Alea iacta est

In the Beginning, Man Created God III

Apologies for the delay with this update - a router problem meant I was unable to connect to the Internet for most of the weekend.

Anyhow, in previous installments, we've traced the incredible journey of monotheism from its beginnings in Persia and Egypt, and we've looked at Josiah, King of Judah, and his fabrication of Biblical history to provide himself with historical and theological justification to rule his northern neighbour.

So, where to next?

Part 3: By the Rivers of Babylon

Well, let's go forward a few centuries to around 720 BC. The northern kingdom, after centuries of bumbling kings and petty rivalries is wiped out by the Assyrians, who cart most of the people off into slavery, and repopulate it with people from elsewhere in the Assyrian empire. These are the origins of the "Ten Lost Tribes" - only the two still in the southern kingdom (Judah and Benjamin) remained.

Well, so the story went. Recent studies have begun to suggest that a bulk of the population may have remained in the area, intermarried with colonist from elsewhere in the empire, and slowly assimilated into the great Assyrian culture.

Regardless, we don't hear anything else of them in history, so who really gives a toss? At this point in the story, we've got one Hebrew kingdom left - Judah - and that's where most of the interesting stuff will happen.

As a side point, Israel's demise came about the same time as a mania for crazy, hygiene-challenged, wild-bearded prophets jogging out of the desert to tell everyone how pissed God was at them. As a result, in Hebrew culture such people came to be revered as figures of wisdom, and believed to have had actual prophetic powers, rather than, say, just being disgusting, old homeless men.

But on to Judah!

Absorbing a flood of refugees from the north, Judah rapidly found itself of more importance in the ancient world. Of course, whether it really wanted to important was another thing altogether, as that importance seemed to entail being a chew-toy of the various powers in the region - Egypt, Assyria and, eventually, Babylon.

By the sixth century BC, Babylon had only recently thrown off the yoke of Assyria, and were strutting around the Fertile crescent like nobody's business. And what better way for an ambitious, young crew with everything to prove to assert themselves than to take on everyone's favourite butt-monkey, Judah?

Predictably, Judah got spanked (Sadly, as you may have noticed, most of the greatest victories of the ancient Hebrew peoples are fictitious), and Jerusalem was razed to the ground, including the First Temple. The Babylonian King, Nebuchadrezzar II (the Bible misnames him "Nebuchadnezzar") carted off the inhabitants to Babylon, where they would mope for many a year by the rivers of the Tigris, while, presumably, successive Babylonian kings stood, arms on hips, laughing, saying "Ha Ha! Take that Judah!"

Above: Recent archaeological evidence suggests Nebuchanezzar looked exactly like Saddam Hussein. Whether that also means he was found in a spider-hole by the Persians is unknown.

All very interesting, I know, but what does this have to do with the development of Jewish theology?

Well, believe it or not, the Babylonians weren't going to have everything their own way. Now, what the Jews really need right now is a plucky hero, maybe a foreigner for that exotic touch, but, just to be on the safe side, let's make him a Judeophile. Ah, I have just the man.

Enter....Cyrus.

Having already conquered Media and Lydia, Cyrus dutifully ended the Neo-Babylonian Empire as well, and upon reaching Babylon decided the last thing the place needed was a whole bunch of Jews hanging round.

Unlike modern Iranian rulers, Cyrus was interested in religious tolerance, the return of Jews to their homeland, and well manicured facial hair.

Above: How dare you place me next to this filthy Zionist!

Yes, Cyrus was a Zionist. I'm sorry Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but it's true. The Jews declared him their "anointed one", or more, correctly, Messiah. I bet you thought that title reserved for Jesus, huh? Cyrus even let them rebuild their temple! You'd be hard pressed to find an Iranian these days who would even let a Jew set foot upon the Temple Mount, let alone rebuild the temple.

Persian influence would be deep on the religion of the refugees of Judah. Before the Babylonian captivity, Judaism had no heaven or hell - merely a shadowy afterlife called "Sheol". The modern conceptions of a paradise and a place of punishment came later, after Zoroastrian influence, and were duly passed down to Christianity and Islam, who spiced them with their own influences.

Additionally, before Persia, "Satan", which means "adversary", was merely one of many loyal followers of YHWH, whose duty was to punish men on YHWH's behalf. After Persia, Satan suddenly became *the* Adversary, absorbing elements of the Persian Ahriman. What was a henotheism turned monotheism was rapidly turning into a dualism. What we now know as angels and demons also entered Judaism from Zoroastrianism at this time, creating some of the most confusing, if intriguing bits of theology.

Above: Before the great Persian ret-con, Satan used to be good. Well, not really. He was still an arsehole, but only because God made him be one. Hugs!

Anyhow, loaded with goodwill, and eager to see their homeland, the Jews arrived back in their homeland to find a whole bunch of other people there, partying down with golden calfs and pagan idols. The Bible, which as we know is the Official Propaganda of Judah Regime(tm)... bemoans the land's lapse into paganism, but it is more likely a natural syncretic evolution had occured while the others were away a revolution that the refugees, like all religious puritans, wanted no part of.

The Temple was rebuilt, and Jewish history continued, looking grandly towards the future with a sense of hope and optimism. However, as we've seen, just as things look to be going well for God's Chosen(tm), the universe decides its time for another spiritual wedgie, and this time the wedgie was going to be done....Greek-Style.

UP NEXT: Part 4: Alex the Kid in Hellenic World

In the Beginning, Man Created God II

In our last installment we saw how about three thousand years ago the Persians first came upon the idea that having one deity was better than lots, especially when it comes to remembering their names. (Anyone remember more than about six Egyptian gods? Really?)

Now, after briefly touching on early experimentations in monotheism, let's take a look at the oldest one which has survived to retain any sort of influence.

(Sorry Zoroaster, Freddie Mercury aside, I can't really name many people who follow your religion.)

Above: The end product of a three thousand year old faith.

Part 2: YHWH rules, Chemosh drools!

I'm sure most of you already know the fabulous tale of Jewish history, starting from a pair of naked lovers frolicking in carefully maintained garden, through several generations of implausibly long-lived patriarchs and their equally ancient wives, followed to a migration and accidental slavery in Egypt. Add in a awe-inspiring liberation, a bloody conquest of a promised land, and a line of glorious, noble and heroic Kings and you have what is perhaps one of the greatest national founding histories of all time.

It's a shame then that its mostly bollocks.

The first few books of the Bible are great if you're into implausible events, casual violence, implied or actual incest, and thundering, blustering sky gods, but if it is history you are after, its best to look elsewhere. Reality is never so sexy.

I know what you're asking....Does this guy really have to write so tediously?, that and, How does know its all bollocks?

Well, the main issue with the events in the Bible is that they are not verifiable, in that they only appear in that text (and there is no record of them anywhere else) and that which does appear, is often wildly conflicting with official history.

Ancient Egypt has some of the most meticulous history of the ancient world. Yet nowhere in their records is any hint of a Hebrew adviser named "Joseph", a later mass migration and then mass subjugation of Hebrews, twelve plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the apparent death of a Pharaoh in pursuit of the Hebrews and so forth. It's simply not mentioned.

Ah, but I hear you say now, "Of course it isn't mentioned, the Egyptians would never record something that humiliating."

Above: This never happened. Also, Moses wouldn't have been black. Sorry Afrocentrists.

Well, probably not as such - after all, Ramesses II did record a stalemate with the Hittites as a glorious victory but then....he did still record it. We don't even find a biased, self-serving, twisted account of the Exodus in Egyptian history. Instead....silence. Many have made valiant attempts to tie the Biblical account to various known events of antiquity, even the destruction of Thera in Crete, but most are mere supposition.

In fact the first plausible account of Hebrews in Egyptian history is on the Amarna Stele, during the reign of Pharaoh Akhenation, and refers to the Hebrews (or "Habiru") as existing outside Egypt. For all intents and purposes, as far as history is concerned, the Hebrews always lived in the land of Canaan. The mythological account of Exodus and Joshua's conquest is just that....myth.

So what of the rest?

Genesis? Mostly a stitched together work from earlier Sumerian myths, including borrowings from the Sumerian King Lists (like the Bibles, early Sumerian Kings allegedly lived for almost 1,000 years), and, in particular, the Epic of Gilgamesh.

For those not familiar with it, the Epic of Gilgamesh includes a world-wide flood, a fruit from a tree that grants great power (just like in Eden), a hero who is of partly-divine descent (just like the Nephilim of Genesis).

Above: Come on, you know this guy is way cooler than Noah.

So, did the writers of the Bible simply steal Gilgamesh, file off the serial number, and slap a new name on him?

Well, yeah, pretty much.

Hold on! Aren't the first five books of the Bible written by Moses himself?

Traditionally, it was believed to be true, yes. However people eventually found a few problems with that, least of all that the fifth book ends as such:

So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.

Yes, apparently Moses describes his own death, burial, and posthumous reputation. What a guy. Also Numbers describes Moses as "the meekest man ever to live." It's generally not considered a sign of humility to go around saying how humble you are.

So, if not Moses, then who is the author? And when did they write this?

We'll get to that in a bit. Right now let's go to the first truly verifiable point of Jewish history.

No, it's not the conquest of Canaan. No, it's not the appointing of Saul as King, nor the reign of David, nor his son Solomon. It's quite a bit later.

Around 900 BC, some time after Zoroaster was rocking in Ancient Persia, two kingdoms were sitting in Canaan - the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The Bible as you well know, claims that they are the two disunited halves of the Kingdom of Saul, David and Solomon, but there's no proof of that (and plenty to indicate such a kingdom never existed). Instead it is more likely that the Kingdoms were natural and indigenous to the area and, though they shared a similar culture, were no more similar to each other than any of the other Canaanite nations.

They most likely had similar gods to their neighbours too. Yes, you heard me right. Gods. The early Hebrews weren't monotheistic, they were at best henotheistic. They not only believed YHWH was a god, but also Chemosh, Baal, Astarte and Ra. YHWH wasn't worshiped because he was the only god - he was worshipped because he was the state god of Judah. In fact the "lapsing into Paganism" we see in the Bible was more likely just run of the mill polytheism, unexceptional in the era, but now distorted through the lens of Judah-penned propaganda.

So, if there was never a United Kingdom...why imply otherwise? Fairly simple really, as the southern kingdom, an underpopulated backwater, mostly rural, would need to have territorial claims to the northern one, so invented the fiction that Judah's monarch was in fact the "true" monarchy of both kingdoms, and that Israel's rulers were debauched usurpers.

Most of the early books were probably compiled from oral sources, edited and written during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (around 650 BC), who attempted to assert control over the northern kingdom. He's also credited with "restoring God's law" over his people, when he "found" a book of the Torah in the old temple.

Yeah, right, "found".

If you're Jewish, Christian or Muslim, take the time to digest and swallow that. A great portion of what you believe today owes itself to a sixth-century BC King's desire to conquer his northern neighbour.

Above: ....and make sure that, once I conquer Israel, it says I can have an absolutely huge palace, and harem, with lots of gold and girls and....are you priests getting all this? I don't want to repeat myself...

In the Beginning, Man Created God

My blogging here has become rather pointless of late, seemingly devolving into nothing more than link-whoring to Cracked.com and endless slams at the religion of Islam. (Fun but, rather pointless).

So, I thought I'd have an attempt at writing something a little more cerebral. I do, after all, have an interest in religion, and while not religious myself, find the subject endlessly fascinating.

In a multi-part blog I'm going to have a look at the three most well known religions to come out of the fertile crescent, along with a few other related elements.

Nietzsche famously declared that "God is dead".

Above: Friedrich Nietzsche. Not a fan of God. Or razors, apparently.

Not true. It would probably be more accurate to say that "God never was", or, if you like cartoon analogies (and let's face it, who the hell doesn't?), imagine the usual ending of a Scooby Doo episode where the scary villain's mask is pulled off to reveal "Old Man Milligan", but in this case, the scary villain is God, and Old Man Milligan is us.

Or something like that.

Part 1: Thus Spoke Zarathustra

If you've read your Torah, Bible, or Qu'ran, you might be under the impression that someone called Adam, (or maybe Abraham) was the first monotheist. Either way, your text will either outright say or imply it was some Jewish guy, whether he was living in a garden or not.

Probably not true. Well, to put it better, this is what we call in the business a "filthy lie".

You'll be seeing a lot of those by the end of this.

Believe it or not, it is probably more likely that the original monotheistic faith (excepting Akhenaton's brief heresy in Egypt) was Zoroastrianism, arising from the teachings of the Iranian Zoroaster.

Briefly touching on Akhenaton, he may have replaced the pantheon of Egyptian gods with one, Aten, the sun's disc, yet he also said that only the royal family was fit to worship Aten, and the common folk had to worship Akhenaten. Not only is that a cheater's way to institute monotheism, it also shows that Akhenaton was kind of a self-absorbed dickhead.

Above: Don't you wish your God was pudgy like me?

So, we go back to Zoroaster, a Persian believed to have strolled around the Iranian territories around about 1,000 BC.

In Zoroastrianism, the one god, Ahura Mazda, despite being seemingly named after a Japanese car, is seen as the source of order and truth in the universe, who encourages mortals to live of good thoughts, words and deeds, until Ahura-Mazda's final triumph, and the remaking of the universe, where all souls, even the nasty ones, will be brought to live in a rather indistinct afterlife, and we'll all live happily ever after.

Above: Remember a time when Iranian religious figures weren't mindless bigots? Zoroaster does!

As an added bonus, traditional Zoroastrianism doesn't seek converts, making them far less annoying than the religions that were to follow.

So it all sounds fairly simple, and not too bad. Unfortunately, just like a computer program, the first release was ahead of its time and revolutionary, and the later releases would go on to completely forget this original design and create kludgy, buggy messes, littered with additional "features" that no one wanted nor asked for.

As you will soon see.

COMING UP NEXT: Part 1: YHWH Rules, Chemosh Drools!

Sounds all fair and above board.

Members of Australia's Islamic community believe polygamous marriages should be recognised to protect the rights of women.

Yes! Finally the truth shall be known. Men having multiple wives actually "protects the rights of women" rather than reduce them to the level of chattel and property collected by a male.

Silly me.

Sheikh Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Sydney's Lakemba today said polygamous marriages, although illegal, existed in Australia and should be recognised.

"... Not an open door but in a way everyone will have control," he told Triple J radio's Hack program.

"It's a bit hard, very difficult, but unless we face it, how (do) we overcome it?

"If you know there is law that will help you, there is community will help you. Why not? Why not change the law?"

Far be it from me to expect Australians to....you know, obey the freaking law. I guess I must be one of those Islamophobes!

Of course, no news item on Islam in Australia would be complete without a comment from resident muppet Keyser Trad.

Mr Trad once proposed to another woman with the consent of his wife, Hanefa, but the second marriage did not proceed.

"I certainly would not have entertained the thought of having a relationship without a religious marriage and I thought the relationship with that person was developing to the stage where we had become too friendly with each other," he told the program.

"Rather than entertain any thoughts of an affair I thought the only decent thing to do was to consider a proper commitment to that person.

I'm sure Mr Trad would be just as accepting if his wife told him that she'd decided she wanted a few more husbands, and would like to boink them in the marital bed. Wouldn't he?

Grown Men Afraid of Drawings

Check out these big bunch of sooks having a cry....

Religious leaders, scholars and business people are meeting all over the world to argue about free speech and Islamic sensibilities. How much does this achieve?

Answer: Absolutely nothing. It's a waste of their and our time.

As well as repeating certain familiar commonplaces and negotiating certain familiar taboos, participants in inter-faith gatherings do sometimes run into real questions, that make a difference to the world at large. One such is how, if at all, freedom of speech can be reconciled with the Muslim demand for a ban on public statements or cultural products that offend Islamic sensibilities. At this week's meeting in Malaysia, that question was addressed in a way that frightened the relatively few participants whose understanding of civil rights was rooted in a Western, liberal world-view.

Speaker after speaker called for some formal, internationally agreed restriction on the defamation of religion. “I can never accept that freedom of speech is morally right when it offends my faith,” said Prince Turki al-Faisal, a senior Saudi official (and former head of his country's intelligence service).

Keep in mind, thats a big, strong man who says that. Think about it - a grown man is afraid of people offending his "faith"! What's the matter Turki, bit sensitive?

Never mind princess, the ways of the big, scary world are a mystery to you, and shall ever remain so.

(via Damian Penny, on whose site one commentator succinctly says:

Need I point out that this is one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment?

You're not paranoid if people really ARE out to get you.

)

Intellectual Arguments are just another hate crime.

More on the item below.

Unable to refute Steyn’s statistics and facts, or to deny that the portions of the article they found most offensive were in fact chilling quotations made by radical Muslims themselves, Steyn’s accusers condemned his “tone,” use of “sarcasm,” and reliance upon “subtle intellectual arguments.”

Got that? Subtle intellectual arguments = Hate crime. Especially if the self-appoint arbiters of "hate" don't like your tone.

Think only happy thoughts or we'll sue you for hate.

Despite often heated rhetoric about the supposed destruction of Free Speech in the US by the "Bush Junta", the rights granted by the second amendment seem to stagger on in that country, none the worse for wear.

Not so in a certain frosty northern neighbour....

Canada is well and truly suckered into the great silliness of our age - politically correct speech codes and absurdities that seek to criminalise what Orwell would have termed thought crime.

Journalist Mark Steyn discovered the reach of such "human rights commissions" when he wrote one too many articles on a certain religion that shall remain nameless. (It sounds like "Whiz-Arm").

"I saw Mark Steyn with the devil!"

Curiously the actual person who has decided to subject him to this kangaroo court is not being presented as the plantiff (possibly because he's an entirely unsympathetic anti-Semitic bigot) and instead the Canadian Islamic Congress has decided to use as props three far more attractive and telegenic plantiffs. These are affectionately known as the "Sockpuppets".

Steyn has a summary of the events leading up to these events on his blog but here's a basic rundown.

These three complain because the Macleans magazine printed an article of Steyn's that expressed "hate" (whatever that means), the magazine should open up its editorial space for them to have a "right of reply" (including choice of cover) - basically demanding rights over what the magazine should and shouldn't print. When Macleans told them to take a running leap, the sockpuppets took him to kangaroo court.

Anyway, the proceedings are getting increasingly farcical, as you can read here. Personally my favourite is the Koran expert they brought in to refute Steyn's claims....who basically ended up confirming them as true. Oops.

And the tired old strawman of "Islamophobia" gets thrown out again and again. Yawn.

More on this absolutely preposterous case here and here.

And even more at Free Mark Steyn.