All things that we see manifested around us may be better understood as out-buddings of creative energy.  Absolutely everything in the universe has emerged out of transformational charges of energy.  There is nothing in energy tranformations that must rely upon outside bits and pieces as in the assemply of some artifact; everything has manifested into existence through energy involvement, and has actually evolved into its definable form of existence.  This is understood in science, but is denied for the most part by those who take biblical tales literally.

Too many of the dogmatic “faithful” harbor suppressed feelings of dividedness because the tenets of their man-conceived faith system are deliberately designed to impose the faith system’s governing over personal spirit.  Man-formulated corporate-style faith systems do not really want anyone to think for themselves.  Physical sensuality, for example, is portrayed as a spiritual negative in conventional western faiths, but one’s spirit and one’s natural sensuality are never in any soul-threatening opposition.  The opposition is from the taught superstition that each person exists in some isolated state from the very power that sustains their life experience.  The intention of that holy lie is to make the individual feel incomplete.  That imposed feeling of self-lack is then played upon and claimed to be answered only by some man conceived faith system.  The fanatically devout commonly strive to make a virtue of that imposed inner sense of lack, but the faithful’s inner resentment at attempting to override their own basic circuitry is then too often revealed in their indulgence in hateful and degrading (and “sinful”) passing of negative judgments upon others who are unlike themselves.  The fanatically faithful of these formulated faith systems then stand out as sad examples of personalities that have been spiritually deformed by attempting to do the impossible task of cutting away part of their energy identity.

True piety is not a muscular activity; it is not something that can be grasped or enforced, for true piety—which properly refers to spiritual insight—rarely, if ever, comes when it is pursued.  Such an elated state of awareness can be pure only when it is encountered unsought.  In other words, genuine piety is a state of awareness that reveals itself when personal will is not anchored upon temporary material conditions.

This suggests spontaneity, which man-formulated faith systems, especially in the material-obsessed western world, routinely disapprove.  The reason for this is that spontaneity is personal responsiveness that has been elevated by the feeling of total emotional security.  The three structured and regimented religions of the western world stand more as monuments to spiritual paralysis than to spiritual rapture.  Being male-founded and male dominated, the three dominant western faith systems bristle with masculine rigidity and combative schemes for storming and taking possession of the keys of heaven.  In other words, these are faith systems that counsel believers to will themselves to support certain attack strategies which are deceitfully designed to influence believers to obsess over alleged soul-threatening weaknesses within themselves.  This inflexible understanding of true spirit is even illustrated in the lifeless rigidity that is cemented into the architectonic forms of churches, cathedrals, synagogues, mosques and the like.

Add into this assessment that the structured rituals devised in practically all Christian ceremonies were patterned upon the court ceremonies of Roman emperors.  Christianity had its origin in the aggressive Roman Empire, after all, so the stress placed upon obedience should not be surprising.  Judaism had been fashioned earlier as a regimented faith after the little kingdom of Israel to the north suffered military defeat to the Assyrians.  Thus it was militancy and materialism that prompted Judaism, devised in 8th century BCE Judah, to be a faith system of authoritarian laws.  Islam arose out of an atmosphere of constant tribal conflicts, and that background assured the aggressive “spirit” that then inspired invasion of regions around Arabia and the Mediterranean.  As a result, these three western “faith” systems predestined themselves to constant combative indulgences—spirit versus matter—which assures that believers of these strict faith systems will feel not only divided from all diverse life expressions, but even feel divided within themselves.   Consequently none of these man-conceived faith systems will ever experience the emotional security that is necessary for true spiritual advancement.

Under such rigid “guidance” the spiritual spontaneity of the believer is intentionally kept smothered down.  The greater “sin” that is perpetrated thus rests squarely within these three  regimented faith systems themselves, which methodically short-circuit the very creative energy that opens each person’s consciousness to Cosmic Consciousness.

Such a means of teaching spiritual understanding is clearly the seed-ground for practices of hatred.  That tendency to justify hatred toward some unrealistic stance is met early on in the Old Testament book of Genesis, for even god is depicted as getting riled up and fuming with hatred over the trespassing upon the landscape feature of his garden by an inexperienced, blameless couple.  The couple is subjected to godly fury for not comprehending his vague rules.  For example, how could the newly created persons have any understanding of what a threat of death meant?

Every priest-conceived book contains some hate-fueled elements in them, but the priest-composed book of Leviticus, which was jammed unceremoniously between the storylines of the Israelite wanderings in Exodus and Numbers, is probably the most shameless counseling of hatemongering in all scriptures.  As a result of legitimizing hatred, the dogmatists and fanatics love to use the Bible as their weapon of intolerance against any human tendency that offends their ego-dreams of special favors.

In the main, all “laws” presented in Leviticus are crude, shamelessly prejudicial and insensitive, for they were designed solely for the purpose of establishing uncontested priestly authority over the people under the guise of godly installation.  A few of the Leviticus “truths” include: It is an abomination to eat pork; likewise god supposedly forbids the eating of shellfish such as lobsters (Lev. 11:10); drinking milk is a no-no; god is offended by any clothing made of mixed fibers; etc.  That the priest-authors really knew what they were talking about is shown in verse 5 of chapter 11: there it forbids the eating of the coney “…because he cheweth the cud.”  The coney or cony refers to a rabbit, especially an Old World species, which certainly does not regurgitate from its stomach to chew again.  (It is possible the translators really meant to refer to the hyrax, as was later used in Deuteronomy 14:7.)

Placed as Leviticus is between the books of Exodus and Numbers, the priest-authors virtually thumbed their noses at the commandment against killing and devoted the whole of chapter 20 to a list of offences for which god allegedly approved killing!  Indeed, in this holy book there is claimed to be 28 god-approved methods for killing priest-rejected people!  And chapter 21 then provides still more of god’s alleged prejudices by listing the physical “blemishes” that supposedly nauseated god and barred them from priesthood.  That appalling allegation of god’s prejudices was expounded upon, declaring that god also detests the blind, the lame, or “he that hath a flat nose or any thing superfluous, or has a broken foot or a broken hand.”  Continuing their rant, the priest-authors elaborate further: god is displeased with “…the crook back, or a dwarf or (those) that hath a blemish in his eye, or scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones (testicles) broken.”  On the other hand, to gain god’s good graces it is claimed that god finds the burning of a bull on the altar to be okay, because it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord.  It also happened to provide the priests with good food.

There is a heap of other little things that allegedly irks the Lord.  How about a neat haircut for males?  Heaven forbid!  Leviticus 19:27 states that trimming the hair around the ears and the temples is forbidden by god.  And farmers, take note: Leviticus 19:19 says that you are committing sin if you plant two different crops in the same field. And lordy! a man dares not curse nor blasphemy lest he be stoned to death by the village people (Lev. 24:10-16).  Leviticus 15: 19-24 instructs men that a woman is unclean during her menstrual period, and men should avoid any contact with a woman during her period.  Another “law” supposedly handed down by god, so the priest-authors said, was that if a man’s brother dies and his wife has not yet been made pregnant, the man is commanded to take his brother’s wife as his own: he is expected to impregnate her in his bother’s name to keep the family line going.

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

Today the book of Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 22, is still being used as heavenly allowance for practicing hatred against persons that have been created with same-sex attraction.  (Ugly examples of this spiritual perversion include such persons as Fred Phelps, the homophobic “reverend” in Kansas, and homophobic “Dr” Laura Schlesinger.)  Never taken into consideration in the bigots’ use of the Bible for practicing hatred of gays is that scientific studies—revealed realities—expose the Leviticus proposition that attraction to members of the same-sex is unnatural has absolutely no psychological, medical or psychiatric support.  And it is certain that such lifesaving medical procedures of blood transfusions, dialysis treatment, skin grafting or resuscitation would be regarded by the priest-authors of Leviticus as abominations.

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

The so-called right-to-life harangue is nothing other than false piety used to disguise the fact that their clamor for personhood status of what is only a potential human has nothing to do with genuine right to life: it is all about trashing democratic style government and imposing dictatorial control.  And these phony issues have become increasingly prevalent since the radical religious right gained control of the Republican Party in 1996.  Attempting to enforce the claim of personhood for protoplasm is another case of ignoring facts that invalidate their claim.  Technically speaking, life is already present and at work in the sperm and the egg even before they unite, so is the egg and each sperm cell also to be regarded a person?  A half person?  How far is this absurdity to be pursued?

The protoplasm that results from the uniting of sperm and egg is the jellylike colloidal substance-form which becomes activated as the “living” energy-substance of animals and plant cells.  Basic functions for life are being initiate, yes, but the resulting unit of energy-substance is not endowed with the evolved sense of self-awareness.  In other words, that coagulating energy-substance has no conscious ability to declare, “I think, therefore I am.”

The activists for right-to-life reveal their true stripes in various attacks upon social structures that have served life and democracy well in the United States for many decades.  If they really are concerned about pro-life and right-to-life issues, why do they so adamantly insist upon cutting back on young life needs such as adequately paid teachers and even school lunch programs?  Why is education and developmental institutions such as libraries always among the first objectives that they want to cut?  How does keeping people dumbed down insure a more secure life for the infants coming into life?

The have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too crowd has slowly and religiously chipped away at voter approved democratic regulations for fair play and decency by pretending devotion to Christian principles.  Under the guise of biblical inspiration there has arisen an army of religious pretenders who have invaded the Senate, the House of Representative, the US Supreme Court, and political positions (governors) in various states.  The results in every case has been swift and ruthless attempts to severely limit citizen freedoms, commonly under the guise of a need for smaller government.  In actuality, the strictness they seek to force upon the people, and keep those restrictions in place, requires much more bureaucracy and organization than in democratic distribution.  Nazi Germany, which utilized the same tactics, stands as a testament of where that type of heavy-handed government can lead.

Carrying the pro-choice and right-to-life charade into even more extreme territory, they think that they can see god at work in conceptions that result even from rape and incest, which pretty much reduces their concept of god to something like a demented sex addict.  Their pretense that abortion under any circumstance amount to “sin” is presented as gospel even though the subject of abortion is never addressed anywhere in scriptural texts.  On the other hand, there are numerous priest-written accounts of pregnant women being killed and defenseless infants being destroyed with god’s approval—especially in those tales of Joshua, the Bible character from whom the name Jesus was derived.

But the pro-life, Bible pounding hypocrites are eager and willing to even carry spiritual corruption into the realm of psychosis, as witnessed by the US Supreme Court, dominated by five (out of nine) “Justices” who are Republican/Roman Catholic.  These five men, who apparently cling to a pope’s infallible assessment that a person suddenly exists at conception, then found it easy to judge that the nonhuman, manmade creations of corporations were to be regarded as endowed with personhood too!  In effect, this bloc of five devout Catholic “Justices” attempted to miraculously transform something that is unborn into a being that allegedly possesses the conscious awareness of “I am.”  That absurdity of extending to inanimate creations (corporations) the privileges of national citizenship and human rights is supported by neither the US Constitution nor by any scriptural texts.  That law interpretation, which is held to be incontestable—that corporations are persons—is all about materialism, and any spiritual standards claimed by those “justices” are merely utilized for camouflage.

As for the rest of the American citizens, these brainless perversions of democratic principles as determined by those five Republican/Roman Catholic Supreme Court “Justices,” intentionally reduced the living, breathing citizens to a surreal status suspended somewhere between the pre-born and the unborn.  That is not representative of the democratic values envisioned by the founding fathers of the United States of America.

The first magnitude star Spica on the meridian at midnight during the winter solstice was therefore seen to illustrate the bearing forth of the Life Principle out of void conditions so that the Sun might continue to safeguard (save) the world (all matter-life).  To paraphrase a traditional Christmas carol, it was thought of as the night divine, the night when light was born.  Consequently, all savior figures of various cultures were said to have been born on December 25th, when the Sun again took up its northerly course.  This movement began only after a suspenseful three days during the solstice period when the Sun seemed to hang low and unmoving in the southern sky.

In ancient Egypt, for example, the birth of the son, Horus, god of day, to the fertility goddess Isis, was celebrated on this date.  Persians celebrated on December 25th the birth of the “prophet” of ancient Iran, Zoroaster.  In pre-Christian Rome the twenty-fifth of December was known as Natalis Solis Invict, meaning “birthday of the Sun.”  All such celebrations of various “Pagan” cultures were in recognition that an increase of light would follow the longest night of the year.

In many pre-Christian observances during the period of longest darkness, a midnight rite was observed which was known as the “Vigil of Light.”  The culmination of the rite often involved the lighting of a great bonfire on the highest ground in the area from which they conducted the colorfully symbolic ceremony of the “Yule” wheel.  In readiness for the celebration was a great wheel made of dried twigs, leaf stalks, small tree limbs and coarse grasses.  As darkness seemingly engulfed the whole world, the wheel was set ablaze and sent rolling down the hillside into a lake or other body of water.  This ceremony commemorated the Sun’s descent into its period of apparent rest, which was regarded as occurring within the waters (energies) of Creation.  The bonfires were generally kept burning on the hilltop throughout the rest of the night.

Today’s rigorously structured faith systems, of course, deride this ceremony as nothing more than “heathen ignorance.”  The truth is that such ceremonies demonstrated a closer understanding of cosmic processes than pretending that the longest night of the year marks the incarnation of some demigod or is associated with some supernatural “miracle” of oil lamps providing light for eight days for the devotees of some man-conceived faith system.  Of course the wholesome understanding of Creation’s patriarchal principles and universal order that was honored by the Pagans does not contribute to the ego-pampering ideas of godly favoritism that is the bedrock of every organized faith system.

A celebration of increasing light is also part of Hindu observance, and is similar in some respects to Christmas and Hanukkah.  This celebration occurs in November of the Julian calendar, however.  Since the observance is spoken of as being the darkest night of the year, it suggests that it is really a displaced observance of the winter solstice (as with Islamic observance of Ramadan).

The noticeable movement of celestial objects that occur in the heavens is the true substructure of every organized faith system, although that relationship is always heavily disguised.  The early representatives of contrived religious doctrines were so fearful that the uneducated followers would discover the true association that the promoters of those contrived religious movements condemned Pagan astronomical observation and study as “star worship.”

Stories of the birth of savior-like beings also invariably included three wise men or kings or magi who “came from the east” bearing gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh for the newborn.  Older pre-Christian tales relate that three magi bearing identical gifts attended the birth of Krishna, Osiris, Mithras, Zoroaster, Confucius, Socrates, and a list of others.  The three “gifts” of gold, frankincense and myrrh are indeed precious to the Life Principle, for they represent the three energy planes that integrate for the development of physical-matter manifestation.

As for the “star” that is said to have led most of these kings, wise men or magi to their destination, it is mythic representation of those involving energies that radiate in the process of matter manifestation.  That just may be the reason that there have never been any genuine history accounts anywhere that verify such a celestial phenomenon of a stationary star hovering over a specific earthly location.

In the Old Testament, for example, the moral factor of forgiveness is never actually addressed as being a particularly advantageous or admirable trait.  In the few OT stories where forgiveness is a feature, it always has to do with some biblical character which represents the Life Principle—the creative power through which life is initiated and maintained.  In the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings (Creation), the most beloved son of Jacob/Israel named Joseph (his name means “builder”) gets sold into Egypt by his own brothers (primal elements).  Joseph, of course, rises to high governing position (once he passes over into the energy realm of matter which is symbolized as Egypt) and his brothers have to come to him seeking sustenance for their own advancement.

The brothers do not recognize the advanced Joseph, and when Joseph makes himself known to his brothers they implore him to forgive the “evil” they had done to him.  This story in Genesis is part of the Creation saga, so the forgiveness extended to his brothers by Joseph, the builder, is not really a lesson of moral spirit; it simply signifies recognition of the necessary sequential processes that must be passed over to achieve the manifestation as matter-life.  Joseph, the builder, personifying the Life Principle, therefore extends forgiveness to his brothers (the primal elements), so the story is not really an example of moral quality, but is simply acknowledgment of the necessary sequential process of Creation.

Another OT character, Daniel (a character borrowed by the priest-authors from a Babylonian poem), represents the same transformation level of creative energy involvement as did Joseph, and the tales share similar story features.  Joseph is depicted as having been carried captive into Egypt; Daniel was carried into Babylon; both were made to change their names (as did Abram-Abraham and Jacob-Israel); both gained favor with highly placed officials of the nation.  Also both resisted polluting themselves with the trappings of the king’s culture (pre-physical conditions); both gained eminence by interpreting a dream (fulfilment of prototype) of the king; and both achieve material-matter status.  The character of Daniel is portrayed as reading the writing on the wall that found the king to be lacking, a variation of Joseph who sat in judgment of his brothers’ lack of primal rations.  The forgiveness attributed to these characters, and which is always held up as exemplary, really had nothing to do with moral quality: what these characters Joseph and Daniel forgave was the primordial conditions that are passed over and which permits advancement into matter manifestation.

Still another example of Bible-style forgiveness is found in the book of Nehemiah (especially chapter nine).  There, after verses that review the Creation of “…heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas,” etc., the Creation-inspire sermon expands to feature the glory of Moses and the Israelites.  God’s forgiveness that is claimed to have been extended to the Israelites (the elemental creative energies) regarding all their alleged trespasses really refers to energies that must assemble and interact for manifestation of matter-life.  In those primary stages of formation any and all necessary creative activity must be forgiven.  Thus in Nehemiah 9:31 the priest-author presumes to flatter the Lord (law of Creation): “Nevertheless for thy great mercies’ sake thou didst not utterly consume them, nor forsake them; for thou art a gracious and merciful God.”  It adds, “…but thou art a god of acts of forgiveness, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abundant in loving kindness, and you did not leave them.”  No, the creative Source does not leave the involving energies which involve as Creation, and this is passed off as forgiveness of the Israelites’ alleged amoral conduct.  Amoral is a neutral word, neither moral nor immoral, and knowing this as presented in sacred language tales such as this it means there is no “sin” or offence to forgive because it personifies the energy activity of Creation.  The odious deceit in this myth lies in the inference that some supernatural deity allegedly awards a specific man-conceived faith system with chosen status when properly that which is characterized are creative energies that involve and evolve for the manifestation of all life.

The impartiality that is present within the process of Creation is, on the other hand, a most exacting and unforgiving procedure, and this is why forgiveness is never recognized in creation plot lines of holy writ as being an especially advantageous, admirable or moral trait.  This is backhanded recognition that Creation is always striving for balance, and to “forgive” creative activity in any dimension of development would halt Creation.  The balance striven for in energy development is not symmetrical, however, and that is because perfect symmetry allows no movement.  The balance that is implied can be likened to a pendulum functioning as a regulator between dual extremes and keeping them in harmony.

As mentioned in these posts dozens of times, the underlying theme in holy scripture stories conveys the various stages of energy development that result in manifestation of energy-matter form.  And this serves as the basic plotline for the bulk of the stories.  Thus God, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, etc., all part waters during their scenes of preparing elemental equals for spiritual advancement.  Even Jesus’ alleged third “miracle,” walking upon the water, carries the same meaning!  And in the Christian faith system, divine forgiveness is implied with the incident of Jesus saying at the start of his higher transformation, “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).  Jesus always personifies the Life Principle within Creation activity, so what Jesus forgives from the cross—the cross or X being the most ancient symbol for matter—are the primal circumstances that delivers primary elements and allows them to pass over into their higher potential of aware-consciousness.  Thus the forgiveness expressed in this dramatic scene upon the cross is therefore from the elevated perspective of divine indifference, for it is recognition that there is nothing in the process of energy development into higher form that is to be condemned or that needs forgiveness.

But it is here within this energy dimension of materiality that we, as complex, self-aware energy forms, take responsibility for fine-tuning our remaining primal elements.  Recognition that everything that we can perceive around us is interrelated opens to us the power to transform Creations’ amoral forgiveness into true moral forgiveness.

Exodus 16:14-16 relates “In time the layer of dew evaporated and here upon the surface of the wilderness there was a fine flaky thing, fine like hoarfrost upon the earth.”  (Italics added.)  “…It is the bread that Jehovah has given for food.” “…Pick up some of it, each one in proportion to his eating.“  The last quoted words, “in proportion to his eating,” hold coded meaning.  In other words, hoarfrost represents the creative energies necessary for each prototype to advance into manifestation with material density.  The means by which these energies were provided is also alluded to in the strange wording upon the surface of the wilderness.  With the alleged diet of “manna” that which is being symbolized is lifeless and non-manifested primal energies from which biological life is made manifest.  The beginning of energy transformation is then allegorized as a state of moisture (dew) from which the elementary particles (symbolized as Israelites) are energized and made mobile and volatile.  The expansion of water components which leaves a “fine flake thing” symbolically allows the escape of spirit from that prototypal condition.

If we are to take the hoarfrost diet literally, it directly taxes rationality.  Only when recognizing that symbolism is the language of “sacred” scriptures can we find rationality, and it is only by understanding those symbols that one can dig out the true meaning that was intentionally hidden there.

If we are to believe the biblical account of the holy tabernacle erected in the wilderness, the Israelites soon honored the giver of life by turning the tabernacle into a virtual slaughterhouse in which beasts and fowl were slain and burned by the thousands. (Exodus 29:10)  Where did all those creatures come from?  Regardless where all that animal life came from in the midst of the desert “wilderness,” if we take the abundant availability of animals for sacrifice literally it reveals that there was never a rational reason for the Israelites to have once been so starving that they had to eat hoarfrost.

To answer the earlier questions regarding the treasures of the tabernacle, yes, the Israelites—symbols of elementary particles involving as pre-physical conditions—did figuratively take with them all the paraphernalia for the lavishness they would be charged to utilize upon their wilderness “tabernacle” and “temple.”  That lavishness represents the unlimited creative energies that are misleadingly symbolized with the land of Egypt.  The tabernacle said to be raised “in the wilderness,” meaning out of the primordial void, is reference to prototypes from which all planetary and biological life-forms develop and evolve.  The excessive ornamental trappings claimed as desired by god are really priest-authors’ shameless indulgence in spiritual extortion, which kept the priests well fed.

The ancient teachings from which these priest-written sacred tales were borrowed taught a greater truth that was purposely misinterpreted in the sacred language rewrites.  The great truth is that within the primordial energy planes everything has its origin as an energy prototype, and it is only when that primal energy interweaves into self-aware consciousness that the prototypal life form becomes a temple of life.  (For the so-called pro-lifers this clarifies that personhood does not commence until self-awareness—that intellectual awareness of I—becomes active: a fertilized egg is not a person; it is only a potential person.  Any muscle twitches occurring in fetal growth are due to energy expansion, not due to self-awareness.)

In the New Testament book of Hebrews 8:5 the Roman author declares that when Moses was about to make the tabernacle in the wilderness he was said to have been admonished by god to  “…make all things according to the pattern shown to thee in the mount.”  This Roman author of Hebrews knew the real meanings hidden within sacred language: that pattern = prototype.  The suggested ritual of service for use in honoring that creative principle in “…the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man” (Hebrews 8:2), is thus said to be drawn upon the “example and shadow” of heavenly (cosmic) things (Hebrews 8:5).  “…See saith he (god), that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount” (not on the mount).  In other words, the process of involving and evolving of creative energies that manifest into energy-matter forms is explained.  The “tabernacle” symbolizes the enshrining of life within each “pattern” that achieves manifested form.

The whole of the tabernacle allegedly built in the “wilderness” (in the primordial energy planes) by Moses (who represents the Life Principle) and the Israelites (which personify the elementary particles out of which life is made manifest) was said to be fourfold in its design; in other words, like the four energy stages through which creative energies develop toward visible manifested form.  The “covered tent” (Hebrews 9:22) regarded as the “Holy Place,” at this point of energy-matter development, represented the intellectual capacity in man, which is embodied with visible form but remains invisible and creative.  The “Holy of Holies,” i.e. the heart and soul of the Ark of the Covenant and Shekinah (visible manifestation of divine presence) represent the presence of creative power that is always within all mortal life.

The biblical text known as Deuteronomy, inserted as the fifth book of holy scripture, was composed for political purposes in Jerusalem in the newly established little tribal kingdom of Judah in the seventh century BCE. The little kingdom of Israel to the north had fallen to Assyrian expansion, and the inspiration behind the priest-written text was that the people could be mobilized by giving them an emotional claim to a national identity.

Deuteronomy is the alleged second corpus juris (body of laws) that had purportedly been given to the Israelites through Moses prior to the Israelites entering the land of Canaan.  The delivery of the supplements to the original “laws” had supposedly taken place in the plains of Moab (generally placed in the 1400s BCE).  So the Israelites were not then in the “Promised Land,” and yet the book containing the second corpus of ”laws” supposedly had been carried into and inflicted upon those who already inhabited the land of Canaan.  Those undisclosed laws had apparently been lugged around through the Israelite invasion ordeal, even though the Israelites were unaware that what they defended predetermined the framework for a national constitution of Israel that would rise generations later!

The major feature of the top-secret text was the promise from god—or a covenant between God and Israel—to serve as the basis for the Israelites lifestyle in Canaan.  In the time of Moses, remember, no center  of Israelite government or religion existed in Canaan, the “Promised Land,” and yet that “for your eyes only” text supposedly provided the basic summary of every citizen’s rights and duties.  Strangely, those god-ordained laws were not found until the Temple in Jerusalem was being remodeled in the seventh century BCE, which was after the kingdom of Israel to the north had fallen to the Assyrians—or around 700 years after the traditional timeframe accorded to Moses and the Exodus (c. 1576 BCE).  Unlike the Ten Commandments the additional laws conveyed to Moses apparently had not been written on stone.

Whoever the real author(s) was (most likely it was the High Priest named Hilkiah and his secretary Shapan), he undoubtedly built upon already existing traditions, refashioning the legends according to his own outline and political goals.  There is no doubt of the genius of the creator(s) of the 7th century BCE who updated the oral traditions, for the early folklore and stories were woven together so skillfully that the characters, such as Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., exuded individual distinctiveness.  Equally telling that priestly hands were at work on the text are often detected in the alleged exhortations of Moses, which can only be characterized as preaching the law in a reproachful manner.  The heavy amount of the “laws” are not what can be termed juridical, but primarily concerned religious instructions and regulations for worship, even a festival calendar, and admonitions designed to program the public with a sense of obligation and duty toward God, which—surprise!—cunningly placed the priests in absolute management position.

In 640 BCE, after the assassination of tribal king Amon of Judah, his 8-year old son Josiah became king—and the High Priest Hilkiah became the young king’s tutor.  The convenient “discovery” of the book of Law in this same general timeframe also happened to coincide with the rise of literacy that accompanied the influx of refugees from the fallen kingdom of Israel to the north.  With the arrival in Judah of expatriates from the kingdom of Israel the political atmosphere changed, and until this timeframe there had been little means of producing extensive sacred texts.  With young King Josiah being tutored by the High Priest Hilkiah, the stage was set to institute a unifying code of alleged god-ordained laws within the boundaries that were then being claimed as the kingdom of Judah.

Deuteronomy is the only book of the Pentateuch that asserts that it contains “words of the covenant” which Israelites were instructed to follow faithfully (Exodus 29:9).  Biblical scholars have pointed out that the literary form of the alleged covenant between Yahweh and his people as presented in Deuteronomy has striking similarity to the seventh century BCE Assyrian vassal treaties.  In those Assyrian models the subjected people’s’ rights and obligations were correspondingly detailed.  The major difference from the Assyrian model with the holy “covenant” laws allegedly discovered in the Temple wall at Jerusalem is that Yahweh is acknowledged as Sovereign (with the priests acting as his representatives).  Typical cult ordinances were then stressed such as followers of Yahweh were charged to have no transactions or social interaction, and no intermarriage whatever with the native inhabitants.

The book of Deuteronomy also prohibited numerous Canaanite rites that had been tolerated for generations—rites that included sense-stimulants such as prostitution, ritual sodomy, and use of idols upon which devotees could focus their attention.  After the so-called “second law” was revealed, the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings were compiled in conjunction with Deuteronomy.  The groundwork was then laid down in the plotted reform measures that the High Priest and his scribe sought to impose at that time.  Thus eight years after Josiah had become king in 622 BCE, the suggestible adolescent observed the first-ever Passover sacrifice in the national shrine in Jerusalem.  Holy politics had triumphed.

The imposed cult-like obligations and the emphasis that believers in Yahweh were the only virtuous people—always self-portrayed as surrounded by wickedness and evil and godlessness—insured that Judaism would live at variance not only with neighboring people, but with Nature and universal forces as well.  Over time that spiritual virus would also contaminate the devout affirmations of two later faith systems that would arise to further splinter the western understanding of man’s relationship to the creative forces around him.

Prior to the undocumented event of Jesus’ birth there was in Palestine, c. 112 BCE, a Jewish school, the Chasidim  (Hassidim), meaning “the holy ones,” which became active and known as the Pharisees.  Their chief predisposition was to resist all Greek or outside influences which a clique of scribes felt could undermine their sacred interpretation of how followers were to kowtow to that interpretation.  In short, the Pharisees were therefore most emphatic in regard to what was to be presented as “Divine Law.”  The championing of “Divine Law,” which was to be exercised in all public affairs, called for obedience without regard to priestly or aristocratic families—the Sadducees—or the old-line statesmen or the heroes who had brought the Assyrian wars to a successful conclusion.  It was the inflexible Pharisees, however, despite their ban on outside influence, who brought ideas of salvation and resurrection into Jewish thought.

The Sadducees (or Zadokites), on the other hand, were aristocratic (largely descended through the older priest class), and they held that the priest-written Torah was binding in all matters.  Thus the Sadducees rejected the version of the “Divine Law” as it was interpreted and championed by the Chasidim scribes, and demanded obedience to the older ancestral customs and legal standpoints.  Equally inflexible as the Pharisees, the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection, in angels, nor in any personal continuance after death, a doctrine that clung closely to the original Torah theology.

By c. 60 BCE—as planet Earth entered the Age of Pisces—the rabbinical hierarchical system as had been instituted in Jerusalem had existed for about three centuries.  The Jews in Alexandria, Egypt, however, paid no allegiance to any form of rabbinical institution which had been responsible for the Talmudic presentation.  It was in that older presentation that heavy attention was placed upon customs as they had evolved in Judea, and which would later be collected (c. 200 CE) into the Mishna, a collection of decisions that had been laid down by priests in Jerusalem and which were aimed largely at prohibiting the rearing of children in Greek lore.  The priests in Jerusalem had virtually jack-hammered their priestly decisions into “legal” status.

The capture of Jerusalem by the Roman general Pompey in 60 BCE had been deemed necessary due to the aggressive power struggle between two sons of King Aristobulus who had recently died.  Years later, however, in 47 BCE, the Rome-installed Herod was driven from Jerusalem by one of the former King Aristobulus’ sons, Antigonus, and he then ruled as the last Hasmonean priest-king until 37 BCE when his reign was ended by Marc Antony.  Jerusalem’s struggle to disassociate itself from Rome galvanized even more after Antigonus was scourged, then bound to a stake and beheaded.  Herod was then reinstated to rule, and he sought to consolidate his position with the Jews by wedding Mariamne, a princess of the Hasmonean line.  Herod later bequeathed portions of his kingdom between three sons, and the Roman Emperor Augustus confirmed the will.  The division of the kingdom was not appreciated among the Jews.

Into this long simmering brew there appeared the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, Philo (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE), considered the greatest Jewish philosopher of this timeframe.  For orthodox Judaism, as represented by Palestinian Jews of the time, the study of languages, especially Greek, was regarded as profane and worthy only for slaves and infidels.  But Philo was born into a wealthy and aristocratic Jewish family in Greek-founded Alexandria, thus his education had included Greek literature and philosophy, especially that of Plato, Pythagoras and the Stoics.  Philo’s writings were to exert considerable influence upon both Jewish and Christian thought, and his writings heavily influenced the Alexandrian Christian theologians Clement (no genuine documentation of him has ever been produced) and Origen (185?-254? CE).  Philo’s philosophic endeavors brought a breath of fresh air into the congested cell of orthodox Jewish thought.  Philo maintained, as did many of his contemporaries, that the major part of the Pentateuch (first five books of scriptures), especially its “historical” and legal portions, should be explained allegorically, for it was only in this way that its truest and deepest meaning could be understood.  This wise advice has been steadfastly ignored by the three interrelated western organized faith systems as they evolved.

A Jewish rabbi and teacher named Hillel rose to prominence from 30 BCE to c. 09 CE.  He was the first Jewish scholar to systematize the interpretation and explanation of scriptural law.  Hillel had to contend with a rival named Shammai, an eminent doctor of the Jewish law at the time of Herod, and he stood rigidly insistent upon a merciless interpretation of priest-written scriptural law.  The conflict between the two schools of thought was to endure for nearly one hundred years after Hillel’s death.  A persistent allegation is that Hillel’s teachings influenced young Jesus, for many of the sayings attributed to Jesus are startlingly similar to those of Hillel.  The vague timeframe projected for Jesus’ childhood as presented in the New Testament can be seen to loosely correspond to this general timeframe.  However, any contemporary historian, writer or Roman aristocrat in charge of that region’s affairs would have been intimately familiar with such interpretations of scriptural laws: in fact some aristocrats married members of the Herodian family.

In the timeframe of Nero (37-68 CE) and the marriage to his pro-Jewish second wife Poppaea Sabina, various Roman aristocrats, statesmen and authors were becoming alarmed over the Empire’s stability due to the constant uprisings instigated by Jewish agitators.  It was into this political unease during Nero’s reign that the first books known as Mark and Matthew suddenly appeared, which introduced into the Roman Empire culture the teachings that were attributed to a benevolent and tolerant Jewish man named Jesus.

For the most part the professional politicians in the USA of today are not exactly the dedicated patriots as were the self-sacrificing men who founded this nation.  There is a super abundance of all those rah-rah politicos today who strut their stuff and wave flags and wear little flags on their lapels and shout “in god we trust” as they pretend devotion to democracy.  Ignored are the true workers who built this nation, and dishonored are the true defenders of democracy who physically protect the liberty which allows those professional blowhards the privilege to indulge in such charade.  Shamefully, the average combat soldier (such as those deployed in Afghanistan) earn a paltry $38,000 a year salary.  Meanwhile…

• Retired US Presidents (such as born again G. W. Bush) receive $180,000 salary a year for life.
• Members of the House/Senate now receive $223,500 salary for life.
• Speaker of the House receives $193,400 salary for life.
• Majority/Minority Leaders each receive $193,400 salary for life.
• Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court receives $223,500 per year for life.
• Associate Justices of the US Supreme Court receive $212,900 per year for life.
• Rank and file members of the House and Senate each pocket $174,000 per year.

Out of the 535 voting members of Congress, 261 of the members, or nearly one half of Congress is composed of multimillionaires.  Results from the study conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics noted in November 2010 that “Congressional representatives on balance rank among the wealthiest of wealthy Americans and boast financial portfolios that are all but unattainable for most of their constituents.”   The executive director of the Center, Sheila Krumholz, pointed out that, “Few federal lawmakers must grapple with the financial ills–unemployment, loss of housing, wiped out savings—that have befallen millions of Americans.”  We should remember, the salaries of our so-called “representatives” are sucked out of tax payers’ wallets.  Such is the glory in the land of opportunity.

The recession in the US began in December 2007 under the G. W. Bush administration, and American workers found huge bites taken out of their paychecks.  But members of the House and Senate, while warming their seats in tax-funded marble halls, watched their salaries increase through 2009 by more than five percent—which has added up to $8,800 for each of  them from the time the recession began to 2009.  And their salary figures do not account for the many perks the lawmakers granted themselves—like health benefits, pension plans, etc.  In that same period, 2007 to 2009, the per capita personal income of citizens dropped from $39,392 down to $39,138–a drop of more than one half a percentage point.  But the far right, seeking to cut “deficits” that their own incompetence initiated, were clamoring to abolish Social Security, Medicare, and other safeguards for working American citizens!  Isn’t that rather like biting the hand that feeds them?

The loophole for these dedicated “representatives” of the citizens is provided in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 6, which allows Congress to determine its own pay.  From 1789 up to 1968—or for 179 years—members of Congress found it convenient to use that allowance only twenty-two times.  But in 1967 (Lyndon Johnson was President) Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries (P.L. 90-206) through which salary increases could be recommended for top-level federal officials.

Then another method for determining pay increase (P.L. 94-82) was dreamed up in 1975 (Gerald Ford was President) by which the salary for Congress could be changed—through annual adjustments.  The annual”adjustments” could then go into effect automatically.  However, these raises can be voluntarily restricted if: 1) Congress selflessly decides to statutorily prohibit the adjustment; or 2) If Congress statutorily revises such adjustment; or 3) If the scheduled increase for members’ annual base pay has to be adjusted due to a formula using the Employment Cost Index, which would mean a lower rate of payment for members.  (The Employment Cost Index records private industry wages and salaries, which are not seasonally adjusted.)  By law Congressional Members may not receive an increase greater than the increase in the base pay of General Schedule (GS) federal employees.

After the “born again” and god-led Republican takeover of government in 2000 the payment rate for Representatives and Senators rose steadily.  In January 2000 their payable annual salary was $141,300.  January 1, 2001 their salary rose to $145,100; January 1, 2002 up to $150,000; January 1, 2003 an increase to $154,700; January 1, 2004 up to $158,100; January 1, 2005 up to $162,100; January 1, 2006 it jumped to $165,200.  And there it paused as the war on terror began to awaken public suspicion on national leadership.  But on January 1, 2008 Congressional pay rose to $169,300 a year.

Since the takeover of the Republican party by religious extremists in 1996, and later abetted by the tea baggers who were manipulated by the undemocratic wealthy, the lives of working  people are presently set up as sacrifice for material accumulation (in the name of faith).  And they loudly bray “in god we trust, but it is obvious that they pay little attention to the texts they consider holy.  Ignored is such wisdom as: “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith…” (1 Timothy 6:10).  And it is observed in the book of Ecclesiastes 5:10, “He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: that is also vanity.”  Ignored too by those clamoring to put god in government, is Hebrews 13:5, which advises, “Let your conversation (such as in all your unproductive committees) be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have:…”  (Schofield Reference Bible versions.)

If only our elected officials had a smidgen of the integrity and love for true equality as our nation’s forefathers.

• Related blog: Abuse of Democracy Within US Congress, July 2011

The Moon was regarded as the material symbol of the receptive principle which is at work throughout Creation, and which enfold the attributes of mental discernment.  In conjunction with this, the Earth itself was, for obvious reasons, the common symbol for the human species.  The Moon/Earth relationship presented an active illustration of how man absorbs the light of wisdom.  In that distant timeframe it was known and taught that the Earth revolved about the Sun, and from this scientific knowledge of the electric relationship of these two spheres the electromagnetic activity centered in the brain could be demonstrated.

The prehistory sages observed in the phases of the Moon a repeating review of the creative powers that are eternally at work.  The cyclic enactment of the “dark of the moon,” or when the Moon passes into the shadow of the Earth, for example, was seen to symbolize life issuing out of the void.  The new moon phase, of course, is not new; it is simply an illusion caused by a dense matter object (Earth) moving in its cyclic pattern and temporarily blocking the light that the Moon reflects from the source.

Earth in its rotation about the Sun will periodically turn from that source of light, and consequently bring upon portions of itself periods of non-illumination.  This seemed to the prehistory sages to act as an illustration of humankind’s repeated lapses of attention in regard to respecting the sustaining power of Cosmic Intelligence.  In ignoring our relationship with the rest of Creation, humankind obliges itself to depend upon the reflected light which intellect offers, just as the Moon reflects the light offered by the Sun.  This analogy is itself remarkable wisdom when we consider that without the light of the Sun to give purpose to the Moon’s presence (visibility), the Moon would be virtually invisible to our sight.

Like the Earth in its turning, half of a person’s human nature receives illumination while the other half rests in apparent darkness (non-awareness of self).  Even so, the resting mind continues to retain and maintain its identity within the cosmic panorama, and the enlightened mind perceives itself as rising again—like the new Moon—above the horizon of self-awareness to dispel the dark.

To those prehistory sages every phenomenon of the Moon’s appearance, just as every feature of Nature, held symbolic expression.  The first quarter of the Moon was seen by them as having issued from its conjunction with the fecundating principle of life.  Luna was therefore seen as typifying the gestation attributes of Nature, the first quarter of the Moon’s increasing light representing to them first growth—and the issuance of higher wisdom.

It is for this reason that the crescent new Moon was often used on the robes of Pagan-age wizards, priests and priestesses.  This is the reason also why it is regarded as the symbol of the goddess honored by Witch-Nature covens.  And this accounts, too, why the crescent new Moon came to be held as the attribute of Christianity’s Virgin Mary.  Certainly the New Testament texts offer no reason to associate Mary with the Moon.  That association was brought into Roman Catholic thought during the Middle Ages.  The waxing Moon had stood as a symbol of the young maiden from the most ancient times from a belief that the waxing phase of the Moon was connected to a maiden’s menstruation period.  In Pagan interpretation the three phases of the Moon—waxing, full, and waning—served as the receiving representative of intellect, thus it was regarded as a feminine aspect.  These three phases were consequently presented as maiden, mother, and crone.  Christian myth makers chose to ignore the “crone” part, of course.

The Moon, as a passive receiver, was adopted in ancient times as a goddess figure, and the three aspects became a trinity mystery.   In various ancient cults this triple aspect came to represent the “Great Mother,” and in this capacity was often referred to as the “White Goddess.”  This triple aspect is adored by many in Witchcraft.  This is the background upon which the Virgin Mary came to be associated with the waxing Moon.

Knowledge once known to the most ancient known culture, the Sumerians, became fragmented long ago.  Somehow those prehistory scientists knew that the Moon held no atmosphere.  And they regarded the Moon to be a separate and independent member of the solar family, not some satellite of Earth.  The folklore that grew around that ancient knowledge stated that when energies were forming as our solar systems’ planets, an invading planet-sized object interacted with this planet’s unstable material.  That “battle” thus accounted for a smaller portion breaking away from the unstable mass which would become Earth.  That chunk that broke away then lost its primal atmosphere and radioactive elements, causing it to shrink in size.  Drained of its elements, and thrown from the orbital pattern established by the forming planet Earth, it became the companion of Earth, sharing its orbital neighborhood.

Abridged from The Shiny Herd.