"Now lies the earth all Danae to the stars,"

Spencer TUNICK : - Melbourne, Australia

"Now lies the earth all Danae to the stars, And all thy heart lies open unto me." is part of the poem 'Now Sleeps the Crimson Petal', by Alfred Lord Tennyson.

So, who was Danae?

In the Greek Mysteries, Danae was a daughter of King Acrisius of Argos and Eurydice. Now, King Acrisius didn't have any male heirs. (Usual story, the guys need a male heir.) So anyway, he asked an oracle what to do. The oracle told him to go to the ends of the earth where he would be killed by his daughter's child. (Doesn't sound too hopeful for the king so far and I figure he might be rethinking the "male heir bit.") His daughter, Danae, was childless and because King Acrisius didn't like the idea of being bumped off by the child of his daughter, he shut her up in a tower, some say cave, so she couldn't well, you know, do the wild thing. But Zeus, the head god honcho came to her in the form of a beam of sunlight, and impregnated her. Others versions of the mystery say that Zeus came to her as a shower of gold. Soon after, their child Perseus was born. So Danae is the virgin mother of Perseus, and Zeus is his daddy. Who's your daddy!

So, what's the point about Danae? Not a lot really, except that I thought the reference might be a good hook to the article I am going to share with you today. Danae, is nearly always depicted in art as naked and waiting in anticipation, I guess, for that beam of sunlight which is going to impregnate her. No doubt she was pretty bored locked up and all that, so she probably had all sorts of time to laze around naked and dream of god superheros who would do the wild thing with her. Now, one night, she must have been lying there "all Danae to the stars," (naked), when in pops Zeus for a bit of sunbeam fornication. The rest is history. Well, not quite, but history and myth seem to intertwine quite often and most people don't seem to worry nor concern themselves with it.

To be "all Danae to the stars" is to be naked, or nude. (You may not be terribly interested in the Greek Mysteries or with poetry, but I bet that got your attention.) Well, I was watching television the other night and I happened upon a documentary exploring the works of the artist photographer, Spencer Tunick. Some of you may have heard of him before. He is a photographer who takes group photos of crowds of nude people. You can see some of his work here. The documentary was about his project where he travelled around the world convincing people from many countries to pose naked for him against or near well-known national monuments or places.

He prefers to use large groups of naked people so that they become like the paint on a picture. In other words, so that their bodies become part of the medium for his installations. What struck me about the documentary was the different cultural attitudes associated with trying to get a large number of people to be part of his photographs. I think the documentary mainly concentrated on work done during the early 2000s, when he wasn't perhaps as well known, because I notice after that, he had less trouble being able to harness a large group of participants.

The brits had no problem posing for the pictures, and a few hundred turned out to accommodate his artistic vision. Even though some people might consider the brits to be uptight, they seem to be not uptight when it comes to art. It was entirely different in Japan, where even though they may have communal bathing houses etc, he was only able to get about 4 people who were willing to pose nude for him. And in France, it was a similar thing, (at least during the filming of the documentary we are talking about), as he found it difficult to get more than one or two people willing to pose nude for him in front of the Louvre Pyramid. There was a kafuffle, and he was nearly arrested. The French may be liberated in their attitudes towards art, but no posing naked without permission. In Russia it was a similar story, there were strong cultural traditions against nakedness, so it meant that only a brave few turned up to pose in their naked glory. In Africa, ditto. In fact, in one long conversation with a woman in the documentary, she would only pose naked if money was exchanged hands. In Montreal, he had much more success, a few thousand turned up to have their picture taken. In some South American countries, he got a lot of people, but not many women. Many South American countries have quite macho cultures and according to some of the men interviewed, a woman would be lowering herself to pose nude at such an event. Which I can only interpret as, "It is ok for a male to show off his pecker."

But in Melbourne, Australia, approximately 4 thousand turned up in the rain, to bare their bums for art. The rain did eventually clear up enough so that some photos could be taken. I have to say that it warmed the cockles of my heart to see so many naked Australian bums praying to the god of sunshine. There were no reports of mysterious sunlight copulations. It must have been Zeus's day off. Or perhaps there weren't any virgins there! :)

Funny :)

Spencer Tunick nude naked art photography installation australia melbourne greek myths danae alfred lord tennyson 'Now Sleeps the Crimson Petal zeus

"Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink"

"Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink" is a line from the famous poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. In the poem, the narrator or speaker is a sailor on a ship, which is becalmed and surrounded by water that he cannot drink. By extension, this is perhaps how many atheists feel. They are surrounded by religious people and their rituals, none of which make a great deal of sense to them, nor do they feel that they should be compelled to partake in any of them.

One of these religious rituals is baptism. The words "baptize" and "baptism" are of Greek origin. They simply mean to wash or to immerse. (Greek: baptizo, wash or immerse) The word itself takes on a religious context when it is used to describe a ritual, which is specific to the given religion. A water rite is a rite or ceremonial custom in which water is used as the central religious feature, in which a person is immersed or bathed as a symbol of religious indoctrination or ritual purification. So, a baptism can be seen as a water rite or a water ritual, which has religious significance. There are other baptisms, which do not involve water as the purifying element, such as fire, earth, wind and even blood. But I am essentially discussing religious water rituals or rites in this article.

Water has played an important role in many religions and beliefs around the world. It has represented the source of life and the source of birth and rebirth. Water was used to cleanse the body and thus by extension it purified the body. This has lead water to be considered as extremely symbolic and at times sacred. Water is therefore a key symbolic element in ceremonies and religious rites.

Water was and still is in some places perceived as a god, goddess or a divine agency. Once water is assumed or inferred through religious belief to have a divine agency, it ceases to be neutral or passive. Under these circumstances it is considered to have powers and capacities of transformation, removal of sin or to transfer its divine or holy powers to the recipient through religious ceremony. In this way, water often represents the border between the natural world and another supposed supernatural or spiritual world.

The concept of purification with water, either religiously symbolic or as a literal act of cleanliness is probably older than recorded history. Pagans purified themselves with fire, incense, blood sacrifice; they even purified themselves with a winnowing fan. But the most used, most widespread tool of pagan purification was water. A pagan is basically anyone who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. So pagans were anyone who pre-existed or lived outside the religious constructs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This of course includes the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, the ancient Romans and the Greeks, and anyone else who lived in any other part of the world who wasn't one of the Abrahamic religions. Prior to the foundations of the "big 3" this word, "pagan" would have described everyone who existed in the world, or who had ever existed. (Though it wouldn't have been a term they would have used to describe themselves. They would have called themselves whatever was the appropriate term for their religious practices.) After the foundations of the "big 3", the word, "pagan" is used to describe everyone else who ISN'T a member of the "big 3."

Pagan water purification rituals were used in the ancient world and are written about in the Old Testament. Homer mentions the washing of hands before prayer, and the purification of an entire army with water (Iliad, 1.313). The Greeks even had priests, kathartai, who specialized in purification with water. After the conspiracy of Cylon in Athens in 632 BC, a fellow named Epimenides of Crete purified the entire city with water. (Diogines Laertius 1.10.3)

Those of us who live in a predominately christian nation, or who have a predominately christian worldview, find it difficult to consider these religious water rites as baptism. Yet the intention, motive and action are in many instances identical. It is only that this actions or intents were not performed invoking in the name of the Abrahamic god/gods.

The mystery religions of that period often included ablution rites of either immersion or a washing of the body for the purposes of purification or initiation. Other concepts said to have been associated with these forms of cultic baptisms included the transformation of one's life, the removal of sins, symbolic representation, the attainment of greater physical vitality, a new beginning, spiritual regeneration. It is believed that all ancient religions recognized some form of spiritual cleansing, renewal or initiation that was accomplished through a washing or immersion in water.

So why were water rituals or baptisms performed in the ancient world? Basically for the same reasons that they are performed now. They are performed because of the belief that water can be or is embued with special divine properties.

These divine or religious properties are considered to have the power to either literally or symbolically: -

• 1. purify the individual, or the object of evil forces or sin.
• 2. purify the individual or object in preparation for death or for an afterlife.
• 3. symbolically represent initiation into a specific religion and its tenets.

In many cases, it is all of the above. What is the main difference is the divine power. or religion to whom the ritual is attached.

So, let's have a look at some of these water rituals/rites or baptisms.

• 1. Hindus believe that bathing in the waters of a holy river, such as the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh and the Ganges in India, will purify one's life of past sins.
  a. Sprinkling of holy water on persons is called prokhshanam. In order to purify places and persons, consecrated water or punyaaham is sprinkled. In purificatory rites, water is sprinkled on the object to be purified.
• 2. The ancient Egyptians believed that the Nile had regenerative powers, and was used to baptize the dead in a ritual based on the Osiris myth. Egyptian cults also developed the idea of regeneration through water.
  a. The Book of "Going Forth by Day" (Egyptian Book of the Dead) contains a treatise on the baptism of newborn children, which is performed to purify them of blemishes acquired in the womb. " He has made an end to hours, and likewise, counted them. In the morning, earth fills with light. Law and baptism. The one of us all, endures. It is our work under the sun." - from "The Egyptian Book of the Dead"
  b. Egyptians who lived by the laws of Ma'at took a sacramental drink, which conferred ritual purity. Ma'at's potion brought life after death to the peaceful and law-abiding citizen, but death to violent persons. Ma'at Responsible For: Justice, Law and Order, Immortality, Primordial Being
  c. Egypitan priests were initiated into their temple duties through baptism in a sacred pool. This pool was symbolic of the waters of Nu, (the Cosmic Ocean), which washed away all evil. The Purification Ritual for officiating priests is contained in a papyrus of the Berlin Museum, whose analysis and table of chapters has been published by Herr Oscar von Lemm, Das Bitualbuch des Ammonsdienstes, p. 4, et seq.
• 3. In Buddhism, water is sometimes used in funeral ceremonies. It is poured and overflows into a bowl placed before the monks and the dead body. As it fills and pours over the edge, the monks recite ‘As the rains fill the rivers and overflow into the ocean, so likewise may what is given here reach the departed.’
  a. Water, which has been through religious ritual, purified or made sacred, is used in some Buddhist ceremonies to initiate priests and in ceremonies when a priest leaves the priesthood.
• 4. In Zoroastrian initiation, the rite of baptism was performed through the use of either blood, urine, or water.
• 5. In Judaism, the mikvah, which translates from Hebrew to mean a "collection of water," is a body of water where a person immerses herself or himself to become "ritually pure." The mikvah is used by some religious men before prayer, a bride before she is married, and by a person in the final stages of conversion to Judaism.
• 6. In ancient Japan, Furo, or the Japanese hot bath, was originally part of a religious rite in which man merged with the divine through purification in the bath.
• 7. The ancient Greeks had various religious rites, which involved the use of water. These religions were what are described as the "Eleusinian mysteries" as they occurred in, or were originated in Eleusis. "Thus were men initiated into the mysteries of Eleusis, and he who initiated them was called "Hydranus, the Waterer'" Tertullian says that thus men were initiated into the mysteries of Isis and Mithra; and Apuleius describes purification by water as part of the ceremonial of the Isiac initiation. Those initiated into the mysteries of the Goddess Cotytto were called Baptes, from the ceremony of Baptism, which was part of the initiation; and Eupoles, rival of Aristophanes, wrote a comedy called The Baptes, ridiculing them. That was in the time of Socrates." The Reverend Mr. Reeves. The Eleusinian Mysteries
• a. The mystery followers were bound by an oath to keep the mysteries secret. The actual initiation was preceded by numerous rites of purification such as fasting, baptism, and confession. The Christian theologian Tertullian (ca. 155-220 CE) wrote, "In certain mysteries, e.g. Isis and Mithra, it is by baptism [Latin: per lavarum] that members are initiated ..." Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-211 or 215 CE) wrote, "... in the current Mysteries among the Greeks ceremonial purifications hold the premier place."
  b. The Greater mysteries included baptism in the sea, three days of fasting, and the completion of the mysterious central rite. These acts completed the initiation, and the initiate was promised rewards in the life after death. Esoteric Christianity: The Greek Mystery Religions and Their Impact on Christianity
• c. The mystery religions often included ablution rites of either immersion or a washing of the body for the purposes of purification or initiation. Other concepts said to have been associated with these forms of cultic baptisms included the transformation of one's life, the removal of sins, symbolic representation, the attainment of greater physical vitality, a new beginning, spiritual regeneration.
  d. A bath in the sanctuary of Trophonion procured for the initiate a blessed immortality even while in this world. Before entering the cave where the god Trophonios dwelled, the person would receive a bath and was anointed with olive oil. The priests then took him to water springs where the water of forgetfulness (for the loss of memory of all that was past) and the water of memory (to recall all that would be seen) were consumed. Baptism: A Pre-Christian History
• 8. Isaac de Beausobre, best known for his history of "Manichaeism, Histoire Critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme" says that "The Persians carried their infants to the Temple a few days after they were born, and presented them to the priest, before the sun, and before the fire, which was his symbol. Then the priest took the child and baptized it for the purification of the soul. Sometimes he plunged it into a great vase of water, and it was in the same ceremony that the father gave a name to the child." The Manichaeans
• 9. New members into the Mysteries of Isis / Osiris began their initiation with a sprinkling of purifying waters brought from the Nile. The result of the baptism and initiation? "a kind of voluntary death and salvation through divine grace." (Apuleius, Metamorphosis, Book 11, 21), and "..we shall have salvation" (Firmicus Maternus, The Error of Pagan Religions, 22.1).
• 10. Pagans at Gerasa celebrated the Maioumas, rites in which women bathed and were purified in a sacred pool outside town.
• 11. The religious ceremony to the ancient Greek Goddess Persephone, began by ritual purification in the sea.
• 12. The act of ritual washing is the beginning of the idea of Misogi, the physical act of ritual purification in water which is the prototype of the Shinto ritual of O-harai or purification. Misogi is a Shinto practice involving purification in a waterfall or other natural running water. Misogi
• 13. And of course there is perhaps the best known religious water ritual, that of Christian baptism.
• 14. In Islam, purification through ablution is an obligatory component of the Islamic Prayer ritual and prayers carried out in an impure state are not valid. This means Muslims are obliged to carry out ritual ablution before each of the five daily Prayers. In addition, a more thorough ritual is required on specific occasions.

Not all the water rituals listed here preceded the concept of christian baptism, but many of them do. What is shown is that many ancient religions recognized some form of spiritual cleansing, renewal or initiation that was accomplished through a washing or immersion in water. What they all have in common, is the belief that water, through religious ritual, can confer either literally divine properties upon people or objects, or that water can symbolically represent, through religious ritual, the initiation into a specific religion or cult. The practices have many things in common. What they DON'T have in common in most instances, is the deity or divine power, which is represented through the ritual. So when a person refers to baptism as if they invented it, they are essentially ONLY referring to the water rite associated specifically with their religion.

What has Christianity to say concerning religious water rites or ritual baptisms which preceded Christianity?

"We know of an ablution in the ritual of Eleusis; the laurel-wreath oration of Demosthenes speaks of purificatory ablutions in the mystery of Sabazius; the cult of Attis had its taurobolium, and the mystery of Isis knew a sanctifying baptismal bath, as did the mysteries of Dionysus and of Mithras. Upon mature consideration modern scholarship has rejected the ideas that such rites exerted an influence on the baptismal doctrine of the New Testament," (Hugo Rahner, The Christian Mystery and the Pagan Mysteries, section 3, in The Mysteries; Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks, edited by Joseph Campbell)

Yeah right... And the person who invented the first wheel, didn't have an influence on the latest Mercedes Benz.

Religious Water Rituals Etc

water water ritual water rite baptism history of religion history religion religious rituals the rime of the ancient mariner coleridge

"Away With The Fairies"

From: - Believers are away with the fairies

~*~

The entirety of this article is posted here and is referenced from the above source.

There is an increasingly noisy and bad-tempered quarrel between religious people and non-religious people in contemporary society.

It has flared up in the past few years, and has quickly taken a bitter turn. Why is this so? AC Grayling argues that religion has lost respectability As one of those participating in it - and, confessedly, contributing to its acerbity - my answer might seem partisan. But both sides of the current dispute agree that it raises important questions about the place of religious belief in modern society.

Until very recently, people tended not to fall out with one another if they discovered that they held different views about religion. There were three main reasons for this. Most believers did not brandish their faith publicly, society had become increasingly secular in most major respects, and memories of the past's murderous religious factionalisms had bequeathed a reluctance to revive the problem. The latter's lingering consequences in Northern Ireland anyway served as a distasteful warning.

But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain. Followers of Islam were the first to push forward: protests against Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in 1989 were an early indication of what has since become an insistent Islamic presence in the public square. Not willing to be left behind, other faiths have followed suit. In 2004 Sikhs closed a play in Birmingham, Hindus complained about Christmas stamps Christianising an Indian theme and, in 2005, evangelical Christians protested against Jerry Springer: The Opera. But it has not all been about protests.

In Britain public funding has gone to Church of England and Roman Catholic schools for a long time; now Muslims, Sikhs and Jews receive public money for their own faith-based schools. BBC radio has steadily increased the airtime available to religions other than the established one.
Requests for extra protections in law, and alternatively for exemptions from the law, to cater for religious sensitivities soon followed these developments: criminalising offensive remarks about religion, and allowing faith-based organisations to be exempt from legislation outlawing discriminatory practices, are the main examples.

The Labour Government has been as concessive and inclusive as it can be to all the religious groups in Britain. This is well intentioned but misguided, as the example of faith-based schooling shows. If children are ghettoised by religion from an early age, the result, as seen in Northern Ireland, is disastrous. In the past decade exactly such segregation has been given a publicly funded boost in the rest of the UK, at a time when religion-inspired tensions and divisions in society are increasing. The remedy for the latter should be to ensure that schooling is as mixed and secular as possible; instead, tax money has gone to deepen the problem because the Government thinks that by giving sectarianism its head it will appease it.

Yet history teaches that appeasement never satisfies appetites, it only feeds them.
In the face of the growing volume and assertiveness of different religious bodies asking for preferential treatment, secular opinion has hardened. The non-religious response has come largely from individuals who have a platform or the talent to speak; and they speak for themselves, not for an organisation.

In the US, the religious Right numbers about 35 million. Recent polls show that about 30 million Americans define themselves as having no religious commitment. But whereas the religious Right is a formidable body whose constituent churches and movements have salaried administrators, vast funds, television and radio outlets, and paid Washington lobbyists, America's non-religious folk are simply unconnected individuals.

It is no surprise that the religious Right has political clout and can make a loud noise in the American public square, whereas the non-religious voice is muted. There are two main reasons for the hardening of responses by non-religious folk. One is that any increase in the influence of religious bodies in society threatens the de facto secular arrangement that allows all views and none to coexist. History has shown that in societies where one religious outlook becomes dominant, an uneasy situation ensues for other outlooks; at the extreme, religious control of society can degenerate into Taliban-like rule.

Look at the period in which liberty of conscience was at last secured in Christian Europe - the 16th and 17th centuries. It was an exceptionally bloody epoch: millions died as a result of a single church's reluctance to give up its control over what people can be allowed to think and believe.
The famous Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 accepted religious differences as the only way of preventing religion from being an endless source of war. Religious peace did not come straight away, but eventually it arrived, and most of Europe for most of the years since 1700 has been free of religiously motivated strife.

But this is under threat in the new climate of religious assertiveness. Faith organisations are currently making common cause to achieve their mutual ends, but, once they have achieved them, what is to stop them remembering that their faiths are mutually exclusive and indeed mutually blaspheming, and that the history of their relationship is one of bloodshed?

The second reason why secular attitudes are hardening relates to the reflective non-religious person's attitude to religion itself. Religious belief of all kinds shares the same intellectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality as belief in the existence of fairies.

This remark outrages the sensibilities of those who have deep religious convictions and attachments, and they regard it as insulting. But the truth is that everyone takes this attitude about all but one (or a very few) of the gods that have ever been claimed to exist.

No reasonably orthodox Christian believes in Aphrodite or the rest of the Olympian deities, or in Ganesh the Elephant God or the rest of the Hindu pantheon, or in the Japanese emperor, and so endlessly on - and officially (as a matter of Christian orthodoxy) he or she must say that anyone who sincerely believes in such deities is deluded and blasphemously in pursuit of "false gods".

The atheist adds just one more deity to the list of those not believed in; namely, the one remaining on the Christian's or Jew's or Muslim's list.

Religious belief is humankind's earliest science. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are young religions in historical terms, and came into existence after kings and emperors had more magnificently taken the place of tribal chiefs. The new religions therefore modelled their respective deities on kings with absolute powers.

But for tens of thousands of years beforehand people were fundamentally animistic, explaining the natural world by imputing agency to things - spirits or gods in the wind, in the thunder, in the rivers and sea.

As knowledge replaced these naiveties, so deities became more invisible, receding to mountain tops and then to the sky or the earth's depths. One can easily see how it was in the interests of priesthoods, most of which were hereditary, to keep these myths alive.

With such a view of religion - as ancient superstition, as a primitive form of explanation of the world sophisticated into mythology - it is hard for non-religious folk to take it seriously, and equally hard for them to accept the claim of religious folk to a disproportionate say in running society.

This is the more so given that the active constituency of all believers in Britain is about eight per cent of the population. A majority might have vague beliefs and occasionally go to church, but even they do not want their lives dictated to by so small and narrow a self-selected minority.

The disproportion is a staring one. Regular C of E churchgoers make up three per cent of the population, yet have 26 bishops in the House of Lords. Now that religion is bustling on to centre-stage and asking for everyone's taxes to pay for faith schools and exemptions, this anachronism is no longer tolerable.

And all this is happening against the background of atrocities committed by religious fanatics in America, Europe and the Middle East, whose beliefs are not very different from the majority of others in their faith.

The absolute certainty, the unreflective credence given to ancient texts that relate to historically remote conditions, the zealotry and bigotry that flow from their certainty, are profoundly dangerous: at their extreme they result in mass murder, but long before then they issue in censorship, coercion to conform, the control of women, the closing of hearts and minds.

Thus there is a continuum from the suicide bomber driven by religious zeal to the moral crusader who wishes to stop everyone else from seeing or reading what he himself finds offensive. This fact makes people of a secular disposition no longer prepared to be silent and concessive.

Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others. Where politeness once restrained non-religious folk from expressing their true feelings about religion, both politeness and restraint have been banished by the confrontational face that faith now turns to the modern world.

This, then, is why there is an acerbic quarrel going on between religion and non-religion today, and it does not look as if it will end soon.

Hat tip to Pharyngula

LINK: A. C. Grayling

The Saw Doctors - 'Away With The Fairies'

A C Grayling fairies religion christianity islam non-religious

"Mary Had A Little Lamb Its Fleece Was White As Snow"

" The Virgin Births"

"Mary had a little lamb its fleece was white as snow." But just how many virgin births were there? Virgin birth stories were fairly common in the ancient world. The pagan belief in unions between gods and women, regardless of whether they were virgins or not, is even more common. Many of the ancient gods were believed to be sons of divine fathers and human females. Why is this? In the ancient world, great men were often understood to be born of mortal women and divine fathers. But, apparently, mortal women were especially required to be virgins.

The ancient gods were often reputed virgin - born. The father- god supplied the human race with a saviour, his son, by impregnating a goddess or a mortal. This act, according to how the story goes, must not be regarded as actuated by lust. His purpose is the birth of a great saviour of mankind, and so the impregnation has to be effected without carnal intercourse.

How many gods or great men claimed to be born of a virgin? Probably thousands. Here is a short but incomplete list.

• Krishna, (Indian), was born of Devaki, the radiant Virgin. His father was the god Vishnu. (3228 BCE)
• Horus, (Egyptian) was born to a virgin who remains eternally virginal, Isis-Meri. (approximately 3000BCE)
• Tammuz, (Assyrian), was born to a virgin, named Mylitta. (approximately 2800BCE)
• Perseus was born of Danae, a virgin who was impregnated by the god Zeus’ shower of gold. (approximately 1600 BCE)
• Dionysus, (Greek), was born of the virgin Semele. His father was the supreme god Zeus.
  (approximately 1440BCE)
• Heracles, the divine hero, was born on to the virgin Alcmene. His father was the god Zeus.
  (approximately 1288 BCE in Greece)
• Zarathustra was born to a 15-year-old virgin, Dughdhava the milkmaid.
  (approximately 1200 BCE in Iran)
• Romulus, Rome's founder, was the Son of the God Mars, and Rea Sivia, a mortal Vestal virgin. ( 771 BCE in Italy)
• Karna was born of the virgin Kunti. His father is the sun god Surya, the light of the Universe, who restores Kunti's maidenhood after the act of conception. (approximately 600BCE in India)
• Lao Tzu was born of a virgin. (approximately 600 BCE in China)
• Alexander the Great was the son Olympia and the God Zeus Ammon. (356 BCE in Macedon)
• The Buddha was of royal descent. Born of the Virgin Maya, “the Queen of Heaven”.
  (approximately 563 BCE in Nepal)
• Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. God, in the form of light, entered a virgin, Anahita. (approximately 200 BCE in Western Iran)
• Augustus, the first Roman emperor, born of a union between Atia and the God Apollo and conceived by a holy-snake. ( 63 BCE in Italy)
• Attis was born to the virgin Nana. (approximately 3 BCE in Greece)
• Jesus is born of a virgin mother, Mary. Jesus's father was the Holy Spirit. (approximately 2 BCE in Israel)

Now, I am forever being told by religious people that they are as rational and as logical as anyone else. But, I am beginning to seriously doubt this. If it is possible for a virgin to become pregnant without the usual addition of human sperm, then it is equally possible that this process could have occurred many times prior to whichever virgin is your favourite one and just as many times after. The process, whatever that is, and most attribute a supernatural cause to the pregnancy, should be no more unbelievable in each claimed instance.

So, I do wonder how someone can have at least two disjointed and conflicting concepts of biology without internal psychological conflict. By this I mean, that I am assuming that even though theists intellectually know the processes of human conception, that 2 gametes fuse to become a zygote and continue on to form an embryo and then a foetus which is eventually born as a baby; that many of them manage to believe that a child was conceived without the need of male sperm. Not only do they manage to believe that a baby was born without recourse to human sperm, but they manage to believe that it ONLY occurred according to the tenets of whichever religion they follow.

As biology shows, in order for humans to have a baby, one needs to have the presence of male sperm (XY) added to (XX, and that it is the addition of biological sperm which accounts for the sex of the ensuing child. Now, I fail to see how an incorporeal being has sperm, or a penis for that matter. So, one of the alternatives I have to explain away this claim is that ancient people were basically ignorant about the processes of conception. That, and also that virgin birth stories were common in the ancient world. In the ancient world, great men were often said to be born of mortal women and divine fathers. In fact, the concept of a virgin birth was so popular, that no prophet or saviour-god could be considered a divine incarnation without one.

Now to me, this just speaks of ancient people’s ignorance about the processes of conception. It also speaks to me of the dislike and distaste they had for women who were NOT virgins. But more than that, it speaks of a superstitious world where to gain credibility, reverence and power, you had to be a male who was sired by a “superior male.” Which is why “great men” were supposedly born of virgins and sired by a “superior male.” - a male god. The doctrine of virgin birth can be interpreted as super-patriarchal, where the male god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels. They were consdiered as vessels for male sperm and "holy male sperm" because they didn't know that women produced ova. Therefore, it was male seed that provided the spark for life, whether it was mortal male seed, or supernatural male seed, the concept was the same.

The second century Christian Justin Martyr says of Jesus, “He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you believe of Perseus.” - First Apology. So, even Justin Martyr recognized that the concept of a virgin birth was prevalent. But his reasoning seems to be that if others had “virgin births” then so was Jesus’.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Cardinal Bellarmine (at the trial of Galileo)

They got that wrong too.

"One man's virgin birth is another man's myth." - Me

The Virgin Births

(Watch the video. I made it especially for you. Yes, you.)

virgin birth virgin births horus tammuz dionysus krishna zarathustra mithras jesus lao tzu attis heracles karna alexander the great romulus augustus perseus justin martyr cardinal bellarmine mary had a little lamb

History Of Religion

History Of Religion

I'm feeling lazy today. So, I am going to post this video showing the expansion and chronology associated with the existing major religions. The list of religions and their founders mentioned in the video.

3228 BCE: Traditional belief based on scriptural details and astrological calculations gives Krishna's birth date as July 19th 3228 BCE.

1991 BCE: Abram was born to Terah at the age of 130. [Gen 11:32; 12:4; Acts 7:4]

563 BCE: The Buddha - Siddhartha Gautam was born into the Shakya royal family in Lumbini in south Nepal. Using historical records referring to Alexander the Great and Emperor Ashoka, the Buddha's birth date is usually given as May 563 BCE.

8–2 BCE to 29–36 CE: Jesus also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity.

570 CE: Sources on Muhammad’s life concur that he was born ca. 570 CE in the city of Mecca in Arabia.

Anyway, watch the video, let me know what you think. Which other religions should have been included in the video and why?

religions history of religion krishna abraham buddha jesus muhammad hinduism judaism buddhism christianity islam

The "Life, Death And Rebirth Deities" and Fertility Cults

The synagogue at Hamat Tiberias had a long and varied history. The remains, on view today, belong to the Severus synagogue, built between 337 and 286 B.C.E. The most beautiful feature of the synagogue is the mosaic floor, the oldest discovered in Israel. The mosaic has three panels. The central panel has a large zodiac, with Helios at the center steering his celestial chariot towards the sun.

~*~

Many early religions were fertility cults. Fertility of crops, livestock and soil was extremely important to early humans and still is today. They recognized that their very existence relied upon whether or not the soil was fertile, whether it rained too little or too much, and whether their herds reproduced enough to supply them with meat, milk, hides and the plethora of other objects that they made from animal bones, teeth and internal organs. Therefore there were many gods who were prayed to, worshipped and revered in order to attempt to assure human survival. In many of these ancient religions, a fertility god was a male deity who was responsible for ensuring the fertility of not only crops and livestock but also human fertility.

So, these gods were worshipped in order to assure the fertility of crops and livestock, and to ensure the fertility of humans. Human fertility was always a major concern to the ancients as they would have needed to replace their numbers quickly in times when the human lifespan was likely to be cut short by marauding animals, accidents, wars and disease. These male fertility gods were often known for the use of sexual suggestion. Sometimes they were depicted with an erect phallus and other times more discreet symbols were used. Many fertility gods were "life-death-rebirth" deities, who were associated with the concept of the continuation of life, the new harvest, the sun and the progression of the seasons. As such they were also symbols of renewal, fertility and abundance.

Frazer and Harrison in "The Golden Bough" argued that myths and the subsequent god beliefs, were really echoes of rituals, and that all rituals have as their purpose the manipulation of natural phenomena by means of sympathetic magic. Sympathetic magic is based on the metaphysical belief that "like affects like." Sympathetic magic, or imitative magic, is a type of magic based on imitation or correspondence. Imitation involves using symbols or effigies to effect the environment of people, or the people themselves. Correspondence is based on the idea that one can influence something based on its relationship to another thing. So a ritual of sympathetic magic would be one where an action upon one object can cause an analogous effect on another object, without an apparent causal link between the two objects.

"Life, death, and rebirth deities" symbolized the human desire to positively effect the fecundity of the natural world through imitation and correspondence. Or, to positively effect the natural world through sympathetic magic. What I mean by this is that a deity which symbolically depicted the continuation of life, that is a "life, death and rebirth deity", was a form of sympathetic magic. Mankind believed he could positively influence the processes of the natural world by imitating it through symbolic ritual. This category of "life, death and rebirth deities" is interpreted in a couple of ways. One way might be labelled the naturalistic approach that seeks to explain "life, death, and rebirth deities” by observing their symbolic parallels with natural processes. Another way seeks to explain such deities in terms of individual spiritual transformation.

There have been historically, many examples of "life, death and rebirth deities." Here are examples of just a few.

• Akkadian "Life, death and rebirth deities"
  1.Tammuz
• Egyptian "life, death and rebirth deities"
  1.Isis
  2.Osiris
• Greek "life, death and rebirth deities"
  1.Adonis
  2.Cybele
  3.Dionysus
• Hindu "life, death and rebirth deities"
  1.Brahma
  2.Vishnu
  3.Siva
• Norse "life, death and rebirth deities"
  1.Balder
  2.Gullveig
• Persian "life, death and rebirth deity"
  1.Mithras
• Phrygian "life, death and rebirth deity"
  1.Attis
• Roman "life, death and rebirth deities"
  1.Aeneas
  2.Bacchus
• Christian "life, death and rebirth deity"
  1.Jesus

In the naturalistic approach, the symbols and rituals associated with the "life, death and rebirth deities” are considered as examples of sympathetic magic where human beings attempt to influence or depict the processes of the natural world such as:

• 1. the seasons
• 2. the harvest
• 3. the sun
• 4. the movement of the sun through the sky
• 5. the continuation of life
• 6. human activity associated with the changing seasons
• 7. and/or the sun as it moved through the astrological constellations.

These natural events and processes were believed to effect the fertility and abundance of life on earth upon which human survival depended. It is debatable as to whether ancient peoples worshipped their "life, death and rebirth deities” as supernatural forces, which existed outside of the natural world. They may have symbolically represented mysterious and wondrous processes, which occurred within the natural world. A natural world over which humans wished to exercise a degree of control which would be favourable to their survival. From the naturalistic approach, these "life death and rebirth deities" are symbols of fertility and the renewal of seasonal life as depicted by the movement of the sun through the sky and its correlation with the seasons. These deities as symbols of natural processes have been personified for a mass audience.

"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."- Thomas Paine

In the spiritual transformation version, the "life, death and rebirth deities" are viewed as symbols of spiritual transformation. In some cases, the deities are considered to exist in reality and not merely as "spiritual allegory." The deities, which were believed to have existed in the natural world, then as part of their "birth, death and rebirth" cycle, then go on to be reborn in a supernatural world.

What is interesting to me, is that atheists, skeptics or agnostics tend to view ALL of the "life, death and rebirth deities" according to the same model, that is, the naturalistic approach. Whereas theists seem to use the naturalistic approach for ALL the "life, death and rebirth deities" which are NOT part of their religion, and use the spiritual transformation approach for the deity in whom they have religious faith.

The Sun, the ultimate fertility symbol, "the light of the world", through which all life is made possible.

sun gods personification fertility cult life death rebirth astrology christianity fertility gods life death rebirth deities sun worship unconquered sun zodiac

The Tu Quoque Fallacy: Or Atheists Are Murdering, Homicidal Maniacs Too

Image from Empire Wire

Sometimes I wonder if religious people think I am just picking on them for the sake of being contrary. As in "Mary, Mary quite CONTRARY how does your garden grow?" Because I do comment a lot on religion, its history, its processes, its political agendas and its claims of cultural superiority, this may seem to some to be contrariness. Like other people who are skeptics, agnostics, free-thinkers, or atheists, I think it is necessary to intellectually challenge belief systems, especially if these belief systems appear to act out of kilter with their expressed tenets. So there is a considerable amount of time spent by these skeptics, of whom I am one, examining the history of institutionalised religions to see how their actions stack up beside their creeds. Talk to many a christian or many a muslim and they will ensure you that their religion is peaceful, loving and the highest expression of godly endeavour.

There seems to be a kind of cultural or religious blindness when it comes to being able to either acknowledge the terrible things which have happened to humans through religions, or a denial that their religion or god belief, could result in anything but love, prosperity and kindness. So, if a sceptic mentions things like the crusades, the witch trials, the inquisition, or various wars fought with the concept of the respective god or gods leading the charge, one is inevitably faced with a religious person stating something like this: - "Well, that is true, but those people weren't REAL christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists, jews. (Insert religious belief here.) Then the skeptic feels compelled to point out the "no true scotsman fallacy" which goes on for a few pages until they eventually tire from trying to explain it, or the religious person shuts down and pretends that it isn't happening.

Well, I am here to say that they are and were true christians, muslims or whichever religion they claim. Unless they claim to be gods, perfect and all knowing and incapable of fault or flaw, then they ARE true christians and muslims. They are just muslims or christians whose actions of which you do not approve. There is no guarantee that religious people are going to act or behave any better than anyone else. There is, of course, the hope that they will, which is why many people become religious in the first place through a desire to become a "better person" perhaps better than they saw themselves as being previously to conversion. With these comments by a sceptic comes the inevitable retaliation from a religious believer that atheists are ALSO terrible people who went on killing sprees in Russia, China and (insert any nation which doesn't follow the model of the free market economy here.)

The initial reaction by many a sceptic is to point out the tu quoque fallacy associated with a comment such as this. That is, that saying YOU TOO HAVE DONE TERRIBLE THINGS does not address the issue of the terrible things that human beings have done to each other in the name of religion. What it does do is salve the conscience of the religious believer as they can then feel justified to sit back with a kind of smug superiority emanating from the idea that they are in some way, not as bad as those people who also did horrible things. So, the use of the tu quoque fallacy doesn't actually solve anything, and one would not expect that it should, as it is a fallacy after all, but in a world where people have the idea of only two teams and that if one team is right, and that therefore the other team must be wrong, it becomes a way to supposedly save face without addressing the issues as to WHY human beings do the terrible things that they do to each other.

So, the tu quoque fallacy works like this. The religious believer states something like: - "But look at what the atheists did in Russia and China. Look at the terrible bloodshed that is evidenced in those authoritarian regimes. Look at the brutality and the oppression of religion that occurred." And my reply is - "You are right. People committed terrible acts of violence and repression against the traditional cultural system in Russia and in China." People did horrendous things during the cultural revolutions in both Russia and China. There was brutal violence. There were bloodbaths of horrific proportions. I would also like to point out that these horrific acts, especially in Russia, occurred as a revolution against institutionalised religion. In fact, many of the so-called revolutions in Europe including the French Revolution, were cultural revolutions against institutionalised religion and the power it represented.

So, what do I mean by "institutionalised religion?" Institutionalised religion is where the religion of the nation, in the case of Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church, condones and promotes the existing social and cultural order. The existing social and cultural order was expressed as a monarchy through which the religion derived its power. Synonymously, the power of the monarchy was sanctioned and dependent upon the power of the church. In essence, a combination of church and state. The church supported the monarchy as its power was held in trust by this hierarchy and the monarchy supported the church as its power was held in trust by the religion. Accordingly, the monarchies in Europe under this system of the combination of church and state, each dependent upon the other for its political power, had carte blanche to do whatever they wished. Both partners in this arrangement, the church and the monarchy, continued to get extremely rich under this " you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" political model. They were religious states, (not including China, though the cultural revolution in China has similarities which I may not have time to express on this post.)

So, the orthodox, conservative hierarchical culture was maintained by the church. The kings got to reign and the churches got richer and more politically powerful. It was a great combination and a very successful model if you happened to belong to the hierarchy of royals, or the hierarchy of religion. As the fat cats got fatter, those on the bottom of the food chain got thinner, leaner, meaner and angrier. Basically the monarchies in Europe were hierarchies with the monarchy and the church at the top of the pyramid and a nation of serfs below; many of whom were starving and impoverished. It was the classic feudal system where everyone knew their place and no one was to step outside of their place in the hierarchy. Religion told people that their suffering in this world was the will of god and that better things awaited them in the next world if they just got on with their lives and didn't complain or make a fuss.

People were encouraged to be stoics and to accept that suffering was good for their immortal souls. Eventually, the people began to realize that the monarchy, and the people in the hierarchy of religion, the class system of princes, princess and nobles that it supported, that it didn't seem a requirement for these elements to suffer; just the people on the bottom of the food chain. And that no matter what happened, they were going to stay on the bottom of the food chain, with no political or economic power, and no way to improve their lot in life. Their destiny in life was predetermined by the religious hierarchical powers that existed and they either had the option to put up or shut up. That they decided to revolt against a regime in which they saw held no future for themselves or their generations is part of history.

It was a bloody and violent revolution against the institutionalised power structures supported and propped up by the religious state. Unfortunately, the revolution with its high ideals then went on to be but a parody of that which they revolted against. They replaced one dictatorial regime with another. But the taste of institutionalised religious political power lingered long in the mouth of many russians to the extent where I will speculate that wherever they saw evidence of its existence, they rooted it out and removed it in a bloody and violent fashion.

So, what's is the point? The point is that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is why the recently formed nations like the US, Canada, and even Australia decided in the foundations of their nations, that religion would NOT be allowed to be a dominant political force supported by the state. That there would be no more kings and queens who could claim the "divine right of kings" as per religious teaching, and that there would be nations of men (and eventually women), who would decide through reason how their nations would be run and organized. Where the right to a religion is protected, but where the right to impose religious law upon others through political means is NOT part of it. Please note that the Declaration says nothing about rights secured by Christianity.

It bears repeating: "... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The founding fathers founded a nation which would not have to, theoretically, revolt against institutionalised, religious, political power. Let's hope they are right.

Paul Mc Cartney - "Back in the USSR" - Live from Red Square

atheist tu quoque revolution russian revolution religion christianity politics separation of church and state false dichotomy hierarchy institutionalized religion absolute power

Observing the Circus from the Monkey Cage

Human beings have always tried to create rules and codes for their groups. The survival of the group, or its success, (from a biological point of view) may have relied on the group’s ability to come to a consensus concerning what was a favourable habit or action, and when and why that action was appropriate. If we consider perhaps one of the earliest human groups, which was probably the family group, maybe an extended family group; it would have been recognized to be to the group’s advantage that special privileges or rights would be afforded to the members of the group, as those special rights or privileges would have sustained the integrity of the group.

They would have been aware that they were capable of performing actions upon other groups in competition for food, land, breeding rights, that they would not want to be inflicted upon the own members of their family tribe; so, I think they would have afforded special privileges to their own group which may, or may not, have been demonstrated to all or any other group. Some of these actions that they perpetrated upon other groups they certainly would not want their own group members to display WITHIN their own group. So, I think one of the first structures of a code of conduct was built upon a “us and them” mentality. (As an aside, bonobo chimps regularly hunt, kill and eat other monkeys, though of course not monkeys within their own family group.)

So, it may have been ok to rob, rape, steal, plunder, or kill people who belonged to a different group, as they may have seen this as justifiable for their group’s survival. But those same actions, they would NOT want displayed within their own group, as it may have led to the disintegration of the group. Whether or not these rules, or codes were written or an oral tradition, I think the first codes of conduct may have been based upon the desire to protect the group, but not necessarily OTHER groups. If we also consider our ancient past, and if we are prepared to accept our genetic origins of common descent, (and I know that is a hurdle for many religious believers), we can understand that our human hierarchies have a basis in the hierarchy of our ancient ancestors.

I accept that human beings evolved and that we have a common ancestor with other hominids. I also think that the mapping of the human genome and its comparison with the chimpanzee genome is strong evidence for this claim. (See : Ken Miller - On Apes and Humans ) Primates tend to form what are known as “dominance hierarchies”. Animals higher in the hierarchy tend to displace lower ranked individuals from resources (mates, space, food). They tend to have higher reproductive success (either by mating more often, or by having more resources to invest in their offspring). As I accept that we share a common ancestor with hominids, I also accept that human beings also create dominance hierarchies. It is obvious, nonetheless that we form dominance hierarchies even without accepting evolutionary origin, as hierarchies are evidenced in our modern societies.

A hierarchy is a position of power that is assumed by an individual, or group of individuals, according to various attributes and characteristics. Ancient human hierarchies probably found favourable characteristics which we still find favourable today.

• 1. strength
• 2. intelligence
• 3. leadership
• 4. resourcefulness (etc etc - you get the picture)

So traditionally, though not always in ancient societies and groups, the position of dominance would have been held by “the alpha male” though this was not prescriptive. The alpha male would gain the respect, and trust of the group through deeds.

• 1. a good hunter
• 2. a good negotiator
• 3. ability to forsee danger etc.

So, early human beings developed hierachies which were similar in nature to their genetic origins, and our modern hierarchies, I suggest, also reflect these origins. Alongside the development of human groups, tribes, family groupings was the development of beliefs. Beliefs that most of us today would consider to be myth, legend, folklore and supersitition. And of course this is to be expected in a world where people had virtually no scientific understanding of the natural world around them.

Rocks, trees, plants, volcanos, stars etc were believed to hold special powers which influenced and acted upon the lives of men, either positively or negatively, depending on the circumstance. People looked for the meaning as to why they were injured by fire, and fire became a substance of power, which they harnessed but also worshipped. Meteorites falling from the sky became omens and portents of impending disaster as surely they must have been thrown from the sky by a powerful being/force/entity. Mankind did not have control over this natural environment which was both dangerous but bountiful and they sought to understand it as best as they could.

Those who claimed to understand the messages in the stars, or the powers of the rocks and trees, were revered as they had attained “special knowledge.” It didn’t matter if this knowledge was basically wrong from a modern perspective, as this “special knowledge” learnt through observation and false associations served their primitive purposes. For example: it didn’t take an Einstein to work out, after viewing the smoke and ash displays of a volcano that something was gunna blow. To ancient man, it was obvious that something harmful possibly to them, their family and their environment was about to happen - but why? They had no scientific knowledge of lava, magma, plate tectonics, pressurised gases etc. So, it was inexplicable except as a mysterious power which must reside in the volcano. One that must wish them harm for their misdoings.

So, with the formation of family groups, tribes, and hierarchies, we have the formation of “religious” belief systems. This formation of belief systems opened up a place in the hierarchy for those who claimed “special knowledge” concerning the mysteries. This position became a special position of power sometimes alongside that of the leader of the tribe, sometimes he/she was the advisor to the tribal leader and sometimes he/she assumed the role of leader. These positions of “religious power” had a variety of names depending on the culture from which they sprang. (shaman, witch doctor, seer, prophet, necromancer etc etc), but they were all positions of power within the tribal/ family group.

One way the leader/ tribal elder/ alpha male had of consolidating his power over the group, enhancing his position and retaining it, was to claim the authority, or the agreement from, the member of the group who claimed “special powers.” So, it was inevitable that under some societal structures, the prophet/seer/ shaman (whatever you want to call him or her), would assume leadership based on their claims of special powers or special understandings of the world. Or, that the leader of the tribe would be supported by the shaman who received special privileges due to his support.

Codes of conduct could now be enforced according to NOT ONLY the will of the leader, but also according to the will of seer/prophet. Those who stepped out of line within the group, could be quickly chastened according to the codes, but also with the approval and perhaps at the instigation of the shaman/witch doctor etc. (I am using these terms interchangeably to suggest that their origins are similar - claims of “special powers” and claims of understanding the “special powers.”) The codes of conduct would have reflected not only the will of the leader, and his immediate successors, but also the will of the priest/ “religious advisor”.

This became a very efficient and successful way of dealing with dissent, and also a way to preserve the group, even though the group as a whole may or may not have had a lot of say in the formation of the codes. The belief systems which were formulated would have been “tribe specific”. That is they would have been as a result of the development and the resultant dynamics specific to a region. So, they would have reflected the geo-political specifics of the tribe. Of course, other tribes also created their own “gods” which reflected the geo-political specifics of THEIR tribes but each tribe was convinced and encouraged to support the beliefs of THEIR tribe to the exclusion of other codes which may exist in other tribes.

These codes of conduct, behaviour etc were prescriptive for the members of the tribe, but did not necessarily apply to people outside of their tribe. Battles for resources, land, food, women, slaves etc continued to be waged, but each tribe carried with it, the approval of their “religious leaders” . Homages and sacrifices, chantings and mantras would have been performed by the one with special powers, and eventually by other members of the group; in the hope of effecting the outcome of such raids, or ventures. Of course, if the incursion failed, it was because the group had not ministered well according to the wishes of either the religious leader, or they had displeased the god in some way, and this was punishment for their "bad deeds" or lax behaviours.

This hierachial arrangement was successful until a tribe came up against another tribe which was more powerful. The other tribe may have had more sophistocated weaponry, a larger fighting force etc. In which case the weaker tribe was subsumed by the more powerful one. By some, this would have seemed as an indication that the “gods” of the other tribe were more powerful than their own gods, so the survivors may have decided to adopt the beliefs of the victor. In many instances, according to ancient history, the victors would not enforce the worship of their gods but would amalgamate their gods onto the gods of the defeated tribe. This ensured a certain amount of harmony if the defeated tribe’s religion was not entirely broken and destroyed.

This type of hierarchy has remained popular because of its ability to motivate the group in a common direction. It doesn’t require that any of the gods created actually exist for it to be an effective method of crowd control. All that it requires is that people believe they exist and that they will be punished, either according to a code of law, or according to the laws of the religion. The notion of religious law, based on a belief in the existence of gods, has remained popular because it claims a “higher authority” than that of the leader of the group, the president, the prime minister, or the alpha male.

It claims an authority, which theoretically, unlike that of an elected leader, CANNOT be questioned under any circumstances. It has claimed the position of privilege where it’s rules are sacrosanct. (above and beyond question and criticism). As, I said, it doesn’t require that any of the gods actually exist. Neither, the volcano god, the egyptian gods, the sumerian gods, nor the ant god of africa. Whether or not they exist, (and obviously, I don’t believe that any of them do), has become irrelevant to their political, social and cultural functions.

Religion and god belief has been a very successful political tool, used to apply and encourage all sorts of social, cultural, and economic stances. Though of course this has not been without a considerable amount of bloodshed, but, as previously mentioned, the pattern had been set in those ancient tribal times that when you kill in a political arena for what you believe is for the preservation of the codes and religious beliefs of your tribe, it is not considered murder. It is considered a sacrifice for the benefit of the tribe. And obviously, the most “powerful god symbol”, would be one who was prepared to die so that others in his tribe could live and prosper.

The major problem in our modern times is that most of the religions, god beliefs of the ancients have been subsumed by war, imperialism and evangelism. There are basically 3 powerful political systems which use their tribal religion as a political tool. 1. christianity. 2. islam 3. hinduism. In reality it comes down to the first two. Each seek dominionism over the other. In the competition of the tribes, as from their beginings in ancient tribes, “there can be only one.” Neither in their extreme fundamentalist form, is prepared for pluralism as represented in a secular society. They each seek a monopoly in the political arena, and dominionism over the rest of the planet. They do not seek a society where many people of various religions, or no religion, can live harmoniously within a political climate which offers equal protection for ALL regardless of their religious belief.

This is the position we find ourselves in, and this position, I suggest is evidenced by how, and why we created our codes of conduct and our religious codes to suit our geo-political origins in the very beginning.

monkey hierarchy culture society politics evolution dominance hierarchies dominionism pluralism

Monkey Magic

Circle Symbolism

The circle image has a rich and varied history and is found in many cultures. In religion it frequently symbolizes heaven, eternity or the universe. In art, it can symbolize the totality, and the continuation of life. Concentric circles, or circles within circles, have a long historical association that depict the cosmos and its spheres as a microcosm within a macrocosm. The circle symbolizes power, completeness and renewal; the continuation of life as symbolized by the unbroken line. Like the circle, the spiral, is also an ancient symbol. It may symbolize the goddess, the womb, fertility, continual change and the evolution of the universe.

The circle is an object of nature, an idealization of pure mathematics, and a symbol or framework and has been used to understand and describe the world and the universe. It is considered a symbol of unity, because all the regular polygons are embraced by the circle. It is also the symbol of infinity, without beginning or end, perfect, the ultimate geometric symbol. To earth-centered religions throughout history as well as to many contemporary pagans, it represents the feminine spirit or force, the cosmos or a spiritualized Mother Earth, and a "sacred space".

The wheel symbol, like the circle is a universal symbol of or unity. It symbolizes unity, movement, the sun, the zodiac, reincarnation, and earth's cycles of renewal. Pagans used it in astrology, magic and many kinds of rituals. A pagan is traditionally anyone who isn't a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim. So a pagan according to Abrahamic religions, is everyone else except them. (The sun wheel was a sacred amulet to the Celtic Gauls or Gaels in Europe. Later, christians adopted the form, changing it slightly, so that it became a christ monogram drawn within a circle. This is also the origin of the celtic cross.)

The Wheel of Dharma is a common symbol of Buddhism. Like the wheel of a cart that keeps turning, it symbolizes Buddha's teaching as it continues to spread endlessly. The eight spokes represent the eightfold Path of Buddha. Hindus and Buddhists use the circle image as the basis for the creation of mandalas. The mandala is a sanskrit word meaning 'sand circle'. It is seen as a microcosm embodying the various divine powers or processes at work in the universe and it symbolizes the totality of existence, inner or outer. The Swiss psychologist Carl Jung considered the mandala to be a universally occurring pattern associated with the mythological representation of the self. That is, for Jung, the mandala is the symbol of the self; a symbol of psychic totality.

In Hindu and Buddhist meditations, the mandala is used to raise consciousness. In meditation, the person fixes his or her mind on the center of the "sacred circle." The centre of some mandalas show a triangle with a bindu (dot) inside a circle. It represents the merging of male and female forces. In Native American traditions the circle forms the basic pattern of the Medicine Wheel and plays a major part in spiritual rituals. In Wicca traditions, the circle symbol is used in rituals and incantations. In astrology, it is the 'Circle of Life' and symbolizes the continuence of life. In Taoism, the circle image is found in the 'Yin Yang' symbol symbolizing universal harmony and the unity between all opposites.

As per the Buddhist interpretation of the mandala, as a means and process towards meditation, I have created some circles of my own with my own slant on things, of course. ;)

Art of the Circle
circle circle symbol symbol symbolism circle symbolism mandala medicine wheel spiral dharma pagan buddhism hinduism taoism daoism religion

Human Thought And Religious Revelation

What's the difference between a human thought and a religious revelation?

revelation , thoughts , ideas , religion , brain , mind , neuroscience

~*~

I am lying in bed one night, staring at the ceiling and suddenly, I have the solution to a problem which has been vexing me for months. The solution is compellingly simple, yet amazingly novel. I am overcome with emotion. I feel refreshed and yet ecstatic. I quickly write down the solution in my diary which I keep beside the bed, and then slip off into a wondrous and peaceful sleep.

Religious revelation? Or human thought?

Pulp Fiction: The Sun Gods

When early humans looked at the sky and tried to make sense of the bright, shiny objects they saw there, they imagined that they were mystical beings, other non-earthly powers which must be influencing the earth in some way. As humans tried to make sense of these objects, their composition, nature and intent, so began the human centric and geocentric processes of theriomorphism, zoomorphism, anthropomorphism and personification.

Early humans interpreted the skies according to their needs, desires, wants, hopes and fears. That humans would personify and anthropomorphise the world through their personal or collective needs and wants is understandable and logical. Afterall, we cannot see the world through any interpretation except that of being a human, with all the limitations that that implies. So humans see the world through a process of "human centric tunnel vision".

The two "heavenly bodies" first worhipped by early humans were the moon and the sun. (The Egyptian god Horus had a hawk-like head with two eyes which represented the sun and the moon.) Whereas veneration of the moon was at its height during the hunting era, when humans progressed to an agrarian age, sun worship became the chief religious ceremony. As mankind further progressed with the observation of the skies, constellations were mapped and also attributed with powers which astrologers claimed influenced the lives of humankind. Observing the stars, the planets and the space in which these objects rested, (the heavens), was the realm of astrologers, necromancers, shamans, augurs, fortunetellers, druids, magi, seers, soothsayers and eventually, with the beginnings of the scientific process, astronomers.

A sun god is a god or goddess who represents the sun, or an aspect of it. People have worshipped the sun and solar deities for all of recorded history. Sun worship is also known as heliolatry. Hence, many beliefs and legends have been formed around this worship, most notably the various myths containing the "missing sun" motif from around the world. The "missing sun" motif is a theme in the myths of various cultures. It may have served to explain the disappearance of the sun at night. In Egyptian mythology, Ra passes through Duat (the underworld) every night. Apep has to be defeated in the darkness hours for Ra and his solar barge to emerge in the east each morning. In Japanese mythology, the sun goddess Amaterasu is angered by the behavior of her brother, Susanoo, and hides herself in a cave, plunging the world into darkness. In Norse mythology, both the gods Odin and Tyr have attributes of a sky father, and they are doomed to be devoured by wolves (Fenrir and Garm, respectively) at Ragnarok. Sol, the Norse sun goddess, will be devoured by the wolf Skoll.

The "missing sun motif" is probably the first religious indication of the concept of dualism. That is, an all powerful object or natural pheneomenum (the sun or daylight), is embued with holy supernatural characteristics in a continual combat against another powerful opposite, (the moon or night time.) The Roman Empire celebrated a festival of the birthday of the Unconquered Sun (or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti). This was celebrated when the duration of daylight first began to increase after the winter solstice, which was considered to be the "rebirth" of the sun. This religious title applied to at least three distinct divinities during the later Roman Empire: El Gabal, Mithras, and Sol. December 25 was also considered to be the date of the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma. It was therefore the day the Sun proved itself to be "unconquered" despite the shortening of daylight hours. The Sol Invictus festival has a "strong claim on the responsibility" for the date of Christmas, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Solar symbolism was popular with early Christian writers as Jesus was considered to be the "sun of righteousness."

Sun worship is a possible origin of henotheism and ultimately monotheism. In ancient Egypt's Eighteenth Dynasty, Akhenaten used the Aten solar deity as a symbol of a single god. The ancient concept of a solar barge, the sun as traversing the sky in a boat, is found in ancient Egypt, with Ra and Horus. The use of the title Sol Invictus allowed several solar deities to be worshipped collectively, In Germanic mythology this is Sol, in Vedic Surya and in Greek Helios and Apollo. The Mesopotamian god Shamash, plays an important role during the Bronze Age, and "my Sun" is eventually used as an address to royalty. Similarly, South American cultures have worshipped the sun god, Inti.

Christian iconography adopted some of the artistic language of the religions which preceeded it. The depiction of Christ with a halo relates to late antiquity usage, but the radiated crown also appears and some of the earliest christian iconography uses the "sun burst motif". According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, an article on Constantine the Great: "Besides, the Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Christians in a Christian sense, as demonstrated in the Christ as Apollo-Helios in a mausoleum (c. 250) discovered beneath St. Peter's in the Vatican." From the beginning of the 3rd century "Sun of Justice" appears as a title of Christ. According to the Syriac bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi, writing in the twelfth century: "It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the "true Nativity" (my emphasis), should be solemnised on that day."

It is sometimes forgotten that the early Christians associated Jesus with the Sun. Among the church fathers, Cyprian speaks of Christ as Sol Verus, the "true sun," and Ambrose names him Sol Novus Noster, "our new sun". An interesting fact revealed in the old Roman calendars is that on the 25th of December each year they commemorated the new birth of Sol Invictus, the "unconquered sun." Cyprian invokes Christus Sol verus, and Ambrose Sol novus noster. Such sun symbolism was widespread. These early Christians used many hymns addressed to the Christ-Sun or to the Christos-Spirit, or to the Logos or Word. These terms were taken from the ancient Greek Mysteries; and the composition of these hymns, and the words could easily be construed as hymns to the sun. Which indeed was exactly what they were.

For example, the following verse from one such hymn:
Verusque Sol, illabere,
Micans nitore perpeti,
Jubarque Sancti Spiritus
Infunde nostris sensibus!(467)
That is to say:
O Thou, REAL Sun,
infill us,Shining with perpetual light!
Splendor of the holy (Cosmic) Spirit
Pervade our minds!

This is an early hymn to the Christ-Sun, used as late as the seventh century of the Christian Era and was probably in use for centuries.

'The Sun Gods'

(Contains some adult language)

sun gods , sun worship , horus , apollo , ra , religion , monotheism , heliolatry , egyptian mythology , greek mythology , roman mythology , norse mythology , sol invictus , dualism , mithras , akhenaten , sun of god , jesus , christianity , satire , irony

The Creation Of Religious Beliefs And Their Evolutionary Patterns

Human societies have built and build whole belief systems around the unseen and the unknown. This is an example of how an ancient belief system could have been created. Let's say that in a tribe thousands of years ago, there was a type of rock when placed in the fire became hotter than the other rocks and it caught on fire. They had no scientific process to work out why this was, so perhaps that rock had special invisible properties inside it that allowed it to catch on fire. Perhaps it was a sign from invisible things inide the rock that they wanted the tribe to always have fire and prosper. So the tribe started being "nice" to those special types of rocks that burnt when other rocks didn't. They started placing those rocks in a certain pattern when they made the fire. They decorated the base of the firepit with the rocks in the shape of flames because the special powers inside the rock might burn more brightly if it was pleased with their effort.

One day, a member of the tribe noticed that a red and yellow parrot flew past when the fire with the special rocks was burning brightly. One of the people (with a good imagination), said, "The smoke from the special burning rock has wafted into the sky and created the fire colours of the parrot. This is a sign that the parrot now has the strength of the burning rock. The special energy that was in the burning rock is now in the parrot and we will never again hunt that parrot for food because if we do, the special rocks will be unhappy with us, and cease to burn brightly for us and we will cease to prosper." The "fire feathers" of the parrot now have special religious significance to that tribe. The feathers when found, are used to create the headdress of the chief to symbolise HIS power and HIS strength.

After a couple of generations, the power of the burning rocks is well known to the tribe. They do not question the power. The power has been known to burn them, but only when they have been bad and done something against the wishes of the "special rocks". The tribe has collected many "burning rocks" and placed them in a special house where they can be protected, counted and have special oils sprinkled over them to keep them happy and content. The tribe has prospered. It now has many rituals concerning the special burning rocks with magnificent powers. They ask the powerful rocks special questions about the world. They lower themselves to the special rocks as they lower themselves to the head of the tribe, because they know that the special rocks could use their power against the tribe if they were displeased with them. The leader of the tribe also bends his body to the powerful rocks because he wants to remain the leader. He speaks to the rocks under his breath and asks them to be his ally and support him in the upcoming war against the people who follow the "power of the water." And so on and so forth. Superstitious minds create answers. For a comprehensive understanding of how people create gods through superstition, it is a good idea to study the evolution of religions. Start at animism and move on from there.

Basically, religious beliefs seem to have an evolutionary pattern. Just as other areas of human study and interest have an evolutionary pattern where information is discarded, edited, added to and poked and prodded until it reflects the culture, geography and the politics from which the belief has its roots. God belief or belief in invisible supernatural forces had its origins in primitive explanations for the phenomena demonstrated in the natural world. So, some of the first explanations for the inexplicable demonstrations of the natural world were animistic. That is, that powerful, invisible supernatural forces were present in living and non-living things. So, a rock which may have a specific property which didn't have a scientific explanation - say the rocks which burnt better than other rocks, would be attributed with "special powers" that other rocks did not have. These special powers could also be transported in mysterious ways into other objects, for example, the bright "fire plumage" of a passing parrot. People who wanted to harness this mysterious power would have created talismans or fetishes which they could either wear or keep close to their person. So, objects became talismans or amulets to ward off the obvious potential dangers which come about from living in a natural world.


The wearing of talismans is a form of fetishism. It is where the object worn is believed to have special magical powers. A lucky rabbit's foot is a form of fetishism. Supposedly lucky for us, but not too lucky for the rabbit. The superstitious belief is that it inherently wards of bad luck because of some unknown but assumed property associated with "fleet of foot." So people believed that as the rabbit was fast and elusive, so could they evade bad luck. The wearing of talismans like crosses, celtic symbols and a myraid of other religious symbols are examples of fetishism and are present in both modern and ancient religions. As people became more tribal, more specifically cultural in their beliefs, they created totems which represented the "special forces" which protected their tribe. So, the attributes attributed to various living things and non-living things became part of religious rituals which became tribe specific.

Consequently, the totem animals of the early peoples in North America, differ greatly from the animals to which the Australian aborigines attributed special powers. Every society has sought to provide answers to things they could not understand. If the reason for an occurrence was not obvious, it must have been something unseen. So the unseen became the reason for why things were happening. The evolution of the belief in "special powers" which exist in nature which could be harnessed by humans to solve human problems is continued through the processes of theriomorphism, zoomorphism and anthropomorphism.

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behaviour to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena. Theriomorphism is the ascription of animal characteristics to humans or other natural phenomena. It is the belief that gods, or some mysterious inexplicable entities had animal physical represntations, such the wings on an angel, for example. Similar to an anthropomorphism, a zoomorphism is a figure of speech which ascribes animal characteristics to a mysterious power or to a god or supernatural entity. The purpose of a zoomorphism is give us an understanding of an aspect of a god by using an illustration of an animal characteristic. Eg. - "He will cover you with His pinions, and under His wings you may seek refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark." - (Psalm 91:4)


So zoomorphism is the attribution of animal characteristics or qualities to a god and the use of animal forms in symbolism, literature, or graphic representation. Human beings specialise in the 'arts of zoomorphism, theriomorphism and anthropomorphism' and they are evidenced throughout human history in our literature, fine arts, music, dance and religions. By anthropomorphising an animal we alter its contextual meaning within the human world. It becomes a symbol of something else, even though in essence it may retain its former appearance. Its prescriptors change as it takes on the characteristics and attributes of humans in the esoteric world of symbolism. Symbolism can suggest intangible conditions or "truths by artistic invention" Humans use these symbol-making skills in an attempt to explain intangible conditions. (For example: If one knows little about fertility but has observed that pigs are particularly successful at breeding; the 'artistic invention' of creating an amulet of a sow to wear around the neck, or of creating a 'Pig Goddess' to plead one's case to, is an example of fetishism and deification.

Some degree of anthropomorphism, theriomorphism or zoomorphism is characteristic of many religions and philosophies. Evidence of these human artistic inventions employed to understand the mysterious and the unknown are found in animism, animatism, totemism and fetishism. They are found in ancient legends, folklore, Egyptian, Greek and Roman mythology, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, and Shamanism. And they are present in Christianity and Islam.


And then there is the human habit of personification which is similar to anthropomorphism. Personification, or personification anthropomorphism is a figure of speech that gives non-humans and objects human traits and qualities. These attributes may include sensations, emotions, desires, physical gestures, expressions, and powers of speech, among others. As a figure of speech it has a very long history; its Greek name is prosopopoeia. Pantheists, for example, personify the universe and all that is in it as a complete being which has human traits, feelings, emotions and responses. Thomas Paine, for example, believed that Christianity was the act of human beings personifying the sun. That is, that Jesus, was the personification of the sun, in human form. "The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun." - Thomas Paine

Anthropologists attempt to identify these forces at work. A british anthropologist, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, argued in 'Primitive Culture' (1871) that animism is a primary source of anthropomorphic behaviour. Animism is the belief in personalized, supernatural beings that often inhabit ordinary animals and objects. It derives from people's self-conscious experience of the intangible, such as one's reflected image or dreams. Tylor describes it as the most primitive and essential form of religion. Essentially, where there has been an intangible, unknown condition, human beings have artistically invented explanations which ease their existential angst or their anxiety about life and their existence. The concepts of god have expanded with our expanding knowledge, and lack of knowledge of the universe. Where once, there were many separate discrete "forces" which competed for power and influence over humans, now we have aggregated them into one explanation - the concept of monotheism.

Where once there may have been a hierarchy of gods, and still is in polytheistic religious belief, there is now a preference for a "god dictatorship" or monotheism. Where once, the inexplicable was attributed to many separate, discrete "forces", it is now attributed, in the main, to one supernatural force. Our concepts of the supernatural and god may have expanded and evolved with our increasing knowledge, but they remain deeply rooted in our origins, where they were, to put it simply, "artistic inventions" of creative, evolving minds which sought to explain the unknown.

Sun of God?

animatism , totemism , fetishism , talisman , amulet , religion , deification , anthropomorphism , theriomorphism , zoomorphism , personification , symbolism , religious symbolism, supernaturalism , animism

The Issue of Extraordinary Claims

From: - My Case Against God

Consider the following:

• 1.Christians admit that there is no way to confirm Mary’s virginity at the time of Jesus’ conception.
• 2.Christians admit that there is no way to confirm the ages at which Adam and Noah (if they even existed) died.
• 3.Christians admit that there is no way to confirm that Jesus, after suffering the ravages of brain death, spontaneously came back to life, suffering none of death’s nasty symptoms.
• 4.Finally, we see that Roman Catholics also are unable to confirm that the wine in the chalice has become a dead man’s blood.

I suppose, at last, this is the question: Should manifestly extraordinary claims, such as talking non-human animals and asexual human reproduction, be accepted by faith or biblical revelation?

The answer is clear: No.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When religions' devious designs effectively preclude empirical study, faiths betray the flimsy foundation upon which their assertions rest.

LINK: "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"

What If God Smoked Cannabis?

extraordinary claims , virgin birth , resurrection , transubstantiation , bible , supernatural claims , satire

Religion and Mythology: The False Dichotomy of 'Good and Evil'

'Fact or Fantasy?'

It is interesting to me at least, how a lot of our story-telling, myth, legend, fable and literature, revolves around essentially the same message. The fight between "good and evil" and the eventual success of good over evil. Religious stories are essentially just an extension of this, or perhaps in an historical sense, our modern literature and story-telling is an extension of the genres of story - telling which preceeded it.

Mankind has always attempted through fable, myth, legend, folklore and consequently religious stories, to present life situations which mankind considers essential to the human experience. Ones which can provide examples of the characteristics and attributes which we consider to be shining examples of our better selves. And, as an adjunct to this, they necessitate examples of our none too pleasant natures as well. They are essentially "how to survive stories." So, the stories are full of self-sacrifice, strength through adversity, courage, determination and quests for truth in what are presented to be virually hopeless combats against the opposite of these characteristics.

They depict the model, or what is considered to be the desirable model, of human interaction and behaviours within a cultural and societal chronological reference. That many of these desired human attributes stand the test of time, that is, that they are found throughout history, indicates that mankind, has seen life as a struggle. And it is. Life is tenuous, unpredible, and inevitably fatal. So, human success stories provide hope of success and the comfort of knowing that success is possible. (By success I mean survival.)

All well and good. We like to hear how great we can be if we only set our minds to it. We like to believe that we can share some of those attributes of our heroes, religious or otherwise, by emulating their lives, deeds and works. Still all well and good. Now for the "but" and that was inevtiable too, wasn't it.. When, how and under what circumstances do we decide that a story is legend, myth, folklore, fable, or a false religion?

Answer: - When we decide that it isn't literally true. The majority of people on the planet have little or no problem with ascertaining that it isn't literally true that Achilles was immortal except for a spot on his ankle which wasn't immersed in the river Styx. People have little difficulty in deciding that Hercules didn't literally kill a 3 bodied monster called, Geryon. People have little difficulty in recognizing that Perseus did not slay a a creature called Medusa who supposedly had thousands of snakes as hair and whose gaze could turn a man to stone. Millions of people, do, however have great difficulty in assessing whether or not a man called muhammad rode a winged horse into the sky, or whether a man called jesus was born without the addition of sperm.

This is not to say that religious stories cannot fulfill a positive function, as all stories of human struggle can do that, but it is to say that we appear to have great difficulty in assessing and evaluating the literal truth of extraordinary claims if we choose one hero and their heroic accounts over all others. That is, we have difficulty in assessing the literal truth of extraordinary claims once we choose to use them as the guidebook to life, the universe and everything. (Obviously, my guide book is "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and I do not require or demand that everyone else has to consider the book the literal truth.)

The other "but" I have with the stories of good and evil is that they present a "black and white world." - A false dichotomy or dilemma of either this or that. Heaven or hell, good or evil and right or wrong. Unfortunately these concepts are only ever viewed within the narrow context of "what would MY hero do", rather than what would be a rational, reasonable or logical course of action under many or most circumstances. They also suggest that the just or righteous person has only ever one course of action to take under all circumstances. A one size fits all mentality and that to stray outside the "one size fits all mentality" is an act of evil in itself.

They are NOT pluralistic, in the sense that they recognize that all of these stories contain instances of human adventure from which lessons could be learnt, they are dictatorial. They do not see others in themselves, they see others as those who must submit to the "obvious truth" of their specific heroic creed of choice. They essentially devolve into, (when accepted as literal truth), 'believe in the one and only true hero or die'. This will either occur at the hands or will of the hero, or at the hands or will of those who follow the hero.

Eartha Kitt - 'I Want To Be Evil'

good and evil , false dichotomy , logical fallacies , religion , myth , mythology , legend , fable , folklore , folktales , greek myths , eartha kitt, satire

Do Invertebrates Go To Heaven?

Image from : - Have the bones of Jesus been found?

Image from : - Image from: The Bones of Christ?

(I have to say at this point that I like the "sun symbol" above the door of the tomb. But that is by the by.)

Most of the blogging world has now heard about the debate concerning whether or not a tomb in Jerusalem contains the ossuary boxes of the bones of jesus and his immediate family. But if you haven't, you can get up to speed with this link. Basically, there is the claim that these bones are those of the jesus as mentioned in the christian bible. Those who want to view the videos concerning these claims and the resultant movie about the claims, can do so here and here.

This has posed some serious questions concerning not only the authenticity of such a find, but also some serious theological questions if the said find is true. So there have been a variety of reactions to this claim some of which include:

• 1. Thank goodness they have found his bones as this validates my christian belief.
• 2. They can't be the bones of jesus because jesus rose physically into heaven.
• 3. They can be the bones of jesus because jesus rose spiritually into heaven, but not physically.
• 4. The bones of jesus demonstrate that jesus was only a man.
• 5. There is no way to validate that they are the bones of jesus, and no way to validate that they are not.

Let's look at the first reaction. Firstly, it hasn't been shown that these are the bones of jesus, though many people will basically believe whatever is NOT in contradiction with what they believe in the first place.

~*~

The second reaction is more interesting. Did jesus, (and for the sake of argument, I am assuming that a person called jesus existed), rise physically into heaven? (Ditto with the heaven concept.) Well, what does the bible say? The bible claims that jesus rose from the dead. It also claims that jesus actually rose from the dead in the same body he died in, though it was a glorified body. Jesus supposedly prophesied the resurrection of his physical body in John 2:19-21.

"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21).

The bible also claims that jesus showed the disciples his hands and feet after the ressurection.

"When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and *said to them, "Peace be with you." 20And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord," (John 20:19-20).

The bible also claims that jesus encouraged thomas to put his hands into his side.

"Then He *said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." (John 20:27).

In the bible, jesus supposedly says that just a spirit does not have flesh and bones as he now has.

After the resurrection, Jesus said, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," (Luke 24:39).

The bible claims that on arrival at the tomb, that jesus's body was not there.

"They went to the tomb early this morning but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive." Luke 24:22:23

"They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!" Luke 24: 2-6

So, the bible specifically states that there was no body in the tomb and that jesus had flesh and bones at the ressurection. According to the bible quotes I can find, jesus rose physically into heaven. So, if the bones are the bones of jesus, by all accounts, he must have resembled an invertebrate by the time he got there.

~*~

Onto the third reaction. I can't find any bible quotes which specifically state that jesus rose only in the spirit and not in the body. So, I will leave that for those who may have access to them. The fourth reaction is that this indicates that jesus was just a man. If jesus is supposed to have risen in the body, and if those bones are the bones of jesus, it does strongly suggest that jesus was human and mortal.

~*~

The last reaction I will mention is the one which states that there is no way to conclusively show that they are the bones of jesus, and no way to conclusively show that they are not. This reaction is based on the scientific concept of the empirical testing of claims. What scientific methodology would you use to attempt to test the veracity of such a claim? What supernatural methodology is there to test the veracity of such a claim? (Don't bother searching for the second one, you won't find one which can test for the existence of supernatural DNA, though I am still open to supernaturalists providing a consistent methodology which can do this.)

~*~

Waiting.. Waiting.. Waiting..

Those of you who are interested in what methodology I would suggest to test the authenticity of such a claim can view my hodge podge methodology here. Now, thank the scientific process with all your biological being and with all your biological minds and do it now.

Some Links:

• Jesus is dead?
• The Crucifixion of St PZ
  
  

Herman Munster sings - 'Dry Bones'

satire , invertebrates , heaven , methodology , science , jesus bones , DNA , supernatural , bible , the munsters , dry bones