

Of course, the classic example of slaves maintaining freedom of thought is the case of the slave from Samoa, Aesop. As one of hundreds of examples, consider his fable about The Eagle and the Arrow:
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whiz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died, "We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
And so it is with all religious people: they supply their clerics with the means of their own destruction, that is, they supply their minds. For many different reasons (childhood indoctrination, fear, greed…), religious people relinquish freedom to think for themselves.

To enslave the minds of their followers, clerics tell their own, engaging, fables and stories. In the Old Testament (OT’s) Book of Genesis, for example, the fabricated fables are about the beginning of the world, about the first humans, about a worldwide flood, about the Jewish patriarchs (Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc.), and so on. Below, I’ll briefly outline some of the fables about the patriarchs, with which the damnable clerics hoodwinked the poor Jewish people, starting with the story about the patriarch addressed in the previous post, i.e.,

As I already outlined, the story at Genesis 9 describes Noah as a hateful, spiteful, drunken lout, with a serious psychological hang-up about nakedness and with zero understanding of justice, advocating slavery: after he fell down naked in a drunken sleep in his tent, he cursed his grandson (and all his grandson’s descendants) with perpetual slavery for the non-sin (namely, seeing Noah naked) not of his grandson but of his son. Yet, the clerical author’s (“J’s”) descriptions of Noah include: “Noah had won the Lord’s favor”, “a righteous man”, “the one blameless man of his time”, “he walked with God”, “exactly as God had commanded him, so Noah did.” Surely, upon first hearing or reading the story about Noah, rational people experience some “cognitive dissonance”, puzzled with a question such as: “How could it be that such a no-account as Noah ‘won the Lord’s favor’?”

Abraham [originally called Abram, before (like a little boy) he changed his name to Abraham] is the alleged patriarch of the Jews and is the claimed founder of all the “Abrahamic religions” (viz., Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.) – although most scholars agree that Zarathustra should be given most of the credit/blame for fabricating all four of those intellectually barren religions. In any event and as I reviewed elsewhere, in the stories about Abraham (which run through Genesis 12 to 22) he's depicted as a cowardly, lying, conniving pimp, who after entrapping leaders to sleep with his prostitute wife, his half sister Sarah (aka Sarai), Abraham capitalizes on the honor of his victims to blackmail them (for sleeping with his wife). The stories also relay that he raped an Egyptian slave girl (Hagar), disowned his resulting son (Ishmael), abandoned both Hagar and Ishmael, and initiated the Egyptian-clerics’ practice of circumcising all males in his household – a brutality that Jewish priests continue today. Abraham (similar to Jesus, Paul, Muhammad, and the founder of Mormonism, Sidney Rigdon) was also psychotic: he responded to a voice in his head that told him to leave Mesopotamia for the land of the Canaanites, to claim ownership of the Canaanites’ land, and to kill his son Isaac (i.e., infanticide) as a “sacrifice to the Lord.” In sum, surely sane people would agree that Abraham was contemptible.

And yet, the clerics (who concocted the stories – or massaged the myths – about Abraham) claim that this hideous person who intended to slit his own child’s throat, this lying, pimping, conniving, blackmailing, raping, psychotic Abraham, was “righteous” (Genesis 15, 6) – because he had faith in the clerics’ god, i.e., he did exactly as he was told. Thus, the voice in his head allegedly told him (Genesis 22, 18):
“By my own self I [Yahweh] swear: inasmuch as you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son [which actually isn’t correct, since Abraham’s raping the Egyptian slave girl, Hagar, led to his son, Ishmael], I will bless you abundantly and greatly multiply your descendants until they are as numerous as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the sea-shore [clerics love hyperbolae!]. Your descendants shall possess the cities of their enemies. [Why, instead, didn’t Yahweh make Abraham’s enemies his friends?!] All nations on earth shall pray to be blessed as your descendants are blessed [or, depending on one’s perspective, “will be thankful that they weren’t cursed as your descendants were cursed – with con-artist clerics”], and this because you have obeyed me.”
And thus again (as in the case of the no-account Noah, so too in the case of the contemptible Abraham), the damnable clerics convey the message: “You people aren’t to judge who is righteous; we will do the judging; your job is to obey [us clerics].”

Incidentally, it’s clear that this story about Abraham was written (or earlier myths were massaged) much later than when he allegedly lived. Thus, at Genesis 15, 7, God allegedly said to him:
“I am the Lord who brought you [Abraham] out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.”
But the Chaldeans didn’t live in southern Iraq until ~1,000 years after Abraham lived; therefore, it would have been just about as ludicrous if the author had claimed:
“I am the Lord who brought you out from southern Iraq [named in 1920!] to give you this land to possess.”
Although Lot (Abraham’s nephew) isn’t normally identified as a patriarch of the Jews, the fanciful story about his involvement in the Sodom and Gomorrah affair has had major ramifications (namely, idiotic clerical claims that the first symmetry-breaking fluctuation in the original total void is opposed to homosexuality). Further, and more relevant to the point that I’m trying to make, the story provides another illustration of the game that the clerical authors decided to play (by concocting stories or by massaging old myths).

Thus, similar to Noah and Abraham, Lot was judged by God to be “righteous” (i.e., the clerics concocted a story about a fellow they claimed was the only “righteous” man in town). But then, consider what Lott allegedly said to the men who wanted to have sex with Lott’s two male visitors, specifically (Genesis 19, 8):
“Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you please. Only don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
Surely anyone with an ounce of humanity reacts to such a horrible example of a father with something similar to: “What a beast! If guns were available, Lot should have been shot!”

Instead, though, the clerics claim that Lot was the only righteous man in town (homosexuality thereby judged by the clerics to be a greater “evil” than inviting a mob to rape your daughters). Further, after Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt (because she didn’t do what he had commanded, namely, not to look back), the “righteous” Lot impregnated his two daughters. So again, the clerics claim authority to define what’s moral (enslaving specific groups of people, lying, pimping one’s wife, blackmailing honorable people, raping slave girls, attempting infanticide, abandoning one’s child and its mother, favoring one child over another, offering one’s daughters to be raped by a mob, incest…) and to define what’s immoral (seeing nakedness, homosexuality, and above all, not obeying the clerics) – and then, the clerics threaten immature, non-thinking people that they’ll be punished by an imaginary god if they don’t do as they’re told.

And I would add, not entirely incidentally, that the god who interacted with Abraham and Lot is depicted as certainly a wimp compared with the god of the Persians depicted in Genesis 1 (who snapped his fingers, or whatever, to create the world). As in the case with the Tower of Babel myth, Abraham’s god couldn’t determine what was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah without a personal visit (so much for his omniscience), and Abraham is depicted as having a nice little, face-to-face chat with his god (in which Abraham managed to show God the injustice in his original plan).

Isaac wasn't quite so abominable as his father, Abraham, who almost murdered him and abandoned his brother Ishmael. According to the cleric who concocted the story (or massaged an older myth), Isaac learned from his father the trick of hiding behind his wife’s (Rebecca’s) petticoat (lying that she was his sister, whereas the story relays that she was his first cousin), but Isaac didn’t manage to capitalize on Abraham's trick of blackmailing the men who removed it (Genesis 26, 7).

Also similar to Abraham’s treatment of his two sons Isaac (whose mother was Sarah) and Ishmael (whose mother was the Egyptian slave girl Hagar), but unlike a normal father, Isaac showed favoritism for one of his sons (Esau) over the other (Jacob). And also similar to Abraham, Isaac was hung-up on the idea of “blessings” (either the blessing he would give to his son or the blessing he would receive from “the Lord”), not realizing that blessings are mere words (whereas any person’s success is more likely attained via intelligence, good plans, hard work, and perseverance). Thus (so the clerics claim at Genesis 26, 12):
When Isaac planted in that land, he reaped in the same year a hundred times what he had sown, because the Lord blessed him.
From which the people listening to the clerics and reading their silly stories are expected to conclude, no doubt, that success depends not on an individual’s efforts but on “blessings” received. In sum, then, the clerics repeat their damnable message: “If you do as you’re told, then like Noah and Abraham, you’ll be blessed; if you don’t, then like Adam and Eve and Cain, you’ll be cursed.”

Jacob (aka Israel)
Isaac’s son (Abraham’s grandson) Jacob (aka Israel) was a real SOB. His mother, Rebecca, had twin sons: Esau (the first borne) was Isaac’s favorite and Jacob (borne “clutching onto Esau’s heels”) was Rebecca’s favorite. Jacob’s litany of skullduggery included the following:

1) Jacob refused to give his hungry brother food until Esau swore to give his birthright to him (Genesis 25, 29-34);

2) Jacob tricked his father, Isaac, into blessing him (Genesis 27) rather than, as Isaac desired, blessing Esau (and thereby, similar to Abraham and Isaac, Jacob was apparently too dumb to realize that blessings by anyone or any god are just meaningless words);

3) Jacob cowardly ran from Esau when he learned how Jacob had tricked him (Genesis 27, 41-45);

4) Jacob unabashedly proposed to bargain with Abraham’s god, as given at Genesis 28, 20 [in which the clerics introduce the idea that the cultural practice of tithing, i.e., giving a tenth of one's captured "spoils" to the tribal leader (see Genesis 14, 20), should be extended to tithes for God]:
“If God is with me [Jacob] and protects me on this journey I am taking and gives me food to eat and clothing to wear, and I return safely to my father’s home, then the Lord will become my God. Then this stone that I have set up as a sacred stone will be the house of God, and I will surely give you [God] back a tenth of everything you give me.” [Which even I would be willing to do (i.e., give a tenth back of everything someone gives me!). Yet, surely people who can still think for themselves would ponder a number of puzzles, such as: 1) What data support the concept that any god gave anybody anything? 2) A lot of data support the concept that what people think they’re giving to God is actually consumed by the clerics! and 3) What about the stipulation (given later in the Bible) that people aren’t to test God?!]
5) Jacob outdid his grandfather, Abraham, by raping and impregnating the slaves of both his wives (Leah and Rachel);

6) Using magical tricks with speckled rods (Genesis 30, 37) Jacob tricked his uncle (Laban), father of his two wives, out of most of his livestock;

7) After that, Jacob cowardly snuck-away from Laban (similar to how he snuck-away from his brother Esau, after tricking him out of his inheritance);

8) He bribed his way back into his brother Esau’s favor;

9) He did nothing to punish the fellow who raped his daughter, Dinah;

10) He said nothing when two of his sons “made a deal” with the fellow who raped their sister Dinah;

11) When his two sons tricked the rapist and murdered him and his family, Jacob then decided to (once again) cowardly run away; and

12) Jacob personally fought (wrestled) with God all night, out of which encounter he received a dislocated hip (God’s omnipotence apparently was waning!) and the new name, Israel – and thereby, the name of the patriarch of the “twelve tribes of Israel” (allegedly, his twelve sons – conveniently for the fantasy, the same number as the twelve signs of the Zodiac).

And out of his life of cowardice and trickery, Jacob (aka Israel) got a blessing from the Lord, once again because (according to the clerics who wrote this crap) Israel followed God’s orders.

Incidentally, it’s again easy to get a hint about when the story about Jacob was concocted (or an older myth was massaged), because Genesis 36, 31 states:
These were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king ruled over the Israelites…
So, the clerical author was writing this story after the first king ruled over the Israelites, ~1,000 years after Jacob allegedly lived. It would have enhanced the prophetic reputation of the author if he had written that they were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before the Phillies won the World Series!

At Genesis 38, a stimulating little story is inserted about one of Israel’s twelve sons, Judah [older than the more famous (and Israel’s favorite) son, Joseph, Judah was the fourth son of Leah and patriarch of the strongest of the twelve tribes of Israel, of Judaism and Judea (the southern kingdom) fame]. It’s probably best if the reader examines the story in full, copied here from the NET Bible [to which I’ve added some notes in brackets]:
At that time [when his brothers sold Israel’s favorite son, Joseph, into slavery] Judah left his brothers and stayed with an Adullamite man named Hirah. There Judah saw the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. Judah acquired her as a wife [presumably paying the going rate to “acquire” her] and had marital relations with her. [The compilers of the NET Bible sometimes seem to try to be a little more “delicate” when dealing with sex; the King James Version states that “he took her and went in unto her.”] She became pregnant and had a son. Judah named him Er. She became pregnant again and had another son, whom she named Onan. Then she had yet another son, whom she named Shelah. She gave birth to him in Kezib. Judah acquired a wife for Er his firstborn; her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the Lord’s sight, so the Lord killed him. [So, say the clerics: “Be good and you’ll be blessed; don’t, and our God may kill you, just as he killed essentially everyone in the flood.”]

Then Judah said to Onan [his second son], “Have sexual relations with your brother’s wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her so that you may raise up a descendant for your brother.” [At this time, God apparently hadn’t informed people (or didn’t know) much about genetics, but he apparently did inform people that a man’s duty was to have sex with his brother’s widow.] But Onan knew that the child would not be considered his. So whenever he had sexual relations with his brother’s wife, he withdrew prematurely so as not to give his brother a descendant. What he did was evil in the Lord’s sight, so the Lord killed him too. [So, claim the clerics, God watches your every move (even though he had to visit the Tower of Babel personally and to send messengers down to Sodom and Gomorrah). God especially watches your moves when your pants are down, and if you “do evil in the Lord’s sight”, then your number’s up.]

Then Judah said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Live as a widow in your father’s house until Shelah my son grows up.” For he thought, “I don’t want him to die like his brothers.” [So, Judah wasn’t truthful.] So Tamar went and lived in her father’s house. [Women are to do what they’re told, doncha know; otherwise… well, remember what happened to Lot’s wife, a pillar of salt.]

After some time Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. After Judah was consoled, he left for Timnah to visit his sheepshearers, along with his friend Hirah the Adullamite. Tamar was told, “Look, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep.” So she removed her widow’s clothes and covered herself with a veil. She wrapped herself and sat at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the way to Timnah. (She did this because she saw that she had not been given to Shelah as a wife, even though he had now grown up.)

When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute because she had covered her face. [I wonder if Muslims know that (according to "God's holy truth") a woman who covers her face is a prostitute?!] He turned aside to her along the road and said, “Come on! I want to have sex with you.” (He did not realize it was his daughter-in-law.) She asked, “What will you give me in exchange for having sex with you?” He replied, “I’ll send you a young goat from the flock.” She asked, “Will you give me a pledge until you send it?” He said, “What pledge should I give you?” She replied, “Your seal, your cord, and the staff that’s in your hand.” So he gave them to her and had sex with her. She became pregnant by him. She left immediately, removed her veil, and put on her widow’s clothes.

[Isn’t this a great little story to instill “family values” in children? I can hear the pastor now: “Now, children, let’s review the lesson so far. So far, we’ve learned that you’re expected to have sex with your brother’s widow, but when you do, then go all the way: if you boys ‘spill your seed’ anywhere but where it belongs, then God will punish you. Similarly, if any of you children masturbate, then God will punish you. In addition, I hope all you children see that being a prostitute and soliciting prostitutes are perfectly normal and healthy family values."]

Then Judah had his friend Hirah the Adullamite take a young goat to get back from the woman the items he had given in pledge, but Hirah could not find her. He asked the men who were there, “Where is the cult prostitute who was at Enaim by the road?” But they replied, “There has been no cult prostitute here.” So he returned to Judah and said, “I couldn’t find her. Moreover, the men of the place said, ‘There has been no cult prostitute here’.” Judah said, “Let her keep the things for herself. Otherwise we will appear to be dishonest. [It’s not that he was opposed to being dishonest (witness the dishonesty in his sending Tamar back to her father’s house), but he didn’t want to “appear to be dishonest.”] I did indeed send this young goat, but you couldn’t find her.”

After three months Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has turned to prostitution, and as a result she has become pregnant.” Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned!” While they were bringing her out, she sent word to her father-in-law: “I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong.” Then she said, “Identify the one to whom the seal, cord, and staff belong.” Judah recognized them and said, “She is more upright than I am, because I wouldn’t give her to Shelah my son.”
What a great little story, just brimming with “family values”! I wonder if the clerics who promote it are eager to have children recreate the story as a little skit:
“Okay, Tommy, you can be Er. Dick, you can be Onan. And Harry, you can be Judah. To get more people involved, let’s have four of you girls – Helen, Rose, Alice, Louise – be four different Tamars. Helen, you have sex with Tommy. Rose, you have sex with Dick (and Dick, don’t forget: you’re supposed to pull out before you ejaculate). Alice, you can be the prostitute-Tamar and have sex with Harry, and Louise, you can be the pregnant-Tamar. I’ll be God and do the killing. Also, we’ll need a couple of more people to be Hirah and the sexless-son Shelah – but you guys stand by: if Dick screws-up and doesn’t pull out soon enough, you should just jump right in and take his place (assuming that’s okay with you Rose). And oh, Helen and Tommy, since the script doesn’t say what Er did “that was evil in the Lord’s sight”, I want you two to improvise: let’s see some real-kinky stuff, kids – something I'd kill for!”
Think of the hypocrisy of the people who seek to ban pornography and yet proceed to distribute the Bible – to children! Also, think of the hypocrisy in the suggestion that men who hire prostitutes are blessed, but prostitutes are to be burned. And by the way, although it’s obvious from the above story that God approves of abortion, let’s hope that humans can improve on his approved method: in God’s method, the fetus is aborted by immolating the pregnant woman! Anyone have a Plan-B?

And what a contrast between another horrible idea in the above myth versus the humane idea in the Greek myth about Trophonius:
In Greek mythology, Trophonius was a son of Erginus. According to the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, he built Apollo’s temple at the oracle at Delphi with his brother, Agamedes. Once finished, the oracle told the brothers to do whatsoever they wished for six days and, on the seventh, their greatest wish would be granted. They did and were found dead on the seventh day. The saying “those whom the gods love die young” comes from this story.
Thus, think of the additional pain of the bereaved who are indoctrinated with the idea that those who “do evil in the Lord’s sight” (or “who do evil in the eyes of the Lord”) are killed versus the comfort they could find from the thought: “Those whom the gods love die young.”

But the end of the above story does provide a little hope for womanhood: notice that the woman who was wronged, Tamar, outsmarted the Jewish patriarch (the deceitful, male-chauvinist, hypocrite, jaundiced) Judah.

As did his grandfather Abraham and his father Isaac, Israel (aka Jacob) violated natural relations between parents and their children, choosing a favorite child: not Judah but Joseph. The clerics who concocted this crap are presumably preparing their followers to accept the ludicrous proposition that the creator of the universe similarly plays favorites, identifying the Israelites as his “chosen people.” Joseph’s brothers allegedly hated him (because he was their father’s favorite son and because they didn’t like his interpretations of his dreams) and sold him into slavery – which might contain a lesson for any religious Jews who can still think for themselves (although that’s probably an oxymoron).

As is the case for most stories in the Bible, the silly stories about Joseph’s adventures as a slave in Egypt and then rising to power are fictitious. Essentially all the stories about Joseph (certainly including the story about his master’s wife enticing him to have sex with her and then her reaction when she was rebuked, as well as the story about Joseph’s interpretation of the Pharaoh’s dreams and then Joseph’s rise to power second only to the Pharaoh) are mangled rewrites of much older Egyptian myths from thousands of years earlier. In fact, even the story about storing the excess food in seven years of abundance in preparation for a seven-year famine (Genesis 41, 47) was already recorded in The Epic of Gilgamesh more than a thousand years earlier. But the Jewish clerics apparently added their own flourish to the earlier stories, including making Joseph a tyrannical ruler (fitting for the clerics’ plan to rule the Jewish people). Thus, starting at Genesis 47, 21, the Jewish clerics added:
Joseph made all the people slaves from one end of Egypt’s border to the other end of it. But he did not purchase the land of the priests because the priests had an allotment from Pharaoh and they ate from their allotment that Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land. [And so, according to the Jewish priests, the Egyptian priests didn’t become slaves – it being so highly inappropriate, doncha know, that a priest should become a slave.]

Joseph said to the people, “Since I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you. Cultivate the land. When you gather in the crop, give one-fifth of it to Pharaoh, and the rest will be yours for seed for the fields and for you to eat, including those in your households and your little children.”

They replied, “You have saved our lives! You are showing us favor, and we will be Pharaoh’s slaves.” [Can’t you just imagine the people’s happiness at becoming slaves!]

So Joseph made it a statute, which is in effect to this day [written when?!] throughout the land of Egypt: One-fifth belongs to Pharaoh. Only the land of the priests did not become Pharaoh’s. [Wow, isn’t that amazing.]
The clerics who wrote this crap are so damn transparent: a good person (Joseph) protects the wealth of the priests! Who would have thought!

But upon arriving here at the end of Genesis and considering all its silliness, a thinking reader surely asks something similar to: what’s to be made (so far) of the clerics’ concoctions? Well, the answer depends on the bias of the reader (or, revealing my own bias, it depends on how badly the reader’s thoughts have been contaminated by the damnable clerics). For example, consider the following recently-posted assessment by an author whom I’ll identify shortly:
This morning I ended up reading only one chapter. I was “reading the 16s”… so I decided to start with the first one – Genesis 16 – and I never made it anywhere else.

Here’s what you find in chapter:

1. Sarah suggests that Abraham sleep with their Egyptian servant Hagar.
2. Abraham agrees.
3. Hagar gets pregnant.
4. Hagar shows contempt for Sarah.
5. Sarah blames Abraham.
6. Abraham says, “She’s your servant. Do whatever you like with her.”
7. Sarah treats Hagar so harshly that she runs away.
8. Hagar ends up… by a spring in the wilderness where the angel of the Lord speaks to her.
9. The angel tells her to return to Sarah and promises that Hagar will have more descendants than she can count.
10. She will have a son named Ishmael who will be like an untamed donkey.
11. He will live in open hostility to all his relatives.
12. Realizing that she had seen the Lord, Hagar calls him “El Roi,” the God who sees.
13. She returns home and gives birth to Ishmael.

There is nothing but trouble in this chapter of the Bible. No one looks good except the Lord.

Sarah makes a foolish suggestion.
Abraham follows the foolish suggestion.
Hagar disrespects Sarah.
Sarah complains to Abraham who passes the buck.
Sarah mistreats Hagar who runs away.

And then the Lord himself intervenes.

I love stories like this because they remind me that God is the real hero of the Bible. During a radio interview I was asked why so many Bible characters had serious flaws. My answer was simple. That’s all God has to work with. All the perfect people are in heaven. The only ones on earth are the folks with serious weaknesses. The talent pool has always been pretty thin when it comes to moral perfection. God works with sinners because that’s all he has to work with. In heaven we will all be vastly improved – perfected by God’s grace. But until then, he uses some pretty ornery people who fall short in many ways, and he does some amazing things through them.

Genesis 16 is a mess.
And then God steps in.

That’s what grace is all about. We do the messing up – and God does everything else.
Well, before I comment on the above assessments by an as-yet-unidentified author, it seems appropriate to review what else God allegedly did, as “revealed” in the entire Book of Genesis. To that end, consider the following list of acts of cruelty (alone) by God and some of his “righteous” followers, as given in Genesis (alone), and as listed at the website that contains the Skeptics Annotated Bible (which I wish everyone would read!):
1. Because God liked Abel’s animal sacrifice more than Cain’s vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. (Genesis 4: 8)

2. God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and “all flesh wherein there is breath of life.” He plans to drown them all. (6: 7, 17)

3. God repeats his intention to kill “every living substance ... from off the face of the earth.” But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. (7:4)

4. God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears – all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. (7:21-23)

5. God sends a plague on the Pharaoh and his household because the Pharaoh believed Abram’s lie. (12:17)

6. God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. (15:9-10)

7. Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. “And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled.” (16:6)

8. “I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.” I guess God couldn’t find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn’t ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn’t give a damn about children. (18:32)

9. Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two “virgin daughters” instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to “do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes.” This is the same man that is called “just” and “righteous” in 2 Peter 2:7-8. (19:7-8)

10. God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining “fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” Well, almost everyone – he spares the “just and righteous” Lot and his family. (19:24)

11. Lot’s nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. (19:26)

12. God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing Abe’s lie. (20:3-7)

13. Sarai tells Abraham to “cast out this bondwoman and her son.” God commands him to “hearken unto her voice.” So Abraham abandons Hagar and Ishmael, casting them out into the wilderness to die. (21:10-14)

14. God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac’s throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. (22:2-13)

15. Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. (22:10)

16. Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is “defiled” by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. (34:1-31)

17. “The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them.” (35:5)

18. “And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.” What did Er do to elicit God’s wrath? The Bible doesn’t say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. (38:7)

19. After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to “go in unto they brother’s wife.” But “Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and… when he went in unto his brother’s wife… he spilled it on the ground… And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also.” This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. (38:8-10)

20. After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she “played the harlot” and “is with child by whoredom.” When Judah hears this, he says, “Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.” (38:24)

21. Joseph interprets the baker’s dream. He says that the pharaoh will cut off the baker’s head, and hang his headless body on a tree for the birds to eat. (40:19)
And by the way, the above list includes only “acts of cruelty”; other acts of debauchery (and for the entire Bible, not just Genesis) are given at the referenced website.

So then, returning to the as-yet-unidentified author’s assessment that “No one looks good [in Genesis] except the Lord” and “God is the real hero of the Bible”, perhaps the reader has guessed that it was written by a mass murderer on death row. I would have thought so, but actually, it was written by “Dr. Ray Pritchard, Author, Speaker, and President of Keep Believing Ministries.”

“Keep Believing Ministries” indeed! Never mind the evidence, just keep-on believing. If you can just keep believing that “in God there is no unrighteousness”, then you’ll be “blessed by the Lord” – not only with cognitive dissonance but quite likely, with a clinically confirmed psychosis.

And meanwhile, what an amazing difference there is between the Bible’s stories and Aesop’s fables! Writing about Aesop’s fables, Donna L. Preble expressed it beautifully: “Fables are not to be believed but understood.” In contrast, in the case of the Bible, understanding is beside the point: the Bible (so the clerics tell us) needn’t be understood; it’s to be believed!

But for those of us who seek understanding to eliminate any cognitive dissonance, what’s to be made of these crazy stories in Genesis? Well, my own assessment (more evidence for which I’ll provide in later posts) is that Ezra & Co-Conspirators (Ezra & C-C), who put the preposterous Pentateuch together, marveled at what the Egyptian and Persian priests had accomplished – and sought to emulate them. They saw that the Egyptians and Persian priests controlled their followers not by force but by trickery: by putting stories into the people’s minds and thereby, by controlling the people’s thoughts. So, charged by the Persians with taking control of the Jewish people (to ensure that taxes were paid and the people were loyal to the Empire), Ezra & C-C massaged a bunch of old myths (which the Jewish people vaguely knew) into myths that repeatedly stressed the same message:
“Never mind understanding: we’ll do the understanding; you’re to do the believing! If you do what we say, you’ll be blessed; if you don’t, you won’t. In a word, OBEY (us priests).”
To concoct their stories, of course the Jewish clerics had to lie. In truth, they didn’t know how the world was created, but they heard the Egyptian priests say that their god created things by just naming them and they heard the Persian priests say it was created in six days; so, they put the two stories together and conveyed their resulting lie to the Jewish people as “the truth”. In reality, they knew they didn’t know, but they claimed that they did. They knew that they didn’t know what their god said while he allegedly created the world, but they claimed they did – for a purpose: to get the people to obey them.

As another example, they knew that people died, but they didn’t know why. From all the myths about how the first people were created by the gods, they considered it obvious that all humans must be descendants of the first mother and father; so, they decided that the first parents must have done something wrong, and for their “sin”, they (and all their descendants) were sentenced to death. They knew that, in truth, they didn’t know any such thing, but they concocted a story filled with lies – for a purpose: to get the people to obey them.

Similarly with the story about the flood. They knew that the Jewish people had heard about a worldwide flood, just as they had. They didn’t know why the world would have been flooded, but the old myths of course claimed that the gods did it. So, they asked themselves why the powerful creator god of the Persians would have flooded the world, decided on a possibility, and retold the story, flooded with what they knew were lies, claiming to know what they didn’t know – for a purpose: to get the people to obey them.

And so on it went, the same with all their stories (about why there are rainbows, about why there were so many languages, about slavery, about why some cities were destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, about why some people left their homeland for other locations, about why some women had children and others didn’t, about why circumcision was practiced in Egypt, about why some people were successful and others weren’t, and so on): they knew they didn’t know the reasons, so they concocted reasons, full of lies, claiming to know what they didn’t know. And all of it done with the same overarching purpose: to get the people to obey them.

And unfortunately, tragedy of all tragedies, the foolish Jewish people (half of whom, don’t forget, must have had below average intelligence) accepted their clerics’ concocted stories as “true”. As Robert Ingersoll (1833–1899) wrote in Liberty in Literature in 1890:
Only the very ignorant are perfectly satisfied that they know. To the common man the great problems are easy. He has no trouble in accounting for the universe. He can tell you the origin and destiny of man and the why and wherefore of things. As a rule, he is a believer in special providence, and is egotistic enough to suppose that everything that happens in the universe happens in reference to him.
And thus the foolish, egotistical Jewish people bought into their clerics’ con game – and unfortunately for humanity, similar con games (run by Hindu, Christian, Mormon, and Muslim clerics) are still being run throughout the world. In each case, the clerics fill the minds of their followers (approximately half of all people in the world!) with stupid stories, loaded with lies. In the process of accepting such stories as “true”, the people lose their most precious possession: freedom to think for themselves.

Once again, Robert Ingersoll saw it clearly:
There are some truths… that we should never forget: superstition has always been the relentless enemy of science, faith has been a hater of demonstration, hypocrisy has been sincere only in its dread of truth, and all religions are inconsistent with mental freedom.