The Search for God

Book III

Part 2

by

Louis Lopez

© 2021 by Louis Lopez

All rights reserved.  It is allowed to reproduce and distribute copies of this book PROVIDED (1) that it is copied exactly as found here without any alterations to the wording and (2) that no more than $20 be charged for each copy.

Table of Contents (Part 2)

10 Religious Disproofs:  Judaism--Credibility

The Creation Stories

Human Mortality

The World Flood

Abraham

Tithing

The Circumcision Covenant

Joseph

The Violent Exit (Exodus)

The Tortures of the Egyptians

The Actual Departure

Manipulation of the Pharaoh

Egyptian Religious Tolerance

Egyptian Records

Converting the Egyptians

Staying Home in Egypt

The Arduous Journey to Mt. Sinai

Yahweh Delivers His Laws

Earlier Legal Codes

Bloody Wars

The Promised Land

Other Gods

11 Religious Disproofs:  Judaism--The Morality of God

The Ambition of Eve

The Condemnation of Cain

Destruction of the World

The Tower of Babylon

The Abrahamic Principle of Mercy

Jacob (Israel) Favored by God

The Kindness of Esau

The Agony of the Egyptian People

The Golden Calf

The Ten Commandments

The Missing Laws

Bizarre Laws

Yahweh's Religious Intolerance

The Departure for the Promised Land

Demand of Absolute Loyalty

An Undependable God?

More Bloody Wars

Judgments of God

12 Religious Disproofs:  Judaism--The Suffering of the Jews

Famines

The Price of Wars

The Price of Disloyalty

The Height of the Hebrews

The Splitting of Israel

The Obliteration of Israel

Contrasting Kings of Judah

Exile to Babylon

Greek Influence

The First Religious Terrorism

The First Religious War

Vicious Episodes

The First Religious Civil War

Heavy Taxation

Roman Oppression

The Roman-Jewish War

Early Middle East Persecution

Pain in Spain

The Crusades

Libel

Trade Restrictions

Onerous Restrictions

Exploitation

Expulsions

Germany

Pain in Spain Again

The 1500's

Ghettos

Continued Agony in Europe

Russian Oppression

Strife in Palestine

New German Bloodshed

Observations on the Plight

13 Religious Disproofs:  Christianity

The Central Figure

The Idea of a Messiah

The Importance of a Messiah

Requirements of the Messiah

Two Added Christian Traits

Bones

2,000 Years

Yahweh's Jealousy

Pascal's Wager

The Sacrifice of Jesus

Child Sacrifice

The Personages in the Sacrifice of Jesus

Jesus Resurrected Himself

Chapter Summary

14 The Meaning of Morality

Prohibitive Social Customs

Charity

Two Ethical Theories

The Origin of Moral Rules

Utilitarianism

Summary of Ethical Proposals

15 Problems with Belief

The Bedrock of Faith

Fideism

Religious Evaluation of Religions

Scientism

16 The World without God

Morality

Punishment

The Meaning of Life

A Better Life

10 Religious Disproofs:  Judaism

Credibility

Judaism, like most religions, rests on a belief in God.  That God is Yahweh.  Buddhism and Jainism do not hold belief in any god in their scriptures yet are counted as religions, but that inclusion is a mistake.  They are belief systems.  Religion is more commonly classified as belief in a god(s) who is a being superior to humans, exercises great power over the world, and is worshipped by humans.

Jews are a social group that usually trace their genetic roots to the Israelites of ancient Palestine.  I will refer to those Jews who follow Judaism as Judaics.  They have held a strong belief that a God exists.  Jews include both Judaics and nonreligious Jews.  Judaics have had great influence on nonJews to believe there is only one God.  Christianity and Islam were derived from Judaism.  This was based on the confidence that Judaics showed in their scriptures that there truly is a God and that he has spoken to them and given them directions on how to live and how to worship him.  Yahwehists will refer to the followers of either one of these three religions.

The question for Judaism is whether its God truly exists or was he only a fabrication of wishful imagination.  There are three areas that can be examined to answer this question.  First is the credibility of the Tanakh, particularly the Torah (Pentateuch), in its claims about certain facts and about the actions of Yahweh.  The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament of Christians) and the Torah is its first five books (Pentateuch of Christians).  Second, the moral character of Yahweh as shown in his actions and statements.  Third, the treatment by Yahweh of the Jews in history.  These three areas will be reviewed in three chapters starting with this chapter on credibility.

Everyone needs to be very clear on how the Tanakh was written.  Scholars have been studying this question for at least three centuries and have become confident of their major conclusions.  It is clear that many of the stories were passed orally from generation to generation, in some cases over a period of centuries.  You can imagine that in this long-term transmission details would change, sometimes significantly.  It is believed that the Song of Miriam is the oldest actual document in the Tanakh dating from the 1200's B.C.E.  (Hereinafter, I will cite years that occur before the Common Era--the time after the birth of Jesus--without adding B.C.E.  After the beginning of the Common Era, years will be cited without adding C.E. every time.)

Much was written down by scribes appointed by Kind David.  This would have taken place in the 900's.  Complete editions of the Tanakh did not first appear until the Babylonian exile of the 500's.(Manfred Barthel, What the Bible Really Says (New York:  Bell Publishing Company, 1984) 229.)  The final manuscripts were not written down until well after the end of the Exile, which occurred in 539.  For instance, the book of Ezra was not written until 430.("Ezra, Book of," The Revell Bible Dictionary (1990) 364.)  This was almost one thousand years after Moses, the founder of Judaism, left Egypt.

Obviously, it was a long time back to be able to accurately recall what had truly happened in Egypt to say nothing of all the historical events that were alleged to have happened before that.  Most people have noticed that witnesses to an event can make mistakes in recollecting details.  Studies of witnesses have shown that they can differ in their reports of what they saw even minutes later.

Then there is the observation by modern scholars that there are later interpolations or insertions that are hard to deny.  These were not just mistakes in transcribing the written words but intentionally placed there with a motivated agenda.  Some adamant believers may wish to deny that such interpolations were made but a close, open-minded study could make them change their attitudes.  Of course, there is the basic difficulty of accurately passing on all the facts over hundreds of years.

This chapter will only review some of the points in the early Tanakh that bring its credibility into doubt.  It will not go beyond the book of Judges.  Please keep in mind that the Tanakh was written down by many different men over a period of hundreds of years ending in the 400's.  The Tanakh contains much that is edifying and you have likely been made very familiar with this.  These chapters will elucidate what is not well known about it in order to get a fuller picture of the Hebrew God.  What will be uncovered will be blasphemous to some, but knowing the truth is of paramount importance.

The Creation Stories

Right from the start of the first book Genesis, questions arise.  There are all sorts of astronomical descriptions that have to be wrong, based on what has carefully been observed to be correct by many astronomers and other scientists.  Everything was in total darkness.  The first act of God was to create light.  Genesis then states that he separated the light from the darkness.  He had just created light so what does it mean to separate it from the darkness?  You would think that creating light meant that God had created the sun.  No, he didn't make the sun until the fourth day along with the moon and the stars.  The ocean is supposed to have covered everything.  It is not mentioned what "everything" was.  Supposedly he was in the process of creating "everything" so how could it already be there.  This also contradicts the claim by some theologians that God created the universe out of nothing.

On the second day, God separated the water into two portions.  He did this by creating a dome.  He placed some of the water above the dome and left some of it below to cover the earth.  He named the dome "sky."  The blue of the sky was explained by the water that rested on top of the dome above.  Every once in a while God opens the "portals of heaven" and we get rain.

God then made all the plants and animals and later finished by creating humans.  There are some incidental points of interest.  He put humans in charge of all the animals.  God said he provided vegetation for both humans and animals to eat.  He made no mention of anyone having to be carnivorous.  When he made humans, he declared that "they will be like us and resemble us."(Genesis 1:26, Good News Bible, American Bible Society, 1976.)  From this, we must conclude he is a physical being with a personality and character much like ours.

The creation of the universe in six days is all detailed in Chapter 1.  But wait.  There is another account of the beginning of humans and animals in Chapter 2.  In this version, God makes a human male first.  Then he formed trees and animals, which he brought to the man so that he could name them.  Supposedly, none of the animals--not even the dog--was a suitable companion for the man so God created a woman to be his companion.  Some would say that it may not have been prudent to create a woman as a companion since too often men and women fail to get along--famously.  Men have gotten along better with dogs and horses.  Besides, it was not long before men did find sound companionship in dogs, cats, horses, parrots, and each other.

There are two different versions of the creation, and it is a big difference.  In the first story, humans are created last.  In the second story, a man is created first followed by trees and animals.  Woman was made last not because she had any importance in her own right but as ancillary to the man--as his companion.  She was a second thought.  How can there be two different versions of such an important event in this sacred book that we are supposed to rely upon?  It happened either one way or the other, and you expect the Bible to tell a perfectly correct story.

This discrepancy was noted long ago by attentive Yahwehist scholars of the Bible.  The common explanation has been that the two different stories came from two much earlier traditions both of which were highly respected.  The editors who put the final version of the Bible together were reluctant to reject one in favor of the other.  Instead what they decided to do was to include both versions.  They must have assumed that no reader would notice the contradictory versions and that if they did they would not be concerned.  In past times, factual accuracy was not given great importance.

Not all of the many inconsistencies and incredibilities found in the Tanakh will be mentioned.  Here is one of those minor ones: the story of the snake tricking the woman into eating the fruit of the forbidden tree.  How was the snake able to converse with her in a comprehensible language?  God is later mad at the snake for its deceitful and treacherous actions and condemns it thereafter to crawl on its belly.  How was the snake getting around before that?  Was it walking on two legs? four legs?

There is another aspect found in these early chapters of Genesis that needs to be considered.  This definitely calls into question the credibility of the Bible.  Credibility is not a feature that you hear Yahwehists discuss widely.  Undoubtedly, there is a narrator of the creation accounts, but who can it be?  He seems to know small details of what actions God took from the very first day.  Even before that, the narrator is able to give a description of what things looked like.  How could this individual have been witness to these events?  Nothing was supposed to exist in the beginning except a raging ocean in total darkness and God.  How could this narrator have been present?

You would expect God himself to tell all of us what things looked like and what he did.  Clearly God did not even narrate a part of what happened.  It is was all told by this anonymous narrator.  Why?  You would expect for God to at least introduce us to this narrator and to authenticate his accuracy and honesty.  It would also be good to know something about the narrator and why he was chosen to tell the story instead of God.

Not only did the narrator show great confidence in his account of what happened and what God did, but he also provided a number of quotes of exactly what God said.  This is exceedingly remarkable.  Still not a bit of explanation as to how the narrator knew the quotes.  You can understand the knowledge of the narrators of the later stories like the one of Noah and the Flood or about Abraham.  They could have heard those stories after they were passed down through the generations since it was possible that actual living humans went through those experiences that were the origin of the tales.  For a narrator other than God to be present at the very beginning is very puzzling and begs for an explanation.

Human Mortality

The following quotes are very important to consider.  They do not call into question the credibility of the Tanakh like other incidents cited here.  On the contrary, the quotes are very consistent with what we observe about human mortality.  God declared his intention in this regard not just once but twice.

When God expelled the man and the woman from the garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit, he announced,

Now the man has become like one of us and has knowledge of what is good and what is bad.  He must not be allowed to take fruit from the tree that gives life, eat it, and live forever.(Genesis 3:22)

It is important to note the reference in the first sentence to "us."  God is apparently talking to other gods.  What else could it mean?  This is in direct contradiction to the doctrine that there is only one God, monotheism.

The next quote of the Lord reinforces the second sentence of the first quote.  "I will not allow people to live forever; they are mortal.  From now on they will live no longer than 120 years."(Genesis 6:3)  It is very clear from these statements that God does not desire that humans be immortal.  This is in agreement with the teaching in other religions and theistic systems at different times throughout the world:  gods are immortal, while humans are not.  It is almost by definition that humans are mortal.  Remember that "mortals" is a synonym for "humans."

Consider the Christian religion.  It is unequivocally predicated on the assertion that humans will live forever.  This is in exact contradiction to these two quotes of God declaring that he is strongly opposed to humans living past 120 years.  Devout Christians love to parse every relevant Bible verse in order to support ideas they choose to advance.  Often times these ideas are unclear and open to question.  Fanatical Christians never look at either of the two verses about mortality just cited.  If they respected these statements that eliminate immortality for humans, they would have to abjure either the Christian religion or their belief in immortality.  Immortality for humans is one of the pillars that buttresses the Christian religion.  Therefore these two statements of God are ground for invalidating Christianity.

The World Flood

We are told the story of a great flood in Genesis 6 through 9.  It began when God became incensed at the wickedness of humans including their violence.  He declared, "I will wipe out those people I have created, and also the animals and the birds, because i am sorry that I made any of them."(Genesis 6:7)  There was one exception among all the people of the world, the righteous man named Noah.  God decided to spare him and his family from total destruction.

He commanded Noah to build a huge ship 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high consisting of three decks.  Noah was told to take pairs of males and females of each kind (supposedly species) of animal and bird and bring them into the ark.  Apparently, insects and plants were not taken.  The order was for Noah to take "seven pairs of each kind of ritually clean animal, but only one pair of each kind of unclean animal.  Take also seven pairs of each kind of bird."(Genesis 7:2,3)

After all those picked for survival by God were safely ensconced in the ark, he brought on a horrendous and unparalleled flood with the intention of killing every living thing outside the ark.  It rained so much that Genesis states the water level rose twenty-five feet above the tops of the mountains.  It was one full year from the time the rain began to fall until the water receded enough for the ark's occupants to come out.

Most Judaics no longer give this story much credence.  Those who still follow it say that it shows the power and willingness of God to punish the wicked.  They most likely have not studied the relevant passages in Genesis very closely.  The first question that has to be asked is how credible is it that all humans were so wicked that all had to be put to death--with the exception of Noah.  Surely, there must have been a considerable minority who, while not being perfect, were not so evil that they deserved to die, especially in such a violent manner.

One reason that Yahweh gave for eliminating life was that humans had become very violent.  Yet later you will observe incidents in which God condoned and even directed acts of violence.  One has to ask why the animals and birds had to die so unpleasantly because of the sins of humankind.  The Lord could have eliminated all those he did not want to live simply by making them cease to breath the next time they went to sleep. 

Now for some technical considerations.  God told Noah to make the ark 450 feet in length.  (This is approximate because the original unit of measurement in the Bible was cubits.)  450 feet is 150 yards.  That is the length of 1 1/2 football fields.  It is not likely that humans near the beginning of the world could have built a seaworthy ship of that length made of wood three decks high with ample weight-producing bitumen to prevent leaks.  Presumably, the longest wooden ship ever built was the schooner Wyoming.  It was finished in 1909 with a length of 450 feet.

Then there is the problem of how many animals and birds could be accommodated.  Today it is estimated that there are 5,000 species of just the mammals and 10,000 species of birds.  There are other species of animals.  If you were to take just the mammals and birds that exist today in pairs, you would have 30,000 creatures.  Say that there were only one-third as many of them in Noah's time.  That would bring the number down to 10,000 creatures.  That means a lot of bodies and a lot of weight to add to the ship.  Many of those creatures do not regularly get along.

Noah had to load food for everyone for a whole year that added significantly to the weight.  He had to take care to provide the proper diet for each species.  He could not have them all eat a simple diet such as just oats or soybeans.  He had to be especially mindful of the predators who had to be kept satiated at all times or they could cause serious death.  Where did he get the meat for all the carnivores?  The vegetarian species had to often have fresh vegetation to eat.  Where could Noah get that if there was only water outside?  Then there was the problem of all the body waste of the creatures.  It could be tossed overboard into the water, but that still must have kept Noah and his family very busy.

The food problem was not over after they landed.  There could not have been much food available after the land was underwater for one year.  Noah had to have stored enough food for the long period of time that it took new plants to grow.  The carnivores may have had to learn to be satisfied with eating fish for a long time.

After everyone was out of the ark, Noah offered one of a kind of bird and ritually clean animal as a sacrifice.  It is a mystery how Noah came to know the definition of a ritually clean animal.  Yahweh never gave the definition of that until two centuries later in Leviticus 11 after the Israelites left Mt. Sinai.  It must have taken a long time for Noah to perform all those sacrifices since there were so many animals.

The odor of the sacrifices was pleasing to the Lord.  (It is curious that he was impressed by the odor since you would think that he could have produced that odor and even better ones anytime he wanted in his home in heaven.)  Apparently, it was pleasing enough that he then stated, "I promise that never again will all living beings be destroyed by a flood."(Genesis 9:11)  This was a covenant he made with Noah, his descendants, and all who came out of the boat with Noah.

To this day, Yahweh has kept his promise not to destroy everyone in one world-wide flood.  Nevertheless, small floods continue to happen frequently.  They can be the simple result of heavy rains or can accompany monsoons and tornadoes.  Whatever the surrounding situation, floods are one of the most lethal types of natural disasters.  They kill more people than hurricanes and earthquakes.  Since God's big flood, millions have died in numerous little floods.

In God's promise, he did not preclude killing all the world's living beings in some other manner.  It has been speculated that he might end the world by fire.  He could kill all life without fire, but simply by extreme heat.  Then he could bring extreme cold.  Some geologists have pointed out that at one time most of earth could have been covered by glaciers--a "snowball earth."  If the earth were made colder than it was even then, it could become totally covered with ice for as long as God wanted.

He could kill all living things the way he killed the dinosaurs and assorted other creatures about 65 million years ago--by asteroids.  He could send more than one asteroid to make sure every living being was destroyed.  The rock could be big enough to split off any number of little pieces.  If he got so angry that he destroyed almost all living beings with a flood, how can you trust that he would not get mad again and decide to destroy once again?

What is evidence, outside of the Hebrew Bible, of a catastrophic flood that killed almost all living beings on land and saved only a tiny few on a boat?  The Bible claims that the floodwater covered the highest mountains and continued to rise to 25 feet above that.  It is true that there are stories from cultures around the world of a great flood that caused great destruction, but the details vary considerably.  There are several Great Flood epics from the civilization of Sumer, which lasted from about 3500 to 2000.  The earliest myth could have been first started well before 3500 when the Sumerians were nomads.  In this myth the god Enlil had trouble sleeping due to the considerable noise caused by humans so he decided to do away with them with a flood.

A later Sumerian myth involved the hero Ziusudra who was warned by a god named Enki to tear down his house and build a boat.  Enki knew that his fellow gods were planning to send a great flood.  He was fond of Ziusudra and so decided to secretly warn him.(Barthel, 51)  There is the Sumerian legend written down around 2500.  It is the story of Ut-napishtim that is contained within the widely known epic poem The Epic of Gilgamesh.  Ut-napishtim was told by Ea one of the gods to build a ship.  He related that he loaded the ark with the seed of all living things, the beasts of the field, all his extended family, and all craftsmen. 

There are differences in the stories of Ut-napishtim and Noah.  It only rained seven days as opposed to 40 days in the Bible.  After the flood was over, the survivors found that all humankind had turned to clay.  The ship landed on Mt. Nisir, not on the Ararat range as reported in the Bible.  The biggest difference between the two versions is that in the earlier one the gods were also tormented by the Flood.  In the Noah story, Yahweh remained well apart when he sent the Flood to punish human depravity.  The story was turned into a morality play.

The tale in the Bible of Noah was written down almost 2,000 years after The Epic of Gilgamesh.  Until the 1900's in our time, the impression was that the only one unique story of the Great Flood was the Tanakh version.  Now we know that there were more accounts involving different characters circulating for millennia before the Biblical version was written down.  It looks like the Bible writers based their Flood story on the earlier myths.

There is the further question of what the historical and archaeological records tell us.  The first event to investigate is what traces were left of Noah's ark.  This is a question that came up long ago and has accordingly been extensively investigated for a long time.  People enthusiastic about finding the ark have been trying since at least the early 1800's.  A mountain shepherd reported that he had seen the ark on Mt. Ararat.

In 1833 a Turkish expedition claimed to have glimpsed the prow of a wooden ship sticking out of a glacier.  Various expeditions have been mounted since but none involved archaeologists.  Pieces of wood have been found but none have been authenticated.  After all, how would you know if even a piece of wood proven to be 5,000 years old actually came from Noah's vessel?  Several airplane pilots claimed to have seen wreckage of a ship.(Werner Keller, The Bible as History 2nd Revised Ed. (New York:  William Morrow, 1981) 55-56.)  No one has presented adequate evidence of an ark on Mt. Ararat.

One reason for the disinterest that has been shown by archaeologists is the very imprecise reference in Genesis to "the mountains of Ararat" as a place where the ark came to rest.  Ararat was the name given in the Bible to the old land Urarte, which roughly corresponds to the present area of Armenia.  That is a huge swath of land so who knows where the ark would be.  It may well be that the writers were vague because they had no idea where the putative ark really landed.

Then there is this problem that occurred to me.  I am sure that others must have thought of it.  After all, thousands of books have been written about the Flood with most of them mentioning the ark.(Id.)  Consider that Mt. Ararat and other mountains close to it both in proximity and in height must have had snow on their peaks.  Mt. Ararat is 16,915 feet high and covered with snow most of the year.

Surely Noah and his companions would not have chosen to get out of the ark when it went back down to the level of the peak.  Imagine the situation.  It would have been very cold for one thing.  They would have had to wait at the peak until the water receded down to a level where they could exit the ark and walk freely.  They would certainly not seek to live on Mt. Ararat.  At that height, they would not have been able to either grow crops or to find game to hunt.  Even as they remained in the ark, it must have been extremely cold.  How could they survive that?

At the level of 16,000 feet, the water may have been frozen if it was the cold months, including the water inside the ark.  Wouldn't the ark get stuck in the snow and ice?  So maybe the ark did stay at the very top, in ice.  But then how did the passengers ever get down?

Assume the water was not frozen.  Summer could have arrived.  All they had to contend with was cold water.  If the ark ever began to get stuck on the rocks at the top, Noah's family could have gotten out to push it back into the water.  Not an easy task since it was 450 feet long.  It should have been obvious to them that they had to do everything they could to remain in the ark and keep it afloat.  If it got immovably stuck in the rocks, they would still have to wait until the water receded enough to enable them to walk back down carrying all their belongings.  So the statement in the Bible that the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat could very well mean that was the very first ground it touched.  It does not mean it stayed there.  It could have still kept floating, maybe with some pushing by Noah's family.

This had to be what happened as corroborated by the Bible.  To see how much water had receded, Noah sent out a dove three times.  The second time it returned with an olive tree leaf.  That showed that the leaves of many trees were exposed.(Genesis 8:11)  Every indication was that the ark still had all its occupants.  The third time Noah sent out the dove, it did not return.  Noah saw that the ground was getting dry but still did not release anyone.  Instead, it was not until "the earth was completely dry"(Genesis 8:14) that God told Noah to let everyone out.

That had to mean that the ark had to have descended to a very low level.  Therefore, it could not have stayed on Mt. Ararat.  If the seekers after the ark on Mt. Ararat had only read the relevant Genesis passages carefully, they could have realized that the ark very likely ended up somewhere on low ground.  Who knows where that would have been.  Based on the gross improbability that many of the events reviewed here ever happened, there was never a one-year journey by anyone on any ark in a Great Flood.

Then there is the question of whether there was every any great flood that completely covered all the earth.  Archeologists and geologists have examined the possibility of an all-encompassing world flood very closely.  They have had to engage in extensive digging in the area of the Fertile Crescent.

In 1923 a well-financed joint British-American expedition started in ancient Ur, the very same town from which Abraham, the first of the Israelite patriarchs, originated.  They dug for several years finding numerous artifacts, including precious stones and jewelry.  These items had to have been abandoned around 2,000.  Attention was then directed to finding evidence of the Flood of the Bible.  The diggers eventually came to a layer of clay that was several feet thick.  It was an unmistakable sign of flooding.  The digging continued until the thickness of the clay was 10 feet.  Then the diggers once more found pieces of pottery as signs of prior civilization.  It then looked like the Flood had been found.  It seemed to have occurred in 4000.  As more digging was done in the years that followed, more signs of flooding around Mesopotamia were found.  However, it was realized that these indications did not show one great flood.  Instead, there were different floods at different times, sometimes centuries apart.  In Ur, there are not even indications that there was any extended interruption of activity.(Keller, 48-49)

One reason that the myth of a great flood could have developed is that it is true that there were big floods that could have extended for hundreds of miles in all directions.  Some took place at different times.  To villagers who had never traveled many miles in their entire lives, floodwaters this extensive could have been assumed to be covering the entire earth.

Then there is the element of exaggeration.  We all tend to engage in a little exaggeration as we recount a harrowing experience.  It is usually not done consciously.  The exaggeration can be further amplified as it is passed on to future generations.  In the case of the big floods, inhabitants of different regions could have told similar stories about floods in the past.  Since the stories had similar elements, the listeners from the various localities could have come to the mistaken conclusion that there had once been one great flood that covered the whole earth.

The idea could have come from the end of the Ice Age about 12,000 ya (10,000 B.C.E.).   It is well established that much water was produced by the melting of the glaciers that existed at that time.  The water level of the oceans and the seas went much higher.  The Mediterranean rose significantly.  So it stands to reason that there could have been extensive floods in many areas to a level that had not been seen before.  It would have been a destructive and traumatic experience with many people and animals dying.

When the Judaic writers fashioned their version, they exaggerated that the water level surpassed the highest peaks by 25 feet.  10,000 is a long time to 2500, the time of the flood stories that have been discovered.  The intensity of those Ice Age floods could have made such an impact and such captivating drama that their stories were readily passed on through the intervening generations.

Now for a review of the actions of Yahweh in bringing on the Great Flood.  We are told that the Lord became displeased with how wicked and evil and violent humans were.  He noted that they had evil thoughts all the time.  So it appears that he condemned them even for their thinking and not just for their actions.  This is a very strict standard.  It is hard to believe that so many people in the world were so wantonly and irredeemably evil with only one exception, Noah.

Say that the Flood took place very early in the existence of the world.  Assume that is was so early that there were only 1,000 human inhabitants.  Surely of those, at least 10% would have followed acceptable standards of conduct.  They may not have been perfect but still would have lived with rectitude.  They would not have deserved to be killed.  The number of people would have likely been higher than 10% or 100.  Even if only 1% or 10 had been righteous, they should have been spared in addition to Noah's family.  We have discussed before that we have personally observed that the great majority of people can be counted as good people.  This is as long as the standard of conduct is not that of perfection.

Perfection is the implication from the claim that Noah had no faults.  Think of this.  If Noah had possessed just a few minor faults, God may have decided to kill off every last human being along with all the animals.  Maybe the fish would have been allowed to survive.  To this day, the world might only be inhabited by fish.  You and i would not be here.

What is really hard to believe is that God would have been so demanding of humans that he would expect perfection.  It is not hard to notice that it is easy to make mistakes.  The question that has to be asked is how serious is any particular mistake, i.e. how much harm does it bring.  Unless the errant act has serious consequences, a less onerous punishment should be considered.  Certainly the death of practically all should be out of the question.  Then there is the observation that God created all these vile creatures.  He was responsible for that.  How could he then turn on them so easily?

Surely, a just, caring, and thoughtful God would not go to such an extreme as he supposedly did.  It is very hard to believe there could be such a god.  The Judeo-Christian belief has been that God is very merciful.  The Flood illustrates the very opposite.

Abraham

In connection with the Bible narrative concerning Abraham, the first patriarch of the Jews, the relevant passages all indicate that they were written well after the time in which they purportedly took place.  There was a famine in Canaan that was so bad that Abraham and his family were forced to go to Egypt.  Reportedly, it happened all too often that there were droughts in the deserts of Canaan that brought famine.  The Semites such as Abraham would then go to Egypt where they could sojourn on the fertile lands near the Nile.  The Egyptians were hospitable enough to allow this.  Later they were purportedly allowed to stay in the fertile land of Goshen.  Genesis 12:16 states the king allowed Abraham "flocks of sheep and goats, cattle, donkeys, slaves, and camels."

There are two sound reasons for doubting the accuracy of this passage.  The Egyptians looked down on the Semites calling them "Sandramblers" and "Asiatics."  It is unlikely that the Pharaoh would have given Abraham flocks of animals and slaves.  Then there is the inclusion of camels at the end of the list.  Abraham is supposed to have lived around 2000.  Camels were not domesticated until the 1200's.(Barthel 79)  Suppose Abraham lived as late as 1800.  That is the difference of around 800 years.  Donkeys would have been the cargo animals in Abraham's time.  It can be said that an error like this is minor and excusable in an old history book.  The problem with that explanation is that this is no ordinary book, this is the Word of God.  As such, you expect perfection.

The next two points are not mere errors.  It looks very much as if they were intentional insertions by later writers into older narratives.  The first interpolation occurred after Abraham defeated four kings.  On his way back from his victory, Abraham was met by the king of Salem, Melchizedek, who gave him bread and wine and blessed him.  This king of Salem mysteriously came out of nowhere.  He had not been involved in the war nor had he been mentioned in any connection before in Genesis.  It turned out Melchizedek was also "a priest of the Most High God."(Genesis 14:18)  Abraham gave Melchizedek one-tenth of the loot he had taken from the four kings.

Tithing

All kinds of questions pop up.  Yahweh had only recently appeared to Abraham.  All he had told him was to move to Canaan, which he would later give to his descendants who would build a great nation.  He told Abraham nothing about establishing a priesthood or a religion or following any rules of worship.  He did not do that until centuries later when he communicated with Moses on Mt. Sinai.  It was only after that revelation that the Jews established a priesthood and followed rules mandated by him.  They embraced Yahweh as their own God who in turn was supposed to be only concerned with them.

From whence then this priest Melchizedek?  If such an incident did take place, it would have had to be that Melchizedek was the priest of some god other than Yahweh.  Did Melchizedek refer to his god as "the Most High God"?  It makes no sense to believe that Melchizedek was a priest of Yahweh.  Abraham was the only person to whom Yahweh had revealed himself.  Melchizedek, king of Salem, never again appeared as a character in the Tanakh.  Salem was originally named Jebus and was accordingly held by Jebusites who were later mentioned in the Tanakh.  They held it until David defeated them around 1000.  The city eventually became known as Jerusalem.  If Melchizedek was a real man, he had to have been a priest of whatever gods the Jebusites followed at the time.

The most likely explanation for the appearance of Melchizedek is this.  The Judaic priests inserted it later to demonstrate that from the time of Abraham there was the ritual of tithing.  Accordingly it should always be followed by all Judaics.(Barthel, 78)  Furthermore, the tithe was to be given to priests in Jerusalem.

The Circumcision Covenant

Judaism has long been well known for its requirement of circumcision of its males.  One might get the impression that is has always been a ritual directly commanded by their god Yahweh and followed only by the Hebrews.  It has been one of those things that has created a unique and special bond between God and his chosen people the Jews.  It turns out the procedure was used in Egypt before 2800.   Wall paintings related to circumcision can be found from that time.  Circumcision may have begun in western Africa thousands of years before that.  The Israelites were not the first to adopt it.

Yahweh told Abraham that he would give Canaan to him and his descendants at Genesis 12:2-3, again at Genesis 15:18, and again at Genesis 17:3-14.  In the first two passages, he only made the offer to Abraham without requiring anything in return.  However in the third passage, he issued a clear command that he expected Abraham's descendants to fulfill as a sign of a covenant between him and them.

What God came up with as the sign of the covenant was very peculiar.  You would think that God would have chosen any number of methods by which the Jews could have been alerted of the importance of the covenant.  This demand was the only one made of them at this time.  The command was

You and your descendants must all agree to circumcise every male among you . . . and this will be a physical sign to show that my covenant with you is everlasting.  Any male who has not been circumcised will no longer be considered one of my people . . ."(Genesis 17:10-14)

If it appears people in Egypt and Africa were already circumcising their males, why any edict from God that it be done?  Yahweh's order was very strict with the threat of banishment from the community of a male who was not circumcised.

It is mind-boggling to think that the Lord would give male circumcision such importance that he would make it the sign of a profound, everlasting covenant.  At most, you would expect that he would have made a suggestion that males be circumcised for the hygienic reason of keeping the area under the foreskin clean and for facilitating sexual pleasure.   A small percentage of men experience pain when retracting their tightened foreskins.  They are the only ones who need circumcision.  The idea in medicine today is that surgery is always risky and should not be undertaken unless there is a clear need. 

It has to be asked what the purpose of that "sign" was.  For whom was the "sign" intended?  Was it for nonJews to be apprised of the covenant between God and the Jews?  Was it to remind the Jews themselves?  In either case, were the Jewish men to stick their dicks out to show evidence of the covenant?  Judaics observe a number of religious holidays during the year, but there is none at which this is supposed to take place.  There could be more clear methods of exhibiting a sign.  Yahweh could have ordered the building of a great shrine or the erection of a large stone tablet with the words of the covenant.

Then it has to be asked what is so important about having any sign in the first place.  It would seem sufficient to spread the word of this special covenant between God and the Jewish people.  Certainly Judaics have not hesitated through all these millennia to let the world know.  They have had help in announcing the pact from various other cultures and individuals who have admired their dedication in obeying their Lord.

If there are dangers in circumcision today, you can imagine what they were in the past.  Before 1900 C.E., there was not much recognition of the precautions needed to be taken to prevent infection in surgery.  It was not realized that cleanliness was extremely important.  You can just imagine how much damage was done in the circumcision procedure before 1900 C.E.

Go back to the time of Abraham.  The stone flint was most likely the tool used then.  Remember that anesthesia did not come until 1849 C.E.  The procedure is less risky for babies but a much greater danger for adult men.  How many of those who acquiesced to circumcision later in life may have suffered serious damage?  Perhaps this was why cultures other than the Jewish one abandoned the practice.  The Greeks and the Romans did not look upon it favorably.  One has to ask if it was so important, why didn't Yahweh send down all Jewish male babies without a foreskin at birth?  Why not all human male babies?

The truth behind the matter is that God did not even mention circumcision.  It was the decision of priests at some point to make circumcision so important that it was to be a solemn sign of an important promise that God had made to the Jewish tribes.(Barthel, 77-78)  It may not have been a unanimous decision among the priests.  There may have been a minority that disagreed with the idea.

I have surmised that there could have been an understandable reason for tying circumcision to God's promise to Abraham to provide him with many descendants.  This could have been a concern that the foreskin interfered with transfer of semen into the woman.  If the Israelites were to multiply into a numerous people, any interference with conception had to be assiduously avoided.  If they had thought it more closely, they should have concluded that the foreskin readily retracts during intercourse and so does not interfere with the semen.  You would certainly think that God would have known this.

Joseph

Scholars have studied the story of Joseph and have found a number of details to be anachronistic.  It has been assumed for millennia that Joseph lived around 1800.  Yet there were occurrences recounted in Genesis that could not have taken place that far back.

Some examples are that the symbol of a cow for a "year" did not come into use until after 305.  Property and tax privileges of Egyptian priests appeared only in the period from 664-625.  Camels were not tamed until about 1200.  Potiphar, the man who was the master of Joseph when he was a slave, supposedly had the title of "captain of the guard."  However, that title did not appear in Egypt until after 525.  Donald Redford in his 1970 book A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph found 23 points that count against Joseph having been an Egyptian prime minister before 1580, at least based on the details provided at the end of Genesis.(Keller, 105-106)  Other details such as the use of the name Potiphar could not have occurred before 1100, a time close to the time of Saul and David.

With all these questionable aspects, it has become very difficult not to conclude that the story of Joseph was a fictional narrative put together by storytellers living from 800 to 300.  Besides putting down an interesting story, they may have wanted to show the Jews living in later times that the Israelites had gone to Egypt at the invitation of one of their own, Joseph, the governor.  Consequently, they had every right to be there.  The writers wanted to contradict any claims that their ancestors had gone to Egypt to seek help because they were hungry in times of famine in Canaan.  This is the picture that Egyptians painted.  They alleged that they would allow the "Asiatics" to graze their cattle by the Nile and would sell wheat to them.  Remember that Genesis 12:10 supports this.  It gives a severe famine as the reason Abraham went to live in Egypt.  It should not be a surprise that there were disastrous droughts in the desert of Canaan with consequent famine.  It is unfortunate that there is not more gratitude in the Tanakh shown by the Jews toward the Egyptians.

Two popular stories told in ancient Egypt cast additional doubt on the Joseph story.  Versions of them may have been incorporated into the tale of Joseph.  The "Tale of the Two Brothers" was found in the Orkney Papyrus and was popular around 1300.  The wife of the older brother proposed to the younger one that he go to bed with her for an hour.  The younger brother became enraged and rejected the advance.  She became afraid that the younger would inform the older one of her suggestion and told her husband that he had raped her.  This sounds very much like the false accusation by the wife of Joseph's slave owner after Joseph spurned her advances.  The Bible writers would likely have been aware of the story and may have decided to appropriate it into the Joseph story.  Then there was the Egyptian story called The Autobiography of Idri-Mi, which came out between 1480-1450.  It recounted Idri-Mi's reconciliation with older brothers.  Again Judaic writers could have adapted parts of it to the Joseph story.

Most professional Bible students do not believe there was a true person named Joseph as depicted in Genesis.  There is no mention made of him in the Egyptian annals, and the Egyptians were meticulous keepers of records.  It may have been that at some time in the distant past, there was a Semitic prime minister on whom Joseph was roughly modeled.  His legend may have been passed down orally to later Semitic generations.  If there was such a powerful official, he may have lived in the era of the Hyksos from 1720 to 1580.  The Hyksos were mostly Semitic warriors who invaded Egypt by surprise and ruled it with an iron hand.  Egyptians did not write about them because they were loathe to write about a period in which they were subordinate to a foreign power.

Jews have not been involved in the practice of slavery for well over 2,000 years.  There are rules in the book of Leviticus that provide for compassionate treatment of slaves.  The Tanakh also reminds readers to remember the time when they were slaves in Egypt.  Yet ironically, after a period of great famine, "Joseph made slaves of the people from one end of Egypt to the other."(Genesis 47:21)

Incidentally, it appears that Egyptians did not treat slaves as harshly as other cultures did such as the Assyrians and the Romans.  The only true slaves who became the property of their Egyptian owners were prisoners of war.  Other people who had to perform hard work were engaged in forced labor.  They were paid and were free to go to their own homes at the end of the day.  Many times residents agreed to a condition of forced labor after being faced with hard economic times.  This may have happened to the Israelites.

The Violent Exit (Exodus)

The central human figure in the celebrated Exodus from Egypt--in fact in all of Judaism--was Moses.  Again as in the case of Joseph, most unbiased students of history and of the Bible do not believe Moses was the same person as depicted in the Bible.  There may have been a strong leader who led a group out of Egypt to the east sometime around 1300, but they are doubtful that it was the Moses described in the Torah.

There are a number of items that arouse suspicion of falsity from the early life of Moses.  At birth the life of Moses was under threat because the pharaoh (king) allegedly wanted all Hebrew boys killed because he thought there were too many Hebrews in Egypt.  The pharaoh began his campaign by ordering the two Egyptian women who were midwives to the Hebrew women to kill all the newly-born boys.

Right away it has to be asked why the Hebrew women had to have Egyptian midwives.  Surely the Hebrews could have had enough capable Hebrew midwives to take care of their own.  Besides two midwives may not have been enough to take care of the Hebrew multitude.  The two midwives disobeyed the pharaoh who had to send for them to give an explanation.  In the book of Exodus, they gave him the lame excuse that they could not get to the Hebrew mothers in time before their boys were born.(Exodus 1:19)  Why could they not kill the boys right after birth?  Why didn't the pharaoh just replace the two midwives with others who would do the job?

It looks like the pharaoh got no respect, not even from midwives.  So he issued a national decree to all:  "Take every newborn baby boy and throw him into the Nile, but let the girls live."(Id. 1:22)  It seems that if the king was serious about controlling the Hebrew population he would have had all the girls killed, too.  Besides why would the Egyptians want to kill off boys who would grow to be useful laborers?  The Hebrews had shown no sign of wanting to rebel before then.

This royal order is the reason the mother of Moses placed him in the Nile river in a basket.  The king's daughter found him and knew right away it was one of the Hebrew babies.  Still she decided to adopt him.  She had the mother of Moses nurse him until he was old enough and after that raised him as her own son.  This is hard to believe.  The Bible and other documents indicate that the Egyptians looked down on the Israelites.  What then would make the Egyptian princess so eager to adopt a Hebrew baby?  Furthermore, it is open to question that the pharaoh would have allowed his daughter to keep a Hebrew boy after he had given the order that they all be killed.

The pharaoh talked to Moses and Aaron when Moses was 80 years old.  That is how much time had passed since the first pharaoh issued the killing order at the time Moses was born.  The current pharaoh pointed out to them, "You people have become more numerous than the Egyptians."(Exodus 5:5)  If the original king's order had been obeyed, there would have been few if any Hebrews left in Egypt 80 years later.  Instead they had supposedly proliferated greatly.

There is no reason to believe that the Egyptian people would have been so bloodthirsty as to obey the king's order.  Like the midwives they were probably too compassionate to kill innocent boys.  In addition there is no evidence that the Egyptians had any quarrel with the Hebrews.  They had lived peacefully with them for 430 years.

I read a rationalization by a Christian minister for God's later killing of the first-born sons of Egypt.  He said it was justified by the pharaoh's decree in Exodus 1:22 quoted above.  It is obvious that the pharaoh's order must have been widely disobeyed.  In addition there is no indication other than in the Bible that the Egyptians or any other ancient kingdom ever put to death the baby sons of any outside group.

Then there is the suspicion that this basket-in-the-river story was likely copied by the Hebrew writers from a very old Semitic folk legend.  To adorn his own beginnings, King Sargon told of being put in a river when he was a baby and then being rescued.  He started the Semitic dynasty of Akkad way back in 2360. 

The next point of suspicion is the fleeing of the young Moses to the east in fear of Egyptian authorities after he had killed an Egyptian.  It sounds very much like a well-known tale from several centuries before.  It is the memoir of the nobleman Sinuhe who got involved in some political intrigue and came to fear for his life.  This occurred between 1971 and 1928 during the reign of Pharaoh Sesostris I.  He was able to escape to northern Canaan where he lived prosperously until he reached an old age.  At that point, a letter from Sesostris I told him to return home where he would be held in esteem.  He went back and lived the rest of his years in comfort.

Moses also returned to Egypt, but the Tanakh does not say that he had lived in comfort.  Moses wisely fled far away from Egypt to a region in the eastern part of the Sinai peninsula known as Midian.  The people there were nomadic.  The priest of Midian accepted Moses to the extent that he gave him one of his daughters as a wife.  Exodus does not say what god this priest of Midian revered.  Some scholars have concluded that he was a priest of Yahweh, a nature god, and that he introduced Moses to the worship of Yahweh.

Other students of the origin of Judaism believe that Moses was an Egyptian priest of a monotheistic religion that worshipped the sun god Ra-Herakhty or Aten.  A very strong plea for this thesis was made by Gary Greenberg, longtime president of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York.  In his book The Bible Myth, he went into extensive detail to lay out the early development of the religion of the Israelites.  One of the interesting claims was that the Hebrew patriarchs were copied from Egyptian mythical characters.(Gary Greenberg, The Bible Myth:  The African Origins of the Jewish People (Secaucus, N.J.:  Citadel Press, 1996.)

The first place that the Bible says that Yahweh approached Moses was in Midian.  By then Moses seems to have settled down to a calm life with the Midianites.  Exodus states that at this time Yahweh became concerned with the condition of the Israelites since they "were still groaning under their slavery and cried out for help.  Their cry went up to God who heard their groaning and remembered his covenant . . ."(Exodus 2:23-24)

This was a strange state of affairs.  It took the cry of the Israelites for God to realize that they were suffering oppression as slaves (or coerced laborers).  How could he not have been aware long before of their condition whom he had taken on as his people?  He had told Abraham that he would give him many descendants who would become nations.(Genesis 17:6)  He declared, "I will be their God."(Id. 17:8)  In the first place, you would expect God to be aware of what was going on in the world in general.  You would think he would know who was enslaved in different parts of the globe especially if they were the group of people he had chosen to promote and care for.

Furthermore, the slave condition was not something that developed suddenly and unexpectedly.  The Israelites had reportedly been slaves for a number of years.  At least that is the impression the Bible chroniclers tended to leave.  At one point, it was stated that the Israelites remained in Egypt for 430 years.(Exodus 12:40)  However, that was contradicted before in the claim that the sojourn would be 400 years.  That number was mentioned by God himself in his prophecy to Abraham, "[T]hey will be slaves there and will be treated cruelly for four hundred years."(Genesis 15:11)  The Lord went on to predict that Abraham's descendants would return to Canaan but with a surprising reservation.  "I will not drive out the Amorites until they become so wicked that they must be punished."(Id. 15:16)

Two big questions spring forward.  (1) Why did God have to wait to drive out the Amorites?  The Lord had all the reason necessary for driving out the Amorites immediately in favor of his chosen Israelites.  After all, he had made the latter his favorites over all other groups so he had all the power to decide to benefit them over others.  He would do that many times later on.  In addition, if he knew that the Amorites were going to act badly in the future, there was ample reason to throw them out posthaste.  Instead, the Israelites were forced to seek their survival in Egypt as slaves after being hit by famines.  (2) Why did the Israelites have to go into slavery?  They remained in slavery for centuries after that.  The people may have become so poor that they had to hire themselves out as laborers to the Egyptians who had more land and money.  God could have thought to prevent his people from having to go into slavery, perhaps by giving them the land of the Amorites.

At any rate, the Lord appeared to Moses.  Actually, here is a strange occurrence.  First it was the angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses as a flame in the middle of a burning bush.(Exodus 3:2)  From there the Lord took over inside the burning bush and gave instructions to Moses.  There are several places in the Bible where angels appeared as putative representatives of God.  It would seem that they could be counted as members of a pantheon of gods below Yahweh.  In this case, Judaism is not monotheistic.  The Lord's instructions to Moses were for him to return to Egypt, confront the pharaoh, and tell him he had to release the Israelites for three days so that they could worship their god.  It was only for three days.

Moses told God he was afraid that the Israelites would pay no attention to him when he told them he had talked to God.  He also felt he was not articulate enough to impress the king.  Yahweh had already presented the miracle of the burning bush.  Now he offered additional miracles.  He had Moses throw down his walking stick and it turned into a snake.  He then told Moses to pick up the snake by the tail and it turned back into the walking stick.  The Lord gave Moses additional power to perform two more miracles to show the Israelites in Egypt.  Moses then set out with his family to Egypt.

Here is a strange incident that happened on the way to Egypt.  Yahweh had spent considerable time instructing Moses and encouraging him to undertake the rescue mission.  Yet this is what we find in Exodus 4:24-26:

At a camping place on the way to Egypt, the Lord met Moses and tried to kill him.  Then Zipporah, his wife, took a sharp stone, cut off the foreskin of her son, and touched Moses' feet with it. . . .  And so the Lord spared Moses' life.

Why is this paragraph found here?  It had nothing to do with the assignment that Yahweh had given Moses of returning to Egypt.  If anything, the attempt by Yahweh to kill Moses risked the trust and willingness of Moses to carry out the task.  In any case, why try to kill him?  Yahweh had a hard enough time in convincing him in the first place.  The most probable explanation is that the procircumcision Torah writers inserted it later to demonstrate how important circumcision is to the Lord.  Are we also supposed to conclude that excised foreskins have medicinal properties?

Another interesting digression was written into the account at Exodus 6:20.  It states, "Amram married his father's sister, Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses."  Look closely and notice that it says that Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron, had an aunt whom he married and Aaron and Moses came from that union.  Might either Aaron or Moses have had a physical defect including a mental one because of this incest?

Incidentally, the Torah exhibits very precise genealogical records going all the way back to Adam including the exact ages at death of some of those involved.  It is hard to believe how such accurate records could have been kept in the early years after Adam, given that writing did not get invented until well after that.

At this point Moses is supposed to have appeared before the Israelite leaders and swiftly convinced them to follow him.  Moses was a stranger among the Israelites.  He did not grow up with them since he was allegedly brought up by an Egyptian princess.  A few may have known about him because they were told of his life by his original Hebrew family.  The family may have only told a few close friends.  After all, at least in the young years of Moses, there was a danger that the pharaoh would hear about the Israelite Moses and have him killed since he was supposed to have been killed at birth.  There was no indication in Exodus that anyone knew Moses at all, much less as a community leader.  He left Egypt as a youth and did not return to Egypt until he was 80 years old.

With all this, we are supposed to believe that Moses met with the Israelite leaders and informed all of them of some key facts.  There was no dissension among them nor among the general populace.  They all accepted that Moses had been approached by a new and strange god who did not even wish to reveal his name and who wanted to liberate them by having them leave their established homes and go marching off into the desert.  Supposedly, Moses was able to convince them by employing the magic that God had taught him.  Yet there were others who could perform the same trick.

The Lord told Moses and Aaron to go in front of the pharaoh and perform the miracle of the walking stick that turns into a snake.  Aaron performed it successfully, but the king's magicians were able to perform the very same trick.  The king was not impressed since his magicians were just as capable.  You would think that only the representatives of the true God could have been able to perform the feat!

Ten Tortures of the Egyptians

Then the Lord had Moses and Aaron perform the first of several magic acts that agonized not just the pharaohs but all of Egypt.  Aaron touched the water of the Nile with his walking stick and turned the water into blood.  Aaron then went to all the rivers, canals, and pools with his stick and turned the water there into blood.  To make sure the Egyptians got the message, the water in wooden tubs and stone jars was also turned to blood.  All the fish died.  Again the king's magicians performed the same feat, so again the king was not impressed.  It is a mystery how the pharaoh's magicians could recreate this feat.  How could they turn the water into blood if it had already been turned into blood by the stick of Aaron?

It is not clear how long the water remained as blood in Egypt.  It may have stayed that way until the Israelites left.  There is the possibility that blood reverted to water after seven days.  There was an intense stench so that the people could not drink the blood.  It looks like the Israelites had to suffer to the same extent as the Egyptians.  Exodus says nothing about their being spared from the bloody mess.  It did point out clearly that the Israelites were free from suffering some of the later tortures but this was not one of them.  These and several other miracles were performed by Moses, Aaron, as well as the king's magicians.  Of course, God was behind those of Moses and Aaron.

Are we to believe these miracles really took place?  They are very fantastic.  They took effect all across Egypt.  Did the Israelite storytellers get carried away when they first told them orally?  Did the scribes who later put them in writing make them up, or at least contribute some of their own exaggeration?  Why don't these kinds of miracles occur anymore?  Why doesn't God show up to aid the good guys with big actions like these?

There are some statements made by God in this episode in Egypt that are important to point out.  When God first approached Moses in Midian, he made it very clear that he wanted Moses to lead his people permanently out of Egypt so that they could go live in Canaan.(Exodus 3:7-10)  He repeated his intentions in verse 17 and again at Exodus 6:6-8.

Yet in his instructions to Moses on what he was to tell the king, he told Moses to entreat, "Now allow us to travel three days into the desert to offer sacrifices to the Lord, our God."(Id. 3:18)  The Lord instructed him to make the same request at Exodus 7:16.  The only request that Moses ever made to the pharaoh was to let the Israelites go worship in the desert.  He never mentioned anything about the people leaving Egypt for good.  It was only supposed to be a religious retreat.

From this, there can be no other conclusion but that the Lord was devious in his messages to the king.  He could have honestly told the king that he wanted to permanently take the Israelites out of Egypt.  He had the power to take them wherever he wanted, so why not be honest about his intentions?  You wonder what Moses and Aaron thought about this deceit.  Moses was reluctant to approach the pharaoh so it is open to wonder if the real reason was that he was reluctant to deceive the pharaoh.  Then again, why did Yahweh need intermediaries in order to communicate with pharaoh?  He could have addressed the pharaoh as a voice out of the air.  He did that with Moses, Aaron, and others in the Bible.

In the second torture, the Lord brought a vast proliferation of frogs all over Egypt.  Again there was no exemption of the Hebrews.  Did God forget them?  Again as with the case of the blood, the king's magicians readily replicated the feat.  It is a mystery why the Judaic writers decided to mention that these magicians were able to produce the same miracles as the Lord.  This certainly diminished the Lord's luster in the eyes of the pharaoh and his advisors.

The total number of tortures inflicted was ten.  The next disaster was an infestation of gnats that the magicians finally failed to replicate.  This was followed by an invasion by flies throughout the land.  This time it was clearly mentioned that the region where the Israelites lived was not affected.

Pharaoh must have been suspicious from the start about what Moses and Aaron were up to.  The king did not express any disapproval of the worship of the Israelite god.  Egyptians were not known for strictly demanding the worship of only their gods.  Pharaoh told Moses and Aaron their people could sacrifice "in this country."(Exodus 8:25)  The two leaders rejected the offer with the questionable excuse that the Egyptians would be offended and stone them because of the animals they would sacrifice.

The pharaoh would not relent so the next national punishment was the death of all the animals of the Egyptians--their horses, donkeys, camels, cattle, sheep, and goats.  Those of the Israelites were spared.  Obviously, this created great hardship for all the Egyptians.  It must have greatly impacted them with respect to transportation, food, and clothing.  They must have been faced with an insurmountable dilemma . . . unless they could steal them from other groups of people that had not been affected.  Ah, the Israelites had all their animals.  Why not steal from them?  There is no mention of such a theft.  As a matter of fact, there is no mention of any retaliation for these tortures by the Egyptians against the Israelites.

The next national torture was the appearance of boils, which "became open sores on the people and the animals."(Id. 9:10)  But wait, weren't all the animals supposed to be dead?  OK, maybe this meant all the small animals like the dogs and the cats and the wild animals, but the Bible doesn't specify.

The next source of anguish was hail.  Exodus stated that it was the worst hailstorm in the history of Egypt and that the animals left outside were killed.  Animals were still around!  All persons who were outside were also killed.  Before launching the next plague, the Lord talked to Moses about the king at Exodus 10:1-2.  Here we see the real reason for all the tortures.

I have made him and his officials stubborn, in order that I may perform these miracles among them and in order that you may be able to tell your children and grandchildren how I made fools of the Egyptians.

The next disaster was an invasion of locusts that covered the ground completely.  Supposedly not many vegetables or fruit would have been left.  Between this and the killing of all the animals, it is likely that Egyptians would face starvation.

The pharaoh then acquiesced declaring, "It is clear that you are plotting to revolt.  No!  Only the men may go and worship the Lord if that is what you want."(Id. 10:11)  Again, Moses and Aaron did not compromise.  It was clear to everyone that the excuse to go worship was just a ruse to escape for good.  It is hard to believe that God would have to resort to this deception. 

The Lord next brought total darkness throughout all Egypt to the point where the Egyptians could not see each other.  The Israelites were spared this and had normal light in their area.  Ask yourself how this could have been possible.  Surely the Egyptians could still avail themselves of whatever source they used for light on any other night of the year, e.g. fire.  Then there is the question of how could it possibly have been totally dark in one area but not in Goshen where the Israelites were located only about 100 miles away?  To have total darkness, the sun would have had to be on the other side of the globe like it is at night with no moon visible.  Perhaps the Lord placed a giant spotlight over the Hebrews, but why didn't the Bible specify that?

The last and most brutal of all the tortures was the killing of every first-born son in Egypt from that of the pharaoh on down.  The Lord God even killed the first-born male of all the animals!(Id. 12:12)  The Israelite first-born sons could be spared if the household smeared the blood of a lamb on the doorposts and beams above the door.  Thus God would pass over those houses and leave their sons unharmed when he went through the night killing the first-born sons.

You have to wonder if any Israelites forgot to show blood on their front doors.  The Lord would have killed their first-born sons.  Presumably adult men even elderly ones were killed as long as they had been first-born sons.  Unbelievably this passing over is the basis for the Judaic Passover commemoration still held to this day.

Then there is this ludicrous situation--the animals had already been killed at least once.  There was the specific punishment in which all the animals of the Egyptians were killed.  You would think that not even one was left after that, given that the relevant passage specified "all."  The next disaster was that of the boils and Exodus 9:9 mentioned that the animals were struck by them along with the Egyptians.  What animals?  Many of the animals were killed a second time, these being the ones that were left outside when the Lord inflicted the hail disaster.  You can bet that most of the domestic animals were left outside since most Egyptians did not get any warning.  The wild animals were outside in the hail and must have all been killed.  Then the first born male animals were killed again as part of the Passover.  They were killed three times!

The pharaoh was tired of all the catastrophic punishments and let the Hebrews go.  The Egyptian people were happy to see them go.  The Lord told the Israelites to ask the Egyptians to give them their gold and silver jewelry and clothes.  The Egyptians complied.  It is understandable that the Israelites would need plenty of clothes for their upcoming journey in the desert.  You would think that they would especially need abundant footwear.  There would not be much need for gold and silver jewelry.

The Actual Departure

Exodus stated that when the Israelites set out they had 600,000 men.  Then it is mentioned that "a large number of other people"(Exodus 12:38) also went with them.  You can bet that the total population would have had to have been at least 1.2 million, after you added the women, the children, and these other people.  It is very hard to believe there could have been that many people on the excursion.  That would have been a tremendous amount of people to be able to survive in the desert with little water and little surrounding vegetation.

One thing is consistent with this high number of at least 1.2 million--the claim by the pharaoh that the population of Israelites had gotten too high.  To keep down their population, the pharaoh had supposedly ordered that all male babies be killed 80 years earlier.  However, if the Egyptians had been so concerned with too many Israelites, they would have surely welcomed their current desire to leave.  The pharaohs during all this time would have gladly allowed them to exit with the exception of a relatively small number of healthy laborers, say 20,000, which would have been plenty to carry out the tasks he needed done.

Then the Bible says the pharaoh changed his mind.  What happened?  Again Exodus stated that the Lord made him stubborn.  The king mounted his chariot and led his army with its 600 chariots and horses in pursuit of the departing Israelites.  Exodus stated that the Egyptian army with all its power caught up with the Israelites where they were camped by the Red Sea(Id. Exodus 14:9)  This makes sense since the Hebrews were on foot.  The Egyptians may have retrieved only some of the able-bodied ones and gladly let the rest go.

We are then told that the Lord parted the waters of the Red Sea to allow the entire slow-moving Israelite population of 1.2 million or more to walk through the seabed unscathed.  It had to take 1.2 million Hebrews including small children and elderly more than one day to cross the sea even if the Lord had made it completely dry by splitting it apart.

We are expected to believe that the Egyptian army stood there the whole time watching this and did nothing until the entire horde had safely gone through to the other side.  It was only then that the soldiers acted.  Yahweh then timed it perfectly so that while the Hebrews were able to make a complete escape he brought down the waters he had parted so that the Egyptians were trapped and drowned.  "Not one of them escaped."(Id. 14:28)

The first part of the story stating that the army caught up with the people while they were camped next to the Red Sea would most likely be what happened.  The Judaic writers did not think to leave the true part out when they chose to include the fantastic story of the Lord parting the Red Sea.  They couldn't pass up the chance to make a great impression on how powerful their god was.

So what are we to think about the credibility of this story of an Exodus?  First, the backdrop of the entire event is miracles.  They were performed by God personally or through Moses and Aaron.  Then there were the miracles that were duplicated by pharaoh's magicians.

These fantastic miracles affecting thousands of people were never performed again.  Yahweh did aid and feed the Israelites soon after they left Egypt.  After that, his miracles were only occasional and not as dramatic.  Why has there not been a continuation of miracles?  The Exodus took place about 3,300 years ago.  In that time Jews and other living beings have undergone great suffering.  They certainly could have benefited from more miracles.

One explanation is that we have learned in that time that even unusual events are the product of physically explained natural processes.  Hardly anyone today places much credence in miracles.  The miracles put forth in the Bible are therefore deeply suspect.  There is good reason to believe that Judaic writers put them in because they were intent on making their god supreme over all others.

Manipulation of the Pharaoh

Then there is the question of why it was necessary for God to bring so much agony to the Egyptian people.  It would be likely that just the first miracle would have been enough, the one in which all the water was turned into blood.  If Yahweh had allowed the blood to remain indefinitely, it would have had drastic consequences.  Any rational ruler would have given in.

If this had not been enough, the second disaster, the invasion of the frogs, would have sufficed.  In this second torture, the pharaoh informed Moses he would let his people go once the frogs were taken away.  It is certainly credible that the pharaoh would have relented at this point.

The pharaoh changed his mind because the Lord had openly declared to Moses on his journey back to Egypt that he would make him do this. "But I will make the king stubborn and he will not let the people go."(Exodus 4:21)  Yahweh made this declaration several times more.  The whole affair then looks very much like a puppet show with each one of the characters involved being dangled by Yahweh.  The Israelites obediently did everything God wanted of them.  At the same time, the pharaoh could not make free decisions.  If he had been able to act freely, the entire ordeal would have ended soon.  Instead the Lord pulled his strings to make him persist in holding back the Israelites all through the ten disasters. 

The Torah calls the ten tortures "punishments" but how can this be?  The pharaoh was not responsible for his actions since the Lord was manipulating him.  The Egyptian people did not know what was going on.  If they did, they had no power to overrule the pharaoh's decisions.

Egyptian Religious Tolerance

It needs to be clear that the Egyptians would not have been motivated to hold back the Hebrews from worship due to any lack of religious tolerance.  The only time there was religious intolerance in Egypt was during the reign of the pharaoh Akhenaten who was a rabid monotheistic worshipper of Aten.  He wanted the Egyptians to only worship this god and went so far as to destroy many of the shrines of other gods.

The pharaohs who succeeded him reversed his narrow policies.  The reaction against Akhenaten was so strong that a campaign was undertaken to blot out any memory of him.  Greenberg believed that Moses was the chief priest in the worship of Aten, and that after the death of Akhenaten he fought to preserve Atenism.(Greenberg 7)  Accordingly he led a departure of a horde of mostly Egyptian Aten believers.

The ancient Egyptians were tolerant of various gods including those of other cultures.  That was consistent with their worship of more than 2,000 gods.  The book of Exodus makes no mention of religious intolerance as a motive for the pharaoh's resistance.  He made it clear that his concern was the loss of needed labor.  The religious intolerance begun by the pharaoh Akhenaten (and possibly his chief priest Moses) was vigorously brought forward by the Israelites and perpetuated by the Yahwehists.

Egyptian Records

Historians say that the Egyptians kept very good records of events but shied away from reporting those incidents in which they were invaded or defeated by foreign armies.  They also point out that plagues and other natural disasters occurred at different times.  This is much different from the way Exodus portrayed the ten disasters where Yahweh brought them all in rapid succession.

The Egyptians may not have kept many records of natural disasters like infestations of gnats and flies, but when they came together closely in time, that may have been reason enough for at least a small comment.  Perhaps there would have been a mural painting or two commemorating the unusual events.  This would have been even more likely given that some of the disasters were unprecedented and severe.  The one in which water was turned into blood had to have been horrifying.  Then there was the death of all the animals.  Animals could be killed by epidemics but that was usually only one species at a time and not all perished.  These events would have made a stark impression on everyone. 

There was the unusual "punishment" of plunging all of Egypt into total darkness for three days.  Nothing like that has been recorded before or since.  Then there is the most bizarre and cruel of all the disasters--the killing of all the first-born males.  These tortures were not military defeats.  It is hard to believe that the Egyptians would not have made some note of them.

Remember that the Egyptian people, including any historians, did not know much if anything about the squabbles between the pharaoh and Moses.  They had little idea that these ten disasters had been created by outside antagonists.  The Egyptians had plenty of motivation to record these events because they would not have been aware that it was any kind of defeat or humiliation for the country.  Since there was no Egyptian report of these unusual and rapid disasters, that is another indication that they did not happen.

It is not credible that an empathetic and just god would use the extreme measures that Yahweh did.  He had other means at his disposal.  As an example he could have allowed the Hebrews to quietly sneak away and paralyzed the Egyptian army in order to prevent any chase.

Converting the Egyptians

In Yahweh's pronouncements about what he wanted to do, it is clear that he wanted to shock all the Egyptians.  As the Israelites were preparing to cross the Red Sea, he stated, "[M]y victory over the king and his army will bring me honor.  Then the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord."(Id. Exodus 14:4)

It sounds from that statement that he may have been intending to impress the Egyptian people so much that they would decide to follow him as their god.  It certainly would make sense for a god to want to have as many people as possible worship him.  After the many fantastic miracles he performed, you could certainly assume that the Egyptians would be ready to follow him.  Who would not want such a powerful god on their side?  On the other hand, they may been repelled by his extreme tactics and decided to continue following more gentle gods.  Perhaps Yahweh sensed aloofness in the Egyptians and decided not to pursue trying to convert them to himself.

Still, it would have made good sense to have gotten at least some Egyptians on his side for the following reasons:

(1) They could have helped the Israelites both while they were in Egypt and when trying to escape.

(2) They could have left Egypt to go with the Israelites into the Sinai desert.  Additional members in the group would come in handy when they would later have to do battle with inhabitants of the lands to which they were headed.

(3) If the Egyptians stayed in their country, they could still possibly be of help in the future.  This could happen if all or some of the Hebrews were forced to come back for whatever reason.  It would certainly help to have sympathetic residents there in Egypt to welcome them back.

(4) It would have been very favorable to have the nations of Israel and Egypt cooperating and united under the watchful eye of one god, Yahweh.  Militarily, the two countries would have presented a strong, united front to threatening countries.  The Israelites may have not have had so much trouble later with the Philistines and may not have been dragged into exile by the Assyrians and the Babylonians.

(5) It is clear that the Lord was a boastful being with a very abundant ego.  He would have been very happy to have more worshippers.

It is puzzling that Yahweh did not perceive this great opportunity of uniting the two people under him.  While he could have continued to discriminate in favor of the Israelites, he could have still bestowed some blessings on the Egyptians.  Unfortunately, he chose the opposite approach by seriously crippling them and then abandoning them.  After the Israelites left he could have still come back and restored the Egyptians.  Another observation is that the Israelites were not at all inclined to share their god with anyone else.  The Lord was a jealous god and the Israelites showed themselves to be jealous about his relating to anyone else but them.

Staying Home in Egypt

There was another alternative.  The Israelites could have simply stayed in Egypt.  God apparently never even considered this.  He could have guided Moses and Aaron in their negotiations with the pharaoh to provide better working and living conditions.  It seems that the living conditions were favorable since Exodus does not inform us of any complaint from the Israelites about them.  In fact, they would later reminisce about the fertile land on which they had lived.

The only complaint about harsh working conditions is the one made by God.  It certainly seems that the Israelites were in a good bargaining position if it is true that the Egyptians sheltered a great desire to keep them.  Moses could have demanded shorter work hours, rest breaks, workers compensation for injuries, vacations, sick leave, and child labor regulations.  Of course, these were unheard of at the time but God could have told Moses about them.

The pharaoh may not have readily acquiesced to those demands but some accommodation would have been preferable to losing all his Hebrew workers.  Yahweh could have applied additional pressure by visiting some minor catastrophes on Egypt.  If the pharaoh did not want to agree to all those terms, perhaps he would have made some nonlabor concessions like giving the Israelites more land.  If he had given them something like title to the land they lived on, that would have made them feel more secure and more reluctant to leave.

The Israelites would have been better off if they had stayed in Egypt.  This may have been true even if they had not seen any improvements in their conditions.  After all, they had resided there for 400 years.  They had to have become used to their way of life in Egypt.  It was home even if conditions could not be improved.  The Israelites could have stayed right there and worshipped their god.  Exodus clearly states that the pharaoh allowed them to do that as long as they stayed in Egypt.

There had to be some Israelites who deferred from leaving with the Moses group and chose to stay in Egypt.  Exodus made no mention of uncooperative Israelites staying behind but it does not claim that there was unanimity.  It is known that Hebrew settlements existed in Egypt several centuries later.  It stands to reason that a significant number chose to stay behind.  Some of them could have even been among the hard laborers who realized they were better off to stay.  It would not be surprising if those who left were only a small minority in spite of the claim that 600,000 men left.

Then it has to be examined how great were the religious incentives for the Israelites.  There was the folklore about a god approaching Abraham but he never identified himself.  There was never any mention in Genesis about any kind of religion organized around any god who was clearly described and for whom there were any related beliefs, rituals, or rules of worship.  Then in their 400 years in Egypt, the Israelites had no knowledge of a god named Yahweh.  At the same time, they were surrounded by the numerous gods of the Egyptians.  It is not possible that the Israelites remained religion-free during all that time.  Everyone in the ancient world had gods they took seriously.  The Hebrews had to have attached themselves to one or more of the Egyptian gods that were all around them.

It is very possible that many Israelite leaders were not impressed that the magic performed by Moses and Aaron was anything unusual and that it came from any new extraordinary god.  First, magic was practiced by many people in those days and they could claim that they were being guided by gods.  Remember that the pharaoh's magicians were able to duplicate some of the tricks that God had taught Moses.

All this diminishes the credibility that there was a large contingent that left Egypt with Moses.  It is much more believable that people would have preferred to stay put with what they had become used to for centuries rather than to risk going out to a harsh desert.  They had to have been aware that there was a desert out there that did not provide an easy living.

Then there was the reality that hard labor was not unusual in those days.  Most people had to engage in hard physical work in one form or another.  Ultimately the Israelites must have asked much the same questions that their pharaoh asked, "Why do we have to go live in the desert to worship this god of this man Moses?  Why can't we stay right here and do it?"

This questioning went on even among those who decided to travel east with Moses.  This is set out very openly in Exodus.  It looks like they had very definite second thoughts about having left.  Even before they crossed the Red Sea, they demanded of Moses at Exodus 14:11-12,

"Weren't there any graves in Egypt?  Did you have to bring us out here in the desert to die?  Look what you have done by bringing us out of Egypt!  Didn't we tell you before we left that this would happen?  We told you to leave us alone and let us go on being slaves of the Egyptians.  It would be better to be slaves there than to die here in the desert."

The Arduous Journey to Mt. Sinai

This grumbling and regret continued on the journey to Mt. Sinai.  They walked for three days and found no water.  When they finally found water at Marah, it was bitter so the people complained.(Exodus 15:23)  Moses prayed to the Lord who then responded by having him throw a piece of wood into the water to unbelievably make it drinkable. 

Later they would complain about not having food to eat and remembered how much better they had it in Egypt.  "There we could at least sit down and eat meat and as much other food as we wanted.  But you have brought us out into this desert to starve us all to death."(Id. 16:3)  This happened about 45 days after they had left Egypt.  Later at Meribah they could not find drink and asked Moses for water to drink.  Each time the Lord performed a miracle and provided water or food to them, and each time the Lord and Moses became upset that the people complained.

Later the Hebrews camped but there was again no water to drink.  Moses accused the people of putting the Lord to the test by their complaining.  Yahweh had Moses strike a rock with a stick and water came out of it.  It is hard to believe that one rock held enough water for so many people.  The place was named Massah and Meribah, which in Hebrew mean testing and complaining.

It is difficult to comprehend why God and Moses should have been perturbed at the people for complaining.  After all, the Israelites did find themselves in precarious conditions in their lack of water and food.  It had to be especially disconcerting after Moses had implied that things would be better than they were in Egypt.  On several occasions, Moses did try to placate the complaining people and urged them not to offend and test the Lord.

It had to be frightening for the people to realize that with so little water and food in the desert more than 1.2 million persons were supposed to be given sustenance.  Even if only 12,000 people had come along, it would still have been a lot of plates to serve.  The diet that the Lord provided showed little variety, was not particularly nutritious, and was probably not very filling.  It consisted of quail and manna--a small, white sweet seed.  All this gives credence to the claim by students of the Exodus that it only involved several small groups of emigrants who spread out their excursions over a long period time, perhaps a century or more.

The Israelites did not have enough of a struggle with the scarcity of food.  They had to fight the locals.  Moses had not mentioned this burden previously.  The Amalekites attacked them.  This was understandable since any tribes that were already living in the area had to realize that there was little enough food for them without having to share it with intruders, especially over 1 million of them.  The fight with them was touch and go.  It lasted all day.  Finally, the Lord helped the Israelites prevail.

Why he didn't have them win right away is a puzzle.  In the first place, it is a quandary why he even let the Amalekites attack.  He could have protected the Israelites by preventing the Amalekites from finding them in the desert to begin with or by incapacitating the Amalekites in one way or another.

Given that there was a fight, it is not clear why the Hebrews needed the Lord's help.  The Amalekites could not have been a numerous tribe.  You would think that the Israelites having 600,000 men would have routed them easily without any need of supernatural intervention.  This fight would be the first of many for the Israelites in their quest to settle in Canaan, the land God had given their ancestors.

Yahweh is often used as the proper name for the Judaic god but things are more complicated than that.  The Tanakh used other names for God including El, Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai.  El and Elohim were used many times with the latter being the plural of El.  Scholars have discovered the tribes of Canaan generally referred to their chief god as El.  They also had subordinate gods.  The earliest Hebrews and their ancestors probably also followed El as their supreme god.  Genesis 33:20 stated that Jacob settled near Shechem and "put up an altar there and named it for El, the God of Israel."  Yahweh did not gain importance with the Hebrews until Moses introduced him to them.  Remember that Moses did not gain acquaintance with Yahweh until he had lived in Midian for 40 years.  His father-in-law was a priest.

There is evidence that various people in Canaan before Moses believed in Yahweh as one of the subordinate gods.  Most groups adopted him as a war god.  Lord knows, the Israelites certainly needed a war god with all the battles they had to fight in taking over Canaan.  The bottom line is that Yahweh was not always the supreme god but was only elevated to that position through the influence of Moses.  Not only did the Hebrews worship other gods before Moses, this continued to happen--at least among some Hebrews--for many centuries, witness the various references to dissident worship in the Tanakh.

Yahweh Delivers His Laws

Two months after leaving Egypt, the Israelites camped at the foot of Mt. Sinai.  Yahweh had Moses come up the mountain to see him.  He wanted all the people to observe this but at a distance.  The Lord put on an intimidating show for the people with thunder and lightning and smoke that surrounded the mountain while a trumpet blared louder and louder.

A boundary line was placed around the mountain that no one was to cross.  There was to be dire punishment for anyone who did cross.  The Lord said to Moses, "[T]ell them not to go up the mountain or even get near it.  If anyone sets foot on it, he is to be put to death.  He must either be stoned or shot with arrows . . .  .  This applies to both men and animals."(Exodus 19:12-13)  He gave his warning twice more.  The priests were also not to cross the boundary line.

Who these priests were is a mystery.  God had not yet ordained any priests.  There had not been any talk with Moses or Aaron about instituting a priesthood.  It was not until chapter 28 that the Lord mentioned that there would be priests to serve him.  Either he forgot that he did not yet have any priests, or more likely, the priests who wrote this down were too sloppy in their narrative.  They got too eager to write themselves into the story.

The most important point in all this is the surprising haughtiness of God.  He was so important that people and animals were not to get close to him.  This in spite of his having to be fully aware that the people would be naturally curious as well as fond of him and thus desire to be near him.  Instead the Bible says that all the people trembled violently in fear.  Then there was the severity of the punishment for coming too close--death by stoning or arrows even for the animals.  Surely, there could have been less severe measures for keeping people away.  The temperament and personality of this God is a far cry from the loving God later portrayed by the prophets and by Jesus.

Then there is the question of why Moses was the only one with whom Yahweh could meet face to face.  Why not talk to the entire congregation?  Even if they kept a distance, he surely could have spoken loudly enough to be heard by all.  Could it have been that God was never on the mountain at all?  Was it just a ruse by Moses, maybe with the help of some other leaders.  Moses went up and said he talked to God in order to better hold the respect and fear of the people?  Writers probably later embellished the story with additional elements such as the loud trumpet and the smoke surrounding the mountain.

Earlier Legal Codes

For millennia, humans were told that the law dictated to Moses by God, called the Mosaic law and which includes the Ten Commandments, was the first legal code in the world.  It has also been believed that Yahwehists are morally superior to everyone else in the world because they received the moral laws directly from the true God.  Any other moral and legal codes were devised either by men or by false gods and therefore were themselves false.  The assumption (implied or otherwise) has been that all other people in other cultures around the world at the time lived as savages without any kind of direction.  However, other cultures have also claimed that their gods delivered their laws to their kings. 

It turns out there were moral codes in several kingdoms in Mesopotamia long before Yahweh allegedly delivered his laws.  The earliest laws that have been discovered are those of Urukagina a king of Lagash in the 2300's.  That was about 1,000 years before Yahweh's laws.  The Code of Urukagina was not discovered as it was written.  Instead, it is known through indirect reference to some of it provisions.  It provided protections for the poor.  One was that a poor man could not be forced to sell his property to one who was rich or a priest.  Another law required that a poor person was always to be paid in silver.  Discovering Urukagina's laws contradicted the claim that the Mosaic laws were unique in their concern for the poor. (The Christians have pointed out the unusual regard in which Jesus held the poor.)  In addition to the Code of Urukagina, other codes that predated the stay at Mt. Sinai contained protections for the poor.

The Code of Ur-Nammu that was promulgated around 2100 is the oldest extant code yet discovered.  It provided for the punishment of theft, murder, kidnap, and in some circumstances, rape.  It was more progressive because it was more lenient than later codes.  It didn't follow the lex talionis.  It specified capital punishment for murder and theft but did not state an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.  Instead complete elimination of a victim's eye or tooth was supposed to be compensated by a specific number of shekels of silver.  There was also punishment for anyone who got somebody else in trouble through perjury.  This is the same as the false witness disapproved in the Ten Commandments.

The Code of Hammurabi was promulgated about 300 years later, around 1750.  It contained the lex talionis that the Israelite writers included in the Torah 400 years later at the earliest.  Hammurabi was a very powerful king among the early Babylonians.  Apparently, they believed that it was important that a set of laws be fully announced in writing before anyone was to fairly be expected to follow it.

Hammurabi's Code contained 242 laws most of them involving contracts.  He properly complied with the publishing requirement by erecting a 7-foot high stele, a thick stone slab with the laws etched into it.  A feature of the stele was that at the top two figures were sculpted on it.  They were of the sun god Shamash handing the Code to Hammurabi.  Other rulers also claimed to their people that the laws they announced had been given to them by the gods.

Besides the three codes mentioned there were other directives in other parts of Mesopotamia.  The Assyrians asked questions like, "Has he shown contempt for his father and mother . . . given wrong weight . . . broken into his neighbor's house."  There were several city-states before 1300, some that must have had legal codes even if they were simple ones.  While the Code of Urukagina of the 2300's is the first known code it could be that it followed an earlier model(s).  While we may never be able to find evidence of any older codes, it is not hard to imagine codes that could have been recorded long before 2300.  Even before humans started to write, tribal chiefs and kings must have orally recited to their subjects at least a few laws and rules that they were supposed to obey.  This would have been indispensable for a well-functioning society.

It has long been known that the Egyptians tried to follow moral precepts.  The Egyptian Book of the Dead was a compilation of behavioral rules that were collected over a period of 1,000 years starting about 1500.  Three of the rules that were to be followed and confessed at the end of life were

I have not made a man weep.

I have not killed.

I have not done harm to any man.

Also in Egypt the "Instructions of Amenemope" were disseminated around 1100, about the time the Ten Commandments were written down.  Among them were directives not to be covetous of a poor man's goods, not to tamper with weights and not to ridicule the blind man.(Keller 140)  So it is not just the Israelites who disapproved of coveting and of depreciating the weak.

I implore you to read the Torah carefully from a critical perspective, even better read the entire Bible that way.  See if you think it is believable that God would have handed down each and everyone of the laws he reputedly did.  Or are there some too hard to comprehend as coming down from him.  This could be because they are simply too objectionable or simply too trivial for him to bother to propound.

Bloody Wars

When one first hears of the promise to the Israelites that they would be given a land of milk and honey, one assumes that it will be there, open and free to occupy without obstacles.  Take the hypothetical case of Milt who gives his son and his family a house.  He tells them it is spacious and in great condition.  The family goes to move into the house with the first truckload of belongings.  They find a family there that tells them they own the house, have been living there for twenty years, and have no plans to move.  They know of no one who is trying to sell the house.  The son goes back to Milt and asks him what is going on.  Did he not give them the house?  Milt responds matter-of-factly, "Yes, but you will have to drive those people out.  I will help you.  Kill them if necessary."

What would you say about that?  That is the situation in which the Israelites were placed.  God gave them Canaan but they had to drive out the occupants who had lived there for decades.  They had to initiate bloody wars.  We are to believe that the Hebrews were always victorious.  They never talked about their casualties but must have suffered some losses.  This had to affect not just individual families but the whole community.

Under Moses the Lord helped the Israelites attack the Canaanites that lived under the king of Arad.  "So they completely destroyed them and their cities . . ."(Numbers 21:1-3)  They then captured all the Amorite cities and settled in them.  The capital city was Heshbon under king Sihon.  They killed him and "put everyone to death, men, women, and children."(Deuteronomy 2:34)

The Lord then told Moses he would help him fight King Og of Bashan.  The text says they captured 60 cities and also says they destroyed all the towns and again "put to death all the men, women, and children."(Deuteronomy 3:4-6)  Supposedly, they took possession of these lands.  Yet there were other indications that the Israelites continued to be nomadic.  All these victories were so easy and brutal that they are hard to believe.

After the death of Moses, the Lord instructed Joshua to invade Canaan.  The first town they were to attack was the fabled Jericho.  Joshua first sent two spies who were hidden by a prostitute named Rahab.  The  writers of the book of Joshua that recounts this did not need to mention the woman's profession but curiously they did.

The army and the priests then marched to Jericho.  The Lord prescribed a ritual that involved the army and the priests marching around the walls of the city for seven days with the priests carrying the Ark of the Covenant and blowing trumpets.  On the seventh day Joshua, following the instructions of God, ordered all the men to shout.  This caused all the walls to come tumbling down.  The soldiers were then easily able to attack the city and take it.

Joshua told the men that the city was to be an offering to the Lord.  This meant that everything had to be destroyed; no loot would be taken.  There was an exception.  The silver, gold, bronze, and iron were to be set apart for the Lord.  They were put in the Lord's treasury.  Who else but the priests had charge of the Lord's treasury.  The Bible then stated

With their swords they killed everyone in the city, men and women, young and old.  They also killed the cattle, sheep, and donkeys.(Joshua 6:21)

Another exception to total destruction was made when Joshua spared the lives of Rahab and her relatives because she had hidden the spies.  Apparently, the custom was that whenever destruction of a town was made as a dedication to the Lord no one was to appropriate anything for himself.  The writers of Joshua stated that the Israelites burned Jericho to the ground.

The Lord then told Joshua to take Ai.  This time he allowed the Israelites to take the goods and livestock for themselves.  They were victorious once again.  They killed everyone in Ai--twelve thousand men and women and burned the city to the ground.

There is a problem with these narratives regarding Jericho and Ai--an archeological one.  Archaeologists have done plenty of digging in the area given its fame.  One British archaeologist declared, "Jericho can lay claim to being by far the oldest city in the world."(Keller 160)  She and her team discovered that during the Bronze Age the walls of Jericho had been destroyed repeatedly by earthquakes and erosion.  It had to be rebuilt seventeen times.

One of the various occupations of the town began around 1400.  It was abandoned by its inhabitants about 1325, seventy-five years later.  This was the last occupation until it was rebuilt in the 800's.  That means that the walls of Jericho had already tumbled down when the Israelites found it in the 1200's.  This explains why they could claim they were able to accomplish the feat simply by some marching and a loud shout.  They could also brag about killing thousands while no one had been living there.

The same situation applies in the destruction of Ai.  Archaeologists uncovered that Ai was deserted in the early Bronze Age.  There was still no one there in the late Bronze Age when the Israelites were supposed to have come.  That the town lay in ruins when the Israelites arrived is likely witnessed by the name given it in Hebrew.  Ai means "ruins."

After Ai, Joshua and his army went on a path of victory after victory.  They first attacked the armies of five Amorite kings.  Incidentally, it looks like the Amorites had, like the Israelites, been nomads centuries before they settled in the towns they possessed.  Their armies were now in the process of overrunning the town of Gibeon, an ally of Israel.  The Israelites slaughtered many of the soldiers of the five Amorite armies although some were able to make it back to their cities.  The Hebrews killed the five kings.  At one point Joshua ordered the sun and the moon to stand still overhead for a whole day.

              Never before, and never since, has there been a day like it, when the Lord obeyed a human being. The Lord fought on Israel's side!(Joshua 10:14)

Next the army attacked and captured Makkedah.  They put everyone in the city to death.  From there they proceeded to Libnah.  "The Lord also gave the Israelites victory over this city and its king.  They spared no one, but killed every person in it."(Joshua 10:30)

After that the Hebrew army attacked Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir.  The Bible states they were victorious in each town and put everyone to death every time.  It further says that Joshua "spared no one, everyone was put to death.  This was what the Lord God had commanded."(Joshua 10:40)

King Jabin of Hazor then organized a coalition of several cities, which contributed an enormous number of soldiers--"an army with as many men as there are grains of sand in the seashore.  They also had many horses and chariots."(Joshua 11:4)  It is hard to imagine how the Israelites who were only foot soldiers could get very far against such a huge army.  Fighting against chariots was a tremendous disadvantage.  Nevertheless, the Lord told them, "By this time tomorrow I will have killed all of them for Israel."(Joshua 11:6)  Indeed, the Israelites attacked and pursued them to the north until none of them were left alive.  They went to all the cities involved and put everyone to death.  They burned Hazor to the ground.  After that Joshua went after the Anakim who were giants and completely destroyed them and their cities.

There are a number of discrepancies that come up in reading the book of Joshua and its successor book Judges.  In Joshua, it was said that Debir was one of the Amorite towns destroyed by Joshua's army.(Joshua 10:38)  Yet later it was Othniel who captured the town.(Joshua 15:15-17; Judges 1:11-15)

In Joshua it was claimed that Joshua's army killed King Jabin of Hazor, left no one alive in the city, and burned it.  Then in Judges 4 it was stated that Jabin king of Hazor ruled over the Israelites with cruelty and violence for twenty years.  He had a strong army that possessed nine hundred iron chariots.  Almost a century had passed since Joshua had led Israel, so it is a puzzle that Jabin could have risen again.  Perhaps it was his grandson.  Even then it is hard to believe that Hazor had revived after it had suffered such a total devastation at the hands of the previously invincible Israelites.

It was claimed that Joshua took the town of Lachish and killed every person in the city.  The Bible did not say anything about the Israelites burning it to the ground.  Archaeologists found that the town was burned, destroying everything.  A bowl was found in the ruins bearing a date that corresponds with year 1230.  The date indicates that Pharaoh Rameses II was on the throne.  This could indicate that the destruction was the work of the Egyptians.  This may have been the time that it is claimed that Joshua was conquering towns.

A monument located in the Cairo Museum, the Merneptah stele, commemorates a victory of the Pharaoh Merneptah.  It contains a hymn of praise that says at the end "Canaan is despoiled . . . The people of Israel is desolate, it has no offspring:  Palestine has become a widow for Egypt."(Keller 163-164)  There is not even a hint in the book of Joshua of any involvement of Egypt at the time.  Could it be that the Israelite scribes chose not to record that after Joshua had finished his exploits the Egyptians came and devastated the Israelites?

This could be the chronology.  The Egyptians could have devastated the Canaanite towns (or at least some of them) before Joshua arrived.  About 1300 very powerful Egyptian armies during the reign of Pharaoh Sethos I laid waste to Hazor.(Id. 164) and many other towns.  Joshua and his Israelite army came later and attacked those weakened towns.  That is why it was so easy for Joshua to overcome so many towns and armies.  The powerful Egyptian army had weakened them significantly.  The Egyptians felt threatened later in the century that the Israelites were gaining too much power.  An Egyptian army then came in to route the Israelites.  Incidentally, it was discovered that the site of Hazor was twenty-one different settlements, each successive one built on top of the other.(Id. 165)

The Promised Land

There is an important inconsistency in Joshua concerning how much land the Israelites actually appropriated.  At Joshua 13:1-6 the Lord told Joshua not long before he died that there was still much land to be taken.  He listed the different areas that needed to be invaded.  Yet Joshua 21 indicates that Israel had received all the territory that it was due.  Three verses are of interest.  Verse 43:  "So the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he had solemnly promised their ancestors he would give them."  Verse 44:  "The Lord gave them peace throughout the land . . . ."  Verse 45:  "The Lord kept every one of the promises that he had made to the people of Israel."  From this it sounds as if Israel would now exist in an era of peace as a unified nation.

Yet the succeeding book of Judges painted a very different picture.  The violence continued in Canaan for centuries to come.  The Israelites were often pictured in a struggle to avoid conquest by other groups such as the Amorites, the Midianites, and worst of all, the Philistines.  The book admits that the following nations ruled over them:  King Jabin for twenty years, the Midianites for seven years, king Eglon of Moab for seven years, and the Philistines for forty years.  What does that say of the promise of the Lord to give the Israelites the land of Canaan?

The leaders of various tribes and clans were called judges--thus the name of the book of Judges.  One of the earlier ones was Shamgar.   He killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad.  This feat was later surpassed by the judge Samson.  He was reputed as having unbelievably superhuman strength.  He killed 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey.  In spite of these astonishing accomplishments, the Philistines continued their dominance over the Israelites for many years.

The tribulations of the Israelites retold in the book of Judges do not support that Joshua had won any lasting peace for Israel.  Not surprisingly, the Bible claims that this suffering occurred whenever the Israelites turned to the worship of other gods, e.g. Baal and Astarte.  The Lord would punish this behavior by allowing their neighbors to subjugate and oppress them.

Other Gods

We have seen that the Israelites had ample cause to turn to other gods after they left Egypt.  Among other things, they had to face the continuing threat of famine and discovered that the land they had supposedly been promised had to be conquered by cruel war.  Things could not have been much better during the time of Joshua and the judges.  The Joshua campaign shows there was a lot of fighting even if the Israelites were always the victors.  There had to still be a problem with disease including epidemics, as was the case all over the world.  With all that, they still had not taken all of the Promised Land.

Why continue allegiance to a god who too many times had failed them?  Why not give other gods a chance? Why not try other religious rituals?  There was always the fertility goddess Astarte to worship, and one way to do this was through sex.  To promote fertility women offered themselves in service to the goddess by giving their bodies to men and the men dutifully complied.  What a religion!  Only the prudish Judaics objected.

For years objective Bible scholars have not put much credence in the exploits of Joshua.  He may have been the military aide to Moses but he was not the super general depicted in the Bible.  All the military successes are not credible.  Allegedly most of the military conquests of the Israelites ended by their killing all the inhabitants.  You have a choice:  believe the scholars and archaeologists and accept that much in the Bible was invented or insist that all these violent events really took place under the direction and blessing of an incredibly violent and heartless God.

Scholars do not believe there was that much Hebrew violence.  Instead it was likely a gradual incursion into Canaan that took place over about three centuries.  Some violence may have occurred as the new nomads immigrated but it was not as bad as the Bible paints.  There must have been some skirmishes with rival tribes over resources and territory.

It looks as if what is called the Deuteronomistic history that includes the books of Deuteronomy through Kings was written between the 800's and 500's.  It was written to show how powerful the Israelites had once been and how their armies should continue to fight hard against their enemies.  This would have been hostile tribes, nomads, and the empires of Assyria and the second Babylon.  Of course, it also always prominently illustrated that success could only come with the aid of the Lord.  It is suspected that some of the writing of this history was done under the order of the very devout King Josiah of Judah.

You may want to review the claims in the Torah, Joshua, and Judges and ask seriously how many events and claims are open to question.  The universe was created in only six days?  What about the credibility that Noah kept all those animals alive in the ark for more than one year?  Would the Lord of the universe truly choose to favor one small group of humans over all the others, while sacrificing thousands in Egypt and Canaan?  He performed all those miracles including the horrible ones in Egypt?  He never expressed any qualms about doing any of the bad ones.

The questions continue throughout these books as well as the rest of the Bible.  Yet the complete and reliable truth behind these scriptures is supposed to be the foundation for believing in the solitary God that rules the entire universe.  If the important facts told in it fail, Judaism has to fail.  Additionally, Christianity and Islam that have a strong foundation in Judaism also have to fail.

11 Religious Disproofs: Judaism

The Morality of God

If you are going to worship a god and sacrifice for him in various ways, you want to believe in a moral god.  You want him to be moral toward sentient beings, especially since you are one of them.  Too many people do not take into consideration a god's treatment of those other than themselves and their own tribe.  It seems one would want to think that he is a moral being.

Yahweh, the god of Judaism, we know is the same god that is worshipped by billions of people around the world and respected by even followers of other religions.  These people assume that he is moral without giving it a second thought.  If this is correct, his moral qualities should be shown clearly in the Tanakh.  The moral standing should not only be strong and well above any human standard; it should be no less than a standard of perfection.  If God meets the standard of perfection in morality, then at least from the standpoint of morality a religion may be worth following.

That would still not mean that he actually exists or that any related unproven beliefs are worthy of following.  Existence arguments have to be successful in order to prove existence.  However, at least God would meet the moral standards that most theists expect of him.  If the God does not measure up to high moral standards, that shows that he is a fiction as the perfectly moral god that most Yahwehists believe in.  It would seem difficult to follow and adore such a god.

There is no time to review all of his actions and commands and so only some of his actions found in the Torah will be considered.  We have already perused some of the morally relevant passages in the previous chapter on the credibility of the Tanakh.  It may seem repetitious but it would be instructive to study them again with respect to morality.

The Ambition of Eve

Let us examine the moral standards of God from the very beginning in the garden of Eden.  He placed the first two humans, Adam and Eve, in this wonderful garden in which they were to have abundance at their disposal.  It appears that they would not have to work hard for food or for anything else.  They would live a life of leisure in beautiful surroundings.  They would never die.  Eve was not going to have difficulty or pain in bearing children.  It was obvious that God was very kind and caring and charitable in providing an idyllic life for them in such a wonderful setting and yet they had done nothing to earn their position.  Of course, it was no great sacrifice for God to provide all this since he was in command of the whole universe and had the ability to provide whatever he desired.  That could have been the entire story with Adam and Eve and all the other beings living happily ever after.

However, there were two items that God placed in the garden that are puzzling if he truly wished for Adam and Eve to succeed.  These items were a snake and one mysterious tree in the middle of the garden that the human pair would probably be viewing frequently.  The Lord told them not to eat any of the fruit of that tree or they would die.  Eating from the tree would give them knowledge of what is good and what is bad.  Apparently God judged it would be horrible for them to have that knowledge.

Genesis stated that the most cunning animal that God had made was the snake.  Wouldn't you know it; the snake approached Eve.  He told her she would not die if she ate the fruit of the tree.  Eve must have gotten very curious.  Eve and Adam did eventually eat the forbidden fruit and gained knowledge.  The only evidence that we see of any knowledge they gained was that they became ashamed of being naked and covered themselves.  God was infuriated and immediately punished all three.  The snake had lied.

God assessed a very heavy punishment.  He threw Adam and Eve out of the garden and sentenced them to have to toil hard to produce anything to eat from the ground.  Eve would have painful and troublesome pregnancies.  Indeed all this has continued to be true throughout human existence.  Even today with all the agricultural knowledge that we have, it is not easy to successfully run a farm, especially a small one--the most common type around the world.  Pregnancy is still not an easy endeavor but it was much worse until the 1900's C.E.  Too often women died in childbirth.  Problems can cause birth defects that can be a torment to a baby for a lifetime.

Then there is the question of the length of the sentence of punishment.  Adam and Eve definitely disobeyed the Lord but was it that serious?  They caused no harm to any other being.  It was not apparent that they harmed themselves.  God could have simply erased from their brains any knowledge they had gained when they ate the forbidden fruit.  It would have put their state of knowledge where it was before.

It was a drastic change to have to survive outside the garden.  The couple knew nothing about the plants that were safe to eat or how to build adequate shelter or what medical plants helped with disease.  Under the circumstances it would appear that a sentence for them to struggle for 20 years would have been enough.  That would have been a long time for them to struggle.  At the most you would think that God would have pronounced a life sentence.  That would have definitely been a very long time given that they were young when created.  That could have meant suffering for around 50 years.  Then again the Bible repeatedly cites that people lived for hundreds of years.  Maybe they lived 1,000 years.  What more punishment could there be than a lifetime of hardship?

Yet the punishment for the transgression continued after their deaths.  Why should anyone else have to endure punishment for what Adam and Eve did?  No one else was even alive when they committed that sin in the garden.  Yet it has continually been claimed that living beings for all this time have had to suffer tremendous hardship and agony because of that one disobedience of Eve and Adam.  That has been an enormous number of life sentences with still no end in sight.

It has for long been a universally accepted principle of justice--devised by humans--that no one should have to suffer punishment for a transgression that someone else committed--no group punishment.  It is an obviously sensible and universal principle.  In this case the continuing punishment is very far removed in time from the sin that brought it on.  According to the lunar calendar found in the Tanakh and still recognized in Judaism, the year 5780 corresponded with the Gregorian calendar year 2020 C.E.  According to Judaism then, the universe was created 5,780 years ago.  That is certainly a long time after the garden infraction.

Then there is the question of the seriousness of what Eve did.  She wanted to gain knowledge of what was good and what was bad.  Why should that be reproachable?  Good and bad have a moral association.  In this connection it would be a sound idea to know as much as possible about good and bad in order to be able to distinguish between the two and exercise well-founded moral judgments.  You would want to follow the good and avoid the bad.  Eve could use moral knowledge in her relationship with Adam and later with her children.  She could pass this knowledge to her children so that they could become better moral persons than they would be otherwise.

Perhaps God had not planned to pass moral judgment on humans when he created them.  Consequently, he did not entertain the idea that they would need moral knowledge.  Even if this is true, what made it so objectionable that they would have the knowledge?  If only as a matter of curiosity, one would think that there was no problem.  Moral knowledge would still be very important and useful.  Moral issues have to be confronted in all human relations and even in dealings with other animals.  It is highly puzzling why God became so angry and retaliatory.  If anything there was ample reason to praise Eve.

What do we observe about the actions of God from a moral standpoint?  You would assume that he wanted Eve and Adam to succeed in their lives in the garden of Eden.  Why then put any obstacles in their way that would make them fail totally.  Why put the deceptive snake that he must have known would try to convince Eve to eat the fruit?  There were plenty of other less malicious creatures that could populate the garden.

Then there is the prohibited tree, placed right in the middle of the garden.  Why plant such a dangerous tree?  If you insist on having it, place it in a hidden area where it would not be seen regularly and be a reminder of its special power?  Better yet locate it in a place completely inaccessible to humans.  After Yahweh evicted them, Genesis 3:24 stated that he put "a flaming sword which turned in all directions.  This was to keep anyone from coming near the tree that gives life."  Why not do that in the first place?  Was it necessary to have the tree anyway?  Any other tree could have been sown in its location, whether for shade or for fruit.  Surely the Lord did not need to have the tree there as a reference for him to remember what was good and bad.  You would think the only purpose for the tree was as a snare to trap humans into failing miserably.

The third trap for humans was their own weakness.  They could have had more will power to resolve themselves to obey God no matter what competing desires could rise up.  They could also have been given more strength to ignore those undesirable desires such as curiosity.  Who was responsible for giving them the necessary strength?  The will power were provided does not always work and has different levels of effectiveness for different individuals.  It is too often not sufficient to overcome temptations or to guide in the correct direction.

Then there is the observation that Adam and Eve had just been created.  They were mere babes, very immature.  It takes time for children to gain acquaintance with their various abilities, to learn how to use them, and to practice their application.  It was too much to expect them not to want to explore the possible benefits of knowledge.  Consider also that Eve had no idea that there would be any punishment, much less catastrophic punishment.

At first the Lord seemed so nice and generous in giving them the garden as well as control over all the creatures.  Also they were to enjoy eternal life.  How could one expect that he would snatch it all away and assess a horrible punishment over an understandable deviation?  In addition there was the attitude of the snake who seemed well acquainted with the character of God.  The snake appeared relaxed about the disobedience, suggesting that the punishment would not be serious.  He appeared to have solid awareness that God would not take the infraction seriously.  The snake never hinted of any horrendous punishment; probably had no idea it would be that bad.

The one with the greatest control over the weakness of Eve and Adam was God.  He could have made Eve stronger, even to the point that she could have successfully overcome the desire to know about good and bad.  He did not have to make them perfect, but there was great room for improvement.  He could have produced them with much greater strength in many respects.  Since he did not do this at their creation, why not continue to improve on the product?  He could have realized their serious imperfection, forgiven them, and made the necessary improvements.

What does the incident in the garden of Eden tell us about the character and judgment of God.  He appeared to be very kind and generous when he allowed Adam and Eve to stay in the fantastic garden.  Yet when you reflect on the obstacles that he cast in their path, you have to wonder if he really wanted the first couple to succeed.  Given the detrimental factors, you would think that Yahweh would have foreseen that there would be a failure.  Even if their fall had not occurred that soon, it likely would have still happened eventually.  At some point they (or their children) would have wanted to know about good and bad.  You would think that God would have never allowed the obstacles in order to increase their chance of success.

Since he did not do that, you have to question his sincerity in providing so much for the couple.  It no longer seems to have been motivated by benevolence.  Why develop the entire experience?  What he did seems like pulling the rug out from under them.

Genesis 3:22 quotes God as saying, "Now the man has become like of one of us and has knowledge of what is good and what is bad."  (When he referred to "us," he was apparently conversing with other gods.)  Yet acquiring knowledge of what is good and what is bad did not make them gods.  It only gave them the ability to discern the opposites of good and bad.  That did not mean they would be like gods with varied powers.  It looks like the Lord felt too much jealousy and selfishness.  These two traits do not coordinate well with moral conduct.  One would expect much more from God.  A kind approach would have set aside jealousy, selfishness, and anger.

The Condemnation of Cain

Adam and Eve had two children, Cain and Abel.  The killing of Abel by Cain is the core of their story.  Clergy like the story because they can glean a moral teaching from Cain's opinion that he was not "his brother's keeper."  They do not touch upon God's treatment of Cain in the episode.

The animosity that Cain felt toward Abel started when each one offered sacrifices to God.  Cain presented part of his harvest as an offering while Abel offered the best parts of his first-born lamb.  We are told that the Lord was pleased with Abel and his offering but he was displeased with Cain and his offering.  Not only was he displeased, he rejected the offering altogether.  No explanation was given.  Cain was angered by this.

God reprimanded Cain for his anger, telling him it showed that he knew that he had done evil.  It is not clear what the evil involved.  It could have been that Abel had made an offering that had greater value because it was a greater portion of what he owned.  However, God had not issued any directives on what sacrifices would be acceptable or which would be given higher value.  Cain saw no reason why his offering was not sufficient.  In addition the Bible stated that Abel had become a shepherd, while Cain became a farmer.  (How did they learn to domesticate animals and grow crops so soon?)  Cain had no lambs to offer in sacrifice, much less the best parts of a lamb.  Whatever evil God saw, Cain had not been taught about it.

There are problems with this incident.  In the first place it was not prudent or kind to show a strong preference of one offering over the other.  Instead God might have mentioned that it appeared that the offering of Abel involved a greater sacrifice.  This could have been a way of teaching the boys what made a sacrifice more valuable.  It could have been done while still showing there was worth in the offering of Cain rather than to reject it altogether.

This was the main problem.  Not only did God not show any appreciation to Cain, he completely rejected his sacrifice.  There seems no good reason for doing that.  It should have been obvious that Cain would be upset.  This is simply another one of countless instances in which the Lord acted like an ancient Middle Eastern tyrannical king making decisions based on personal whim rather than on the effect on others.  This indicates that this is what the writers of the Tanakh put down because it is what they were familiar in the tyrants of their times.  God should have shown more acceptance of Cain.

So Cain killed Abel.  That clearly was not justified.  After all it was not Abel who had demeaned him.  All Abel had done was to try to please God with a worthy sacrifice.  There is no evidence that Cain had any previous animosity toward Abel.  All he probably wanted to accomplish was to eliminate a competitor for the respect of God.  He figured that if he could kill off Abel his offerings would not have to be compared with Abel's.  He could possibly become the only person in God's good graces, assuming God was still angry at his parents Adam and Eve.  It was a good estimate that God was still mad at them given that he had not granted them an ounce of forgiveness.  It is also very possible that Cain had not given his murderous act much thought.  He had done it in a fit of rage.

What would you say was the appropriate punishment for the killing?  Remember that, as in the case of his parents, Cain had not advanced very far in attaining emotional maturity.  Nor did he have much experience in weighing what is right and wrong, good and bad.  It was perfectly natural to him to improve his position by simply doing away with a competitor in the most efficient and final way possible.  Note that if Eve had not uncovered the knowledge of good and bad Cain could not have been held responsible for the killing.  There would have been no basis whatsoever for saying that he knew that what he had done was bad.  This would have included (1) his anger at having his offering rejected and (2) the killing.

In spite of the excuses in Cain's favor, God came down very hard on him.  Again he did not take into account that he had created humans with numerous weaknesses.  He had not yet created any criminal laws specifying prohibited acts and their punishments.  Much later he would prescribe "an eye for an eye . . . a life for a life."  Nor had he provided humans any extensive moral education.

His punishment of Cain was tantamount to a death sentence and Cain noted that.  The Lord put a curse on Cain that it would not be possible for him to grow any crops.  The land would not yield him anything.  From then on he would be a homeless wanderer.  Cain pointed out that without a home anyone would be able to kill him.  The Lord ordered, "If anyone kills you, seven lives will be taken in revenge."(Genesis 4:15)  It may have given Cain some consolation in hearing that so many lives would be equivalent in value to his single life,  but it would probably be of no help in deterring anyone from killing him.  After all anyone who came in contact with Cain would not have heard of the order.  They would not even know of any prohibition against killing.

An interesting question is whether God meant his pronouncement about seven lives as a new rule for all humans for the punishment for killing or was it only intended for the consolation of Cain.  In either case it is a horrid rule that is way out of proportion to the harm done.  It clearly stated that the motivation behind it was revenge.  The law of equal punishment , i.e. a life for a life, has long been criticized as unjust and too inflexible because it does not take into account the individual circumstances in the case.  It is also hard to apply in practice.  Maybe some examples will help.

In the case of killing, there would be no gradations of guilt as are recognized in the more recent categories of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.  In these situations, the offender may have some justification for a killing.  Should he be automatically sentenced to death?  What about a case of assault with a motor vehicle in which the right leg of the victim is broken.  Do you break the right leg of the offender?  What to do in cases of kidnapping?

If the one-for-one punishment for crime can be unjust, it has to be much worse in seven-to-one.  It seems out of the question.  Take a murder in which it is clear that one and only one person actually did the killing and was the only one who knew about it.  After you execute the actual perpetrator, you still have to execute six more according to the rule.  Each of the other six would be innocent.

Even if God intended his pronouncement to apply only in the case of Cain, it was still ill-advised to issue it.  After all it could readily be taken as a precedent to be followed in all murder cases from then on.  Men could assume that if the Lord approved the rule one time, then it would be acceptable to employ it all the time.

Then there is the pronouncement found in Genesis 4:23-24 made by Lamech, a descendant of Cain, "I have killed a young man because he struck me.  If seven lives are taken to pay for killing Cain, seventy-seven will be taken if anyone kills me."  Note first that the offense of the young man only involved a blow to Lamech so the retaliation was far out of proportion.  Then his proposition to raise the appropriate number for revenge from 7 to 77 for a single life is preposterous.

At first glance you read this and dismiss it as just idle bravado but why was it in the Bible?  Lamech's declaration was serious stuff.  It was not Lamech's place to promulgate a new rule that was in contradiction to the 7-to-1 rule of God.  It was a gross extension of the one by God.  Yet since it was written down in the Bible it can be taken as having been given the tacit approval of God.

God was in personal contact with humans in those days.  You would think that a just and sensitive God would have come down immediately to correct Lamech and clarify what the appropriate punishment for murder should be.  He did not say anything.  We know that he was a proud god that did not approve of any humans encroaching on his authority.  If for no other reason, you would expect that he would have reprimanded Lamech for making a rule that only he was in a position to do.

As a result it turned out that the law followed for punishing a serious crime was vengeful retaliation against the entire group to which the wrongdoer belonged.  Massive retaliation as punishment occurred later for the rape of Dinah, which will be discussed later.  Probably more than 77 were killed there with additional devastation imposed.  God said nothing in opposition in these two cases so he must have approved of extreme massive retaliation as punishment.  There is nothing in the Bible that said that any of these rules were rejected until the one-for-one rule was announced.  This means that these vengeful rules were acceptable to God as the law of the land for centuries.

Destruction of the World

A number of years later, God declared that humans were wicked, even in their thoughts.  He was disgusted by their violence everywhere.  He regretted having created them and resolved to kill off all of them.  He spared only the Noah family, a few creatures, and the fish in the waters from a great flood.  This was supposed to inaugurate a new and improved beginning for all living creatures.

There are many moral questions that arise from this story if it is given careful thought.  First there was a huge failure on the part of God since he was the one responsible for creating the abominable creatures.  This is reminiscent of the deficient creation of Adam and Eve but on a much larger scale.  You would have thought he would have constructed different models before creating them and tried them out to see which one would work the best.  He could have at least done this in computer simulation.

He is supposed to have the ability to see into the future so you would think that he would have seen that the humans he created would turn out unsatisfactory.  Perhaps he was in too much of a hurry and did not do any quality control before launching the final product.  Maybe he should have spent more time in research and development.  Six days spent creating something as big as the universe may have been too hasty and humans were created in only one of those days.  In the second creation account in Genesis, Eve was an afterthought and only made from one of Adam's ribs.

One would expect that Yahweh would have taken into consideration that it was he who had created these vile creatures.  Given this, he could have been more tolerant of their imperfections.  Also one would think that he would have felt more of an emotional attachment to them and refrained from killing them.

Given that the creation was so grossly imperfect in the eyes of God, there were alternatives to destroying it.  First, after he realized that Adam, Eve, and Cain were so imperfect, he had plenty of time to calmly and gradually improve the product.  Since he didn't think to do this, he could have reformed all the humans alive at the time of the Flood, making them as strong and righteous as he wanted.  This would have meant changing them genetically, which would have meant that all their progeny would have also turned out better.  You can bet few humans would have objected to being made better people.  Even more importantly, few would have had a problem with those around them being more kind and considerate and less violent.

Another alternative would have been to leave the living humans as they were but to modify them genetically so that they would produce fully acceptable progeny.  Those living at the time would not have changed, but in a relatively short time, they would have died naturally.  Their descendants would be improved models and would have fashioned much better societies.  In all this, notice that if God did not create or later recreate good humans in the first place and did not foresee that things would get so bad, then it cannot be claimed that he is omnipotent and omniscient--far from it.

Then there was the possibility of doing away with only the wicked and allowing only the righteous ones to survive.  That would have included at least a few who also merited being allowed to live.  God could have shown some mercy toward the wicked ones and allowed them to live but sterilized them so that they would not pass on their genes.  They would have been gone in less than 1,000 years (given the supposedly longer lifetimes back then).

If God did not want to follow any of these courses of action, he had this alternative.  Instead of killing everyone in a horrendous flood, he could have simply made them die in their sleep one night.  He could have spared the other animals.

If God refused to create better humans, he could have provided better warning that there would be a dramatic punishment.  Preferably it would have been a long-term admonition.  Yahweh could have gathered all humanity together on the side of a big mountain (maybe Mt. Ararat) and informed them of how much he was displeased with their conduct.  He could have gone into extensive detail on what they had done wrong and why it was objectionable.  He could have then instructed them on how they should behave.  He could have issued the Ten Commandments and his other laws at that time.

God could have informed them that if they did not improve their conduct he would punish them accordingly on an individual basis.  If their deportment still continued to be as universally horrendous as it purportedly was, he would destroy everyone.  He could have given them ample time to reform.  In the whole scheme of time, at least ten years would have been needed for a change in behavior.  He could have also monitored their progress and provided instruction and advice as they went along.

If after the announced time period humanity had not reformed, God could have at least given a 30 day notice, as when landlords want tenants out.  He could have told them that they had been given enough opportunity.  The reason for the warning would be so that they could say their final farewells.  It would also not come as a great shock.  However, God did not give any warning.

After the Flood, God appeared to have had regret over the mass killing.  Genesis 8:21:  "Never again will I put the earth under a curse, because of what man does . . ."  He may have realized that his decision to kill so many had been wrong.  He changed his mind.  Yet God is not supposed to change his mind.  The basis for this assumption has been that God is omniscient and always perfectly moral.  So he has known from the beginning what was correct and what was not.  There would be no need for him to change his mind because he has always been perfectly correct.  On this occasion, God changed his mind so the principle appears to be wrong.  Theologians could come up with the excuse that he can change his mind with respect to minor matters.  However, the Flood was anything but a minor matter.

The problem in this situation is not so much that God changed his mind.  The more important question is how could he decide to mete such an extreme and cruel punishment in the first place.  The decision seems rash and impulsive, which is why he had regrets.  It should be disappointing to see God move so swiftly toward making such a momentous decision.  One would at least expect a little more deliberation.  Remember that God made humans to "resemble us."(Genesis 1:26; Genesis 9:6)  Humans are often impulsive so in that respect they appear to follow the impulsiveness of God.  There are later examples in the Bible of God acting very swiftly.

Then there is perhaps the most agonizing question.  What good did it do to kill off so many in such an agonizing manner?  Did it rid the world of all the wicked and the violent?  We can easily answer that by considering the history of humankind.  There has been no let up in the depravity and violence of too many humans.

Ironically right after Noah and his family settled down after the Flood, we see the first misconduct.  Noah got so drunk that he took off all his clothes and fell asleep in his tent carelessly laying himself open to being seen naked by his three sons.  These sons became the ancestors of all humanity.  One of them, Ham, saw him naked.  Genesis does not describe how it happened.  One can infer that Ham could have walked by the tent and seen his father naked.  Nevertheless, Noah considered it such a grave wrong that he put a heavy curse on Ham's son, Canaan.  After sobering up, Noah declared, "A curse on Canaan!  He will be a slave to his brothers."(Genesis 9:25)  It was convenient for the Judaics to pass this story on.  It provided a comfortable rationalization for the later Israelite seizure of the lands and enslavement of the Canaanites, the supposed descendants of Canaan.  Ham's was just the first of the human sins that followed.  (Or was it Noah that committed the sin?)

How much positive was accomplished by the Flood?  It would seem the idea was to produce a fantastic human race that would commit little or no sin.  The new animals would also be of a much better caliber.  Both humans and animals would show little violence.  After a grossly destructive occurrence like the Flood, one would certainly expect a profound and pervasive regeneration.

The violence continued.  At Genesis 14 an account is given of a war between four kings and five kings.  (Tribal chiefs are called kings in the Bible.)  Abraham later mounted a violent attack on the four kings and defeated them.  He took loot from them.

Then there is the famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  There were any number of evil deeds catalogued later in the Tanakh.  Then there have been countless others committed by humans ever since.  An important goal of punishment is to redirect the conduct of the miscreant and hopefully to reform him.  The descendants of the survivors of the Great Flood have not been any better, possibly worse, than the people who were punished by it.

The Tower of Babylon

The Tanakh assumed that In the early days humans had only one language and could understand each other well.  Then some of them decided to build the Tower of Babylon (Babel) that reached to the sky so that they could make a name for themselves.  God noticed this and was offended.

              Soon they will be able to do anything they want!  Let us go down and mix up their language so that they will not understand each other.(Genesis 11:6-7)

If he wanted to prevent them from gaining too much power why not just knock down the tower, and if they tried to build it again, knock it down again.  God could have taken other steps to curtail their power if he saw they were going too far.  Besides he should have known that the limits of humans would not allow them to do anything they want.

It is incomprehensible that he would want to stop humans from communicating in only one language.  Certainly forcing them to use an array of languages did not stop them from building skyscrapers much taller than the Tower.  Nor has it deterred them from seeking to gain as much power as possible, sometimes for the bad.

Having different languages has caused an untold number of problems through the ages.  There have been tragic misunderstandings.  There has been sad miscommunication between nations that has precipitated wars and unnecessary conflicts.  Surely a perceptive god would have foreseen this.  A caring god would have gone to great lengths to preserve the one common language rather than to destroy it.

The Abrahamic Principle of Mercy

In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord received accusations that there was great sin in the two cities and told Abraham he was concerned.  Fearing that God planned to completely destroy the cities, Abraham began to query him about the idea of punishing all of the inhabitants by death.  Abraham asked that if there were only 50 innocent people in the city (the discussion only involved Sodom) would he spare the city to avoid killing the 50.  Abraham expounded further on his question

Surely you won't kill the innocent with the guilty.  That is impossible!  You can't do that.  If you did, the innocent would be punished along with the guilty.  That is impossible.  The judge of all earth has to act justly.(Genesis 18:25)

The Lord answered that if he found 50 innocent people, he would spare the whole city.  At this point, you would have expected that the Lord would have informed Abraham that he had already given close thought to what he would do in such a situation.  He would have then told Abraham what his exact plan was in these situations.  He could have declared that if there were only ten innocent person he would refrain from killing everyone in the city.

This was not the way it went.  Abraham had to draw the answers out of God.  He next asked him if he would spare the city if there were only 45 innocents.  The Lord said he would.  Then Abraham reduced the number to 40 innocents in order to spare the city.  The Lord said he would.  Abraham then reduced the number to 30, to 20, and finally to 10 to which God acquiesced.  Abraham did not try to go any lower than that.  Call Abraham's idea the Abrahamic Principle of Mercy.

The most disturbing part of this episode is that a mere human had to confront God in order to have him consider what was just under the circumstances.  The Lord seems not to have given it much thought before.  Abraham could have continued to probe into the proper level of justice in the situation but was very hesitant and fearful in asking even the questions he did ask.  Without Abraham's pesky questioning, it looks like the Lord would have obliterated the cities even if there had been a high number of innocent people without giving it much thought.

It looks like the grave sin that residents of Sodom were accused of committing was sodomy, anal intercourse involving men.  Most men are heterosexual and not interested in engaging in sodomy.  There surely had to have been more than 10 innocent persons if heterosexual men, women, and children had been taken into account.  It is likely that there was a sizeable number of men in addition to the women and children who were among the innocent.  That brings the total number of likely innocent people up considerably.

God had the same alternatives for punishment that he had before he brought down the Flood.  He could have also diminished the testosterone of the offenders.  Instead the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom, Gomorrah "and the whole valley, along with all the people there and every thing that grew on the land."(Genesis 19:25)  It had to be that all the other animals in the area had to be wiped out, too.  Having burning sulfur poured on you had to be agonizing and death was probably not immediate.  People of Gomorrah and of the valley were also destroyed.  Were they also involved in the same objectionable actions as in Sodom or were they just unfortunately located too close--collateral damage?

Jacob (Israel) Favored by God

God gave Jacob close attention and protection.  Accordingly he was given a special place in Judaism.  The Hebrew nation of Israel is considered to have begun with him after God renamed him Israel.  Yet his moral character and history is repulsive.  It is some excuse that one of Jacob's offensive actions was done under pressure from his mother, who also did not leave a good impression.

Jacob was the younger of twin brothers born to Isaac, son of Abraham and Sarah.  Esau grew up to be a skillful hunter while Jacob preferred to stay at home.  One day Esau arrived home from hunting while Jacob was cooking a bean soup.  Esau said he was starving and asked his brother for some soup.  Jacob told him he would give him soup on condition that Esau would give him his rights as the first-born son.  Esau speculated out loud that since he was about to die his rights would not be of any use to him.  Jacob then insisted that Esau make a vow that he would give him his rights.  Esau made the vow to give him his birthright and Jacob finally gave Esau some soup and some bread.

What was Jacob's problem with giving Esau some food?  It was his own brother.  Surely the family often ate together and shared food.  Esau must have brought home game for all the family to partake.  Then there is the exorbitant price that Jacob asked for a simple bowl of soup.  Instead he could have asked for a pelt of one of the animals that Esau killed or his help in a chore that Jacob needed to do.  He was adamant in wanting the birthright.  You wonder what he would have done if Esau had refused to give it up.

Years later Isaac was very old and close to death.  He had become blind.  He told Esau that he would give him his blessing as the first born.  Esau left to hunt for some game for Isaac.  Their mother Rebeka persuaded Jacob into standing in front of Isaac, impersonating Esau, and receiving the blessing.  When Jacob stood in front of Isaac, he asked which son he was.  Jacob lied and claimed to be his older son Esau.  Isaac was confused and asked again, "Are you really Esau?"  He commented that the voice sounded like that of Jacob.

Isaac asked a third time, "Are you really Esau?"

"I am," Jacob answered.

Isaac then gave him the blessing, declared he should have good fortune, and stated, "May nations be your servants and may peoples bow down before you.  May you rule over your relatives . . ."(Genesis 27:28-29)

As soon as Jacob left, Esau came in from hunting.  He asked Isaac for his blessing.  Isaac trembled all over when he realized what had happened.  He said the blessing belonged to Jacob forever.  Esau cried loudly and asked for Isaac's blessing, too.  Isaac admitted that Jacob had deceived him.  He rubbed salt in Esau's wound by telling him he would not enjoy dew from heaven nor fertile fields and that he would be his brother's slave.  Esau continued to beg for a blessing from his father.  In all that, he never suggested that Isaac take back the blessing from Jacob, only that he give a second blessing to him.  Esau understandably became very angry at Jacob.  Isaac and Rebeka feared he might kill Jacob so they sent Jacob far away to Haran from where Rebeka had come.

Jacob did not look very good later in Genesis 34, which recounts the rape of Dinah, daughter of Jacob.  Shechem, the son of Hamor, a Hivite chief of the region, was the rapist.  After the violation Shechem fell in love with Dinah and pleaded with Jacob and his sons that he be allowed to marry her.  Hamor invited Jacob and his tribe to settle in the land, own property, and intermarry with his group.  Jacob's sons went along but only on condition that all the men in Hamor's group agree to be circumcised--which they did.  Jacob's sons had a trick in mind.

When Hamor's men were convalescing and weak from their cuts of circumcision, two of Jacob's sons went to the Hivite village and killed all of them.  It well could be that there were more than 77 of them thus exceeding Lamech's rule.  This still was not enough punishment for the rape.  The rest of Jacob's sons went and looted the flocks, the cattle, the donkeys, the crops, everything in the houses, and captured all the women and children.

Jacob expressed concern about his sons actions because it posed a threat to his family.  He fretted that other tribes might band together and come to attack them.  He mentioned nothing about deceit or the excessive violence or about forgiveness and compassion.  No disapproval was heard from God.  This gives grounds to assume that for centuries after that God approved of massive, violent, and vengeful punishment.

In spite of all this, the Lord still supposedly blessed Jacob at Peniel and again at Bethel where he told him nations and kings would be descended from him.  It was at Peniel that God supposedly changed Jacob's name to Israel.  Jacob can mean "cheat" in Hebrew.(The Good News Bible)  Is that why God changed his name?  Here again we have the situation seen in the very beginning with the narration of the creation story.  How were the Biblical authors able to know about God's decision to change Jacob's name as well as so many other intimate details like it?

God could have chosen from several good and honest men besides Jacob, now Israel, to have as an eponym for his nation.  They may not have been perfect but they were head and shoulders above Jacob/Israel.  There was Abraham with whom God started.  The nation of God could have been called Abraham or Abrahamia.  It could have been named after one of the other patriarchs Isaac or Joseph.  No other man worked harder for the Lord than Moses so why not use his name.  That could be done even now.  Even Esau would have been more deserving as you will see now.  In 1948 it would have been progressive to name the new Jewish nation Miriam or Rachel or Ruth.

The Kindness of Esau

What may be the most touching story in the Tanakh involves the reunion of Esau and Jacob.  After 20 years working for Rebeka's father in Haran, Jacob moved back with his wives, concubines, children, slaves, and large flocks.  He was rightfully afraid of what would happen to him when he met Esau who was now living in Edom.  Accordingly he decided to take a very gentle and diplomatic approach to Esau.  He sent messengers to say that he was in hope of gaining Esau's favor.  The messengers returned and informed him that Esau was already on his way to meet him with 400 of his men.  Jacob was naturally frightened and worried that Esau was going to attack his contingent.  He decided to divide everyone into two groups.   More than likely Esau and his men would only be able to attack one of the groups first and that would free the second one to escape.

The next day Jacob decided to do something further that would pacify Esau.  He sent herdsmen with a large gift of livestock.  There was a large number of goats, sheep, camels, cows, and donkeys.  He was hoping that with these gifts he could win Esau's forgiveness.  When Jacob saw Esau with his 400 men, he bowed down to him seven times.  He must have expected the worst.  Surprisingly Esau ran to him, threw his arms around him, and kissed him.  Both men cried.  Jacob mentioned the gift he had sent but Esau told him to keep what he had.

Esau then expected that he would lead Jacob and his contingent back to his home in Edom.  Jacob told Esau his group had to follow at their own slower pace.  He lied and instead snuck off to Canaan.  It is inspirational to see how loving and forgiving Esau was after what Jacob had done to him.  It is bewildering that God wanted to have any association with Jacob, much more that he would offer to help him and his progeny.

The Agony of the Egyptian People

The next episode in which the moral character of God came into play was the ten tortures of the Egyptian people.  We examined these disasters from the standpoint of credibility and found them wanting.  Now we will examine the same events to consider the morality of it all.  Some of the actions took many lives.  Turning the water of all of Egypt into blood had to cause serious problems.  It killed all the fish.  It forced the Egyptians to dig wells near the Nile river but this had to take time and so could not quickly supply all of Egypt.  It could not have been enough water.  The Lord's sending of flies may not appear to be very harmful but Exodus 8:24 stated, "The whole land of Egypt was brought to ruin by the flies."

The next plague was definitely deleterious.  God sent a disease that killed all the animals of the Egyptians.  This had to seriously affect the food supply as well as take away the availability of the labor animals.  With the later torture of the heavy hailstorm, God said he intended to kill all the people and animals outside at the time.  Most Egyptians probably never heard any warning.  This disaster must have killed all the wild animals.  That meant the Egyptians could not even hunt for their food.  It would have a long lasting effect.  It would be a long time before they could replace these animals.  If no animals were left for them at all, it would have been impossible for them to breed a new stock of animals. 

The plague of the locusts sent by God must have wiped out many plants and trees.  That further diminished the food for the Egyptians.  This was a prescription for eventual starvation for many.  The last torture was the death of every first-born son.

There were a number of alternatives open to God besides the path he followed.  He could have had the Hebrews quietly sneak away from Egypt, and then when the army gave them chase simply paralyzed the soldiers and had the Israelites capture their horses and chariots for their own use.  Lord knows they would have been useful in their journey through the desert.  Yahweh could have made the Egyptians fall asleep or maybe just the pharaoh, the government officials, and the soldiers fall asleep for the necessary time.

It was claimed that God covered all of Egypt in total darkness as one of  the disasters.  If the Lord was capable of doing that, why not keep the Egyptians in the dark as long as necessary while providing enough light for the Israelites on their path out of Egypt?   The Lord could have blinded the Egyptians for the necessary time, or he could have limited the blinding only to those, such as the soldiers, who attempted to stop the Israelites.

The biggest problem with these Passover punishments is that they could have been focused much better.  It seems grossly unjust and insensitive to make all the people and animals of Egypt suffer because of a quarrel with only one man--the pharaoh.  It was only the pharaoh who allegedly stood in the way.  There is no mention of any opposition to an exit from the officials.  To the contrary, they advised him after the locust attack, "Let the Israelite men go so that they can worship the Lord their God.  Don't you realize that Egypt is ruined?"(Exodus 10:7)

The general Egyptian populace was unaware of the dispute and had no power to make decisions anyway.  You cannot even call it punishment since they did not do anything wrong.  They were just pawns trampled over in a struggle.  The Torah makes no mention of the inflicting of pain on all the Egyptians having any effect on the pharaoh's decisions.

Any coercive measures should have been taken only against the pharaoh or possibly also his advisers and family.  They would understandably have more influence on the pharaoh, and seeing his family suffer could have molested him greatly.  Many people are not affected emotionally by the suffering of others unless it involves people close to them.

It is hard to understand how the pharaoh could have been so stubborn and not let the Hebrews depart after the first disaster of the blood.  After all, there were presumably too many Hebrews in Egypt.  The present pharaoh should have realized the fortuitous opportunity to get rid of the Hebrews.  It was as if he was not acting from his own free will.  That is exactly what was happening.  The Bible clearly shows that God was manipulating him totally.

From the outset, the Lord stated his intention to manipulate him into being stubborn.  In Midian he reminded Moses that he expected him to perform great miracles in front of the pharaoh and declared, "But I will make the king stubborn and he will not let the people go."(Id. 4:21)  Then he told Moses to tell the pharaoh that the Lord said, "Israel is my first-born son.  I told you to let my son go, so that he might worship me, but you refused.  Now I am going to kill your first-born son."(Id. 4:22-23)  Before Moses and Aaron even met with the pharaoh for the first time, Yahweh reaffirmed his true plan.

But I will make the king stubborn, and he will not listen to you, no matter how many terrifying things I do in Egypt.  Then I will bring severe punishment on Egypt and lead the tribes of my people out of the land.  The Egyptians will know i am the Lord when I raise my hand against them.(Id. 7:3-5)

Again it is mentioned not just that the pharaoh became stubborn but that God made him stubborn at Exodus 9:, 10:20, and 10:27.  There is a particularly interesting passage in which the Lord let pharaoh know through Moses that he has been lenient toward him and his people in order to show that there is no one like him in the world.  He stated

If I had raised my hand to strike you and your people with disease, you would have been completely destroyed.  But to show you my power I have let you live so that my fame might spread all over the world.(Exodus 9:14-16)

God continued to dangle the strings of his pitiful puppet, the pharaoh, even after the pharaoh had acceded to the Israelite demands and told them to leave.  The Israelites were well on their way eastward near Baal Zephon when the Lord said to Moses at Exodus 14:4,

 I will make him stubborn, and he will pursue you, and my victory over the king and his army will bring me honor.  The Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.

The rest of the verse states that the Israelites did as they were told.  He repeated what he had said.

 I will make the Egyptians so stubborn that they will go in after them, and I will gain honor by my victory over the king, his army, his chariots, and his drivers.  When I defeat them, the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.(Id. 14:7-18)

From these passages, it has to be concluded that all the suffering inflicted on the Egyptians was not so much for the freeing of the Israelite slaves but to showcase the Lord's power.  That was the real reason he kept making the pharaoh stubborn throughout.

Another element that shows the ego of God is the need to be worshipped.  Throughout history we have seen the human thirst for adulation get in the way of persons' moral decisions.  One motivation of Yahweh to get the Israelites out of Egypt was so that they could be more free to worship him.  After the Israelites went into the desert, through the millennia, and to this day, there have been elaborate methods and rituals prescribed for his worship.  Yahweh gave elaborate instructions on how it was to be done.  This should not be a surprise.  It has been very common for all gods to be worshipped, often in elaborate ways.

However, it has to be asked why gods should be at all impressed with being worshipped by human beings heaping copious praise and adulation on them.  First of all, why would it be important to receive the praise of lowly humans?  You would think it would not mean much coming from such weak and confused creatures.  It would be comparable to your finding out that the birds in your neighborhood had formed a cult that worshipped you.  You would be curious about it and would be glad that you had allies that might be able to help you in a time of need, but your interest would wane after a period of time.

You would remain more interested in what your fellow humans had to say about you and with receiving their praise.  You would also get bored with all the unwavering attention.  You might start to wonder if the worship was not actually based on their own self-interest.  Their admiration--you might realize--was given with the expectation of receiving benefits from you like wild bird seed in your backyard.

LIkewise, gods would be more impressed with receiving praise and admiration from fellow gods.  Their judgment would be so much more valuable.  Furthermore as gods, they should be fully aware of their own high stature, their greatness, power, and benevolence.  There should be no need for humans to continually worship God to tell him how great he is, to sing hymns of praise to him, to give him gifts called offerings, to build monuments to him, and it goes on.  God does not need anything.  To give him gifts is totally unnecessary.  Paying that much attention to God is a throwback to the beliefs of primitive people that the gods became very unhappy if they were not adored and appeased.  Bad things would happen if they were not worshipped.  It has become more and more evident that this is not what happens.  It has to be asked what is the character of a god who needs continual worship.

There are additional moral considerations in the Passover tortures, as well as the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Group punishment has long been considered as immoral by students of morality.  The problem with group punishment arises in situations in which only a few members of a group have committed a wrong while the rest of the members had no involvement and all get punished.

This story of the Exodus tortures is probably the most agonizing example of group punishment given the multiple brutal punishments of all the innocent Egyptian people and animals.  If anyone could avoid meting out group punishment, you would expect it to be God.  After all, he would be the most capable of focusing the necessary punishment on only the appropriate miscreants.

The Golden Calf

The Lord and Moses accused the Israelites of being unfaithful when they had Aaron construct a golden calf.(Exodus 32)  In their defense the people were concerned that Moses had not returned and were apparently afraid that he and Yahweh had forgotten them.  They also felt better if they could see a concrete representation of God.  They were not used to bowing to an invisible God.  From their comments it does not appear that they wanted to worship an inanimate statue of a bull.  It looks like they intended it as a representation of Yahweh, the god who had led them out of Egypt.  This can also explain why Aaron acquiesced in constructing the calf for them.  So the Lord and Moses should have inquired into the intentions of the people and not have become so angry.

There is still another possible exculpatory explanation.  The Israelites saw nothing wrong with pleading for help from another god, especially if they feared that Yahweh had abandoned them.  They and their ancestors had not been aware of the concept of strict monotheism.  When their ancestors first left Canaan to go to Egypt, they were familiar with different gods.  They may have worshipped El but were free to worship others that they could have considered as responsive to them.  In Egypt there was a multitude of gods so the Israelites continued to get the message that it was perfectly acceptable to worship more than one god.

Furthermore, when the Israelites asked to have a golden calf, they had not yet received the Ten Commandments and all the other laws they were eventually ordered to obey.  Moses was at that very moment receiving those laws from God at the top of the mountain.  While the people had observed that the god of Moses had led them out of Egypt, they had not been told that it was strictly forbidden for them to plead to other gods or that there would be dire punishment if they did.  They would not learn of these rules until after Moses returned with them from the mountain.

It was unfair then for the Lord and Moses to get mad at the Israelites for setting up the golden calf.  In their minds, they did nothing wrong.  They were doing what they and others had been accustomed to doing.  God was especially incensed for what the Israelites had done.  He wanted to kill them all and only leave Moses standing.  Moses pleaded with him, Abraham-style, not to be angry and was able to talk him out of it.

In spite of the foregoing explanations, the Lord and Moses each imposed harsh punishment.  The Lord's punishment was to send a disease on the people.(Exodus 32: 35)  Moses' punishment was to have the Levite priests "go through the camp . . . and kill your brothers, your friends, and your neighbors."(Exodus 32:27)  This was presumably a punishment of those who had not stood with the Lord in opposition to worship of the golden calf.  Yet, Aaron who built the calf was spared!  There was no particular inquiry or trial of each person to assess exactly what was the level of responsibility of each one.  The Levites killed about three thousand men that day.  Moses then told the Levites, "Today you have consecrated yourselves as priests in the service of the Lord by killing your sons and brothers, so the Lord has given you his blessing."(Exodus 32: 28, 29)

The Levite priests came out looking good in this incident.  Later chapters in Exodus set out in detail instructions from God on proper worship including the ordination of the Levite priests and their garments.  All this lends credence to the assessment by some Biblical scholars that the early books of the Hebrew Bible were written by Levite priests well after the time the alleged events were supposed to have taken place.

The Ten Commandments

God proceeded to hand down numerous laws to Moses for the people, which became known as the Mosaic law.  These laws became sacrosanct and have been revered all these millennia, right down to this day.  This is to be expected of anyone who believes that the laws were promulgated by Yahweh and handed down by him.  The first laws that God delivered to Moses were the Ten Commandments, which God personally wrote down on stone tablets.  People around the world have referred to these through the years as an example of the ultimate in wise and sacred laws.

The fifth to the tenth are straightforward.  The fifth commanded that you shall honor your father and mother.  That is something that most people have no problem in doing.  It would not seem necessary to make it one of the big Ten.  Nevertheless, Yahweh found it so important that he promulgated additional related laws.  They called for someone who hit or cursed his father or mother to be put to death.(Exodus 21:15,17)  This is harsh, yet there is no discussion of possible exceptions.  In fact, all these commandments and laws could have been extensively expounded upon by the Lord, but that did not happen. 

Some people are terrible parents and do not merit being honored.  Some parents beat and rape their children and dishonor them in various ways.  You wonder what the Lord thought of a young man in the 1990's who sought to legally divorce his parents because they had been very neglectful.  We know that in history there has been a multitude of children who have not honored their parents because they had to run away from them due to their severe abuse or neglect.

The next three commandments against murder, stealing, and adultery are without a doubt properly directed at behavior that must be prohibited if a society is to live in peace.  The last two state there is to be (9) no false witness and (10) no coveting of the possessions of neighbors.  One question about (10) is that it only involves transgression against neighbors.  Why shouldn't it cover all other persons including strangers?  We should avoid causing harm to anyone.  The fifth and tenth Commandments are important but could have been left out of the top Ten and instead have been included with the other laws. 

It can be questioned whether even the seventh Commandment prohibiting adultery should have been one of the Ten.  In some instances a person commits adultery because s/he has a terrible partner who may be abusive or is extremely neglectful.  The best solution is to divorce but there could be understandable reasons for not taking that path.  Children could be involved or the aggrieved spouse could be left with very little means of support.

Then there is the question about the gender fairness of adultery at the time.  It was not defined the way it is in most cultures today.  The only way it was committed was if the wife of an Israelite man had sexual intercourse with another man.  A husband who had sexual intercourse with a single woman, even an Israelite one, did not commit adultery.  Remember that men were allowed to have several wives as well as concubines.  Also a wife was considered to be the property of her husband but not the other way around.  This must have influenced views on adultery.

The consequences were serious for adulterers.  "If a man commits adultery with the wife of a fellow Israelite, both he and the woman shall be put to death."(Leviticus 20:10)  Then again there were a number of other infractions that were also punishable by death.  It has been reported that radical Muslims have recently stoned women upon accusations of adultery.

Note that the offended man must have been an Israelite.  By implication, if he was not an Israelite, there was no transgression.  Leviticus 20:13 states, "If a man has sexual relations with another man . . . both shall be put to death."  Priests had a very special place.  Leviticus 21:19 states, "If a priest's daughter becomes a prostitute, she disgraces her father, she shall be burned to death."  As if the standard stoning were not gruesome enough, this sin is punished by an even more excruciating action--burning.

Now consider the first four commandments.  They reveal a god who is first and foremost concerned about himself and his status. His first concern was not about directing his children in how to treat each other, which could be considered the paramount concern.  Good parents pay attention to teaching their children how to act toward others. Behavior involving parents is only a part of that.  With Yahweh general behavior is left to the back while the main concern is the attention he is to be given.

The first commandment directed that he must be the exclusive god.  He stated he was a jealous god.  You must know without a doubt that he will not share his place with anyone else.  There is not even any discussion of whether other gods could offer additional aid to his people.  Why not allow other gods to help whenever necessary?  They could be considered inferior to Yahweh.  In contrast, the Hindu supreme god Brahman tolerated the worship of thousands of other gods recognized in Hinduism.  It is not even clear that Brahman would not tolerate the simultaneous worship of gods of other religions such as Yahweh and Zeus.

The second commandment prohibited the fashioning of any image of anything that is found anywhere on earth or even in heaven.  How humans would know what anything looks like in heaven is a good question.  Why this prohibition?  After all, people had made images or statues of a number of objects even fictitious ones for centuries.  There was no nefarious intention in doing this.  Figurines can even be considered as something like a toy.  Or there can be statues of important people like kings intended simply as a commemoration and not for the purpose of worship.

Admittedly, people did make statues or paintings at the time that depicted their gods and made them in order to worship them.  People wanted something palpable.  Yahweh, being well aware of this practice, decided to issue an absolute law against it.  He did not even allow any exception for forming a statue or representation of himself.  He obviously did not want to leave any door open for the possibility of the worship of any being but him.  It is true that people made images of animals such as lions, wolves, goats, snakes, and even the scarab beetle.  You could say that these people worshipped revered these creatures because of their special powers.

Yahweh did not want anyone to bow down to or worship anything else no matter how lowly it might be.  He mentioned he was a jealous god and that there would be punishment for idolaters that would be visited down to the third and fourth generation.  Can a god be called just if he delivers his punishment to innocent descendants?  Apparently, God estimated that the potential sinner would be so concerned for his descendants that it would deter him from committing the wrong.  The reality is that the offender may not care much about his descendants, especially if he does not know those three or four generations down.  Or he could have some regard for them but it would not be strong enough to override his perceived need to plead for help from other gods.

The second commandment amplified the first one.  It is too bad that he did not discuss the exact status of angels.  It seems they are superhuman so does that not make them gods, at least lesser ones?  Then there is the apparent worship by Catholic Christians of the Virgin Mary and certain saints.

The third commandment prohibited the taking of God's name in vain.  Most people have taken this to mean invoking curses against others under the name of God.  Another misuse has been considered the making of false oaths while using the name of God.  Judaics have gone well beyond this to the point of disapproving the utterance of the name of God in almost any form.  If they have to refer to him in speech, they say the Lord or Adonai instead of God.  In writing, they spell the appellations incompletely, as in G-d and L-rd.  Some Yahwehists object to use of the word God in innocent phrases like "my God" and "dear Lord."

The question is why would any of this perturb the Lord.  Why would he object to people using his full name?  How is he affected by someone exclaiming, "Oh, my God"?  At least they are keeping him in mind.  Why would it be so bad for someone to take an oath while using his name if they sincerely mean to tell the truth?  The adding of his name could be taken as a compliment.  Even if the person lies under oath, the more serious offense would be the lying and not that the name of God was included in the oath.

A more serious case of taking the name of God in vain is when people utter a curse at someone or something.  "God damn" is the most common example of this.  It is the wish or call for God to damn or bring punishment or stop the object of the curse.  It acknowledges the power of God.  It does not demean God.  It is hard to see how God could be upset by these minor and not disrespectful uses of the word "God."  That even God did not consider it a serious offense is demonstrated by his not specifying a punishment for it.

There is a much more serious use of the word "God" that is not only in vain but highly offensive.  Yet these utterances are hardly discussed in the Bible or by the religious.  Some members of the clergy and others have made these pronouncements for millennia.  Examples of these are "God will punish the Christians because they are not monotheistic," "God will punish the Muslims because they follow a violent religion," "God will punish the Buddhists for not emphasizing God," "God hates topless dancers," "God does not listen to the prayers of a Jew."

The latter was a statement actually made by a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Apparently, he meant that if you don't end your prayers, like Christians do, with the phrase "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen," God will not consider those prayers.  It is puzzling why the speaker did not mention the Muslims, the Hindus, and all the other believers who do not use that phrase.  Then there is the use by radical terrorists of the name Allah after they kill a group of innocent people.

The problem with these pronouncements is first that they use God's name in a questionable context.  It is pointless for the speakers to say these things because they could well be wrong about what God thinks and about what he is going to do.  Secondly, these utterances are arrogant, unwarrantedly judgmental, and presumptuous.  The speakers have the gall to put themselves in the place of God in claiming what he thinks.

Some of the most religious and righteous persons make these kinds of statements.  They are very confident that they have the right path to the divine truth.  Ironically, many of these statements can be found in the Bible, including the Christian addendum, the New Testament .  They often talk about what bad fortunes God is going to bring down on the heathen.  The author(s) of the beginning chapters of Genesis that described the creation of the universe had to have been describing something he did not know about.  People in the Bible many times claimed they knew what God was thinking, what he wanted, or what actions he was going to take.  The prophets made allegations about God, which is what prophets do.  They did not know what they had claimed.  At times they turned out to be wrong.  In doing this, they invoked the name of God in vain.

As an example, the prophets were wrong in predicting the coming of a messiah to rescue the Jewish people.  These predictions were made in the 500's or earlier.  The Jews needed a messiah right away and the prophets had to have been aware of that.  To this day, the Judaics believe that there still has not been any messiah sent, so by their estimation the prophets were definitely wrong and used the name of God in vain.

The fourth commandment required that no work be done on the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath.  Not only were the Israelites not to work but nor were slaves or foreigners, not even animals.  It is a strict requirement and was closely interpreted that way for millennia.  Orthodox Jews today still interpret the commandment rigidly.  They consider it improper to drive a motor vehicle to the synagogue on the Sabbath.  Walking there is acceptable.  A machine or instrument can do work, but an adherent is not supposed to turn it on or off on the Sabbath.

People today, whether they are Yahwehists or not, will defend God for forcing people to reserve one day of the week for rest.  They will point out that there are physical and psychological benefits in people getting away from the work they do the rest of the week.  It has become commendable to spend leisure time on both Saturday and Sunday.  It is supposed to make persons refreshed and rested when they return to work on Monday.

The fact is that after about 1920 C.E. society surpassed the idea of having just one regular day off when the practice became to have two regular off days on Saturday and Sunday.  This synchronized with the forty-hour work week.  In time, work-free holidays and two-week vacations were added.  Why didn't the Lord include all that when he set down the Commandment?  Also why not give workers the opportunity of picking any two days of the week that would best suit them to take off.  That greater flexibility makes it easier to adjust to different work requirements.  Today some work four days of 10 hours each and then enjoy three days off.  Others work 10 days straight and then are off four days.  That gives them a better chance to travel on their days off.

The fact is that Yahweh did not mention working conditions or people's health or fair labor standards.  He said it was to honor the day after the six days during which he created everything.  Was it that important to him to honor that day?  The seventh day looks no different from any other day.  God could have made it look special if he truly wanted it to stand out.  It could always look brilliant in some way.  How about perfect weather on that day?

What he wished was for everyone to remember him on that day that he had rested from creating.  It is understandable that he wanted everyone to remember that he had created the universe and what a great feat it had been but did it have to be a commandment that it be commemorated every week?  A great celebration every year acclaiming the creation of the universe could have been instituted instead.  It could have even extended to several days of singing, dancing, and revelry.  The commandment made no mention of any joyous activity.

Then there is the question of why the instituting of the commemoration was so important that it had to be mandated as one of the Ten Commandments.  Yes, it was understandable that it be originated in the Torah as so many other practices were.  However, it seems an exaggeration to have it as one of the big Ten.

This elevation to the Ten Commandments is additional evidence that it was really promulgated by humans for the purpose of exalting God the creator and not the creation itself.  It also helped the priests set the seventh day as a day of worship.  Some Israelites must have felt burdened by the mandate.  There was much work to be done just providing for basic needs.

Those disobedient of the Fourth Commandment had a rude awakening after one particular incident.  Read Numbers 15:32 to see what happened to one man:

 [A] man was found gathering firewood on the Sabbath.  He was taken to Moses, Aaron, and the whole community, and was put under guard, because it was not clear what should be done with him.  Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man must be put to death; the whole community is to stone him to death outside the camp.

The community did exactly as they were told.  The man was not doing something frivolous and could well have been collecting the firewood so that his family could prepare food or to keep warm if it was winter.  The family should have gathered the firewood early on Friday.  Since they failed to do this, they had to pay the price by losing the life of the father.  The honor and supreme position of the Lord was not to be ignored even it it meant that the punishment for forgetting the law had to be death.

The overwhelming sovereignty and importance of God is demonstrated in the four Commandments, which naturally came first.  No other major god in any other religion around the world has prescribed that humans pay him so much attention and adulation as has Yahweh.  But is this the best approach?  A god confident that he will earn and deserve the respect and admiration of his followers would not need to demand it from them.  Nor would he desire to set harsh punishments for those who did not follow rules related to his worship.  He would judge that persons should be allowed the freedom to think on their own in regard to his worship.  He would not command what Yahweh ordered in Exodus 34:12-13:

              Do not make any treaties with the people of the country into which you are going . . .  .  Instead, tear down their altars, destroy their sacred pillars, and cut down their symbols of the goddess Asherah.

Of course, this more flexible god would mete out appropriate punishment for bad social behavior.  A truly powerful and confident god would not be very concerned with how much adulation he received from humans.  Accordingly, he would be more than willing to tell the people to worship other gods and it could be as many others as they wanted.  He would not worry about humans erecting as many images as they wished and worship them if they so desired.

They would still be free to ask him for what they needed.  The god would be sure that the people would notice that the other gods were not effective.  Those other gods would not be able to deliver.  They would not provide the needed food, water, raw materials, favorable weather, sound health, and other benefits that only he could furnish.  This would prove that all the other gods were false gods.  The people would have to then be very appreciative of having him, be loyal to him, worship him exclusively, and love him deeply.

The god could offer to run controlled experiments with the people.  They could try different gods.  They could do this on an individual basis or as an entire community.  They could try one god for say a year, then a second one for the next year, and so on for as long as they wanted to continue.  In the meantime, the real god would stay out of the picture, giving the other gods the chance to show their power.  Then after trying different gods, the people would then see the dramatic improvement with the real god as opposed to the false gods.

The contest among the gods would be a "shop and compare" approach that businesses sometimes take.  Those that are confident that their product is the best advertise that people should compare products like theirs that are sold by other companies.  They say that the shoppers will then realize that their product is the best.  Yahweh did not take this approach.  He had to threaten and rule with an iron fist.

The Ten Commandments have long been considered as the ten most important laws from God that humans should obey.  Yet they are far from perfect.  The first four could be combined in one simple law, which would not even need to be one of the Ten.  In fact, a simple directive can be found in Exodus 22:28, "Do not speak evil of God."  A more wide-ranging law could be:  honor God.

There are a number of offenses that should have more appropriately been included in the Ten Commandments instead of some of the ones that were.  These involve rape, assault, kidnap, bribery, destruction of property, slavery.  There may be others.  There are serious crimes like torture, animal cruelty, embezzlement, fraud, and arson, but these can be classified under assault, theft, and destruction of property.

The Missing Laws

Some of these crimes are at least mentioned and prohibited in other places in the Torah.  Soon after the Ten Commandments were issued, it was ordered that whoever kidnaps a man is to be put to death.(Exodus 21:16)  Kidnap was obviously taken as a serious offense and so would have been a good candidate for being one of the Ten Commandments.  Modern societies continue to consider it very seriously.  Exodus speaks against accepting a bribe but says nothing about offering one or about what the penalty should be.  Certainly bribery is about the same level of seriousness as false witness, the ninth Commandment.

Slavery, destruction of property, assault, and rape were not even listed as punishable offenses, much less as serious ones.  Slavery was mentioned at several places in the Torah starting in the chapter immediately succeeding the one that contains the Ten Commandments.  Not a word was included against it, only some rules on the treatment of slaves.

It is clear that slavery should have been prohibited throughout the Bible.  Yet there is no doubt that the Bible accepted the institution.(Exodus 21:1-11)  Exodus favored male Hebrew slaves over others.  They were to be set free in the seventh year of servitude.  For females it was different.  "If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to be set free as males slaves are."(Id. 21:7)

It was not always easy for a freed slave.  "If his master gave him a wife and she bore him sons or daughters, the woman and her children belong to the master and the man is to leave by himself."(Id. 21:4)  So the price of gaining his freedom could be high.  He could go free but it would have to be without his family.  However, the Lord did make provision for the slave to remain with his wife and children.  This would be allowed "if the slave declares that he loves his master, his wife, and his children and does not want to be set free."(Id. 21:5)  At that point the master was to take the slave to a place of worship where he would put a hole through his ear.  Apparently, this was the standard way of branding a slave who would then remain as a slave for life.  Females and nonHebrews were always slaves for life without chance for freedom.

Here is another interesting law in regard to slavery that is found later in the same chapter of Exodus.

              If a man takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female, and the slave dies on the spot, the man is to be punished.  But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished.  The loss of his property is punishment enough.(Id. 21:20-21)

Figure out the difference between immediate death and death one or two days later.  There is no call here for capital punishment of the master, the standard punishment for killing--a violation of the sixth commandment.  In the case of delayed death, there is not even any punishment.

Yahwehist commentators like to claim that the Bible instructs masters to be compassionate toward their slaves.  They are to set their Hebrew slaves free after six years and be generous to them when they release them.  Still, there was much left to be desired.  Even worse, the Bible's (including the Christian addendum) open approval of slavery left the door open to wide suffering in the future.  You can bet that many masters did not later show compassion.  We do not know of any widespread freeing of slaves after six years.  One thing we do know is that slavers in the United States freely used the Bible to justify owning slaves and they had a solid foundation in their interpretation.  Some of their practices were not prohibited in the Bible such as selling individual slaves and taking them away from their families.

There is no dignity in a master owning another human.  It is questionable whether we should even take wild animals from their natural habitat in order to own them.  Birds in cages and fish in tanks may be pleasing to look at but it is torturous for them to live in such tight confinement.  An exception has to be made for animals already born around humans that would not do well if released to the wild.

Perhaps the closest justification for using slaves was after taking them as enemy combatants in war.  It makes good sense to keep enemy soldiers so that they will not return to their army to return to attack you.  Once hostilities have ended, the detention should probably cease.  Today slavery still exists illegally, mainly involving the use of young women as sex slaves. 

Slavery was practiced at the time of the Mt. Sinai appearance.  Its prohibition should have been one of the Ten Commandments.  The prohibition was more necessary than numbers 1 through 5 and 10.  Instead of supporting slavery, the Torah should have included more about paying a fair wage and providing better worker benefits and injury protections.

There is no prohibition in the Bible against the intentional destruction of property.  That could have been based on a commendable lack of concern for material possessions.  The Hebrews definitely showed no qualms about destroying the property of the people in the villages they invaded and razed to the ground.  Under the supposed command of God through Moses, they would at times destroy everything.

Still, destruction of property can bring great harm to people.  That is why in other cultures the intentional destruction of property came to be a crime.  A house or building burned down can have a devastating effect on a person or family especially if they are of modest means.

Even at the time of Mt. Sinai, there had to be the danger of the evil act of someone destroying significant property.  Feuds must have occurred between families and someone could have set fire or otherwise destroyed the tent of the opposing family.  There could have been a widespread dispute between several families involving the destruction of many tents.  It is even possible that some angry rebel could have destroyed the tabernacle.  It certainly seems that destruction of property would have been included as one of the Ten.

Assault is barely mentioned in the Bible.  Yet it is a very important crime that any society would want to work hard to prevent.  Assaults can lead to further violence as those attacked seek to exact revenge.  Assault as a forbidden act is hardly mentioned in the Torah.  The first assault-related law reads, "Whoever hits his father or his mother is to be put to death."(Exodus 21:15)  There is no indication of how hard the strike needed to be.  From the pronouncement a mere slap, even with justification, could bring capital punishment to a child.

Upon reflection it becomes clear that the motivation behind the law was not to discourage assault but instead to provide a punishment for violation of the fifth Commandment about honoring parents.  If the concern had been assault, there could have easily been a law proscribing all types of assaults.  At least there could have been laws prohibiting assaults against uncles and aunts or any elderly person--elder abuse.  It would have been very beneficial for God to have taken a firm stand against child abuse. 

Even aggravated assault, which is committed with a harmful implement or weapon, was not taken seriously enough to count as a crime:

 If there is a fight and one man hits another with a stone or with his fist, but does not kill him, he is not to be punished.  If the man who was hit has to stay in bed, but later is able to get outside with the help of a cane, the man who hit him is to pay for his lost time and take care of him until he gets well.(Id. 21:18-19)

The first sentence not only does not provide for punishment of an assailant, it openly condones his action by providing that there be no punishment at all.  Hitting someone with a stone, especially if it is done repeatedly, can cause serious even permanent harm.

The second sentence does not create a crime for the assault but only declares compensatory requirements.  It does not even allow punitive damages.  These are awarded in the civil law along with compensatory damages whenever the harm caused is intentional and deserving of some sort of punishment in addition to making restitution to the victim.  The requirement that the offender is to "take care of him" is ludicrous.  What if the two men hate each other?  Assault should have been taken more seriously in the Torah and included in the Ten Commandments.

There is one type of assault that is especially reprehensible.  Rape can have serious physical consequences for the victim, but many times the psychological damage is even worse and can last a lifetime.  There is no excuse for this kind of assault.  Today it is treated as a serious crime.

There are sometimes excuses for even the most serious of the Ten Commandment infractions.  Theft by persons when they or their families are starving would be excusable.  The killing by a wife of her husband who has been abusive to her for years has recently been excused by legal authorities.  The murder of an extremely vile dictator may be justified.

In contrast, rape cannot have a justifiable excuse.  In spite of its reprehensibility, rape and other sexual assaults were not prohibited as a crime in the Bible.  Sadly, the Bible as a whole shows a lack of regard for women and their low status at the time.  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 provided that if a man violated a woman who was not engaged he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver and must marry her without the right to ever divorce her.  It must be asked what if she was repelled by the man and abhorred him for having raped her?  The law gave her no choice in the matter.  She had to go along with the marriage and be stuck with him for life.  The penalty was a civil one, not criminal punishment.

There are no rules covering sexual abuse against women.  There is nothing about sexual harassment, unwanted touching, indecent exposure.  You would certainly expect a strong law against forcible rape.  There is simply no excuse for forcible rape.  It is a very selfish and repulsive act.  There are better ways to satisfy sexual desire.  Rape should have been one of the Ten Commandments.

The Biblical laws with respect to child abuse (to say nothing of neglect) were no better.  There are no admonitions against it whether physical or sexual.  If anything, the path to physical abuse is facilitated by the encouragement of physical discipline.  The phrase "spare the rod and spoil the child" has been attributed to the book of Proverbs where several pronouncements are written about disciplining with a rod.  The phrase is not actually found in the Bible.  It was instead originated by Samuel Butler in the 1800's.  It may have been inspired by Proverbs 13:24:  "He who spares his rod hates his son . . . "(King James Version)  Then there is Proverbs 23:13:  "Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die."  There were also Proverbs 22:15, 23:14, and 29:15.

There is no doubt that for centuries on the basis of these passages many Yahwehists felt justified in the liberal use of harsh physical punishment on their children.  Then there are all the unfortunate children who received beatings for no reason--maybe because the parent was unduly angry or drunk.  Incidentally, for adults the favored mode of punishment for minor infractions was the whip.  See Deuteronomy 25.  In more serious cases, we have already seen that the punishment was death by stoning. 

It was not until the 1900's that laws started to gradually appear in Western countries that protected children.  Even then the change was slow.  It was probably not until around the year 2000 that most of the parents in these societies came to the realization that corporal punishment of children as well as pets is not only not very effective but even downright counterproductive.  That is unfortunately a long time in human history for people to come to that insight.  The sacred scriptures were not very helpful in reaching this realization.  Then there are the many millions in the rest of the world who continue to mete out harsh physical punishment.  There is no mention in the Torah about sexual abuse or child abuse, yet there is much ink used instructing about the correct treatment and conditions for the priests.

While there is little disapproval in the Hebrew Bible about the mistreatment of children, there are clear statements about the duties of children toward their parents.  To begin there is the fifth commandment.  There is no doubt that he would be displeased with any child--minor or adult--who denied or ran away from her/is parents.  It should not be surprising that some kids may want to live apart from their parents.  There are irresponsible parents who do not support their children financially or otherwise.  There are others, such as criminals, who are a bad influence on them.  It has been found that most children whether girls or boys who run away from home do so because of abuse at home.

It is not likely that God has much sympathy for a child who is not always docile with respect to her/is parents.  This is shown in Exodus 21:17:  "Whoever curses his father or his mother is to be put to death."  The rule is absolute.  There is no discussion of any circumstances in which the cursing might be excused.

Bizarre Laws

It is hard to understand why God would have found some instructions important enough to include as laws, while there are some others that are unduly harsh.  In either case it is hard to imagine that God would have issued them. It seems more likely that, for strange reasons, priests decided to include them.

In Exodus the following orders are made:

"If a bull gores someone to death, it is to be stoned."(Exodus 21:28)  There is no excuse for the bull in the case he was provoked.  There is no provision for putting away the bull as humanely as possible.  Stoning was the regular method of capital punishment ordered in the Bible.  Apparently, the bull had a serious moral responsibility and had to suffer a punitive death.

Put to death any woman who practices magic.(22:18)  Many women were later killed on the basis of this commandment.  It is well known that in New England it happened as late as the 1600's.

Do not offer bread made with yeast when you sacrifice an animal to me.(23:15)

Do not cook a young sheep in its mother's milk.(23:19)

At the ordination of Aaron and his sons as priests, the Lord instructed Moses to kill a ram "and take some of its blood and put it on the lobes of the right ears of Aaron and his sons, on the thumbs of their right hands and on the big toes of their right feet.  Throw the rest of the blood against all four sides of the altar."(29:20)  There are other bizarre instructions on their ordination.

Whoever works on the Sabbath is to be put to death.(31:14)

The book of Leviticus contains the following requirements:

Instructions on measures to be taken in connection with a woman's monthly menstrual period.(Leviticus 15:19-31)

On the Day of Atonement, all the evils and sins of the community were transferred to a goat's head.  This was the scapegoat, which was then driven far away to Azazel.  It was not explained in the Torah who Azazel was but it is now believed to be a desert demon.  A man was appointed to make sure the goat went far away.(16:20-22)

"Do not wear clothes made of two kinds of material."(17:19)

"Do not cut the hair on the sides of your head or trim your beard."(19:27)

"If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he and the animal shall be put to death.  If a woman tries to have sexual relations with an animal, she and the animal shall be put to death.  They are responsible for their own death."(20: 15,16)  Notice that all the woman has to do is "try."

"If a man has intercourse with a woman during her monthly period, both of them are to be driven out of the community because they have broken the regulation against ritual uncleanness."(20:18)

"Any man or woman who consults the spirits of the dead shall be stoned to death . . ."(20:27)

"None of your descendants who has a physical defect may present the food offering to me."(21:17)

Here are two laws from Deuteronomy:

"No one born out of wedlock or any descendants of such a person, even in the tenth generation, may be included among the Lord's people."(23:3)  Is it any wonder that for centuries "illegitimate" children were held in contempt?

"If two men are having a fight and the wife of one tries to help her husband by grabbing hold of the other man's genitals, show her no mercy; cut off her hand."(25:11-12)

From this study of Yahweh's laws it should be clear that they are far from perfect in several ways.  Yet they should not be.  They should be perfect if they come from God, ruler of the universe.  There are several that were not weighty enough to be included while other important rules should have been in their place.  Others are too harsh, especially toward women, the physically defective, and foreigners.  Then there are the other rules of other cultures that preceded those of Yahweh and were at least as sound as the ones in the Torah.

Judaics around the world still gather to reverently study the Torah every Sabbath (Saturday) morning.  After they go through all the books, they return to Genesis 1 and start all over again.  They repeat this year in and year out.

Yahweh's Religious Intolerance

There is one respect in which Yahweh's laws were unique.  That is the way in which Yahweh gave himself so much importance, insisting on constant, undivided, and unswerving adulation.  This obsession continued throughout the Tanakh as he reminded the israelites that they were to pay no attention to any other gods and had to remember him.  The consequence of failing to do this was his abandonment of them, severe punishment, and even death.  After the Torah the prophets continued to beat the drum of the need to be absolutely faithful to the Lord or the punishment would be terrible.  This struck great fear and guilt into the hearts of the Jews for millennia to come.  Even the most innocent acts that looked like they might show infidelity or disobedience to the Lord would terrify the Judaics that it could bring punishment.

As if that fear were not enough, there was another horrible consequence of Yahweh's demand of total devotion.  This is that it marked the beginning of the longstanding Yahwehist tradition of religious intolerance.  The contrast with Hindu religion was mentioned above.  The ancient Egyptians also worshipped a multitude of gods.  The Greeks and Romans generally did not demand that the people who were their subjects give up the gods they customarily worshipped.  What they did expect was that their subjects pay proper respect to and engage in some worshipful acts toward their gods.

There was one place and time before where religious intolerance took place.  This was during the reign of Akhenaten as pharaoh of Egypt.  It is possible that Moses was a priest under Akhenaten.  Moses carried the religious intolerance with him, and it found its way into the Torah.  This intolerance has been a very poisonous influence in the world ever since.  Millions of people have suffered and died because of it.  Ironically, the Jews themselves have been the greatest victims of that intolerance.  Fortunately, today they have become much more tolerant than in their early centuries.

The Departure for the Promised Land

The Israelites had spent a year camped near the base of Mt. Sinai when the Lord told them to leave the area and go to Canaan.  At the time, God declared to Moses that he was a God "full of compassion and pity, who is not easily angered and who shows great love and faithfulness."(Exodus 34:6) 

A number of laws appeared in Leviticus for the first time that required the Israelites to provide offerings to God of different types depending on the occasion.  Many of the different types of offerings were to be kept by the priests.  The Levites were assigned to serve the priests and so were made exempt from military service.  Instead their duty was to take full care of the tabernacle.  The clergy were taken care of well.  For the first time in the Bible, there was great concern in Leviticus on whether persons are unclean.  Exact indicators were presented for determining when a person was unclean and close instructions for knowing when the person ceased being unclean.

There could be harsh punishments for certain infractions.  One serious mistake was not following proper procedure with respect to the tabernacle (also known as the Tent of Meeting and Tent of the Lord's Presence).  Here is a frightening example.

              Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his fire pan, put live coals in it, added incense, and presented it to the Lord.  But this fire was not holy because the Lord had not commanded them to present it.  Suddenly the Lord sent fire, and it burned them to death there in the presence of the Lord.(Leviticus 10:1-2)

Demand of Absolute Loyalty

The threat of dire punishment for failing to show absolute loyalty and obedience to Yahweh was always there.  Leviticus 26 is a chapter in which the Lord went into detail about how well it would go for the Israelites if they obeyed his laws but how bad it would go if they did not.

Apparently to show how seriously God took this, he said that if the Hebrews continued to disobey him he would increase the punishment seven times greater than before.  If they still did not obey, the punishment would be increased by seven times once more.  If they still did not obey, the punishment would be increased by seven times for a third time.  If they still persisted in their rebelliousness, the Lord stated he would augment the punishment again by seven times.  Now that is a punishment enhanced 7x7x7x7 or 7 to the fourth power.  That amounts to 2,401 times the original punishment.

God pronounced several specific punishments and also said that he would completely destroy the land and leave it completely deserted.  He would make war on them and have them scattered into foreign lands.  Scholars have said that parts of the Tanakh were written after the captivity of the Hebrews by the Assyrians and the Babylonians.  The writers of these sections, including the rest of the Torah, lived during or after the period of captivity and thus could claim that God had previously threatened the punishment of capture by foreign nations.

The demand by God of total loyalty and obsequiousness motivated his actions at the times the Israelites complained about their conditions on the journey to Canaan.  The complaining made the Lord angry at Taberah.  As punishment he sent a fire among them and destroyed one end of the camp.(Numbers 11:1-3)  Moses complained to the Lord that he had given him too much responsibility.  He made this interesting plea:

If you are going to treat me like this, have pity on me and kill me, so that I won't have to endure your cruelty any longer."(Id. 11:15)

After that, the people complained that they could not partake of the meat and produce they had enjoyed back in Egypt.  They observed that they had lost strength due to the lack of nutritious food.  All they had to eat day after day was manna, a small seed.  Is it not understandable that they would want something more to eat than that?  The people did not complain directly to Moses or to God in this instance but only stood around lamenting at the entrance to their tents.

The Lord resentfully acquiesced and sent an abundance of quails for the Israelites to eat.  The quails came for a whole month.  Why stop sending them after only a month?  It has to be asked why he could not have let steaks and chocolate meringue pies fall on the Israelites.  It was surely within his power.  Moses was not happy with the people for reminiscing about Egypt and told them they would eat quail meat "until it comes out of your ears, until you are sick of it."(Id. 11:20)  The Lord was not pleased either and consequently sent an epidemic.

This is what happened to Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron after she and Aaron asked Moses, "Has the Lord spoken only through Moses?  Hasn't he also spoken through us?"(Numbers 12:2)  The Lord became angry with Miriam and Aaron so he gathered the three and asked them how they could dare speak against Moses whom he had chosen.  In punishment he gave Miriam a dreaded skin disease (leprosy?) that turned her white as snow.  Why wasn't Aaron punished?

It would seem understandable and therefore forgivable that Miriam and Aaron might think it fair that Moses share some of his authority.  For one thing, they were not newcomers to the community.  They had been with Moses before the exit from Egypt.  They could have also noticed that at times Moses could make erroneous decisions.  Discussion of important decisions among several leaders could have been beneficial.  What Miriam and Aaron were tending toward, if only unconsciously, was a more democratic organization instead of a one-man dictatorship.  While it is true that 70 men had been appointed leaders of Israel, it does not appear they ever had much to say.

Miriam and Aaron did not say that Moses should completely step aside.  There is no indication that they wanted to take his place or that they were in the process of staging a coup.  By strongly taking the side of Moses, Yahweh undoubtedly opted for strong dictatorship.  One has to wonder how much this attitude--seen here and in other instances--influenced kings in the following millennia in believing that they could rule absolutely with divine right.

The punishment that the Lord meted out to Miriam was mild in comparison to what he gave to some other dissenters.  They challenged the absolute authority of Moses along the same lines as Miriam and Aaron.  They asked Moses, "All the members of the community belong to the Lord, and the Lord is with all of us.  Why, then, Moses, do you set yourself above the Lord's community?"(Numbers 16:3)  Again, this was a plea for greater participation by the community, for wider governance.  They may not have had a clear idea of how they wanted this done, but they probably would have liked seeing important decisions put to the vote of the community.

Three of those leading the rebellion were Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, but it is also mentioned that there were 250 other "well-known leaders chosen by the community."(Id. 16:2)  It appears then that the entire Israelite community was involved in challenging the exclusive authority of Moses.  It is important to note that neither Korah nor anyone else ever asserted that they desired to take the place of Moses.  Moses told Korah to appear the next day in front of the tabernacle with his 250 followers to see what the Lord would have to say.

Korah brought the whole community.  The light of the Lord's presence appeared to everyone.  The first thing that the Lord did was to speak to Moses and Aaron.  He did not offer to engage in any wide discussion or to listen to grievances or to mediate differences.  Instead he exclaimed, "Move back from these people, and I will destroy them immediately."(Id. 16:21)  Moses and Aaron asked him how he could become angry with the whole community for the sins of only one man.

The Lord then apparently saw the point and only targeted the families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.  He split open the ground beneath them, had it swallow them and their possessions, and closed it over them.  They were never seen again.  The other Israelites fled in fear.  The Lord then sent fire that burned the 250 men who had followed the top three leaders.

By the next day, the fear in the Israelites must have subsided because the whole community had the temerity to once again confront Moses and Aaron, complaining "You have killed some of the Lord's people."(Id. 16:41)  The Lord then appeared at the tabernacle and again told Moses, "Move back from these people, and I will destroy them on the spot."(Id. 16:45)  He immediately struck the people with an epidemic.  Moses ordered Aaron to take his fire pan, fill it with incense, and perform the ritual of purification.  Aaron obeyed and the epidemic stopped but not before 14,700 persons had died.  The Torah never mentioned anything more about any pleas for community based decision making.

Dathan and Abiram had previously complained that Moses had taken the Israelites out of the fertile land of Egypt to die in the wilderness.  He had also promised there would be fields and vineyards to cultivate but had failed to produce them.  At various points Yahweh had heard this yearning for Egypt and had become irate because he resented their ingratitude to him for bringing them out of Egypt.  Perhaps if he had tried to sympathize with their plight and their crushed hopes, he could have come up with this simple solution.  He could have allowed anyone who wished to return to Egypt to do so.  It would have left fewer men to fight to take Canaan, but that would not have mattered.  He was going to help them prevail anyway.

Moses sent 12 spies to explore the land of Canaan.  They returned to say that it was a fertile land with fruit.  However, they warned against attempting any invasion because the towns were well fortified and so would be hard to vanquish.  Caleb was the only one to claim that the Israelites should attack then because he thought they were strong enough.  Historians and archaeologists do not support the optimism of Caleb.  They have pointed out that the towns in Canaan were protected by thick walls and their inhabitants were well-armed.

When the Israelites heard that the Canaanites were strong, they cried all night and worried that they would be killed and their families captured.  They said they wanted to choose a leader and return to Egypt.  The Lord appeared at the tabernacle and asked Moses, "How much longer will they refuse to trust me . . .  I will send an epidemic and destroy them."(Id. 14:11)  Moses pleaded with him not to do it, pointing out that the other nations would take note that he could not bring his people into the land he had promised to them.  God acquiesced and forgave them because Moses asked but still assessed a punishment.  He sentenced all who were over twenty years of age with the exception of Caleb and Joshua to never enter the Promised Land but instead wander in the wilderness for forty years because they had complained.

How can Yahweh be said to have forgiven the Israelites and then almost in the same breath issued a punishment?  It was not a light punishment either.  He could have sent another epidemic or killed off a few thousand people the way he did before.  This would have been bad enough.  His retaliation was much more harsh.  It was forty years in the wilderness with all the hardships that entailed.  Even Moses and Aaron were prohibited from entering Canaan.  The Lord would later tell the two that he was holding them back because they had not shown enough faith in him to acknowledge his holy power before the people when they asked for water at Meribah.

This is astonishing.  If anyone showed great devotion, faith, and service, it was Moses.  Even if God wanted to be angry at him, the punishment was particularly disproportionate.  Moses often upbraided the people for expressing ingratitude toward the Lord.  There were no instances in which he publicly expressed distrust or disapproval of God.

An Undependable God?

By this time, the Israelites would have been well justified in rejecting Yahweh as their god.  If they had returned to Egypt, there were plenty of gods there.  If those were not acceptable, there were plenty of gods in Canaan and Mesopotamia.  Yahweh had failed them in several ways.

First of all, he convinced them that they were so miserable in Egypt that they should leave.  While they must have put in long hard hours in pharaoh's building projects, it appears they had a variety of food and they had land that they cultivated.  Egypt was a fertile land so they were much less prone to famine there than in the deserts of Sinai and Paran.

Yet the Lord did not show much sympathy.  He only took the complaints as lack of trust, disobedience, and disrespect for him.  It was only after the complaining that he took any action.  The Hebrew emigrants had to be close to starvation on several occasions.

It would be expected that he would have taken care of their basic needs from the beginning.  He should not have had to be prompted at all.  He could have foreseen the needs.  Instead, he and Moses only heard the complaining and chose to chastise and punish adding to the fear and misery their followers were already suffering.  If Yahweh wanted to be trusted, it would seem he would have gone out of his away to provide for his flock.

It should be no surprise that the Israelites would wonder out loud whether their newly-acquired god might have abandoned them.  After all, they had only heard of him recently.  It was only natural that they would become scared and express doubts.  This new god may have rescued them from oppressive burdens in Egypt and he was supposedly intending to improve their situation once they left.  However it was possible that he could have gone on to other concerns and forgotten them.  Maybe he thought they would do all right in fending for themselves.

Then where was the land they were supposed to be given?  They had been told that they would receive a land of milk and honey.  With the Lord's power, that would have been expected to happen soon after leaving Egypt.  Instead, he got mad and in reaction held them in the wilderness for forty years.  Besides, there must have been plenty of milk and honey in Egypt.  It is said that a quantity of "forty" in Hebrew usage was indefinite and not necessarily the number "forty."  Might the Bible writers have suspected that the Israelites had wandered in the desert for an indefinitely long time, even the two hundred years some scholars estimate?

If a dependable god says he is going to give a gift, you would expect it would be done promptly and without aggravation.  Remember that Yahweh declared that he showed the Israelites love, compassion, and forgiveness?  Do his actions confirm this?  Read the last four books of the Torah to see if you agree.  Given these problems, the Israelites had ample reason to stop following Yahweh.

More Bloody Wars

In the chapter on credibility, we reviewed the bloody wars the Israelites had to fight in order to get a foothold in Canaan.  We looked mainly at the book of Joshua but Numbers and Deuteronomy have their own episodes of massacres committed under the direction of God.  He did not encourage mercy.  At Deuteronomy 2:25, we see one of the Lord's motives for employing so much violence.  Moses stated that the Lord had declared, "From now on I will make people everywhere afraid of you.  Everyone will tremble with fear at the mention of your name."

The Israelites were attacked in southern Canaan by the king of Arad who captured some of them.  They asked for the help of the Lord who helped them to completely destroy those people and their cities.(Numbers 21:1-3)  The Israelites should have realized at that point that their survival was going to be a long bloody affair both for them and for the innocent people whom they would have to victimize.  They would have had an added excuse to give up on Yahweh and go back to Egypt.  This especially after he later condemned them to wander for forty years and after observing the strongly fortified Canaanite towns they were supposed to confront.

The next group of people the Israelites had to fight was the Amorites.  Their king Sihon had not allowed the Israelites to pass through their road.  Apparently, the Amorites did not trust itinerant nomads.  This was understandable since nomads were known to raid and loot city dwellers.  Here is an important passage reminiscent of what God had done to the pharaoh:  "The Lord God had made him stubborn and rebellious, so that we could defeat him and take his territory which we still occupy."(Deuteronomy 2:30)  The Israelites prevailed and Numbers claimed they captured all the Amorite cities, leaving no survivors.  The Lord next encouraged the Hebrews to attack Bashan.  Moses later reviewed what they had accomplished, "We destroyed all the towns and put to death all the men, women, and children, just as we did in the towns that belonged to King Sihon of Heshbon."(Id. 3:6)

The last assignment that the Lord gave to Moses was to wage holy war (jihad as Arabs now call it) on the Midianites.(Numbers 31)  Strangely, Moses had lived among the Midianites before returning to Egypt and his father-in-law was a Midianite priest.  Yahweh was angry with the Midianites because some of their women had seduced some Israelite men and then invited them to a sacrificial feast of their god Baal of Peor.  Now Yahweh wanted revenge.  The Israelite army went and killed all the men including five kings and burned all the cities and camps.  They returned to the community with all the women, children, livestock, and wealth.  The army and its leaders must have been very satisfied.

Moses blew their bubble.  He met them on their return and chastised them.  He reminded them that it had been the women who had led the Israelite men into idolatry that had caused God to send an epidemic on the Israelite community as punishment.  Consequently, Moses ordered that all the women who were not virgins be killed along with all the boys.  All the virgin females could be allowed to live.

Judgments of God

To a religious Yahwehist it may sound shocking to make judgments of God but that is inevitable if one is to get at the truth behind God.  The truth has to be important for all of us if we are to know the nature of the world and of our lives.  The reality is that we have to acknowledge that many of the things that Yahweh did were either incredible or reprehensible.

Those judgments of God are ultimately not out of bounds because they are in fact judgments of what is a fiction that was invented by men over a period of thousands of years.  We first take a cue on this fiction from the discoveries and examinations of hundreds of students of myth and religion, especially the Judaic religion.  They have pointed out that so many of the stories behind religions started very early as folk tales among people and only later became incorporated into religions.  Examples are the legend of the Flood, the infancy of Sargon and Moses in a river, and the travail of Job.  The Torah has likewise been studied carefully and found to inevitably contain much fabrication by oral storytellers and by writers in later epochs.

Consequently any discussion and judgment is not of any real god but of a fictitious deity created gradually over millennia.  The chapter on credibility should certainly illustrate that much found in the Tanakh had to be made up.  Yet in the name of reverence these Judaic myths have continued to be passed on by Judaics.  Any number of Judaics today admit that many of the stories and divine laws in the Tanakh are not to be believed because they were recorded by primitive men holding primitive moral concepts.  Yet they do not realize that that fictional foundation invalidates the Tanakh as a foundation for any real god.  The same Judaics still continue to follow the Lord.

Then there is this chapter on the moral actions and directions of Yahweh.  Some of them have been reviewed twice in these two chapters.  They speak for themselves.  It is not a pretty picture of a moral and just God.  There are oppressive punishments, unjust laws, omitted laws, and atrocious violence committed by him and by the Israelites with his approval.  You cannot rightly follow such a God.  Better yet, you can come to the realization that this God was invented by primitive Hebrews.

12 Religious Disproofs:  Judaism

The Suffering of the Jews

Everyone has long been told that the Jews suffered in Egypt as slaves.  Actually the suffering began much earlier, back with the family of Abraham.  This even happened after God had made contact with Abraham.  This chapter will consider the suffering of the Jews and whether it is consistent with the existence of a caring God who promised to protect them.

The first time that God talked to Abraham was to tell him to leave his home in Haran and to travel to the land of Canaan, which he told Abraham he would give to his numerous descendants.  He made this promise to Abraham twice more.  Incidentally, when God made these promises, he put down no conditions save one.  This was the covenant that required that all Jewish males be circumcised.  There were no other demands such as that the people could not worship other gods.  In fact they probably worshipped other gods for centuries.  Even in his appearances to Moses before the exodus from Egypt, he did not set down any conditions.  That did not happen until the Israelite sojourn at Mt. Sinai.

Famines

After Abraham and his family arrived in Canaan upon following the command of God, a severe famine struck the land.  It was so bad that Abraham had to move to Egypt.  It is ironic that God told him to move to Canaan but did not protect him from a severe famine.  Extreme famine also affected Abraham's descendants.  It was so severe that Jacob feared that the family would starve so he sent some of his sons to Egypt to buy grain.  it is historically confirmed that nomads in Canaan and the Sinai desert were at times confronted by famine and had to journey to Egypt to buy grain or even sojourn there.  You would think that God would have provided for them so that they would not have to suffer famines.

The Bible asserted that the Israelites suffered severely for 400 years as slaves in Egypt.  After the Hebrews left there for the desert, they experienced serious thirst and hunger.  You wonder how many died as a result of this privation.  This did not last for just a few years.  God made them wander in the desert wilderness for more than forty years.  This is not to say that other tribal groups did not suffer the same privation.   However, the difference is that Yahweh had told the Israelites they were going to enjoy a good life because he would be with them from then on.

The Price of Wars

At the end of the forty years, God told Joshua to appropriate Canaan.  They supposedly fought intense battles to conquer several towns but were victorious and killed all the inhabitants.  The book of Joshua made it sound as if it was an easy accomplishment, mentioning nothing about Hebrew casualties.  You know that the people of the towns did not succumb readily to being destroyed and must have fought intensely.  This means that the Israelite combatants had to have suffered a significant number of deaths and permanent disabilities.  That had to leave their dependents crippled both socially and financially.  These realities are not discussed much in the Bible.

After the Israelites had finished their defeat of the inhabitants of Canaan, it was stated that the Lord had given them all the land that he had promised to them, had kept all his promises, and that there was peace throughout the land.(Joshua 21:43-45)  This was to be expected although it has to be asked why it took so long and why they had to fight so brutally to get the land.  It is fair to say that the Israelites reciprocated by following Yahweh's instructions on where to go and obeying his laws.  They complained but that was understandable.  They must have remained faithful or else Yahweh would not have continued to lead them to the Promised Land or helped them conquer it.

The Price of Disloyalty

It was expected that the Israelites would then live in peace under the guidance and protection of their God.  Yet in the book of Judges it is catalogued that the Israelites were often conquered and subjugated by other nations for years at a time.  They were unable to throw off the yoke of those competing groups.  The Philistines, who lived on the Mediterranean coast, were their most formidable foes.  The suffering of the Jews continued.

The explanation given in Judges was that the Lord had decided to punish the Israelites because they had turned their backs on him and worshipped other gods like Baal.  It looks like the Lord did not just abandon the Israelites in battle but actually helped their enemies.  "Every time they would go into battle, the Lord was against them, just as he had said he would be."(Judges 2:15)

Neither did the Lord make it easy for the Israelites to ignore other gods since he allowed other groups who worshipped other gods to remain in Canaan.  He was supposed to have driven them out.  Without these alien gods, it would have been much easier to remain totally devoted to him.  It was his express intention to test the Hebrews as shown by his statement about the other nations.  "I will use them to find out whether or not these Israelites will follow my ways . . .  ."(Judges 2:22)  Since the other nations stayed, it was natural for the Israelites to socialize with them and intermarry with them.

So some of the Israelites must have fallen into temptation and been seduced into worshipping other gods or at least to be tolerant toward their foreign spouses and neighbors doing it.  We have seen that even this was grossly objectionable to the Lord since he had told them to tear down foreign idols and altars.  It may be that even in the cases in which some Israelites worshipped other gods they still continued to worship Yahweh and held him supreme above all other other gods.

At any rate it is very doubtful that a significant number of Israelites turned their backs on the Lord completely and began to worship other gods.  The more likely explanation is that the Lord held the entire nation to a standard of perfection.  If only a small minority of Israelites followed apostasy, all were to be punished.  Yahweh was still following group punishment as he had done in Sodom and Gomorrah and in other situations.  It is hard to see why he could not know who were the miscreants.  After all he was supposed to know everything!

A large number of Israelites were descended from those that came out of Egypt.  Joshua itself states that previous generations had been faithful to Yahweh, but the present one was not.  The latter assertion is hard to believe.  It had been a century or more since they had come of Egypt and there had been plenty of opportunity to indoctrinate all subsequent generations.  People do not change their allegiance to their god(s) easily.  There are exceptions but for the entire present generation of the nation to turn to other gods would be highly unusual.

If previous generations had been faithful to the Lord, it is very hard to imagine that their children would not follow them.  They would have heard abundant stories of how Yahweh had helped their forebears escape from Egypt, cross and survive the desert, and then defeat various groups in Canaan.  They may have also been kept in line by hearing the priests reading from the Torah about the Lord making all kinds of threats for not obeying and honoring him.

Admittedly there had to be some apostates, including those who married into other groups.  Also those Hebrews who were descendants of Abraham but had never left Canaan to go to Egypt.  They would have had a greater affinity to El and other gods and would not have been inclined to follow this new god Yahweh.

There must have been those who were disappointed in Yahweh and stopped trusting in his support after the Israelites experienced defeat and subjugation by others.  They may have questioned the wisdom of staying with a god who is not effective.  This would have been especially relevant in considering the effectiveness of the god(s) of the groups that had defeated them.  Obviously those gods were more powerful than Yahweh.  Why not give them a try?  There would still be the option of returning to Yahweh.  They could also worship the other gods and Yahweh at the same time, switching around depending on which one was more supportive.

Even if one agrees that those straying from Yahweh should have been punished, there is the question of how hard any punishment should have been.  God sometimes chose to punish the Israelites by handing them over to their enemies.  This is humiliating treatment.  It had long lasting effects, more than even epidemics and droughts.  For one thing, the conquerors would bring in their gods that would then pose additional temptation to the Hebrews. 

The Lord punished Israel by making King Eglon of Moab stronger than Israel and then had him rule over Israel for eighteen years.  Then the Israelite army suddenly became very strong and defeated the Moabite army.  Unbelievably they killed everyone of the best of the Moabite soldiers, ten thousand men in all.  That had to happen at the price of heavy casualties to the Hebrew soldiers. 

Israel then lived in peace for eighty years.  Then it sinned again and the Lord let them be conquered by Jabin the Canaanite king of Hazor who ruled over them with cruelty and violence for twenty-eight years.  The heroes Deborah and Barak then liberated Israel.

At times the Bible writers only mentioned that Israel sinned against or forgot God without mentioning that they were worshipping other gods.  What does that signify?  The Bible writers could have merely meant that the offenders were only failing to follow all the laws that Yahweh had issued.  Examples could be failure to follow proper methods for offering sacrifices, the rituals for achieving cleanliness, and the commandment to rest on the Sabbath.  If this was the case, could the Bible writers have really believed that Yahweh assessed such onerous punishment only for failing to fully follow the law?

If this was their meaning, then the punishment could really be said to be excessive--out of proportion to the offenses.  Surely God could have fashioned sanctions that were not as painful and still have been able to get his message across that the people needed to improve their behavior.  All this in spite of the teaching that God was loving and merciful.

The belief in such demanding exactitude must have been present given the incessant demands of the priests and later the prophets that the Israelites be punctilious in following the laws of the Lord.  There was not much consideration given to the reality that the laws were often hard to follow and that weak humans could understandably be tempted into disregarding laws and giving other gods a chance.

The subjugation of the Jews by their neighbors, at times alternating with periods of their peaceful independence, continued for more than two centuries.  It was interpreted by the Bible scribes as the angering of Yahweh and his decision to punish the Israelites followed by his forgiving them and allowing them to drive out their oppressors.  Remember that people in that time interpreted all events in the world as being controlled by God, even down to the minor occurrences.

The more likely explanation of the events is a naturalistic one.  The Israelites might have entered Canaan with great ambition and aggression that enabled them to overcome some of the towns there (including some that had long been abandoned).  Nevertheless, they were still the new kids on the block.  Other towns were strong enough to not only withstand their attacks but were sometimes able to overcome and defeat them.  This see-saw of power went on for many years.  A monarchy was initiated under Saul in order to unify the tribes and organize stronger military defenses for them.  Saul met a tragic end in a solid defeat administered by Israel's most powerful antagonists, the Philistines.

The Height of the Hebrews

It was not until the kingdom of David, the successor of Saul, that the Israelites became strong and united enough to successfully defend themselves and even dominate their neighbors.  This took place around 1000.  The reign of David's son Solomon was also successful.  He extended the borders of the kingdom to the farthest extent they ever reached, strengthened the nation through alliances with neighboring countries, and built a splendid Temple for Yahweh.  Israel was free from foreign invasion and prospered during that time.  Jews have looked back to this David-Solomon era as the zenith of their history and as the time of peace and prosperity that they should aspire to repeat.

Nevertheless, even in that period there were problems.  There was a bloody civil war as David's sons jostled to take over his position.  There were plagues.  Remember the one recounted in 2 Samuel 24 in which God was angry at Israel so he told David to conduct a census.  The Lord then punished David for doing it by sending an epidemic on Israel that killed 70,000 people. 

Under Solomon there was heavy taxation to support the military and ambitious building projects like the Temple.   The ten tribes of the north were forced to provide labor for those projects while the southern tribe of Judah was given favorable treatment.  David and Solomon were members of Judah.  This understandably created resentment in the northern tribes but they remained loyal to Solomon.  There was disapproval among the Yahweh priests that Solomon married some foreign princesses who were adherents to Baal and other gods and that Solomon tolerated their foreign religions.

After the death of Solomon in 925 conditions deteriorated quickly.  Rehoboam was the successor as king.  He was asked by leaders of the north to relax his father's policies of forced labor and heavy taxation.  He scoffed and told them he would place an even heavier burden than they had suffered before.  Understandably the non-Judah tribes rebelled.

The Splitting of Israel

In 922 the north seceded, retaining the name of Israel.  In 917 the pharaoh of Egypt saw an opportunity and invaded both Judah and Israel.  He plundered towns in both areas.  He went to Jerusalem and took treasures from the Temple and from the king's house.

Jeroboam was the first king of Israel.  He wanted to establish independence from the south.  He built sanctuaries in the towns of Dan and Bethel in order to facilitate northern worship of Yahweh.  That way northerners would not have to journey all the way to Jerusalem.  He instituted an autumn festival to counteract the festival of Judah.  Jeroboam placed a golden bull calf in each of the sanctuaries in Dan and Bethel.  They could not have been intended as substitutes for Yahweh or other gods since Semites did not represent their gods as animals.  It was the old idea that it was easier for people to kneel to a statue of some kind.

The Yahweh Bible writers of the south were enraged by this move of Jeroboam and did not ever show him any respect.  They took the calves as an accommodation to other gods.  They were not in favor of showing any favor to those gods, even if those gods had been present in Canaanite culture for centuries.  They were not multiculturalists.  There are no historical accounts sympathetic to Jeroboam or to later compromisers to explain their perspectives.(Chaim Potok, Wanderings (New York:  Fawcett Crest, 1978) 163-164.)  Every indication is that much written history of Israel failed to survive later upheavals.  In spite of the allegations of the apostasy of the north, it remained more prosperous than Judah.  This is surprising.  The north was said to be less loyal to the Lord, yet it could be said to have received greater blessings from him given its greater prosperity.

During the following three centuries, there were periods of turmoil in both countries.  At times there was a rapid succession of kings with some only lasting on the throne for a few years before being murdered by usurpers.  Sometimes entire families of the kings were also eliminated.  These civil struggles were especially violent in the north.  Some kings were able to establish lavish lifestyles for themselves, their families, and their courts.  The general populace did not benefit much from this, a condition criticized by prophets like Amos.  Wars were waged between the two countries.  In addition, resources were lost in fighting neighboring nations such as the Arameans, the Moabites, and the Syrians.  Where was Yahweh in all this?

Omri came to power as king in Israel in 876.  He and the king of Judah ended the enmity between the two nations, which helped both to stop squandering their resources and maintain peace.  Omri had a very successful reign for twelve years that was respected by other countries.  Yet the Tanakh did not acknowledge his achievements nor those of his son King Ahab who ruled for twenty-two years after him.  The writers did not omit to state that each king sinned against the Lord more than any of their predecessors.  If this was the case, you would have thought that the Lord would have removed them from the throne right away.  During their reigns no foreign power invaded either country, although Syria did wage an unsuccessful war against Israel.

The Bible does not mention the rise of the Assyrian empire.  The writers did not give any credit to King Ahab for maintaining a powerful army that fended off the Assyrians.  An Assyrian inscription mentioned that the Assyrian army faced an Israel army having two thousand chariots and ten thousand soldiers.  The Assyrians found this out when they tried to invade Syria to their southwest.  A coalition of twelve kingdoms including Israel confronted and repelled them in the battle of Qarqar in 853.(Potok, 173)  The Bible writers were only interested in reporting the religious battles involving Yahweh.

During the period of kings starting with Saul in 1020 and ending in 586, the prophets held great sway.  Moses was no longer around to convey God's wishes but plenty of prophets were willing to step in.  The people paid attention to them as well as the kings--some more than others.  Kings would call the prophets to come see them in order to find out what the Lord was intending to do.  Even when the kings did not summon them, the prophets were not shy about confronting them and giving them unpleasant news and warnings.  The Bible claims that they performed many miracles, some of them hard to believe.  The books of Kings and Chronicles report some shocking orders from God that were relayed by the prophets.  After 586 there was not much mention of prophets.

The Lord told the prophet Elijah to carry out one of those orders.  Part of the order was to anoint Jehu, an army officer, king of Israel.  God stated that many would be killed and "Yet I will leave seven thousand people in Israel--all those who are loyal to me and have not bowed to Baal and kissed his idol."(1 Kings 19:15-18)  The young prophet  who actually anointed Jehu also told him that the Lord had proclaimed that he was to kill all of Ahab's family and descendants.(2 Kings 9:6-10)

Jehu promptly assassinated one of the sons who had succeeded King Ahab upon his death.  Ahaziah the king of Judah was a witness to this and Jehu ordered him killed, too.  Jehu continued the bloodbath by killing Queen Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, by running his horses and chariot over her body.  After that he pressured the leaders of Samaria to kill everyone of the seventy descendants of Ahab (some of them small children no doubt) and send their heads to him in Jezreel.  After receiving the heads, Jehu piled them up at the city gate until the following morning at which time he spoke to the people there.  He explained that this showed, "The Lord has done what he promised through his prophet Elijah."(2 Kings 10:10)  Elijah was taken to heaven in a chariot and is one of the most revered of prophets of the Jewish people.

Jehu then put to death all the other relatives of Ahab living in Jezreel as well as all of his officers, close friends, and priests.  After that, Jehu met some relatives of King Ahaziah of Judah, whom he had recently killed, on the road.  They told him they were going to Jezreel to pay their respects to the family of Queen Jezebel.  Jehu ordered his men to put all forty-two of them to death.

Jehu went to Samaria, assembled the people, and declared, "King Ahab served the god Baal a little, but I will serve him much more."(2 Kings 10:18)  It is interesting that he used the phrase "a little."  It may indicate that Ahab may have accommodated the worship of Baal by others but was for the most part a follower of the Israelite Yahweh.  He did purportedly build a temple to Baal with an altar inside.  However, this may have been more to please his wife Jezebel who was a fanatical Baal supporter.  As in the case of Solomon, he may have only been trying to adhere to the adage, "Happy wife, happy life."

Jehu's declaration that he wanted to worship Baal was a gross and evil lie.  He issued a proclamation that all Baal worshippers were to come to the Baal temple in Samaria.  Any worshipper not attending would be put to death.  The worshippers came from all of Israel.  They were herded into the temple where eighty soldiers killed them in cold blood.  They also destroyed the sacred pillar and the temple, turning it into a latrine.  Jehu successfully destroyed the cult of Baal in Israel.(2 Kings 10:18-28)

What did the Lord have to say about all this bloodshed on his behalf?  He told Jehu, "You have done to Ahab's descendants everything I wanted you to do.  So I promise you that your descendants, down to the fourth generation, will be kings of Israel."(2 Kings 10:30)  Yet the next sentence in the Bible narrative informs that Jehu followed the example of Jeroboam and let Israel sin.  This must mean that he ultimately allowed that statues of calves be used in the worship of Yahweh.

The Obliteration of Israel

God must have overlooked this transgression of Jehu since he allowed him to stay on the throne for twenty-eight years.  However, he did not give Jehu a completely free pass.  A year after Jehu's victory, he was kneeling in front of Assyrian conqueror Shalmaneser III and paying tribute.  This is recorded on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III now in the British Museum.  Israel must have continued to pay tribute since the Assyrians remained powerful for a number of years.  Jehu began his kingship in 842 while Shalmaneser III ruled from 859 to 824.

The bloodbath undertaken by Jehu must have eliminated many of the administrators of Israel since they were friends or officers under Queen Jezebel and her sons.  The functioning of the society had to be affected.  The people must have suffered.  Trade with the Sidonians (later renamed Phoenicians) on the Mediterranean coast must have stalled given that Jezebel was one of their own and their god was also Baal.

Luckily Israel was able to recover.  It cooperated with Judah to extend their countries' borders almost to where they were under King David.  It helped that the Assyrians were not engaged in acquisitive military campaigns during these years.  Israel enjoyed prosperity and some reached positions of great wealth.  The rest of the people did not do as well.

Tiglath-Pileser III became emperor of Assyria and started to conquer neighboring cities.  The throne of Israel saw several inept kings and became full of blood.  Several kings were succeeded through assassination.  Tiglath-Pileser III invaded Israel two times.  The first occurred when Menahem was king, who ruled for ten years until his death.  The Bible says he sinned against the Lord.  Then again according to it, most of the kings of Israel and Judah sinned against the Lord.  It was always the excuse given for the countries' misfortunes.  When Tiglath-Pileser invaded, Menahem quickly arranged to give him 38 tons of silver.  The Assyrians did not disturb Israel during the balance of Menahem's reign.

Menahem's son took over as king for two years but was assassinated by Pekah an army officer who replaced him as king and ruled for 20 years.  In 724 Pekah decided to withhold tribute from Assyria so Tiglath-Pileser went down and captured much of Israel's territory including Galilee, the Sharon plain, Gilead, and the town of Hazor.  Only Samaria and the area around it was spared.  Archaeologists have discovered a three-foot layer of ashes where Hazor was located.  The town must have burned for days.

The Assyrians took the inhabitants of the defeated areas and resettled them.  It was their policy to take the people of a conquered area and locate them far away in Assyria or one of their other conquered lands.  No other country had ever done this before.  In addition they would take the dwellers of faraway areas and relocate them in the defeated area they had just vacated.  The Assyrian rulers were excessively violent in the treatment of their own citizens.  Not surprisingly prisoners of war were tortured, had ears and noses cut off, could be blinded.

The captives from Israel suffered tremendously in being permanently evicted from their homeland, in not being treated humanely by their captors, and in having to resettle in a strange land among people who spoke different languages.  Some people got to stay in Israel but their accustomed way of living had to be seriously affected.  It could not have been easy to get used to living with the many strangers who were brought to Israel from Babylonia, Hamath, Midian, and the distant Arab desert.  All these people including Israelites were meshed into one commingled people called the Samaritans.  It had to be a very sad scene for all these people.

Hoshea assassinated Pekah, perhaps a reaction approved by many for his having mishandled the Assyrians.  He immediately agreed to pay tribute.  After several years passed he sent messages to the king of Egypt asking for help against Assyria.  At the same time he stopped paying the annual tribute to Assyria.  You would think he would have kept paying the tribute at least until he was sure that the Assyrians could be successfully repelled.  So the latter began a siege on Samaria, the capital, which dragged on for three years.  It must have been agonizing for the dwellers.  In 722 the Samaria residents gave in and were dragged off by the Assyrian army to strange lands.  This marked the end of Israel.

Ten of the 12 Israelite tribes had constituted the state of Israel after the partition of 922.  So the country lasted 200 years.  The tribe of Benjamin was independent during that time.  Its territory lay between Israel and Judah so it was trampled badly in the wars that ensued between the two states.  It eventually merged with Judah.

The people of Israel disappeared.  The Jews named them the "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel" and kept the hope in vain that they would some day be found.  The reality is that the people of those ten tribes were scattered in the first diaspora and intermingled and intermarried with the inhabitants where they went to live.  They adopted the religions of those new lands.  A few may have continued to follow the laws of Yahweh.  A few may have migrated to lands even farther away and made their living as merchants and traders.  They had to be very sad but struggled to endure.

Contrasting Kings in Judah

The Assyrians did not invade Judah at that time.  Part of the reason was that it did not have wealth or territory.  It also helped that Ahaz, king for 16 years from 743 to 727, avoided getting involved in intrigue with Israel and Syria in opposing Assyria.  Instead he dutifully paid tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III.  He even went beyond that in apparently trying to please the Assyrians.  He built a copy of a bronze alter he had seen in Damascus and had it placed in the temple in Jerusalem.  He also personally worshipped Yahweh.  The priests did not like this.  Only they were supposed to worship the Lord inside the Temple.

The evidence we have today is that the Assyrians did not force their gods on their subjects.  The Hebrew Ahaz may not have been aware this.  Unknowingly he may have bent over backwards to show his acquiescence to them by allowing worship of their gods.  Archaeologists uncovered evidence of a cult center with storage areas containing figurines and small horse sculptures used in worship of the main Assyrian god Shamash.  In spite of all this, Ahaz enjoyed a peaceful reign.  It appears that the Lord did not punish him for allowing pagan worship and giving gold and silver to Assyria from the Temple.  God was inconsistent because he punished other kings for the same infractions severely.

Ahaz was succeeded in 715 by his son Hezekiah who was fanatical about loyalty to the Lord.  He destroyed all the places for the worship of the pagan gods.  The Yahwist priests were very happy with him so he was later considered as one of the great kings of Judah.  There was a likely a faction of Yahweh adherents who believed that the Lord did not look kindly on his people being the subjects of a foreign ruler.  They would have been opposed to cooperating with Assyrian emperors and would have advised Hezekiah to not do so.  Accordingly, Hezekiah ceased serving the Assyrian empire including the further payment of tribute.

Predictably the Assyrian army invaded Judah and brought down its fortified cities including Lachish.  A number of stone panels were created by Assyrian artists depicting the Assyrian war machine carrying out horrifying and brutal work.  Several walls with these panels can be found in the British Museum.  One panel shows Emperor Sennacherib sitting on his throne at Nineveh reviewing loot pillaged.  Archaeologists found a deep pit near Lachish filled with bones of pigs and 1500 humans.  It must have been the garbage dump of the Assyrian army.  The people of other towns in Judah devastated by that same army must have suffered the same fate.  In his annals Sennacherib claimed to have laid siege to 42 of Judah's cities and villages and defeated them with the mighty weapons at his disposal.  He drove out many people and took animals as booty.

The Assyrian army laid siege to Jerusalem in 688.  Sennacherib claimed that Hezekiah succumbed and paid tribute.  The Bible narrates that the army suddenly left during the siege and did not return.  Scholars have been puzzled by these conflicting accounts.  They have supposed that perhaps the army was struck with a plague.

However, after the Assyrians surrounded Jerusalem, Hezekiah could have secretly informed them that he would pay a tribute if they did not attack.  The Assyrians could have agreed and decided to withdraw without further action especially if it is true that they were also struck by an epidemic.  Or a civil war could have started at home.  The Jews would have wanted to deny that they had to resume paying tribute.  That would have meant that the Lord had not aided them enough in spite of Hezekiah having been one of his most loyal kings. 

Even if the Assyrian army did get struck with a devastating plague, it is very hard to believe that it would not have come back to renew the siege after it had recuperated.  The Assyrian empire reached its zenith soon after its confrontation with Jerusalem.  A renewed tribute would have explained that there was peace between the two countries for 100 years until the Assyrian empire started to crumble through civil war around 620.  No strife with the Assyrians appears to have occurred during Hezekiah's life after the confrontation, further evidence that he was paying a tribute to Sennacherib during all that time.

Manasseh son of Hezekiah took over as king at the age of 12 and ruled for 55 years.  He brought back the pagan shrines and altars that his father Hezekiah had destroyed.  In the courtyards of the Temple, he built altars for the worship of the stars.  He himself practiced divination and sorcery and consulted mediums.  He built altars for the worship of other gods in the Temple.  He was influenced by the practices of the Assyrians, which should not be surprising since they were the dominant culture in the world at this time.  Why not follow the gods and practices that were serving the Assyrians so well?  Manasseh built up the pagan practices that his father Hezekiah had driven out but in which his grandfather Ahaz had also engaged.  The pendulum had swung back.

The Lord God was very angry at the actions of Manasseh.  So he declared that he would later bring stunning punishment upon Jerusalem and Judah in the way that he had done against Israel.  He mentioned that his people had stirred his anger by sinning against him since they had left Egypt.  He announced, "I will wipe Jerusalem clean of its people . . . .  I will abandon the people who survive and will hand them over to their enemies who will conquer and plunder their land."(2 Kings 21:13-14)

Why did God wait?  Why not punish Manasseh and any other polytheistic sinners right away?  Instead he allowed Manasseh to rule for 55 years and it appears to have been a peaceful reign.  Assyria and Egypt were still powerful but did not attack Judah.  Manasseh must have been paying sufficient tribute to Assyria during all his reign even if that was surely disapproved by the fundamentalists who thought the people of Yahweh should not bow down to any foreign power.  There was also no civil war and there was no mention of Manasseh suffering ill health or anything else.  Every indication is that Manasseh ruled the whole time with the acquiescence of the Lord.

After the death of Manasseh, his son began to reign at the age of 22.  2 Kings says he followed in the footsteps of his father in worshipping idols and in rejecting the Lord and his commands.  Then after only two years on the throne he was unexplainedly assassinated by his own officials.  No account of any dissension among his officials was given.

Who would have had the greatest incentive to assassinate him?  Any of the king's officials would have been loyal to him in his religious inclinations especially since he would have most likely inherited them from his father Manasseh.  It would seem that the conservative Yahwist faction would have been the most motivated group to see the new king gone after it became clear that he was going to follow in his father's sinful footsteps.  Of course, they would be willing to put the blame on the king's officials.  A Yahwist assassination plot could be further confirmed by what happened next.

The king's son Josiah (grandson of Manasseh) inherited the throne at the age of eight!  That was a good age for properly training and molding him.  Indeed Josiah went very far in destroying all the instruments and other vestiges of pagan worship.  He obliterated the temples, altars, statues, and other objects used by the heathen.  He cleaned out pagan objects that had been placed in or near the Jerusalem Temple by prior kings including Solomon.  The Bible says he even went to every city of Israel and tore down all the pagan places of worship that had been built by the kings of Israel.  He also "killed the pagan priests on the altars where they served."(2 Kings 23:20)  How the inhabitants of Israel of the time, many of whom were traditionally pagan, put up with this is very interesting.

The Bible writers were clearly very pleased with Josiah.  They proclaimed, "There had never been a king like him before, who served the Lord with all his heart, mind, and strength, obeying all the Law of Moses; nor has there been a king like him since."(2 Kings 23:25)

In spite of all that Josiah did to restore the worship of Yahweh, God was still angry at Judah allegedly because of what King Manasseh had done.  Surprisingly, he did not protect Josiah when he had to go into battle against Egypt.  He died at the age of only 26.  The Lord remained intent on rejecting Jerusalem and banishing the Jews.(Id. 26-27)  God could have let Josiah reach old age.  This would have been especially favorable since the next three kings reportedly sinned against the Lord.

Exile to Babylon

The Assyrian empire collapsed in internal bloodshed.  Babylonia became the next dominant power in the region.  Several years later Babylonia attacked Judah.  2 Kings stated, "This happened at the Lord's command in order to banish the people of Judah from his sight because of all the sins that King Manasseh had committed . . ."(2 Kings 24:3)  The Lord could not forget what that king had done even though Manasseh was long dead.  It is clear that he thought he had to take very dramatic action to retaliate for Manasseh's deeds.  What happened to mercy?  And why was he retaliating so long after Manasseh had died?  Why did Judah not get credit for the good deeds of Josiah?

The Babylonian army under the command of its King Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem.  The king in Jerusalem surrendered and was taken to Babylon.  The invaders also deported the leading men of Jerusalem along with skilled workmen.  They carried off all the treasures in the Temple and the palace.  Nebuchadnezzar installed the king's uncle as king of Judah and renamed him Zedekiah.  He ruled for 11 years.

Zedekiah surmised that Babylonia had weakened and wondered if he should rebel.  There was pressure from fanatics who did not want to submit to a foreign force and who considered those who did to be traitors.  The prophet Jeremiah was one of those who urged cooperation with the Babylonians.  However, there were competing prophets with conflicting predictions of what was to happen.  One was Hananiah who disagreed with Jeremiah by claiming that the Lord had told him that he would bring down Babylonia within two years.  Who was the king supposed to believe?  He went with Hananiah and stopped paying tribute.

Predictably the Babylonian army came again to lay siege on Jerusalem.  Towns nearby like Azekah and Lachish were taken.  The siege lasted for almost two years as famine struck the inhabitants. The Babylonians were finally able to break through and take Jerusalem.  Zedekiah had previously entered into a treaty with Nebuchadnezzar for Judah to be a vassal state to Babylonia.

He was given the punishment that was customary at the time for breach of such a treaty.  His children were slaughtered right in front of his eyes and he was blinded.  He was taken to Babylonia in chains.  Everything of value including objects for worship made of gold, silver, and bronze were gathered and taken to Babylonia.  2 Kings 25:8-17 went into detail on what items were taken from the Temple but not a word was mentioned on what happened to the Ark of the Covenant, which has never been seen again.  There was probably too much sadness and humiliation to be able to write about it.

After stealing everything of worth in the Temple, the army burned it along with the palace, the houses of the important people, and the city walls.  In 586 they deported to Babylonia all the people that they had not taken before from Jerusalem and Judah.  They also took those who had gone over to the Babylonian side during the siege.  Many people had fled to nations outside of Judah.

You can imagine the horror of having to live through a siege that only ended after near starvation.  Some of the old and the sick must have died during the famine.  Then there was the pain of having to see so much burned down.  If it was one's own house, much of the furniture and other possessions were also destroyed.  After that was the long, depressing trudge to Babylon.  They salvaged whatever possessions they could, in many cases not much more than the clothes on their backs.  They did not know where they would be situated nor how they would be treated.

Only a small number remained in Judah who may have been in just as bad a condition as the exiles if not worse.  The poor were the ones who were left behind to endure a total breakdown of the social organization they were used to depend upon.  With the disappearance of social leaders and skilled craftsmen, the means and organization of survival had to have reverted to a near primitive state.  Everywhere there were ruins.

The Bible book Lamentations recounted through poetry the terror and anguish of those who remained.  Some of the horrors mentioned are

1.  Loving mothers boiled their own children for food.

2.  Murderers roam the countryside; we risk our lives when we look for food.

3.  Our wives have been raped on Mt. Zion itself; in every Judean village our daughters have been forced to submit.

There were probably 200,000 people living in Judah before their abject defeat by the Babylonian empire.  All suffered and many did so excruciatingly.  Their country was torn from them leaving them in utter humiliation.  Their god Yahweh did not aid them.  It was the opposite; he actively had the Babylonians destroy the country.  The end of Judah was explained, "The Lord became so angry with Jerusalem and Judah that he banished them from his sight."(2 Kings 24:20)  It was clearly stated before that he was angry at Manasseh for faithlessness.  He demanded no less than perfect, undivided loyalty from every single one.

So let us understand what happened here.  Yahweh was so mad at Manasseh and some other backsliders that he brought in the Assyrians and the Babylonians to heap untold misery upon his own people.  He not only deserted them but had nearly 200,000 banished from Judah.  In the case of Israel, it had been permanent banishment of an even greater number of people.

There is the simple question of why God did not directly punish the actual offenders.  He had all the power and opportunity.  He could have punished the wrongdoers on the spot.  It could have been especially beneficial to his cause if he had publicly punished the errant kings.  He could have made an example of them for all to see.  They were in the limelight, the celebrities of their day.  Instead out of the miscreants, he allowed Ahaz to rule for 16 years, Jehoiakim for 11, and Zedekiah for 11.  Then there was the worse one--Manasseh.  God allowed him the longest reign--55 years.

The Lord did not take account of those who had been faithful.  Just among the kings there were those who had been loyal to him, even fiercely so.  Hezekiah and his grandson Josiah had been exemplary in their persecution of idolatry in favor of Judaism.  Their actions could well have outweighed those of Manasseh.  Even if they did not, it would seem that God would still consider their actions in pardoning the Judeans.  In the North there had been Jehu who had gone to great lengths to promote Yahweh.

You can also be sure that there were others who were totally devoted to Yahweh.  This is evident from what had gone on before and what would occur later.  Many people continued to be highly devoted to him because they concluded that his opposition was due to their own sin.  Those who remained faithful to Yahweh were the great majority.  This had probably also been true in the northern kingdom of Israel.

A just and merciful God would not have punished the majority for the actions of a few.  The Lord ignored the Abrahamic Principle of Mercy that he seemed to have accepted back in Sodom.  Even if one rejects the Abrahamic Principle and accepts what God did in punishing the entire populations of Israel and Judah, there are other serious problems.

First, the sins alleged were not specified except for the worshipping of other gods.  You would expect many more sins, if any, to be catalogued.  It is a just principle that any person punished for crimes must have them clearly set out.  The Bible made some reference to the failure to follow God's laws but specifics were not discussed.  Was it something like violation of dietary laws or failing to put to death homosexuals or those who worked on the Sabbath?

Almost exclusively, it was about failing to worship Yahweh but the Lord's prohibitions in this regard violated the principle of freedom of religion.  Yahweh's complaints were about his not being considered to be the sole and absolute god without exception.  Even if he was fully respected as the chief god above all others, that was not acceptable to him.  Nor was he at all pleased with graven images like the bull calves that were taken as representations of him.

There was no mention in the Bible of any social misbehavior by the Jews.  There was no talk of there being violence in the communities such as frequent fights, rapes, sodomy, or murders.  There was no reference to theft or fraud.  There was no discussion of abortion.  If the Jews were unruly, the Lord did not note that.  If the people were civil, peaceful, and socially law abiding, there was no reason for them to be harshly punished.  If they behaved like Jews did later and down to this day, they would have been respectful of their neighbors as well as strangers. 

The usual misfortunes of living had continued on a regular basis despite high devotion to the Lord.  Diseases, permanent injuries, injustices, early death (often in childbirth), and others kept recurring.  On a larger scale were the famines, epidemics and foreign invasions.  Yahweh did not protect against these.  People must have also noticed that the priests, the prophets, and other highly devout Judaics were not exempted from disaster by the Lord.

Even if the Lord decided to punish all of the inhabitants, the punishment did not match the sins.  The usual punishments could have been sent on the people--epidemics, famine, etc.  They could have been meted out in a way that would have made it clear exactly the reason for the punishment.  Instead, one entire country was erased, never to be the same again, and another came close to elimination.

The Babylonian empire was brought down by the Persians around 538.  Cyrus, their new emperor, released the Judeans who wished to return to Judah.  Only a small number went back, probably less than 5%.  It had been almost 50 years since the repatriation so most of the Judeans had little memory of their homeland.  Any memories were not pleasant.  The involuntary immigrants had been given a wide degree of freedom to make a good living in Babylonia.  They understandably did not want to leave their established lives.  They must have realized that picking up anew in Judah would not be easy.  Of the ones who stayed, many continued to practice Judaism.  We know that in the following centuries there were practicing Jews in Mesopotamia.

The ones who returned were clearly devoted to Yahweh.  They gradually rebuilt the Temple and the walls around Jerusalem.  Jews in Babylonia sent money for the project.  This happened in 445.  The writing of the Hebrew Bible came to an end at that time.  After that there was a period of almost three centuries in which not much was written about the Jews.  They lived as nonrebelling subjects of Persia and Greece and were given considerable autonomy.

Greek Influence

After the death of Greek emperor Alexander in 323, his generals engaged in battles to divide the empire.  Palestine and Syria eventually came under the control of the Seleucid dynasty.  Peace continued within the Jewish community.

Many Greek and Macedonian settlers came to Palestine just as they went to various other places like Egypt, Italy, and Anatolia (modern Turkey).  They brought their literature, art, architecture, philosophy, and athletics.  Many local residents came to appreciate Greek culture.  They learned the language and adopted Greek names for themselves and their children.  Jerusalem took on more of the appearance of a Greek city.

Two factions emerged from this.  There were the reformers who wanted to see a greater adoption of Greek approaches with their inquiring attitude, artistic interests, and religious tolerance of other gods.  They did not propose to do away with Judaism.  They did want to avoid being tied to the rigid Mosaic law that they considered as too often irrational and impractical.  They wanted to stop the practice of regular sacrifices observed exclusively in the Temple in Jerusalem.  The faction was mostly made up of the wealthy, the ruling class, and many of the priests.

Opposed to them were the traditionalist conservatives.  They wanted to stay with the customs that had been unswervingly followed by fundamentalists for hundreds of years.  They became known as the Hasidic (pious) Jews.  They preferred their own traditional agriculturally-based habits of living.  They did not like foreign influence from any quarter.  They had never been fond of large-scale merchants and a number of Greeks belonged to this group.  It did not help that they could see that the Greeks looked down on the indigenous residents as backward.  They had long referred to all those other than themselves as barbarians.  By the same token, the Jews looked down on everybody else derogatorily as pagans or heathen.

Their ancestors had reportedly been given strict instructions from the Lord that they were not to allow pagans in their midst because that might lead them to worship other gods.  The Greeks had other gods--many of them--and performed sacrifices to them.  There was also the unbending obligation to obey the law of Moses.  They must have feared that if they did not follow it strictly that they would be severely punished.  They surely had been told about past punishments including the exiles.  The conservative faction was mostly comprised of the less educated and the rural including the farmers. 

What was more visible and aggravating to the fundamentalist Judaics was Greek athletics.  First it was associated with Greek religion.  Events were dedicated to their gods and sacrifices made to them at the games.  Jewish men including priests participated in these games.  They may not have participated in the worship of the Greek gods but it was bad enough that they were even present.  Then there was the problem that the gymnasium was erected near the Temple.

Furthermore there was the problem that the athletes trained and competed completely in the nude.  This alone must have appeared depraved to the traditionalists.  There was no precedent for it in Jewish society.  One of the events was wrestling.  You can imagine what some Judaics thought of naked men wrestling.

Greeks were very tolerant of homosexuality.  Hasidim must have become aware of this, could have even seen homosexual behavior in public such as two men kissing.  They knew the Lord had ordered that homosexual acts be punished by death.  They had heard about the harsh punishment meted out to Sodom and Gomorrah.

The First Religious Terrorism

In 175 a new Seleucid king in Syria came to the throne, Antiochus IV.  He was not satisfied with the slow pace in which Judah was Hellenizing, i.e. adopting Greek culture.  He took steps to accelerate the process.  He replaced the orthodox high priest with a man from the reform party who had offered him a big bribe.  The office of high priest had never been sold before.  The king needed money for his military endeavors.

The high priest was in control of the Temple treasury.  The money was supposed to be used to conduct the expensive program of Temple sacrifices.  The new priest started to divert money to fund Greek-style activities such as athletic and dramatic competition.  The Hasidic Jews were outraged; fights on the streets broke out.  Fanatical leaders rose preaching loyalty to the Torah.  The hasids became extreme enough that they started to kill Hellenizing Jews.  This marked the beginning of the first religious terrorism in history.  It dragged on for close to 30 years.

Antiochus IV installed a new high priest Menelaus who was even more proGreek than his first appointee.  In 168 Menelaus informed Antiochus that attacks by the Hasidim on the residents continued in Jerusalem.  Antiochus had from the beginning been suspicious of the hasidim, thinking they were a tightly-organized and fanatical cult intent on fomenting anger and dissension against the state.  There was not much evidence of this when he came to power but it became true with time.

He reacted to Menelaus' information by sending 20,000 of his mercenary troops to Jerusalem.  They massacred many Hasidim and settled in to quash any further disturbances.  They may well have committed thefts, assaults, and rapes.  The troops must have brought statues of their gods.  They may well have worshipped them in the Temple with the compliance of Menelaus.  This served to further enrage the conservatives.

Conditions reached the boiling point in 167.  It looks like Menelaus and other extreme reformers decided to issue a decree.  They must have thought it would quickly solve the doctrinal differences once and for all.  They assumed the authority of the high priest would be respected.  The decree effectively replaced Mosaic law with secular law and allowed alternate worship in the Temple.  An image of the chief Greek god Zeus was allowed in the Temple.  At this same time, Menelaus apparently raided the Temple treasury to help pay his bribe to Antiochus.

Menelaus did not expect the uproar that all this would cause.  He and his advisers thought they would receive greater support for the move.  After all, many were not fond of having to make all the sacrifices.  Many priests had been in favor of liberalization before but now a number of them thought this was going too far and broke away from Menelaus.  The scribes also went with the orthodox conservatives as did the poor, which was most of the populace.

The First Religious War

The Hasmon family angrily rose up, recruited other discontented Judaics, and started a guerrilla war against Syrian troops and Jewish Hellenizers.  This started the first religious war on record.  They destroyed pagan altars just as Yahweh had commanded.  They were fierce but believed in the strongest adherence to the Law so they did not fight on the Sabbath.  The Syrian forces realized this and made it a point to attack on that very day.  They were able to easily kill many rebels.  The Judaic priest of the rebels recognized that this was too impractical a situation and issued a decree allowing them to at least fight back.

Despite not having many weapons, the fundamentalist fighters were able to defeat Syrian forces that far outnumbered them on several occasions.  In December, 164, they were able to take control of the Temple, rid it of any instruments of pagan worship, and restart the old system of Israelite sacrifices.  They held a ceremony rededicating the Temple that Jews have celebrated every year since as Hanukkah.

The war dragged on for years.  The Syrians had to also fight a formidable foe to their eastern side, the Parthians, so they were unable to send the necessary troops to fight the rebels in Judah.  The Seleucid empire was also getting weaker through internal jostling for power.  What started as a religious war in addition became a war of national liberation.  NonJews like the Idumeans joined the fight for freedom as did some of the Judaic reformers.  The empire was powerful enough to continue to collect a tribute during all this time.

Finally in 142 Simon, the last survivor of the five Hasmon brothers, asked the king Demetrius II in Syria to end the tribute.  The Seleucid king needed the military help of Judah so he agreed and effectively granted independence to Judah.  The Seleucid empire began to fade.  Two years later in a mass public assembly, Simon was declared king and high priest.  Many had been killed and others suffered in the war.

Why did the Lord allow war to go for so long at such a high cost?  The fighting was started by the Hasidim and the Hasmoneans because they were fanatical defenders of what Yahweh had commanded from the beginning and what he expected his followers to do.  Numerous unbending adherents had lost their lives, risked their well-being, and neglected their families and property to defend the faith in the way he expected.

Why didn't God impose a quick end to the violence after the start of the uprising?  He could have made his fighters more powerful and unbeatable to where they could have quickly won.  He could have motivated many more of the surrounding nations to join and help the Judaics.  He could have softened the heart of king Antiochus IV so that he would have released Judah from being a vassal state in 167.  Or in that year he could have supported the Parthians in overrunning the Seleucid kingdom.  Yahweh could have initiated any number of miracles on behalf of his people.

Perhaps if he did not shorten the war, the Lord could have finally brought enduring peace to the Judeans in 142.  After all, the prophets had centuries before predicted that there would rise a great leader who would take the Jewish people to greatness.  There would be peace and all the other nations would have great respect for Judah.  This hero was labeled the Messiah.  There would be no more conflict either inside Judah or with foreign nations.

What better candidate for the position of the Messiah than the newly crowned king Simon.  He had just led Judah in a great war of independence.  He had been chosen king by the people. The country was free of outside tyrants who taxed heavily for their own benefit.  Simon was popular with the people but he could not be the Messiah because the prophecy said that leader had to be a descendant of king David.

Vicious Episodes

The Jewish army continued to be involved in the armed quarrels of the Seleucids.  Simon wanted to enjoy his old age, so near the end of his reign he handed over military operations to his three sons.  In 135 his ambitious son-in-law staged a banquet for Simon and his family.  He then arranged for the assassination of Simon.  Two of the sons were also killed.  The surviving son was able to round up the band of conspirators and kill them.  He then became king and high priest, Yohanan (John) Hyrcanus I.  The short period of peace came to an end.

Gaining independence from Seleucid Syria did not mean that future kings of Syria did not try to regain control of Judah.  Antiochus VII Sidetes invaded Palestine and laid siege to Jerusalem.  The hunger became so bad that Hyrcanus I decided to accept the harsh conditions imposed by the Syrians.  Later Antiochus VII died and threw Syria into turmoil in the struggle to establish a successor.  Hyrcanus gradually began to violate the terms of the agreement with the Seleucids.

Hyrcanus then built up an army of mercenaries and attacked neighboring territories.  He was an ardent fundamentalist who believed it was not just an opportunity but a duty to extend the Judean territory to what it had been at the time of David and Solomon.  He succeeded in this.  To finance his military operations, it is claimed that he opened the tomb of King David and availed himself of the treasures there.  (Max Wurmbrand and Cecil Roth, The Jewish People:  4000 Years of Survival (New York:  Shengold Publishers, Inc., 1967) 60.)

It looks like he was so confident that he was on the right track that it was acceptable to raid the tomb of the most revered of the Israelite kings.  The Jews respected him as a leader and priest according to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, whose books Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War give us the most important near contemporary account of these events.  So it appears that it did not disturb the Jews that Hyrcanus raided David's tomb.  His accomplishments for Judaism were justification enough.

Hyrcanus considered the Bible books of Joshua and Samuel as his guides to the conquest of the areas of Palestine.  Like Joshua he attacked believers in other religions, as well as heterodox Jewish groups.  He destroyed the Samaritan Temple in Mount Gerizim and demolished Samaria thoroughly with the intent of not leaving any sign that a city had existed there.  He did the same to the Greek city of Scythopolis.  He massacred the inhabitants of several other Greek towns just because they were Greek.  In the region of Idumea, he gave the residents the choice of converting to Judaism or being killed.(Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York:  Harper Perennial, 1987) 107.)  This was probably the first forced religious conversion on any wide scale in world history.

The actions of Hyrcanus were savage enough but when his son Alexander Yannai (Janneus) became king, he easily surpassed his record.  Actually, the first son of Hyrcanus was next in line and ruled for a year.  Mysteriously he died.  It has been suspected that he was poisoned by Alexander.  The Jews got him for 27 years (103-76).  He swept north as far as Syria, invaded the Decapolis that were ten Greek-speaking cities, marched west to the coast, and also to the south and the east.  This was farther than Hebrew borders had ever before been extended.  The policy of Judaic conversion continued in these new lands:  convert, leave the area, or be killed.

The First Religious Civil War

Alexander was not just ruthless with outsiders but also with his fellow Jews.  He became Hellenized and looked with disdain at some of the Yahweh-commanded customs.  As high priest during a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, he refused to perform the libation in accordance to custom.  He was pelted with lemons by some of the Hasidic spectators.  This threw him into a rage and as a result he had six thousand slain.

Soon after that a religious civil war began against the monarch with the rebels consisting of the Hasidim and a newly-formed party, the Perushim (Pharisees).  The war lasted six years and cost 50,000 Jewish lives.  Josephus wrote that at the end of the religious war Alexander ordered that 800 of his captives be crucified.  While they were still conscious, he had the throats of their wives and children cut before their eyes.  He had this done publicly while he was feasting with his concubines.

Alexander turned on the conservative Hasidim who had been strong supporters of the Hasmoneans in their quest for a traditional Jahwist Judah.  Alexander was a Hasmonean.  The Hasmonean kings showed the same greed for power and cold lust for blood that had been shown by prior Near Eastern despots like the Assyrian kings.  Alexander may well have been an alcoholic.  Josephus said he died of a distemper after hard drinking.  Alcoholic discontrol would be consistent with his cruel behavior.

Alexander's widow Salome ruled after his death, from 76 to 67.  Her reign was a time of peace.  That was not a coincidence.  She worked to foster it.  She tried to bring national unity by encouraging Pharisees who had gone into exile to return and by allowing them to serve in the Sanhedrin.  Their Oral Law was accepted.

Heavy Taxation

After her death her two sons started a battle over which one was to succeed her.  The Romans had waited patiently for the Seleucid empire to implode from internal clashes.  They used the same temporizing strategy with respect to Judah.  In 63 they indicated they favored one of the claimants to the throne who then opened the gates of Jerusalem to them.  However, an uncle of the sons opposed this action and held out on the mountain of the Temple.  A three-day siege followed.  The Romans attacked on the Sabbath.  The priests were slain while conducting temple services.  Thousands were slaughtered.  Big changes came to Judea (the Roman equivalent of Judah).  The kingship was stopped and Samaria and other territories were seized by the Romans.  They took over control of Galilee and Judah.

The next important ruler of Judea was king Herod I who ruled from 37 to 4 B.C.E.  He always went out of his way to curry favor with whoever was the Roman emperor and so was given great freedom.  He is a well-known king of Judea who was responsible for both very bad and good deeds.  He was a Jew but that was only because his father and his family had been among those in Idumea who had been forced to convert by Hyrcanus I.  Idumea lay south of Judah and was once called Edom.  The Jews never accepted Herod partly because he was not an original Jew.  Also they understandably did not appreciate his hedonistic lifestyle and his violent episodes.

For instance, one of the first actions he took after the Roman senate allowed him the kingship was to execute 45 leading members of the Sanhedrin who favored upholding Mosaic law in the secular government of the land.  He then instituted a strict separation of religion and state.  He made the position of high priest one that would be filled by the king and the king himself was not to serve in both positions.  After that, he did not show brutality toward his subjects with the exception of one of his wives Mariamne and her relatives who were Hasmoneans.  Herod was suspicious that the Hasmoneans may be desirous of displacing him and gaining back the kingship they had previously possessed.

Herod became paranoid about possible attempts to kill him.  Mariamne was his favorite wife whom he loved deeply but he accused her of trying to poison him and had her executed.  He turned Antigonus, grandson of Alexander Yannai, over to the Romans who executed him.  He had Mariamne's brother drowned in a bath and accused her mother of treason and had her executed.  He had his own two sons by Mariamne tried for conspiracy to murder him.  They were convicted and judicially strangled.  The Roman emperor Augustus observed, "It is better to be Herod's pig than his son."  Herod had ten wives and consequently many sons by them and so had plenty to fear from their wanting to take his throne.

Herod was an able administrator and undertook many projects that did much to improve the country and gave most Jews pride.  The most important was extensive improvements to the Temple.  The economy and foreign trade flourished.  Unfortunately, all these benefits came at the price of heavy taxation.  In addition, men were expected to contribute a half-shekel to the Temple.  Even in those good times, there was oppression.

Herod died in 4 B.C.E.  His was the last stable government until 1948 when the modern state of Israel was formed.  Herod had willed that the land be divided into three territories to be ruled by three of his sons.  Two of them proved inept and had to eventually be removed by the Romans. 

During this time there were many pagans living in Judea.  The Judaics looked down on them and avoided associating with them.  After all, they could influence them to follow other gods.  They were especially aloof around the time of pagan festivals.  They would not conduct business with the pagans during that time and would not even pass through their towns.  The gentiles resented this and in turn mocked Jewish customs like the Sabbath and circumcision.

The king who was given the rule of the territory of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria was so cruel that his subjects petitioned the Roman emperor in 6 C.E. for his removal.  The emperor acceded and then placed the province under governance of Roman procurators.  They did not rule from the most important city Jerusalem but instead sat at Caesarea on the northern coast of Palestine.  They were not given any royal title but were only administrators.  Most Jews accepted the direct rule of a foreign power or at least were indifferent.   After all they had lived peacefully under the rule of the Persians and Greeks until Antiochus IV.

However, there was a determined fanatical Judaic minority that was adamantly opposed to direct foreign rule.  Among them was a group called the Zealots.  When the Roman emperor agreed to remove the king as mentioned above, there was a violent uprising led by Judas of Gamala.  The Roman soldiers put it down quickly and Jews died.  Then there was Jesus of Nazareth around 29 C.E.  In 44 C.E. a man called Theudas led a crowd that marched down the Jordan valley espousing the same cause of opposition to foreign rule.  Around the year 55, 4,000 gathered at the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem to await the collapse of the walls of Jerusalem in the way that the walls of Jericho had fallen for Joshua's army.  In the years after the inception of the first century, there were many hopes for the end of Roman dominance.  There were other small failed rebellions.

Some of the leaders of these insurrections proclaimed themselves to be the Messiah.  Many were eager to believe them and followed.  This was part of the Messianic hope that had been initiated by the prophets, was revived at the time of Antiochus IV around 167 B.C.E., and reached a fever pitch in the earlier part of the first century.  Messianism continued among the Jews in intermittent episodes all the way to the 1800's.

Intertwined with the Messianic movement was an apocalyptic movement that called for the "end of days," i.e. the end of the world as it had been.  There would be a final judgment of the life conduct of all.  Those who passed the test would go to heaven while those who had not led a moral life would be sent to Gehenna, i.e. hell.  God would sit in judgment or perhaps it would be the Messiah who would then rule in Jerusalem.  All the enemies of Israel would be punished.  The end of days would begin when the Jews rose up against their rulers, at this point the Romans.  The Lord would then appear with a huge army of his angels, help the Jews, and establish the new world.  There were variations of this scenario.  There was much literature written about this myth, the first one that we know about being the book of Daniel, which was included in the Tanakh.

The resentment and rebelliousness grew as the first century progressed.  A serious cause of this disdain was the burden of taxation that the inhabitants had to endure.  The Romans chose active and assiduous local tax collectors who made sure that all, even the small, business transactions were assessed a tax.  The residents of Palestine hated these tax collectors who bought their positions with the highest bid among others and with the most convincing promises that they would be the most efficient in collection.  They were given far-ranging power and often used it cruelly.

The Jews were conscientious and hard-working so they prospered in their farms and other businesses.  Judea was widely known for its farms that were tightly packed across the land and produced an abundance of food.  The Jews could have endured heavy taxes if that was all they had to suffer.

While there was much unrest in the early first century, things could be peaceful.  In 6 C.E. there was agitation when the first procurator Coponius came but he proved to be a good administrator and the Jews grew to like him.  Unfortunately, he only stayed three years.  It was about this time that the Zealots gained a significant following.  The last period of peace came when the emperor Caligula appointed his friend Herod Agrippa as king of Judea in 37.  Agrippa was a grandson of Herod I.  He was kind to the Jews and they were proud of him, a local boy.  His reign was cut short in 44 when he died under suspicious circumstances.  He may well have been assassinated by a Roman soldier.  The Roman soldiers did not like him because he was too favorable to the Jews.

Roman Oppression

In addition to the heavy taxation, the Jews were exploited by unscrupulous procurators who were not well qualified to perform their function.  They were more interested in trying to selfishly extract as much for themselves while they were in Judea.  They stole what they could from the rich for the most part.  Sadly for the rich Jews, they were at the same time despised by the poor ones because they often collaborated with the Romans.  Brigands began to unceasingly roam the countryside.  They naturally targeted those with greater wealth although they took from everyone they could.

One of the worst procurators was Pontius Pilate, the one who ordered Jesus crucified.  He was reputed to use the execution of crucifixion too often and to be too open to bribery.  He showed little respect for Judaic religious sensitivity when he had coins made with pagan symbols and otherwise treated both Jews and Samaritans with contempt.  The Jews were allowed to complain to the Roman government against their administrators and they did against Pilate.  The complaints were finally heeded and he was recalled.  He had plenty of time to inflict damage on the country from 26 to 36.  The last procurator Gessius Florus was even worse, ruling from 64 to 66.  He knew the Jews were intending to ask that he be put on trial for corruption so he intentionally provoked a rebellion to create a distraction.

Life for the people of Palestine became increasingly miserable as the century wore on.  It was a mounting chaos.  There were street fights between Jews and pagans while the Jews also had religious quarrels among themselves.  There were major parties with serious differences in their approach to Judaism.  There were the Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and Essenes.  A subgroup of the Zealots was the Sicarii.  They received their name from the Latin word sica that meant curved dagger.

The procurators and tax collectors became increasingly greedy.  This growing avarice was widespread throughout the empire from emperors on down.  Many Jewish farmers and businessmen were unable to keep up with the tax burden imposed on them.  The Romans were not merciful.  If a family could not pay their taxes, their property was confiscated and the members could be sold into slavery.  Some men fled before they could be taken away and joined the movement that was intent on starting a revolution that they were sure would be supported by the Lord.  He would help them get rid of the Romans once and for all.

Many of these dispossessed men became Sicarii, the most extreme group.  They terrorized the cities hiding their daggers in their clothes and in a crowd pouncing on their victims.  They went after the rich and those who collaborated with the Romans.  They were partly motivated by religious fanaticism.  They were separated from their families.  It is hard to reason with someone bearing those kinds of scars.

It has been surmised that one of the twelve disciples of Jesus, Judias Iscariot, was one of the Sicarii.  The last name hints at a relation to a word for a solitary dagger wielder--sicariot.  Judas may have been the most displeased of the disciples that Jesus did not proceed with a forcible attack on the Roman garrison.  In his anger he may have decided to denounce Jesus to the authorities.  One wonders how any of the twelve disciples could afford to leave their homes and their families and go wandering the countryside with Jesus.  They may have been men who had been dispossessed.

Where was Yahweh?  Why did he not take control of the situation?  Why did the Jews have to continue to suffer?  He could no longer accuse them of idolatry.  The Jews supported him, many fervently.  The Hasmoneans led a famous fight for him.  Hyrcanus I expanded the Jewish borders and forced pagans to convert.  The Lord must have been pleased with that.  God had plenty of opportunity to intervene going back to the wars against the Seleucids.  He could have made sure there was less violent succession to the throne among the Hasmoneans and incapacitated the monster Alexander Yannai.  He could have ensured better Roman procurators.  There was every reason to provide the Jews continuing peace and prosperity. 

If the Lord was not going to get involved against the Romans, he could have calmed down his more zealous followers.  He could have honestly told them point blank that he did not intend to rescue them even if their plight became much worse.  He could have informed them that it was a complete fantasy on their part that he would come help them.

The Roman-Jewish War

Their plight became much worse beginning in 66.  It is not pleasant to read or write about this.  It seems that the revolt started in Caesarea after someone offended the religious sensibilities of the Judaics and fighting broke out between the Jews and the pagans.  Florus the procurator refused the requests of the Jews to quell the rioting.

The residents of Jerusalem heard of the unrest and became upset.  Evidence of the obtuseness of the procurator is that he chose this time to steal money from the treasury in the Temple.  A group passed a hat around in mockery to allegedly collect money to help out the impoverished procurator.  Florus was incensed by this and brought troops into Jerusalem to punish the mockers rather than employ them in Caesarea.  The Romans were unable to identify them.  Nevertheless, Florus had the soldiers go into a section of the city known as the Upper Marketplace and had them plunder it.  Josephus wrote that 3,600 perished.  Even if this was an exaggeration, 360 would have been unwarranted.

More Jews became enraged and joined the fight against the Romans.  The Jews and the Roman soldiers spent time offending each other.  The population of the city was about one-half million.  An important issue arose when the young manager of the Temple refused to continue with the sacrifice to the Roman emperor required in the Temple by the Romans.  Soon the Jews took over the city and slaughtered the Roman garrison.  The priests took the upper city, which contained the wealthy area.  The Zealots took the lower city including the commercial center and the Temple.

Street battles broke out between Jews and pagans in many cities and villages across Palestine and Syria and even as far as Alexandria in Egypt.  The Jews suffered heavy losses there and in Caesarea.  Many Jews were opposed to the revolt including priests and Pharisees.

Rome's best general Vespasianus was sent to Palestine with three legions in early 67.  The Romans had not taken any action since the rebellion began the previous summer.  Vespasianus started at the coast and very methodically went from town to town recapturing them.  The Romans spent the years of 67 and 68 employed in this.

In July, 68, Nero committed suicide, which turned Rome into turmoil over who was to succeed him.  Three different men served as emperor in 69.  The legions under Vespasianus actively promoted him to be the emperor so he returned to Rome.  A civil war continued over his becoming emperor and he emerged victorious.  He had his 29-year-old son Titus continue the reconquest of Palestine in the spring of 70.

Another big reason that the Romans did not hurry to go to Jerusalem after pacifying the countryside is that the Jews were spending all this time fighting among themselves.  They could have spent the time on military training but did not.  Instead they used all their energy to fight each other.  The Zealots locked everyone in the city.  Anyone caught trying to escape was killed.  Some still succeeded in escaping.

The Zealots fought against the moderates, which was to be expected, but also contended with each other.  They did not argue over personality differences as much as which religious orientation was correct.  The proper religious ideology was very important because the Lord would only approve and support the true one.  The Sicarii went wild stabbing all those whom they suspected of sympathizing with the Romans.  Jerusalem was filled with Jewish dead bodies before Titus even arrived.

Titus brought 60,000 soldiers and their support troops.  The Jews had 25,000 fighters.  The Roman army brought various siege machines including ballistae that could hurl 55 pound boulders for 700 feet.  Only when the huge stones began to land in the city and the battering rams could be heard pounding on the walls did the Jewish factions unite enough to face the outside enemy.  Titus gave Jerusalem a chance to surrender that was met with derision.

After the army broke down the northern walls and thus took possession of the northern part of the city, Titus decided the inhabitants might at that point be ready to give in so he paused the invasion to hold a parade.  All the soldiers polished their helmets and the brass on their dress uniforms and marched outside the city walls.  Long trumpets played.  The demonstration by the army continued in daylight hours for four days.  Titus was sure that this would impress the Jerusalemites with what an awesome force they were up against.  They would realize that they would die or become slaves.  Instead the resisters spat down on the Romans and refused to relent even though they were desperate for food.

Titus still did not want to give up on gaining a surrender.  He had the prisoner Josephus--the same who would later turn historian--go to the wall and address his compatriots.  He delivered a speech reminding them how much effort it had taken through the years to bring Jerusalem and the Temple to the state in which it was then.  Both were known and admired throughout the Roman empire.  He warned them that all this would be demolished if they persisted in their resistance.  The speech was to no avail.  God was on their side.

The Romans with their many mercenaries resumed their offensive moving gradually toward the Temple.  The wooden siege machines that were so powerful had a vulnerability.  At night defenders would sneak out of the walls and set them on fire.  They could also assassinate isolated Romans.  The Roman engineers could build more weapons but that took time and slowed down the advance.  Much wood had to be chopped down.  There was an additional practice that demanded the use of many more trees--crucifixions.

The mayhem caused by the marauders became so bad that Titus had to give an order:  any defender caught outside the walls even if they were just foraging for food would be crucified.  The Romans soon found themselves crucifying 500 people per day.  They made sure to do this near the walls in full view of all those inside.  A forest of crosses was created.  This continued until there were no more trees to use for the crucifixions.  Some trees had to be left to construct more large siege weapons.  The countryside was denuded of trees for miles including some that had been planted and cultivated for hundreds of years.

Meantime starvation continued inside.  The leaders would not even let the women, children, and elderly leave.  Bodies piled up.  Thousands of bodies had been thrown over the walls but many still stayed on the streets creating an unbearable stench for miles.  Bodies could not be buried because people were too weak to accomplish the task.  Robbers including Zealots roamed the precincts desperately looking for food.  They took from anyone including those that were about to die.  In this way they were able to keep up their strength to prolong their fight.

Another occurrence added to the macabre and piteous scene.  There were many who fled the horror in the city by night.  The Roman soldiers discovered that fugitives sometimes swallowed gold and jewelry in order to avoid being robbed at some point.  The Romans then began the practice of killing these escapees and disemboweling them to get at any valuables.  2,000 lost their lives in this way on one night.  Titus was furious when he heard of this.  He was so sympathetic to the Jews that he had his cavalry kill one of his own auxiliary units that was doing this!  The practice nevertheless continued--secretly.

Josephus recorded all of these incidents in his The Jewish War.  It must have been hard for him to personally observe all this since relatives of his were inside the walls.  The Romans reached and took over the tower of Antonia.  The invasion of the Temple was next.  Titus did not want to destroy the Temple especially the sanctuary.  So once more the call went out for the Jews to save the Temple by surrendering.  The answer was again negative.

In all this, why didn't the combatants think about entering into negotiations to possibly reach a compromise that could be acceptable to both sides?  Here could be some of the terms.  Sacrifices to foreign gods or for the Roman emperor would no longer be required.  The countryside outside Jerusalem would remain under Roman control to deter another uprising in that area.  Taxes would not be excessive and there would be freedom of religion for all.  This would be much like the conditions the inhabitants of Judah had accepted at certain periods of time with the

Assyrians and Babylonians.

The chances are that neither Titus nor Vespesianus before him thought about offering a conditional surrender with attractive incentives.  There was not much thought given to that in those times.  Besides the fanatical Jerusalem leaders would not have been open to discussing anything.  They wanted nothing short of total victory that they believed their god Yahweh was poised to grant them.

Soldiers tried to scale the walls outside the Temple but kept getting thrown down.  The walls were too thick to break.  The Jewish men fought fiercely expecting Yahweh to appear at any minute.  Finally Titus acquiesced in having the wooden doors to the Temple burned in order to provide an entrance.  The fire started to spread to the rest of the Temple area so Titus supposedly ordered the infantrymen to put the fire out.  They supposedly tried but then the Jewish fighters took the opportunity to attack them.  The Jews were not smart enough to wait at least until the enemy put out the fire.  The soldiers chased after the rebels.  After the Romans had gotten control of the attackers, it may be that they let the fire burn out of control.

By then the soldiers must have been enraged at the Jews for making them go through all this.  They had seen some of their close comrades killed or seriously maimed.  They sacrificed to their gods on the sacred grounds of the Temple.  They may have done this with intentional disrespect.  Or they may have calculated that they were standing on sacred ground, so what better place to sacrifice to the deity--their deity.

The war continued as a large group of Zealots ran from the Temple as it went up in smoke.  They barricaded themselves within the walls of the upper part of the city.  Some of them occupied Herod's former palace with its strong walls.  It was now August of 70.  It took another month for the Roman army to methodically wreck the thick walls.  By the end of September the fighting was over.

The angry soldiers went through the city vengefully plundering and killing.  Titus ordered the entire city razed to the ground with the exception of three towers and the western wall.  These were preserved for the benefit of the legion that was left to guard the precincts for the next 60 years.  The synagogues of Palestine were destroyed.  Archaeologists have found no signs of Jewish occupation after 70, not even tombs.  After the victory over the Jews, Titus supposedly said he did not want to take credit for it, saying that the Jewish god had become angry at them and refused to help them.  He likely heard that opinion from Jewish prisoners under his control.

Josephus stated that 116,000 bodies were taken out of only one of the gates of Jerusalem.  Then there were all the ones who were crucified or split open.  97,000 were taken as prisoner to work as slaves or to face fierce wildcats in the empire's gladiatorial arenas.

Titus took many of the warriors through Egypt to be paraded in towns in the empire to show others what happens when they rebel.  He then took them to Rome.  In 71 there was a great procession attended by thousands to celebrate the great victory with the prisoners marched along in chains.  One of the leaders Simon bar Giora was executed in the Forum.  An Arch of Titus was soon erected that commemorated the parade and the prisoners carrying gold ritual items used in the Temple.

The war was still not over after the destruction of Jerusalem.  Even before the siege a group of Sicarii had moved to Masada, a tall plateau on which Herod had built an almost impregnable fortress.  The Romans did not exhibit much concern over it until finally in 72 they decided to move against those holding out there.  There were 1,000 holdouts with some being women and children.  The Romans built a ramp to get to the structure and met resistance.  When they finally entered the building, they found all the inhabitants dead.  There was still food on the premises.  The rebels apparently wanted to leave evidence that they had not starved.  Instead they died by their own hand rather than be captured.  Maybe the leaders murdered everyone and then killed themselves.

Jerusalem and Palestine were more quiet after the defeat but the Jews in various areas of the Diaspora--Egypt, Syria, Cyrenaica (modern Libya), and Cyprus--stirred up Messianic expectations and started anti-Roman riots.  They still believed that the evil Romans had to be vanquished before there could be a Messiah.  An exception to this idea was found in Cyrenaica where they had already installed a king-Messiah by the name of Andreus (also called Lukuas).  They destroyed various buildings there and caused considerable damage to the city of Salamis in Cyprus.  These uprisings were put down with brutality by Roman troops.  It seemed that the Jews in these foreign countries were planning to go into Palestine from all directions to liberate it.

The later emperor Trajan could not ignore this violent resistance especially since the Parthians were hounding the Empire in the east and sympathetic Jewish bands in Mesopotamia were helping them.  In 115 he sent a military force to Mesopotamia that massacred the Jewish population there.  In 117 he sent another military expedition to Egypt, Cyrenaica, and Cyprus to cripple the power of the violent Jews there.  This quieted things down until 132.

At that time the emperor Hadrian, son of Trajan, took two actions that grated on Jewish religious feelings in Palestine.  He was repulsed by the Jewish custom of circumcision so he made it illegal, punishable by death.  He also prepared to rebuild Jerusalem as a Roman city with a shrine to Jupiter (the Roman name for the Greek god Zeus) on top of the ruins of the Temple.  The Jews revolted and were surprisingly successful in overcoming Roman soldiers and ejecting them from Jerusalem.  A strong leader stepped forward by the name of Bar Kokhba.  There was strong hope that finally the Lord was sending the Messiah with some assuming it was Bar Kokhba.

Hadrian sent the governor of England who was also his best general, Julius Severus, with a large army.  It was a long and violent war that greatly cost the Roman army.  In the last battle at Betar, the Romans killed all the combatants and prohibited burial of the dead for a long time.  Nearly 600,000 Jews died fighting in addition to those who perished from famine and disease.  Many thousands were sent into slavery.  A few escaped from Betar and went into the mountains and caves near the Dead Sea.  The soldiers had already suffered heavy losses in this second war so they chose not to chase them into the mountains.  Instead they let them slowly starve to death.  Those two wars were some of the most brutal and pain causing in all history.

Before the war, there had been disagreements among the groups on how to deal with the Roman empire.  Many leaders opined that there was no choice but to submit to Rome.  Still they were not turning their backs on the god of Israel.  They were just aware that there was little possibility of prevailing in a war and the old, the women, and the children would suffer.  The younger hotheads imbued with unbending fanatical zeal dragged everyone else down with them pitifully.  They were that sure that God was on their side and would act for them.

It took centuries for the Jews to overcome the heartbreak of losing two bloody and horrifying wars, the enslavement of thousands, the povertization of many other others, and the total loss of their homeland.  The emperor would not allow them to enter Jerusalem on penalty of death.  There was friction between Greeks and Jews in various locations that was mostly a carryover from the violence that started during the Hasmonean period.  There was no serious conflict between Jews and Christians since for a long time the latter were merely considered a sect within

Judaism.

No people have ever fought so valiantly to preserve their religion and its associated practices and institutions.  No people have suffered so much and spilled so much blood so miserably for their god.  There can be no question that they did this for their one and only one god, Yahweh.  There was no accusation that Jews were worshipping other gods.  Even those that collaborated with the Romans were still Judaics.

Early Middle East Persecution

In 224 C.E. the Sassanid dynasty first came to power in Persia.  They were a priestly family that was fiercely loyal to Ahura Mazda, the benevolent god of the Zoroastrian religion.  They stayed in power for the next 400 years with the Sassanids persecuting Christians and other religions.  The evidence is unreliable as to how much the Jewish community was made to suffer.  It is almost certain that they did not escape at least some incidents of persecution and martyrdom.  It helped that the Jews were law-abiding and contributed to the society.  The Sassanid kings recognized this and protected them from their own Sassanid priests.  This protection of Jews by kings against religious fanatics continued for centuries in Europe and the Middle East.  Unfortunately, it was too often the case that the kings ceased their protection after they gave into anti-Jewish fanatical leaders and their aroused followers.

Roman emperor Constantine became a Christian in 313 and that began to change religious orientation in the Mediterranean world.  Under him Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire.  Constantine's government promulgated several laws against the Jews in 329.  The death penalty was instituted against all Jews who taught the Torah to gentiles or tried to convert them to Judaism.  Of course, the Torah forms the first part of the Christian scriptures.  Any gentile who converted to Judaism was to be punished with death.  The death penalty was prescribed for any Jew who married a gentile unless the Jew converted to Christianity.  Any Jew who converted to Christianity was granted rewards and privileges.  Government pronouncements referred to Judaism as a "bestial religion" setting a horrible precedent for future generations to observe.

As if that was not enough, there was further drastic change under Constantine's son Constantius who ruled from 337 to 361.  He proved to be a very ruthless ruler, e.g. he killed eight of his uncles and cousins after assessing them as competitors.  He was an Arian Christian but that did not seem mitigate his cruelty.  Christians might say that he would have been even more cruel if it had not been for his Christian beliefs. 

Constantius ordered the closing of all pagan temples and did not otherwise allow their holding of religious worship, making it punishable by death.  The Jews were numerous in Constantinople and had become prosperous partly through seafaring trade.  Constantius bled them through high taxation and expressed contempt toward them calling their religion "despicable."  Exploitation through high taxation continued for centuries as heads of state saw a convenient way to steal from prosperous Jews.  As if the onerous taxation were not enough, Constantius directly confiscated ships and other property of the Jews that they used in their merchant trade.  He condoned the public in demeaning and insulting them and ignored the regular assaults and murders.  He set an early example of institutional Christian-inspired anti-Semitism.

The Jews had it bad in Constantinople but it was even worse in Palestine.  The persecution became so bad that an armed revolt sprang up.  It consisted of only a few thousand men led by Patricius (Natrona in Jewish documents).  They held out for months.  The Jewish cities of Sephoris and Tiberias by the sea of Galilee were completely destroyed.

There is no contemporary record of this war probably because there were no Jews left to report it.  All those involved were no doubt massacred or sold into slavery.  There had not been many Jews in Palestine before the war but afterwards there was an even more meager group left to eke out a hard existence.(Howard Fast, The Jews (New York:  Dell, 1968.) 202.)

In 430 the emperor Theodosius herded the Jews of Constantinople into a ghetto.  There were more of them there than in all Palestine.  The Christian rulers in Constantinople and Rome continued to promulgate laws that isolated the Jews and gave them even fewer civil rights than their fellow residents who themselves did not enjoy many rights.  When the emperors were not abusing the Jews, there were plenty of private Christian groups willing to attack them.  As an example around 430, Barsuma was the leader of a group of Syrian monks.  They went to Palestine on several raids to burn synagogues and entire villages.

Conditions improved after that but cruelty was sometimes foisted upon them.  In 480 a group of thugs in Constantinople decided to burn a synagogue.  That was not enough destruction so they decided to throw hundreds of Jews into the raging fire.  Open animosity between Jews and Christians continued in Constantinople for the next 500 years.  The Jews fought back in that city, which they did not do in other places in the world.

Many monks were under the sway of Christian church fathers such as John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine who had plenty of damning words against the Jews.  The idea that Jews had murdered Jesus was promoted.  Christian leaders were enraged by the rejection by his own people of the claim that Jesus had been the Messiah and that he was the exclusive son of God.  This rejection was a slap in the face to them since they were rigid in their beliefs about Jesus.  They estimated that the Jews should have become convinced that Jesus was the Messiah by reading the prophecies in the Tanakh.  They apparently did not realize that one can reasonably reach the opposite conclusion by reading the same passages.

Jerome lived in Jerusalem and testified to the poverty and misery of the Jews there.  Augustine was aware of this too and drew an insight from it.  He pointed out that the Jews should not be massacred.  He said this not out of compassion.  He thought they should be allowed to live in an impoverished and degraded state.  In that way they could provide continuing evidence of the inferior status of Judaism to Christianity.  Augustine did not take into account that a great deal of Jewish misfortune was due to Christian cruelty.

Mohammed said he received a call to preach to the Arabs to cease following pagan gods, about heaven and hell, and to follow certain moral rules.  He was greatly influenced by the Torah.  In 624 he tried to convince a number of Jewish groups to follow him but they rebuffed him.  He did not take kindly to that.  He besieged a Jewish group in Mecca that surrendered.  He then drove them out of the city.  The next year he attacked the Jewish tribe of Nadir.  He defeated them and drove them out of Medina.  After that he no longer banished Jewish groups but instead had them pay a tax of half their produce.

The Jews were generally treated well by the followers of Mohammed.  For centuries to follow, the Muslims were cognizant that they were much better off with the benefit they derived from having Jewish communities in their midst.  Judaics were free to practice their religion.  The Jews were treated much better by the Muslims than by the Christians who have long preached that God loves all his children.

Pain in Spain

The connection of the Jews to Spain was a long and interesting one.  They spent peaceful years there but at other times had to live through agonizing horrors.  There were likely Jewish settlers there well before 70 C.E.  In the early 400's the Visigoths (northern European tribes) invaded Italy and Spain.  The existing residents were allowed to remain under Roman law under which they had been living.

Trouble began in 587 when the Visigothic king in Spain converted to Christianity and formed a Christian state.  Two years later it was ordered that all Jews in the kingdom had to convert.  Thousands fled and thousands converted.  When a tolerant king came in later, the converts returned to their Judaism.

For the next 100 years the Jews had to try to accommodate to the opposing attitudes of different kings who took the throne.  Some kings enforced Christian-designed laws while others were tolerant and did not enforce the laws.  Even when the authorities decided to impose the mandates that tried to prevent Jews from socializing with Christians or required the children of a mixed marriage to be baptized, they had difficulties with enforcement.  It seems that few of the neighbors of the Jews--both peasants and nobles--held animosity toward them and thus failed to cooperate in enforcement.

The Jews built up a sense of rage over this recurring harassment.  It was all instigated by the Christian clergy in Spain.  The popes at this time were not taking much action against the Jews.  Rome and Italy provided for the most part acceptable abodes for them.  It seems that the Visigothic kings were the ones more willing to please the clergy.

In the late 600's suspicion grew that the Jews were conspiring with Muslims in North Africa on an invasion of Spain.  In 694 King Egica accused the Jews of treason and confiscated their property.  He commanded that all Jews in Spain were to thereafter be the slaves of Christians.  They were prohibited from observing Judaism.  Their children were to be taken from them at the age of seven and raised as Christians.  Many fled the country.  Those who remained as slaves mostly continued to secretly worship Judaic style.

In 711 Muslims crossed into Spain, handily defeated the home army, and stayed in control of the South.  The Jews went from being slaves to being allies of the new rulers.  By 732 the Muslims had gradually conquered all of Spain.  Many Jews who had fled the prior persecutions returned.  Many Muslims from outside Spain chose to immigrate to the new Muslim territory.

For the next several centuries the Muslim rulers favored having the aid of Jewish physicians, advisors, and government officials.  What they added to culture and art was highly appreciated.  It was labeled the Golden Age of the Jews in Spain.  It started to deteriorate when a fanatical Muslim sect, the Almoravides, invaded Spain around 1096 and started a policy to force nonMuslims to convert to Islam or leave.  They were able to receive a large bribe from the Jews in return for abrogating the order.  This was no doubt in addition to paying a heavy tax they had been providing previous Muslim governments.  All nonMuslims were required to pay this tax.

The Crusades

The Jews did not suffer great persecution in the rest of Europe until 1096.  It helped that around 600 Pope Gregory I declared that the Jews should be free to worship in their synagogues and should suffer no injury.  Nevertheless there was disrespect shown by some Christians and there were occasional outbursts of violence.  In the 800's in Toulouse, France it became customary for a Jew to be slapped in the face in public at Easter as punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus.  In 876 a town southeast of Paris expelled its Jews.  The same happened in Mainz, Germany in 1012 due to the conversion of a priest to Judaism.  This relatively quiet period of time changed with the inception of the Crusades in 1096.  A nightmare began for the Jews and lasted for centuries until 1948.  After that there has still been considerable animosity shown toward them.

The motivation for crusades to Jerusalem was founded on reports of visitors who had gone there and returned claiming they had not been allowed to see sites important to Christians.  This may have been exaggerated.  It certainly did not call for all the blood spilled subsequently on both sides by the Christian quest to take over the land.

Calls were made in the late 1000's for a march to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims but there was no response.  Then in 1095 Pope Urban II made a stirring speech to an assembly of bishops and lords that there should be a journey to rescue the area from the wicked unbelievers.  The speech hit the mark, rousing pious knights as well as peasants in addition to ordinary adventurers.  The following spring peasants gathered their crops, put their families on carts, and left their homes for Palestine.  Many believed this meant it was the "end of days" leading to the final Day of Judgment.  The pope had declared that all sins would be forgiven for those who made the pilgrimage.  He also suggested that nobles would be able to establish kingdoms in Syria and Palestine.

The first wave of this first Crusade was composed of peasants, the reason it is called the Pauper's or People's Crusade.  Several months later a strong fighting force organized by the lords departed.  It is not clear that the soldiers in this group and in later Crusades were not coerced by the lords into going.  The Crusade started in France and wandered through the banks of the Rhine River picking up Germans along the way.

It is hard to believe that the provisions they first took with them were able to sustain them for very long given that whole families went along.  The peasants only had meager possessions and a dwindling supply of food.  The Jewish households, even if they were only peasants, had plenty to offer.  Besides hadn't they heard their priests say they were a despicable people?  The Crusaders did give the Jews the option to convert or die.  Sometimes Jews were allowed to die by their own hand rather than be slaughtered.  The Jewish communities had few if any arms.  In addition to the idea of wiping out the unbelieving Muslims, it did not take much intellect for the pilgrims to conclude that there were these evil Jews right there at home that should be attacked, plundered, and killed.

The Jewish communities in Trier, Worms, Mainz, Speyer, and Cologne were almost totally destroyed.  After savaging the Rhineland the Christian fanatics continued their assaults as they traveled through Bohemia.  The booty taken by the brigands was often shared with local Christian peasants and some clergy.  In one town it appears the Jews were adequately armed and repelled the Crusaders.

In other places local bishops and lords defended and hid Jews but the Crusaders were sometimes able to evade them and kill the Hebrews.  Often the Jews were provided defense because the Jews were able to pay for it.  At least 5,000 Jews and maybe as many as 12,000 were killed by that first Crusade.  After the People's Crusade passed Constantinople (modern Istanbul), it was readily annihilated by Muslim armies in Anatolia.

When the Jews in Constantinople heard that Crusaders were coming to drive the Muslims out of Jerusalem, they took that as a sign that the coming of the Messiah was imminent.  They were so sure of this that they stopped working, put on their prayer shawls, and waited for the event.

The military group of Crusaders was more successful.  It fended off the Seljuk Turks who had taken control of an area south of Constantinople but it took them two years to slog it out.  The Seljuk Turks had been nomads from central Asia before they moved into the area in 1070.  The Crusader army had 150,000 men when it arrived in Constantinople in the spring of 1097.  When it arrived in Jerusalem in the June of 1099, it only numbered 40,000.  Thousands perished on the road from the intervening battles, disease, starvation, and desertion.  You can bet that this army also plundered Jewish and Muslim towns along the way.

In 1098 the Egyptian Muslims took back Jerusalem from the Seljuk Turks and made it known that pilgrims from other religions were free to enter and worship.  The Seljuks had not always been open to nonMuslims coming in.  Before them the Egyptians had been in charge without obstruction to outsiders.  The Crusaders did not need to attack at that point but could have negotiated with the Egyptian Muslims to agree on all the privileges outsiders would enjoy.  Instead they were simply intent on establishing a Christian kingdom in Palestine.

The Crusaders attacked Jerusalem in July, 1099 and committed a terrible massacre.  Piles of heads and hands were made throughout the city.  Many Jews were slaughtered while others were able to find refuge in synagogues.  The Crusaders found them there and set fire to the synagogues with people inside.  The few who were able to survive all the fighting and the fire were taken and sold into slavery.  The Crusaders were successful in setting up their kingdom.  After the Crusaders took some additional territory in Palestine, many went back home to Europe.  Unwittingly that did not leave enough defenders.  No Jews were to be found in Jerusalem until the 1200's.

Years later the Muslims attacked and took back some of the territory.  The pope at the time decided that the kingdom of Jerusalem needed to be fortified and called for a second Crusade, which got under way in 1147.  The European leaders exempted the Crusaders from having to repay any debts they owed to the Jews.  Once again the Crusaders started the same pillages and massacres of the despised Jews.  This time both Jews and sympathetic Christian leaders were better prepared than before.  The Christian leaders furnished physical protection in exchange for payments from the Jews.  Still the passing Crusaders managed to kill 1,000.

The second Crusade did not accomplish much.  In 1187 Egyptian Sultan Saladin recaptured Jerusalem.  Later there would be a third, fourth, and fifth Crusade to recapture the kingdom but all failed.  The area remained in Muslim hands until 1918.  To the Muslims this proved that Allah was the one true God.

The atrocities of the Crusaders implanted a deep distrust of European Christians in the minds of the Jews.  After that savagery, it was hard to know what to expect especially since the Christians continued to demean and attack them for centuries.  You would think that for the Christians the learning of the massacres would have made them reflect, become more compassionate, and determine that they would not allow it to happen again.  Instead it seems that it only helped them to hate more.

Libel

As if the Crusades had not brought enough disaster for the Jews, in the 1100's they had to face a new source of torture--preposterous accusations.  The first occurrence of this was in Norwich, England in 1144.  An accusation was raised that some Jews murdered a Christian boy on the eve of Passover.  The local ecclesiastical court started proceedings but the local sheriff made no arrests and informed the Jews that the Church had no jurisdiction over them.  Similar accusations were made later in Gloucester in 1168 and in Bury St. Edmunds in 1181.  The Jews in England were not subjected to torture or death but that would change in the following century.

The accusations soon spread to the rest of Europe.  There were many cases and they were labeled blood libel.  In 1171 in Blois, France there was an accusation of the murder of a Christian boy.  21 men and 12 women--the whole Jewish community--were jailed.  The trial consisted of only one witness who was put through the trial by ordeal of water.  The result was that all the Jews were found guilty.  They were given the opportunity to absolve themselves by accepting baptism but none of them accepted it.  They were all then burned alive together at a large stake.  The Jews would later undergo many incidents of group punishment. 

In 1255 in Lincoln near London, the body of a boy was found on the property of Jews.  It was alleged that they had crucified the boy.  No consideration was given to the possibility that the death was an accident.  92 members of the Jewish community were sent to London for trial.  74 were allowed to save their lives by paying a huge sum of money.  The others were hanged.  One has to wonder whether those hanged simply had not been able to come up with the required amount of money.

The Christians fashioned three explanations of the Jewish ritual killing of Christian boys.  One was simply that they performed the sacrifices around Easter time (which frequently coincided with the Jewish Passover) in order to mock the crucifixion of Jesus.  This got extended into a second one that the child's blood was needed for the preparation of unleavened bread required in Passover.  A later third Christian attribution was that the Jews wanted to return to their homeland of Israel.  For this wish to be granted, it had been ordained (by the Lord or who knows who) that a Christian boy had to be sacrificed once a year before the wish would be granted.  There must have been other Christian explanations.  These accusations and killings continued through the Middle Ages and beyond, especially in Germany.

In 1215 the Catholic Church recognized transubstantiation, a doctrine behind a mealtime commemoration of the crucifixion of Jesus.  This involved a ceremony in which a piece of bread or a wafer substitute called a host and a sip of wine were ingested.  The two items were supposed to literally represent the flesh and blood of Jesus.  The accusation of profanation of the host became a new ground for killing Jews.

The first recorded accusation of this offense was in Beelitz near Berlin in 1247.  In 1290 a Paris couple was accused of pricking a host that made blood pour out of it.  They were sentenced to death by burning.  The church where this occurred became a popular destination for pilgrimages.  Further punishment was meted by other towns throughout Germany against Jews for that same offense by the Parisian couple.  A charge of desecrating a host was brought in Deggendorf, Bavaria that resulted in the killing of the entire Jewish community.  In 1410 Jews were tortured and murdered for host profanation in Segovia, Spain.

In 1420 all the Jews of Austria were imprisoned for host desecration.  Some prisoners committed suicide, more than 100 were burned at the stake, and the rest were expatriated from Austria.  It turns out that there was some basis for the observation of red spots on some hosts.  A scarlet fungus could sometimes infest a host, which led to the conclusion that it had bled.  It is hard to believe that closer inspection would not have led to the conclusion that the red was not blood.  It seems too likely that the hatred of Jews easily influenced the assessments.

A new charge arose in 1321--well-poisoning.  The Jews of France were accused of instigating the high number of lepers around to poison wells and rivers.  The punishment that was imposed throughout France was a heavy tax on all Jewish communities.  Mobs exacted their own additional punishment by attacking and killing Jews in many locations.  Whole communities were wiped out such as the one in Chinon.

This accusation of well-poisoning came into widespread use almost three decades later in 1347 with the beginning of the Black Death, the plague that killed about 1/3 of Europe in three years.  It was attributed to the Jews poisoning wells although they suffered from the epidemic just as much as everyone else.  People became desperate and found their favorite scapegoat.  The worst massacres occurred in Germany where 300 communities were ravaged.  The number murdered Jews in all Europe was in the tens of thousands.  Kings and bishops were able to defend and hide the persecuted in some cases but risked their own lives in getting involved.

Trade Restrictions

In conjunction with these incredible accusations, two additional contemporaneous developments worked in tandem to make life miserable for the Jewish residents.  During the Dark Ages Jews had been successful as international merchants, skilled artisans, and farmers.  That began to deteriorate at the time the Crusades began.  All farmers, Jewish and otherwise, had a tough time making an adequate living under the feudal system that became entrenched.  Guilds were organized in different trades that also happened to be along religious lines, mainly Christian.  They not surprisingly excluded Jews and were monopolistic.  In Germany, Jewish artisans were only allowed to work their trade in Jewish quarters and to sell to Jews.

There were not many European merchants during the Dark Ages that were not Jewish, but the Crusades awakened Christians to the opportunities.  They began trade with the East and eventually formed merchant guilds that excluded Jews.  They did this not merely on religious grounds but also so that they could squeeze out the already strong Jewish competition.

Eventually there was no other decent livelihood left for Jews but to engage in lending money.  That development was aided by the recent Church ban on Christians lending money at interest to other Christians.  (Note that the Italian bankers did not pay much heed to this rule.)  The Church said nothing on whether Jews were prohibited from lending.  The Church had enough economic savvy to realize that to prohibit all lending would have been a huge economic obstacle to all society.

Many Jews were able to make a good living in financing and some even became wealthy.  Kings and other rulers protected them in their lending because they were able to share in the profits by hitting them with high taxes.  In addition they expected the Jews to make substantial loans to them when they needed funding.

In spite of royal protection, the loan business carried great risks for Jews in addition to the normal risk of the default of the borrower.  Christian borrowers were not fond of Jews as a matter of custom.  Hatred could bubble up whenever their Jewish lender called up the payment of the loan.  This was sometimes an important motive behind the riots against Jews.  There were incidents in which the borrowers were able to find loan records and destroy them.

Onerous Restrictions

Another pernicious development was the tightened bundle of restrictions that were ordered.  The motivation was originally that the Catholic church wanted to destroy some of the sects that were breaking away from it.  This included the Albigensian (Cathar) heresy that was more like a separate religion than simply a Christian sect.  The Dominican order was formed about this time to specifically fight heretical sects.  It became extreme and violent and also got involved in the persecution of Jews.  It was behind the later institution of the Inquisition.

The Church turned an eye toward the Jews because it suspected that they were fomenting dissension by the sects.  This assumption was drawn from hearing that sect leaders consulted with Jews about the Tanakh (Old Testament).  The Third Lateran Council was convoked in 1179 and revived some old rules against the Jews.  They were not to live with Christians.  They were forbidden to build new synagogues or to renovate old ones.

The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 was convoked by Pope Innocent III, a dedicated Jew hater.  Additional onerous regulations were prescribed.  Jews who acquired Christian estates were henceforth required to continue paying the tithes and dues that had been paid by the Christian sellers.  They were forbidden to hold political office.  The most demeaning new requirement was that they were to wear insignia on their chests purportedly so that Christians would not be deceived in any relations they had with them.  The specific appearance of the badge varied with the locale.  Usually it was a yellow disc.  Pointed hats were sometimes required.  Although the requirement was not always enforced,  it did continue through the 1940's when the Nazis were inspired to adopt the old custom.

Exploitation

In England the financial position of the Jews began to seriously deteriorate beginning in 1200 under King John.  He initiated a practice of extortion of the Jewish merchants that was extreme and cruelly enforced.  An example involves the Jewish financier Abraham of Bristol.  He would not pay an exorbitant payment demanded of him by John.  The king then ordered that one tooth be removed from his mouth each day until he complied.  It took seven extractions until he gave in.  He may have had to borrow the money--from fellow Jews.

At that time the barons were waging a war against John, which produced the Magna Carta in 1215.  They considered Jewish property to belong to the king and so took advantage to confiscate it whenever they saw the opportunity.  The confiscation policies continued under kings that followed along with the incredible accusations and repressive Church rules.  Consequently the Jews started to leave the country but King Henry III (1216-1272) prohibited them from leaving so that they could be around to exploit.  The power of the Italian bankers increased greatly and they gained much influence with the Crown.  Consequently, Jewish financial activity was reduced in importance in England.

Expulsions

Many people today know of the expulsions of Jews from Palestine in 70 and 132 and from Spain in 1492.  There were several other expulsions in the Middle Ages.  Given that Jewish money was no longer needed, King Edward I decided to expel the Jews from England in 1290.  This was the first country-wide expulsion in Europe.  Most Jews were accepted in France with King Philip the Fair(?) seeing a welcome opportunity to extort them.  Surely all these heavy-handed rulers thought of extortion as merely taxation.

In 1306 King Philip found that his treasury was in dire need of replenishment.  He could have raised the money by the tried and true methods of increasing taxes on the Jews or of extorting it from them.  Instead he thought of another way, perhaps to please the fanatical Christian mob and some of their leaders.  He ordered the expulsion of all Jews from France along with the confiscation of their property.  He gave them only 30 days to get out with only their clothes and a small amount of money.

Louis X (1314-1316) saw that the French economy was in a depressed condition and decided it would help to call back the Jews.  He imposed the condition that they would have to leave after 12 years.  Understandably not all Jews returned.  The king's government did not harm the Jews; it was the poor who saw them as allied with the upper class.

One group of the poor was the pastoreux who were mostly young thugs who wanted to start a Crusade against the Muslims in Palestine.  They could not find enough support for this so they decided to carry out a crusade killing Jews at home.  For some reason they also did not like the Christian clergy and attacked them!  This was followed later by an independent series of massacres of Jews in Toulon, Bordeaux, Albi, and other places.  With all this the Jews left France on their own by 1322, well before the 12-year period of their provisional admission had expired.

In 1361 the royal house faced another financial crisis so the Jews were again invited to return.  Only a few financiers returned.  The king assured them of protection but eventually the government was unable to keep either the mobs or the Church in line.  In 1394 there was a final expulsion.

Germany

Jews showed great attachment to Germany even if it was the country in which they were made to suffer the most.  The country was held together by language but governments were loosely organized by regions and towns.  In the 1200's there were the periodic killings based on false accusations as in nearby countries.

The worst case in the country occurred in 1298 under the direction of a Rindfleisch, a Bavarian noble in Roettingen.  He sent gangs after the Jews to punish them for a host desecration.  In a period of six months, they devastated 140 communities in Bavaria and Austria.  One claim is that over 100,000 Jews perished.  In 1336 gangs shamelessly calling themselves the "Jewslayers" arose and roamed the country side between Alsace and Austria destroying Jewish property and killing many.  Governments were finally able to rein in these savages.

Before long the situation became worse everywhere in Europe with the arrival of the Black Death epidemic.  Sometimes in Germany they were evicted from one region and then taken in by another petty jurisdiction run by a knight or small-time nobleman immediately adjacent.  In some places they were driven out, later readmitted, and then driven out again.  Of course the readmissions would cost the Jews a handsome price.

The expulsions did not just take place during the Black Death.  They were kicked out of Bavaria in 1314, Austria in 1420, Saxony in 1430, Brandenburg in 1446, and the last Ratisbon (Regensburg) in 1519.  There were also expulsions from Trier, Mainz, Cologne, Vienna, Augsburg, and others.  Worms and Frankfort-on-Main acquired distinguished Jewish communities during the Middle Ages but even they suffered greatly.

Worms was almost totally annihilated during the Crusades and again during the Black Death.  The Jews of Frankfort were almost totally eliminated in a massacre in 1349.  New Jews later began to settle there but were only granted temporary permits.  It cost them unbearable sums to renew the permits after they expired.  Many families left because they could not make the payments.  A few families were able to bear the burden and stayed.

The Church calculated that by keeping this pressure on the Jews that they would convert.  What would Jesus have said of this program of conversion of his people?  While it worked in some cases, many remained steadfastly attached to their religion of birth.  German graphic art in publications and engravings became gross and virulent.  A number of German cathedrals had a caricature on their walls of a synagogue under the image of a "Jew's Sow."

Life in Spain for the Jews at this time was much more tranquil than in the northern countries.  As mentioned before the fanatical Muslim sect, the Almoravides, entered from Africa and showed less tolerance than the existing governments.  It got much worse in the 1140's when the even more fanatical Almohades invaded from Africa and went to war with the Almoravides.  It was a bloody fight in which the Almohades prevailed.  They then informed the Jews that they had to convert or leave.

Most Jews migrated to the northern part of Spain that was controlled by the Christians.  Not only were they tolerated, they were even welcome in Castile and Aragon.  Jews were not restricted into only money lending.  Most made a good living in crafts like textiles and working as different kinds of masons and smiths.  They were allowed to form their own craft guilds that might be connected to synagogues.  There were farmers and shipbuilders involved in the Mediterranean trade.  There were financiers who sometimes became very wealthy.  Many were involved in the collection of taxes.  Outgrowths of this profession were positions as the king's treasurers and finance ministers.  They were also consulted on political matters.  The Jews were again enjoying the influence they had with the caliphs of southern Spain several centuries earlier.

Pain in Spain Again

The Christian rulers wanted to drive the Muslims out of the peninsula and gradually started taking over the area to the south.  The invasion was gradual and during that time the hatred among the people against the infidel Moslems was fomented by the Christian clergy.  Then the fanatics noticed the other infidels among them--the Jews.  In Sevilla Ferrand Martinez, a preacher, gained prominence in a campaign of violence against infidels.  This caused an eruption in 1391 against the Jews with their neighborhood looted and set on fire.  Four thousand Jews were killed.  Others were forced to convert or else sold as slaves to Muslims.  That caused massacres across the Peninsula with 2,000 killed in Cordoba and thousands more in other places including Toledo, Burgos, Valencia, and Barcelona.  The king and archbishop of Sevilla opposed the violence.  One must wonder how much energy they put into their opposition.

This violence must have motivated thousands of Spanish Jews to acquiesce to the demands of the Christian barbarians that they convert.  They did so in greater percentages than they did in other countries.  In turn this motivated the Christian zealots to accelerate their campaign of conversion.  A rabble-rousing Dominican friar Vicente Ferrer traveled across Castile preaching conversion of infidels with an aggressive mob following him.  There were instances in which he invaded synagogues with a mob at prayer time, threw out the Jews, and turned the synagogues into churches.  He was able to convince the queen mother of Castile to post an edict in 1412 against the Jews in Castile that took away their rights including their associating with Christians and forbidding them to engage in public service and many trades.  Unbelievably, to make it more agonizing the Jews were prohibited from leaving the province.

The number of Jews who were terrorized into conversion has been estimated at 20,000.  As Christians they regained their rights and were able to enjoy success in finance, politics, academics, and even the Church.  Often they continued to secretly engage in their Judaic rituals.  The Christian bigots became aware of this and their resentment of it grew.  The king of Castile from 1418-1454 was John II who returned all rights of the Jews and allowed them to again enter government.  The economy improved but that did not matter to the clergy.  They continued to stoke the people's hatred of both Jews and conversos(Jewish converts), also called marranos (swine).

After the passing of John II the Spanish Church began a new campaign.  This was not for the purpose of converting Jews but to ferret out and punish through inquisition the backsliders among the Jews that they had previously intimidated into converting.  They were not about to tolerate feigned worship of the Christian god.  It is very ironic that the backsliding conversos no doubt felt compelled to continue observing their rituals because they were terrified that their Jewish god would punish them for backsliding away from him.

One of the leaders of Inquisition agitation was Alonso de Spina, head of the Franciscan order and rector of the University of Salamanca.  He supposedly had Jewish roots.  Many of the leaders who persecuted Jews and conversos had Jewish ancestry.  Perhaps they were so extremely anti-Jewish because they desired to ensure that the Christians would not suspect them of being secret Jews.  Before the actual institution of any inquisition, there were unofficial violent attacks on conversos carried by the vicious rabble.

The agitators had been pressuring Queen Isabel and her husband King Ferdinand to petition the Pope to establish the tribunal of the Inquisition in Spain.  There had previously been an Inquisition established in France.  Ferdinand himself purportedly had Jewish ancestry.  Not surprisingly there were conversos in the royal court and Isaac Abrabanel was in charge of finances.

The agitators finally got their wish in 1478.  The Pope was hesitant in authorizing the Inquisition but finally acceded.  Upon later hearing of the excesses of the Inquisition, he commented that the proceedings were inspired "by cupidity more than by zeal for the faith."(Wurmbrand and Roth, 193.)  After all, the property of the victims was supposed to be confiscated for the benefit of the Crown but one has to wonder how much of it actually reached the royal treasury.

If the Pope and perhaps the monarchy were so shocked, why did they not do something?  The Pope could have set the parameters on the methods to be used and the severity of punishment to be handed out since he had authorized the Inquisition.  The monarchs could have also prohibited any killings as punishment, especially the frequent burnings alive at the stake.

The trials consisted of demanding that the conversos admit they were still observing Judaic practices with torture applied to get the desired admissions.  In the first year of the Inquisition, 1481, 300 conversos were burned to death in Sevilla alone.  Others languished in prison.  In 1483 the intense cruelty increased with the ascension of the infamous Tomas de Torquemada to the position of Inspector General.  He was an intense hater of Jews even if he is reported to have had Jewish roots on one side of his family.  During his 15 years in office, thousands of heretics (conversos and other Christians) were burned at the stake and many were punished with other methods.

Torquemada and other fanatical clergy continued to insist that the Spanish rulers expel all the Jews who had remained faithful to Judaism.  This insistence was based on the frustration that the conversos would not cease their Judaic observances as long as they were in continuous contact with the loyal Judaics.  They had a point.  The monarchs ignored the plea for a long time.  Ferdinand and Isabel were at that point concentrating on the conquest of the last kingdom still held by Muslims, Granada.  On January 2, 1492 the conquest of the city was completed, unifying all of Spain under Christian rule after centuries of striving for that end.

The monarchs finally acquiesced to the zealots three months later and signed a decree that all professing Jews leave the country within four months.  Anyone not leaving by then would have to accept baptism into the Catholic Church or die.  The king almost changed his mind when his finance minister Abrabanel begged that he reconsider and offered 30,000 gold ducats if the decree was rescinded.  Torquemada became enraged and threw his crucifix at the feet of the king exclaiming, "Judas sold his master for thirty pieces of silver and you want to sell him for thirty thousand pieces of gold.  Take him and sell him."(Id. 196)  You have to wonder how strong Ferdinand was if he gave in to this tantrum.  You also have consider that if there is a Day of Judgment in the future Torquemada should pay a high price.

The order allowed the Jews to dispose of or take their property except for any gold or silver.  In actuality the Jews left with few possessions.  There were about 200,000 who left.  There was much suffering before they could find a home. 

Half of them went to Portugal where Portuguese Jews had been treated well for more than 100 years.  This was not to remain the same.  The immigrants had to pay a heavy sum to stay and that would only be for a period of eight months.  When it came time to leave, there were not enough ships to take all.  The ones who went were treated roughly by the ships' crews.  Those who had been unable to leave were declared to be the slaves of the king.  2,000 children were taken from their parents to be raised as Christians.  In 1497 the king launched a mass conversion campaign against adults as well as children and against previously resident Jews as well as the Spanish exiles.  About 20,000 were baptized against their will.  Only a relative few were allowed to leave the following year.

Many of the exiles from Spain went to North Africa.  The Jews were able to make a modest living there but had to live under numerous restrictions imposed by the Muslim authorities.  They were forced to live in segregated, smelly, overcrowded neighborhoods known as mellahs.  They were prohibited from owning any real estate outside the mellahs.  That rule was still in use until the middle of the 1800's.  In Morocco they were allowed to wear only black clothing.  Conditions were wretched during all this time and the nonJews subjected the Jews to degrading treatment.  It only got worse when the Spanish invaded some of the regions of North Africa motivating some of the Jewish families to move further east.

Where was Yahweh?  The suffering of the Jews was almost as intense as it had been under the Roman procurators.  Most refused to convert and remained true to Judaism no matter the price.  Why didn't the Lord come to their rescue?  Many conversos continued to secretly observe Judaism.  All conversos did so under extreme duress.  Why did God allow so much cruelty and bloodshed against any people, Jewish or not?

The 1500's

In Spain and Portugal of the 1500's, many conversos and their children continued to secretly observe Judaic ceremonies.  This provided Catholic leaders the excuse for continuing the functions of the Inquisition.  Christians were called upon to spy upon and accuse anyone who showed signs of still being a Judaizer, the name for a secret backslider.  One hopes that not too many of them were falsely accused but you can be sure that some were.  It would have been easy for someone with a grudge against a converso to make an accusation.

Once the representatives of the Inquisition received the accusations, they arrested the suspected converso and confined him to the dungeons of the Holy Office of the Inquisition.  These dungeons were located in impressive palaces that the organization now possessed.  Most of the cases the Inquisitors handled were against Jewish conversos.  There were not many more Christian heretics to persecute.

The trials were held in complete secrecy.  If no voluntary confession was offered, there was an alternative method for obtaining one--progressive torture.  Most people would confess to anything under the increasing pain.  A few brave individuals held out to the horrendous end of their lives--by the effects of the torture.

Upon conviction the deviant from the Church could agree to make a humiliating and public show of repentance at an auto da fe.  This was the Portuguese label for the elaborate spectacle staged at the town square for conducting the varied punishments for the sinners against the Church.  There were those who agreed to engage in this open humiliation but that was not enough.  They also had to serve a term of imprisonment or in ship galleys.  The imprisonment could be for life.  The property of those convicted was taken by the king who then gave it to the Holy Office.  Is this how the Holy Office obtained the funds for building those palaces?  Conflict of interest?  Those who did not agree to a public penance were sentenced to death.  They were burned at the stake in the main attraction of the auto da fe attended by thousands.  If the condemned agreed to confess penitence just prior to being tied to the stake, s/he was strangled to death before being burned.

Here is the reason the Inquisition burned its victims to death.  Supposedly, the Catholic Church did not like the spilling of blood so the offenders were dispatched in a quemadero (burning place).  It has to be asked that if the Church was opposed to the shedding of blood, why did it instigate several very bloody Crusades?  The Inquisition continued into the 1800's although it was less active than in the 1400's and 1500's.

Persia in the 1500's was taken over by the intolerant Safawid dynasty.  Shiite Islam was made the state religion.  The Shiite clergy considered the Jews impure and so the populace treated them with disdain.  It got much worse in the early 1600's when there were violent executions of Jewish scholars, confiscations of books, and forced conversions to Islam.  Degrading conditions continued until the early 1800's.

Later, New Mohammedans arose who committed new massacres and forced conversions.  It is open to question whether these forced conversions were inspired by the forced conversions by Christians of Muslims and Jews in previous centuries.  In Yemen in south Arabia there were Jews who were living there when the Muslims conquered the country in the 600's.  After that they suffered through numerous persecutions, at times violent ones, until they left after 1948.

The Germans of the 1500's continued to treat the Jews with contempt and there were periodic expulsions or threats of expulsion from towns and regions.  On the other hand, the German emperors usually defended the Jews and granted them ample rights.  They did not always have the power sufficient to adequately defend them against violent outbreaks.  In the Catholic provinces there was endless humiliation and physical assault of the Jews.

The Protestants were not much better.  The Reformation was no positive influence on the treatment of Jews.  Martin Luther did not start as a virulent antiSemite but became that, writing several antiSemitic tracts.  In 1510 there were accusations brought in Protestant Brandenburg of both host desecration and the ritual murder of a Christian boy.  After a trial 38 Jews were burned alive.  The rest were expelled from the city.  In 1539 Philipp Melanchthon convinced the Prince-Elector Joachim II that the trial had been a judicial murder.  This paved the way for an appeal and the subsequent return of the Jews.  Melanchthon was the right-hand man of Luther and succeeded him as leader of the Reformation after his death.  In contrast to Luther he was rational and kind.

A few years later near the middle of the century, the then Prince-Elector of Brandenburg employed a Jew from Prague as treasurer and tax collector.  He was very efficient in the gathering of the taxes, which did not endear him to the people.  They were further agitated by the distribution by the clergy of antiSemitic pamphlets authored by Luther.  When the Prince-Elector died in 1571, the taxman was accused of poisoning him.  Under torture he confessed not knowing how brutal his execution would be.  He was killed by hacking his stomach with an ax.  As if that were not enough, the Jews were once again expelled from Brandenburg.  In the Thirty-Years War (1618-1648) the Jews were brutalized by both sides--the Catholics as well as the Protestants.

Ghettos

During the Middle Ages it was common for Jews to have their own section of a town in which they lived apart from everyone else.  They were happy with this because they were able to live with people with the same customs and a common religion, with a synagogue at the center of it all.  The Christians were also satisfied.  After all, the Church had long before commanded that Jews and Christians should not associate.  It was not easy to enforce this Catholic rule but having the two groups living apart was helpful.  There were no state laws or local ordinances requiring this segregation.

That began to change in the 1400's.  In 1462 the Municipal Council of Frankfort required that the Jews be segregated in one area.  Pope Pius II praised the new law.  On the Iberian Peninsula several locales were already following this compulsory practice when in 1480 the Spanish monarchs extended it to the entire country.

The Italian territories were relatively tolerant of the Jews before the 1500's.  Unhappily, Venice started a trend in legal neighborhood segregation.  The government herded the Jews into one quarter that was located next to a former foundry.  The Italian name for foundry was ghetto, which henceforward went into use for referring to a forced Jewish neighborhood.  It was also ordered that the Jews had to wear saffron-yellow hats for identification purposes.

The newly installed pope Paul IV eagerly jumped on the bandwagon in 1555 when he issued a papal bull requiring forced quarters in the Papal States where gates had to be closed after dark.  Jews were required to stay inside those gates after dark.  They had to wear identifiable yellow hats.  They could not have social relations with Christians including have them as servants and could not engage in fruitful occupations.  They wound up mostly as peddlers and dealers of old clothes.  The ghetto system soon spread throughout Europe.  The living sections were found in the worst parts of town--crowded, dark, unhealthy.  Needless to say most Jews could not rise much above poverty.

Continued Agony in Europe

From the 1300's Jews gradually immigrated to Poland and Hungary from Germany due to their terrible treatment.  In Hungary there were the same accusations of host desecration and ritual killings with the consequent massacres but the situation was not nearly as bad as in western Europe.  Poland was not very civilized in the 1300's but its rulers were comprehending enough and unbigoted to openly invite Jews to immigrate.  They perceived that the Jews would be a positive influence.  A sound relationship between the Poles and the Jews lasted for centuries.  It helped that the Polish Catholic clergy did not have enough clout to badger the rulers into taking any persecutorial actions.

This blissful period for the Jews came to an abrupt end in 1648.  Some Jews had gained prominent positions with the Polish kings while a few others were employed by nobles as their financial agents and managers.  The great majority of Jews were not engaged in these endeavors but continued to work in their traditional trades including farming.  The Poles of power had gained dominance over Ukraine and had ruthlessly exploited the inhabitants for years.  Also the Catholic Poles looked down on the Ukrainians as members of the Orthodox Church.  Cossacks were living in Ukraine and were particularly aggressive.  They found a bloodthirsty leader who saw no limits to violence.  The other Ukrainians hitched their fortunes onto the Cossacks.

In April, 1648 the Cossacks attacked their Polish oppressors.  Since there were Jews involved as Polish representatives, perhaps even as tax collectors, the Cossacks also viewed them as their oppressors.  Neither did they distinguish between the actual Jewish agents and all the other Jews.  They slaughtered all unmercifully.  They overwhelmed town after town; the Polish armies could not stand up to them.  In some towns Polish residents gave up the Jews to the Cossacks in order to save their own skins.  An exception to this was the brave town of Lwow.  By the end of the year a peace agreement had been negotiated and the Cossacks went home.  Still they returned to make raids in years that followed.  Every time the Jews suffered pillaging and massacres.  Perhaps  the Cossacks returned because they found it an easy means for acquiring looted property.

In 1654 full-scale war with Sweden broke out and the Jews suffered heavy losses.  The Swedes invaded Poland and easily overcame the Jews who sided with the Poles.  The Swedes were not very brutal and only demanded heavy contributions.  The Jews estimated that they had a better chance of survival by not resisting the Swedes and paying them what they demanded.  The Poles did not see it that way and became enraged, counting the Jews as traitors and collaborators with the Swedes.  They attacked the Jews with a brutality matching that of the Cossacks.

Those bloody struggles destroyed the Jews in Poland leaving them deeply impoverished and demoralized.  They were terrified to stay and many emigrated to other lands including back to Germany.  Contemporary Jews were not very cognizant of how their ancestors had been brutalized in Germany in previous centuries.  Their devastation in Poland was not the result of religious animosity but a matter of getting caught in between antagonistic forces.  Nevertheless the Jews suffered greatly once again.  In desperation many of them turned to mystic ideas and a renewed belief that all the turmoil meant that Yahweh was on the verge of sending the Messiah to end their woes.

After 1654 the situation for Jews around the world was better with respect to violent attacks and expulsions.  There was still the same humiliation, segregation, and harassment with the purpose of conversion.  There were occasional expulsions.  In 1670 the Jews of Vienna were expelled.  The practice continued by which the residents of a state could hate one particular Jew and the entire community had to suffer as a result.

A good example can be found in the case of Jewish Joseph Suss who was appointed to serve as the powerful minister of the Duke of Wurtemberg.  He was able to institute financial reforms that were a great help to the economy but this raised the jealousy and ire of a number of residents.  When the Duke died in 1737 Suss was accused of several crimes and tortured to the point to which he confessed to all.  He professed his innocence until his hanging.  The situation fired up enough antiJewish feeling that they were all expelled from Wurtemberg.  They were only readmitted at the end of the century.

An even more unbelievable event arose in Prague in 1745 when a rabbi left and went to serve as chief rabbi in Metz.  This was taken as an indication that all the Jews did not like Austria!  A plague was occurring there at the same time.  The empress issued an order that the Jews were to be out of Austria within one month.  It was in the winter.  This caused indignation throughout Europe with England and the Netherlands sending diplomatic representatives.  The empress resisted at first but eventually acceded to the entreaties.  This was only after three years of Jewish agony.

The Enlightenment of the late 1700's brought new feelings about the respect and dignity of all humans.  The French Revolution with its idea of equality dramatically freed the Jews from their previous restrictions and brought them closer to acceptance as equals.  This happened not only in France and Holland but in other nearby countries.  When Napoleon sent his armies of conquest, they set Jews free, breaking down the walls of ghettos.  This is not to say that there was not plenty of reluctance and resentment from most of the population including the peasants who had themselves won rights they had never imagined they would enjoy.

After Napoleon's march of conquest was halted, there was a ghastly reaction to all the social changes.  The monied class and the Catholic Church worked hard to regain the power they had lost.  The situation of the Jews returned to what it had been before 1780.  It was especially bad in Italy.  In the Papal States conditions reverted almost to the point they had been before.  The Jews were once again crammed into their ghetto and placed under all the previous restrictions.  They were again compelled to attend Catholic mass in church regularly to listen to sermons chastising them for their stubborn refusal to convert and reminding them of the detriment they would face in hell for not doing so.

In Germany rights were cancelled but at least the ghetto restriction was not reinstated.  The antiJewish mobs rose up again in 1819 led by violent students.  They destroyed property and there were a few murders.  This started in Wurzburg and spread to Frankfort-on-Main, Hamburg, and many other towns.

Violence cropped up later in the century in both Germany and Austria.  This was the result of envy.  Many of the Jews of the 1800's rose to prominence in a number of fields among them the poet Heinrich Heine and the physicist Heinrich Hertz.  This caused the anger of many including the chaplain of the imperial court.  The reactionary Christian-Social Party was formed that called for the withdrawal of Jewish rights and referred to Jews not as a religion but as a race.  Thus this included descendants of those who had previously abandoned Judaism.  Chancellor Otto von Bismarck secretly approved of this new antiSemitism that called for the abolition of Jewish rights by the Reichstag.  The excuse was that the Jews were trying to destroy Aryan civilization.  A wide amount of hateful antiSemitic propaganda was circulated in the press and in pamphlets.

This poisonous propaganda could not help but inflame some impressionable Germans and violence broke out.  Charges of ritual murder were revived but did not get anywhere.  These same old charges were revived in Hungary.  Austrians were also aroused to new hatred.  In France there was the birth of an antiSemitic press which saw the fruits of its propaganda emerge in the case of Captain Alfred Dreyfus.  He was falsely accused of espionage and put on trial.  The French were deeply divided over the case and violence was committed against Jews.

Russian Oppression

Before 1600 the Jews were not mistreated in Russia mainly because hardly any of them lived there.  The Russians drove away the few they found by harassing them whenever possible such as by restricting their commercial activities.  After that Russia began an expansionist policy to the west.  They took Polish territory in the late 1700's.   When they seized the land from Poland, it meant that they also unwillingly adopted hundreds of thousands of Jews.  The Czars struggled to find a way to get rid of them.  They finally made them move out of the rural areas and forced them to live in a group of towns in Russia's western area that came to be called the Pale of Settlement.

During the Napoleonic invasion resident Jews had been loyal to their home countries including Russia and accordingly helped in their defense.  There was some appreciation of this but not enough to grant them civil rights.  Under Czar Nicholas I (1825-1855) conditions became particularly oppressive with restrictions on a level comparable to what they had been in the Middle Ages in Europe.  A new addition was the conscription of children.  From the age of twelve and sometimes even eight, Jewish children were to serve Russia for 25 years.  They were treated harshly.

The purpose of the oppression was to have Jews convert and assimilate socially.  The mistake of the Russians was to assume that they could accomplish both at the same time.  There is no disagreement that the Jews stood out as a very distinct social group.  The problem was that trying to make the Jews give up their religion made them feel that much more threatened and only gave them a stronger incentive to cling together.  After all, they felt Judaism had been a great pillar to embrace for their survival.  If they had been granted freedom of religion, they may have felt more free to try to blend into the rest of Russian society.  This is what was slowly happening in other countries and has continued to this day.

Czar Alexander II (1855-1881) was more open to liberal changes including the giving of greater freedoms to the Jews.  The richer Jews made advances as a result.  Unfortunately these halcyon years for the Jews were not welcome by certain groups, mainly those who were threatened by the rising Jewish enterprise and industry.  These groups encouraged the press to take an antiSemitic tone that encouraged hatred in the populace.  Conditions were deteriorating even before the assassination of the Czar in March, 1881.  The press made a big issue that one of the terrorist assassins had been a Jew.  Predictably this caused major violence.

Pogrom is the Russian word for riot and it began to be used for popular violence.  The impression was that the pogroms were spontaneous and that the participants were engaging in a justified reaction against the Jews.  On the month of the Czar's assassination, the pogroms began in Elisavetgrad and continued in Kiev, Berdichev, Odessa, Warsaw, Bulti, and 155 other locations by the end of 1882.  The fact is that the riots were quietly organized by Russian governing bodies and even supported by the police. 

At the same time the central Russian government instead of passing laws protecting the Jews promulgated them to oppress them.  The Jews were excluded from higher education and many professions.  They were driven into ghettos in the western part of the country.  They were at times suddenly expelled by local authorities for poor cause.  In 1891 thousands were forced out of Moscow in the middle of winter to the Pale of Settlement.  Expulsions continued through the '90's along with occasional pogroms.  Czar Nicholas II (1895-1918) and his ministers feared an imminent revolution.  They suspected the Jews of being complicit and used this as an excuse for persecution of the entire group.  (Is it any wonder the Jews would be in favor of a different government?)  Several serious pogroms took place in the '00's with a large loss of Jewish lives to say nothing of the many injuries and destruction  of property.

When the Communist Party began a revolution in 1917, the Jews were hopeful that life would be better for them.  First, a civil war had to be fought which lasted to 1921.  The Communist "Reds" pushed forward against the reactionary armies, the "Whites."  Neither side had much regard for the Jews and did not hesitate to abuse them.  The fighting between the two sides was vicious and took place mainly in Ukraine where many Jews lived.  Pogroms were carried out against them mostly by the Whites in numerous locations.  The number of Jewish dead was likely more than 60,000.

After the Communists took the government, they eliminated the discriminatory Czarist laws but instituted new oppressive ones.  Religious observance of any kind and Zionism were heavily punished.  The Communists did not treat middle class Jews well.  They despised anyone who was bourgeois.  There was actually no discrimination against the Jews since no other groups had any better civil rights.

Strife in Palestine

There was another important development that took place in 1917 in another part of the world--Palestine.  The British army marched into the area in November and defeated the Arabs who had taken the side of the Germans in World War I.  The British took control of the land.  They and later other nations agreed that the Jews should be allowed to establish a homeland there.  After the war the British had every right to administer the land and make sure the Jews were secure in their new home, but they dropped the ball.

Instead they followed a timid path and did not provide the security needed by the Jews.  They worried too much about appeasing the Arabs perhaps thinking that by doing this the Arabs would be more accepting of the Jewish settlers.  The effect was the opposite.  The Arabs were more emboldened in starting violence against the Jews.  They waged attacks against settlements with the worst ones occurring in 1929 with wide massacres in Safed and Hebron.  You would have thought that with this violence the British and other Western nations would have considered that the Arabs forfeited any right to decide the future of Palestine.  Instead the Arabs continued their uncompromising rejection of the Jews and staged regular violence against them.

New German Bloodshed

In the 1920's and '30's antiSemitism grew in parts of Europe particularly in Germany.  There was much fear of Communism given the information that came out regarding the thousands of opponents of the Communist government in Russia who were killed.  Then there were the repressive Communist measures and the prohibition of emigration.  It became known that some of the leaders of the Revolution had been Jews including Karl Marx.  It was then open to suspicion that any local Jews could be plotting to overthrow other governments.  Added to this was the rumor that Zionism was also a political movement that was aimed toward the domination of the world.  Put the two conspiracy claims together and that gave potent tandem reasons to hate the Jews and to work to stop them.

Germany had additional perceived reasons for despising the Jews.  It had suffered a humiliating defeat in World War I that lowered national morale greatly.  Then there were economic after-effects of the war like great inflation and high unemployment.  There was then the impulse to find a scapegoat to blame for the misfortunes.  What better candidates than the Jews who had been thrust into that role for centuries.  In 1919 the National Socialist (Nazi) Party was formed with antiSemitism in its platform.

The Weimar Republic had provided equal treatment for the Jews since the end of the war, but the economic conditions became so dire that the head of the Nazi Party Adolf Hitler was given the office of Chancellor.  He became dictator and people lost their civil liberties.  Concentration camps were opened for political opponents.  There were demonstrations against the Jews that were organized by the Nazis to look spontaneous.  They also organized boycotts of Jewish businesses.

In 1935 laws were passed that strapped Jewish citizens of their citizenship and outlawed intermarriage with them, reminiscent of the Christian restrictions of past centuries.  Sexual relations between Jews and Germans became a harshly punished crime.  A Jew was defined on the basis of race and not religion.  Conditions for them became continually worse.  In March 1938 the annexation of Austria by Germany was celebrated throughout Austria with violence against the Jews.  In November of that year the antiJewish violence became horrendous.  A riot throughout the country was staged in which 600 synagogues were destroyed.  Many Jewish shops and other buildings were damaged.  A number of Jews were dragged off to the concentration camps.

As the German army entered towns in its invasion of Poland, they dealt brutally with the Jewish inhabitants, sometimes with the cooperation of the local Poles.  It was even worse in Russia where great massacres by the German army were committed.  The most brutal was in 1941 in Babbiyar near Kiev where 30,000 Jews were shot in two days.  Mass, undignified burials were done in huge holes.

In January 1942 the Nazis turned down the idea of reserving a segregated area in Europe for the Jews.  Instead they decided on the extermination of all the ones they could find.  It is widely known that several death camps were dedicated for this mass murder by gas.  The number of Jews killed by gas or simply slaughtered was about 6 million.  Others killed in death camps were wandering gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals.  Another interesting observation is the estimate that the Germans killed around 7 million Russian and Polish civilians, not necessarily in the gas camps.  These murders were because they considered Slavs as racially inferior to themselves.

The estimate of Jewish civilians systematically killed by the Nazis actually ranges between 5.1 and 6.2 million based on different careful studies.  A few reactionaries have stepped forward to deny that the Nazis had a program to kill Jews.  Some of those Holocaust deniers have been radical Muslim clerics.  What they usually wind up denying is that there were as many as 6 million Jews slaughtered.  Assume that 5 million was the correct number.  Isn't that enough murders?  Assume even that the number was 500,000, that is one-half million.  Isn't 500,000 enough?

It is a deep puzzlement as to why apparently civilized modern humans like the Germans of the 1940's, along with other nationals like the Poles and the Rumanians who helped them, were capable of committing such a heinous collective crime.  It seemed that the hatred just sprouted out of nowhere.  The answer adopted was that humans--even those that were relatively advanced in cultural refinements--could revert to extremely cruel and hateful savagery.  That made the bestiality look merely misguided.  We were after all still animals.  This has to be only part of the answer.

The truth was that Germans and other Europeans did not simply start to virulently hate the Jews in the 1920's.  It had been a long-held tradition to despise the Jews even to the point of submitting them to merciless mass murder.  Some of that has been documented in the preceding pages.  More instances could have been included.  Envy of what the Jews were able to accomplish was part of it.  Some Jews had reached high positions of power and wealth but that was only a factor.

The main cause of the hatred and devastation was that it had long been a Christian custom.  Muslim belief was also unbelievably harmful.  The baneful Christian dogma was initiated right at the beginning by the accusation by early Christians that all Jews were responsible for crucifying Jesus.  The reality was that the vast majority of Jews who had been adults when Jesus was crucified probably did not even hear about it.  If they did, they had little idea who Jesus was.  The hatred, persecution, and murders just grew in intensity.  Some Catholic Church fathers wrote that it was acceptable to devastate the Jewish people until they converted.  A number of the Popes tried to defend the Jews from atrocities but did not try very hard.

Then there were those who actively passed rules that oppressed them gravely.  There were the numerous petty clergy who even incited Christian mobs to attack and massacre them.  When the Nazis came on the scene, it was only natural for them to take up the tradition of persecution and murder.  They took it to a very efficient extreme.  Their hatred was not religion-based but it was a well-precedented tradition.  Hitler was raised a Catholic.  Christians should be more aware of this cause of the Nazi atrocities against the Jews.

Observations on the Plight

Where was the Lord?  Where was he the last more than 4,000 years?  To this day, Jews continue to be attacked personally and in their synagogues.  None of the 6 million should have died in the Holocaust.  For centuries they had remained devoted to him under horrendous pressure to reject Judaism.  He made many assurances that he would protect them.  He should have never allowed their ejection from Palestine since he had told them that it was to remain their homeland.  There can be no doubt that he broke his promises.

It has to be recognized that a strong impetus for Judaics (not Jews as a whole) to continue to follow Judaism has been group cohesion.  They have felt the need to remain in a close group to withstand the onslaughts of hatred and persecution and have perceived their religion as necessary to their unity.  They have not seen how they could maintain their cohesion without clinging to Judaism even if it is based on a false foundation.

Tribalism has much to do with people's loyalty to a particular religion.  That was clear in the religion of the Israelites.  They went to the unique extreme of claiming not only that their god was strictly devoted to them alone but also later adding that he was the sole god of the universe.  All other gods were imaginary.  Today we still observe tribal and ethnocentric thinking in religion and in politics.  I have had Catholics tell me they remain Catholics because that is what their parents and relatives were, not because they had carefully studied all the religions.

Judaism fosters the belief that God has been just and compassionate in helping the Jews, yet no religious group has shown so much fidelity and yet endured so much senseless and unnecessary suffering.  It is difficult to deny that Yahweh broke his covenant to protect them.  Even if there had never been any covenant, one would expect a caring and compassionate god to help a group so cruelly persecuted by others.  We saw that the way God treated people in the Tanakh, even his favored people the Israelites,  did not show him to be a just and moral god.

Most people of the world have wanted their gods to be moral, just, and kind.  You can review the Tanakh and these three chapters on Judaism to see if the Lord is such a god.  Can he even exist?  Ask yourself honestly if he is a god you want to believe exists and to follow.

From the many aspects examined about Judaism, it fails as a religion.  Any religions based on it also fail.  It is also another nail in the coffin of Christianity.  The Tanakh as the Old Testament is part of its scriptures.  Jesus expressed complete acceptance of it.  Mohammed used it as a foundation for his religion.  Another problem with Islam is that, like Christianity, it converted millions through the use of coercion and violence.  The world has recently observed that some Muslim sects have been more violent than ever.

Other religions have no better foundation than the Yahwehist ones.  Hinduism has a serious problem with credibility given that it consists of a huge collection of gods that were added by different people at different times.  Buddhism does not even contain a belief in god and so is only a set of beliefs.  Another problem with it is that it is held in reverence and that precludes serious criticism and innovative thinking.  Beyond that its teaching of extreme self-denial has to be open to serious question.

Communism is not a religion.  It certainly does not hold a belief in god--quite the opposite.  Nevertheless It is an example of the danger of a dogmatic set of beliefs that can cause great harm.  It has a horrible record of the treatment of people.  It is rigid and narrow in its beliefs and for that reason deserves to be shunned. 

13 Religious Disproofs:  Christianity

This chapter presents disproofs of Christianity.  These invalidating proofs are founded on facts that have been well known for a long time.  The problem has been that adherents and other observers have not realized (or have not yet chosen to acknowledge) the significance of these facts.  The Tanakh as the Old Testament is the founding portion of its scriptures.  Jesus expressed complete acceptance of it.  The Christian Bible incorporated the Tanakh and added what Christians call the New Testament.  Yet we have shown that the Tanakh had to be a total human invention.  It did not come from God.  Therefore, Christianity has no foundation.  That should be sufficient to show that it is based on false facts.  Nevertheless, we will review additional strong indications that question its validity.

The Central Figure

The Christian religion is centered around one person, Jesus Christ.  To an outsider unfamiliar with the theology, it may appear that there is not enough attention paid to God.  But not to worry; Jesus is God.  Christians believe in a tripartite God:  the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost.  They call this the Trinity.  They are correspondingly accused of not being monotheistic.  They dispute this and insist that it is only one God with different faces or forms.  This is hard to conceptualize.  For one thing, how can a son be identical with his father?

Christians might be better off simply admitting that they may not count as monotheists.  They could concede that they worship three gods, but that the gods are in complete agreement on everything, including religious doctrine, values, and the status of humanity.  After all, what is so hard about worshipping three gods who are in unanimous agreement with each other?

Or Christians could follow the path the Unitarians have taken, which is to believe that only the Father is God.  Jesus prayed to the Father and addressed him as if he were a separate entity.  He never claimed he was God.  Without Jesus as God, Christians may want to consider reverting to Judaism or at least considering itself a branch of it.  Whatever stand you want to take on these matters, the incontrovertible fact is that Jesus is paramount in Christianity.  The entire Christian testament is focused on what Jesus did, what is expected of us, and the expectations of what Jesus is supposed to do.  If it can be shown that he has failed to fulfill what was expected of him, then that has to contradict his divine mission and status.  Correspondingly, that leaves the Christian religion no raison d'etre, no reason for existing.

The Idea of a Messiah

The first problem for any Christian claim for the special status of Jesus Christ is with the assertion that he was the Messiah.  "Christ" is the Greek word for "messiah" (in Hebrew mashiah), literally anointed one.  Priests and kings were anointed into their position in Palestine with olive oil by someone in authority.  Samuel, under the supposed direction of God, anointed Saul the first Hebrew king.

Some of the prophets in the Tanakh predicted that a king of Israel would rule bringing a period of great contentment and the execution of God's promises to his people the Jews.("Messiah," Revell)  Messiah eventually morphed to refer to this powerful savior.  For centuries before Jesus, the Judaics believed in the coming of this messianic age.  Judaics have steadfastly denied that Jesus could have been the prophesied messiah.  During Jesus's lifetime, Jews did not believe him to be the messiah simply because they never even became aware of his existence.  Others who did hear about him saw no indication that he was bound to become the king of Judea or the messiah.

It was only the few followers that Jesus gathered who seemed to believe that he would lead a successful revolt against the occupying Romans.  Even they seemed to want to be sure that he was the messiah when they asked him if he was.  After all, they wanted to ally themselves only with the true messiah.  There had been and would later be a number of men who claimed the status of messiah.  They were sometimes killed by crucifixion.  Some of them were Zealots who believed in paying any price, even their lives, in order to uphold the "royalty law" of Deuteronomy 17:14-15, which forbade Jews to submit to the rule of a foreign king.(Joel Carmichael, The Death of Jesus (New York:  Horizon Press, 1962) 140-160; Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker:  Paul and the Invention of Christianity (San Francisco:  Harper & Row, 1986.)

The idea of the Jews of a messiah is of paramount importance to Christianity.  Christians go through great pains to show that certain passages in the Tanakh predicted that Jesus would be the messiah.  There is a long list of these alleged prophecies in the Revell Bible Dictionary.("Messiah," Revell)  Study them carefully.  The predictions are questionable at best.  They come from passages written at least 700 years before Jesus was born.  None of them mention the name Jesus or say he would come from Nazareth or Galilee.  These would have been supporting facts to include if such a prophesy was intended.

Take just two examples.  The messianic prophecies listed in that dictionary state in the first of three columns what Jesus the messiah was to be, in the second column the reference to the prophecy made in a verse(s) in the Tanakh, and in the third column the verse(s) in the Christian Testament that purports to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.

The first example goes all the way back to Genesis at the point God excoriated the snake in the garden of Eden for tricking Eve into eating the forbidden fruit.  He ended at Genesis 3:5 saying

 I will make you and the woman hate each other; her offspring and yours will always be enemies. Her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite their heel.

This verse was supposed to prophesy that "the woman's seed would crush Satan's head" according to the first column.  Yet nowhere in that verse is there any mention of Satan.  Column three cites the Christian Testament verses Galatians 4:4 and 1 John 3:8 as showing that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.  Those verses do no such thing.  No mention is made of Jesus crushing even one snake.  The claim is made that in those verses Jesus came to vanquish Satan, but none of that follows from what God says in Genesis 3:15.  Everything he says there is solely directed at the snake.  In fact Jesus did not vanquish Satan.  Christian preachers themselves have repeatedly pointed out ever since that Satan is running free all over the world.

The second example is one that has been considered much more important.  It involves the prophecy by the preeminent prophet Isaiah.  It was spoken to king Ahaz at a time when there was a threat of invasion from other countries including the powerful Assyria.  Isaiah was active as a prophet from 739 to 701 B.C.E.  The prophecy is found at Isaiah 7:14.

[T]he Lord himself will give you a sign:  a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him Immanuel.

Clearly this only refers to a young woman, not to a virgin.  It is very common for young women to bear sons.  In the 700's B.C.E., it was even more common than today for teenage girls to give birth.  The footnote to the verse included in the Good News Bible points out that in Hebrew "young woman" does not mean "virgin," only a young woman of marriageable age.  Looking further the verse obviously does not mention Jesus.  Immanuel was a name given to boys of the time and had no special significance.  Jesus was not given the name Immanuel even as a middle name.  HIs name was plainly "Jesus."  Great emphasis is placed by Christians on the meaning in Hebrew of Immanuel, which is "God is with us."  This does not in any way refer to Jesus.  Many boys have been named Immanuel.  Most Christians are not aware that many of the names given in the Tanakh have a favorable connection to God.  Ishmael, for instance, means "God hears."

It is very instructive to examine Isaiah 7:15 the verse right after the one just examined.

By the time he is old enough to make his own decisions, people will be drinking milk and honey.

Actually, at this point Isaiah is mad at Ahaz who does not seem to take seriously what he has to say.  So this verse is an underhanded way for Isaiah to tell him that it would not be too many years until the Assyrians would invade.  Supposedly, because there would be so few locals left they would be able to enjoy an abundance of food including milk and honey.

In Isaiah's way of expressing the time period, the invasion would take place by the time Immanuel reached the age he could make his own decisions.  The age of 21 is that which has commonly been considered the year of complete independence.  If you want, you could stretch that age to 25.

Examining this time prediction and the context of the direct discussion with Ahaz, it should offer solid proof that Isaiah intended his prophecy to only foretell of an event that would occur within 25 years at the most.  It prophesied nothing else.  Isaiah was concerned only with warning Ahaz of an impending catastrophe that would take place in less than 25 years.  Isaiah would have had no interest--especially considering the present danger--in talking about any event that was supposed to take place 700 years later.  If Isaiah wanted to make a prediction about Jesus, he should have been much more specific.  Talking to Ahaz about something that was to occur 700 years later would have had no influence on Ahaz.

This is a good illustration of the grave error in the general belief in long-term prophecy.  In making a prophecy, a prophet is only trying to predict something that is going to occur in the near future usually less than 30 years away.  There was no urgency for Isaiah to tell about events 700 years down the line.  Soothsayers often had patrons like kings and noblemen who needed to know what the future had in store for them and their ambitions in their lifetimes, not any time later.  The gullible mistakenly interpret a prediction as foretelling of an event hundreds of years later. 

An example of this is Nostradamus, a French astrologer who made his prognostications around 1540.  It has been analyzed and found that he was talking about events that were to take place soon after that year.  Yet many gullible believers in prophecy invent that he was talking about events centuries later.  The events have been expected to occur at several different times.  For example around 2000, they were once again trying to decipher what the prophecies were saying about that time.  Of course, this was made possible because Nostradamus's statements were vague and nonspecific.  Later credulous observers interpreted them as applying to some other time.

This is the root of the problem with prophecies.  They are so vague and cryptic that it becomes very easy for others to apply other interpretations.  Too many times the prophecy interpreters refuse to acknowledge that the predictions were based on events that were taking place at the time they were made.

There are serious questions even about the short-term predictions.  They are vague and nonspecific but could instead tell of specific names, places, and dates.  If Nostradamus had done this, there should not have been any danger in being misinterpreted.  The fact is that often the soothsayers wanted to keep their predictions secret from anyone but the intended recipient so they wanted to be cryptic.

There is the observation that in short-term foretelling the predictions are often safe ones.  Anyone with a good sense of social and political conditions in their time should be able to make a solid educated guess of what the near future may have in store.

Go back to the prophecies made by Isaiah that Assyria would lay waste to the country and haul off many Jews into captivity.  The Assyrians were very aggressive and not reluctant to attack the little countries outside their borders.  They were known to sometimes carry off a number of captives.  They were already occupying territories to the north including the former Israel.  They had demanded tribute from king Ahaz who had given it in great fear of what could come.  It was a prophecy made with a great probability that it would come true.  It was an easy one.

But wait!  The Assyrians attacked Jerusalem but then withdrew.  There was then peace for more than a century.  Isaiah was wrong in telling Ahaz that only a few people would be left by the Assyrians.  How much trust can you then put in Isaiah's alleged prophecy for his time?  It had to be that much more mistaken about anything relating to Jesus 700 years later.

The Importance of a Messiah

Christians have traditionally thought it very important to consider that Jesus was the messiah.  This messiah was supposed to be installed as king of the Jews and bring a wonderful, long-lasting peace and prosperity to the country as well as to the other nations.  The idea of this savior became especially important during the Roman occupation.  The Judaics did not want anything to do with Roman rule although it allowed them to freely practice their religion.  They were allowed to keep and use their Temple.  That was not satisfactory to the Judaics.  They were determined to follow the prohibition against living under foreign rule.  Accordingly, there were frequent rebellions that eventually led to the big rebellion of 66.

It is possible that Jesus was one of those leaders who tried to lead an armed insurrection.  This was what some expected a messiah would do.  A messiah became such a central figure in the hopes of the Jews that the followers of Jesus wanted to know if he truly thought he was the predicted messiah.  His answer was not clear on this.  Even after the crucifixion of Jesus, some of them could not let go of the idea of his being the messiah and latched onto the hope that he had been resurrected and would return to expel the Romans.

Another reason for the importance of considering Jesus as the messiah is that the status gave him a much closer tie to God.  For one thing, all the kings of the Jews were supposed to be approved by God.  The messiah was supposed to be an especially powerful king who had the blessing of God.

The earliest followers of Jesus were, like he was, thoroughly loyal to their Judaic religion.  They had no intention of creating a new religion.  Christianity did not consciously get under way until some time after the year 50.  There were a number different groups with different interpretations of the role of Jesus.  Most of them wanted continuity with the God of Judaic tradition.  They were not inclined to think of Jesus as a new God.

Instead, they were content to start to think of him as so close to God that he could be considered the son of God.  This way of thinking was strongly influenced by the letters of Paul, which were later included in the Christian canon.  Furthermore, he had been allegedly resurrected by God the father who would soon send him back as the promised messiah to drive out the Romans and inaugurate the expected idyllic period.  The question arises:  why not have Jesus do the job the first time around instead of having him go through great agony and then sending him back a second time?

Incidentally, the Hebrews were not the first ones to come up with the idea of a future messiah who would come to establish a utopian state.  Egyptian writers mentioned it centuries before.  One document was the "Admonitions of Ipuwer" from around 2,000 B.C.E.(Elmer W.K. Mould, Essentials of Bible History (New York:  Ronald Press Company, 1939) 63-64.)

Requirements for the Messiah

Now let us assess how Jesus could have possibly been the promised messiah.  The important requirements for becoming the messiah had to be those that had been prophesied in the Tanakh

 long before Jesus was born.  They could not be altered after that.  The essential mission of the messiah as specified was that he would (1) be anointed, (2) as king of the Jews, and (3) rule over his country in Jerusalem bringing great peace, prosperity, and respect from other nations.  To be anointed meant that a high official of the Judaic religious authority would perform the ceremony of anointing the man with oil as king.  In the time of Jesus, that would have been the High Priest.  Consequently, this king would be widely known by the populace.  The Roman emperor would certainly have to give his full approval of a new king.  Any king would have to be a vassal king who would pose no threat.  Roman rule began in 63 B.C.E. after Pompey conquered the area.  All the rules and governing actions had to be approved by the Romans.

The most powerful and most active of these local rulers was Herod the Great who ruled as king of Judea from 37-4 B.C.E.  During Herod's reign, Judea was prosperous and there was peace.  Perhaps some might have surmised that he was the promised messiah even if he was not a true Jew.  After Herod the Great, there were different vassal kings.  The Jewish authorities did not anoint any of them.  They were installed by the Roman government.

Jesus was charismatic, had some morally correct insights, and showed great concern for the downtrodden who comprised many of his followers.  Yet Jesus never asserted that he was king.  He was never anointed by any one among the Jewish authorities, much less by the High Priest.  The gospels did not claim that he was made king by anyone.  The most they stated was that he would be made king of the world after he came the second time.  His disciples seemed to harbor some doubt as to whether he was the messiah since they asked him if he was.  Consequently, Jesus was never the king of the Jews as required by the prophecies.  He did not even seem firmly set in his mission.  Witness his statement at Gethsemane shortly before his crucifixion, "My Father if it is possible, take this cup of suffering from me!"(Matthew 26:39)

The twelve disciples of Jesus may well have been armed and ready for combat given that one of them, Peter, cut off a man's ear with his sword.(Matthew 26:51)  If Jesus did not have hundreds of members in his band, it may be that he expected that all he had to do was start a rebellion and a massive army of angels would swoop down and do the rest.

Even if he never became king, he could have been the leader in throwing out the Romans.  He did not even come close to accomplishing that.  The most effect he had was to upend the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple in Jerusalem. This was ill-advised.  It may have brought him to the attention of the authorities who were very vigilant in suppressing any rebels.  This was especially true during Passover when thousands of Jews from throughout the area chose to go to the Temple.  Passover was precisely the time that Jesus and his disciples went.

The quest of Jesus to be rid of the Romans ended in sad and tragic failure.  His life ended in an agonizing and ignominous crucifixion.  There was no great horde of admirers present.  It appears there was only a small group of his followers including women.  The thousands in Jerusalem were unaware of who specifically was being crucified, only some captured rebel.  In becoming the messiah he failed miserably.  The third part of the messianic prophecy that he would rule the world was not fulfilled.  

After the crucifixion of Jesus, his disciples did not want to give up hope and began to believe that he had been resurrected, would return to be the messiah, and would execute all the actions expected of the messiah.  They expected him to come at any hour of any day.  Jesus had encouraged those beliefs with talk shortly before his death of the coming of the son of man with all the angels to save the world.(Matthew 24:29-31; 25:31-46)  He did not declare that he would be that son of man who would come.  He only mentioned the son of man and that could be someone else entirely.  At this point, his followers may have started to separate him from the specific messiah prophecy and to think of him as more of a divine savior.

From that, the Christian belief grew that Jesus was spiritually at the side of his followers.  He was there to protect and comfort them.  This belief should have been put to rest when a number of his followers were persecuted.  Some were thrown to the lions to die in the Coliseum.  He took no measure to save them.  Others were crucified including two of his most ardent disciples, Peter and Paul.

If Jesus wielded so much spiritual power, perhaps he could have left his compatriots in Judea in more favorable conditions.  That did not happen.  Instead, matters became gradually worse.  This misery may have added a greater impetus for some Jews to become Christians.  After they gave up hope that a human messiah could take over the rule of Judea, they could have gone on to believe that a divine son or angel of God could use his full power to get the job done.

We saw that the situation became horrendous and culminated in the Jewish rebellion from 66 to 70 C.E.  The Roman soldiers had trouble finding enough trees for crucifying Jews.  Thousands of Jews were carried off to Rome as slaves.  The rebellions finally ended in 135 with the emperor Hadrian ordering the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion (the Diaspora) of all the Jews from Palestine.

Even after this, the Christians persevered with their belief that Jesus would return with an army of angels to defeat the Romans and rule the world from Jerusalem.  Certainly a powerful force of angels would have been necessary to overcome the Romans who were clearly determined to quash any further uprisings.

After the shutting down of Judea, persecution by Rome, and the failure of Jesus to return, one would have thought the Christians would have given up.  Why would a genuine messiah take so long to return in the face of so much suffering?  Assuming that his followers wanted to give plenty of leeway on when he should return, it would seem there should have been a time limit.  A quick return would have been expected especially in view of all the turmoil that had gone on in that time period and that showed every sign of continuing.

It has been estimated that Jesus was crucified around the year 30 C.E.  That means that he should have returned at least by 230.  That should have given the Christians plenty of time to have realized they had based their hopes on just another failed messiah.  They could have then gone back to Judaism and awaited another (hopefully true) messiah.  Or they could have chosen to follow another religion, maybe one without an expected messiah.  This could eliminate the ongoing anxiety of waiting for one.  There were plenty of religions to pick from that were being promoted around the Mediterranean.

There were more false messiahs after Jesus.  There was Bar Kokhba who led the rebellion in 132.  Much later there was Shabbatai Zevi.  He declared himself the messiah around 1650 in Turkey and acquired a number of followers.  The Muslim authorities became aware of him and understandably suspected he might be planning violent sedition.  They gave him the choice of dying a torturous death or converting to Islam.  He converted to Islam.  His followers became known as the Sabbateans and continued for centuries--even after he converted to Islam!  In the 1980's, there was a Hasidic rabbi in New York City, Menahem Shneerson.  He never declared himself the messiah, but his followers insisted he was, even after his death.

Given all the foregoing considerations, Jesus can also not be counted as a savior.  There is then no basis for the Christian religion.  It got started with the idea that Jesus was the messiah.  He may have talked glowingly about love, and compassion but that did not qualify him as the messiah.  That only made him a sage or a moral leader.  Much of what he said could be found in the Tanakh.  For instance, it is often claimed that Jesus was the first to exhort, "Love your neighbor as yourself," but that was written down in Leviticus 19:18.  Even less was he the son of God.  If he had been, he certainly would have carried out the mission.  Much less was he God himself.  The premises in the Christian religion regarding Jesus are just not there.

Without Jesus being the divine messiah, Christianity collapses back into Judaism with Jesus as an additional prophet.  It may be counted as a sect of Judaism as is reform Judaism but not a new religion.  This is essentially how Jews have viewed the situation ever since and the reason they have not converted to Christianity even on pain of death.  Jesus could not have been the messiah because as Jews have put it, "He didn't get the job done."  Yet they have been vilified, persecuted, and killed for what they considered the religious truth.

The solid conclusion that Jesus was not the messiah also invalidates Christianity through linguistic means.  Remember that the words Christ and Christianity derive from the Greek word christos that means anointed.  The name Christianity is based on Jesus being the messiah.  Since he was not, the title is certainly invalidated.  They would want to change the name of the religion since he was not the christ.  Perhaps they could be called Jesusians.

Christians could choose to significantly change the orientation of their religion.  They could keep Jesus at the center but only as a very wise guru, much like Buddha.  They could even choose to cease belief in Yahweh.  The transformed religion could be atheistic as is Confucianism and Buddhism, which have each been centered around a human mortal.  It is not likely that they would decide to abandon Yahweh.  After all, he made it very clear that those who failed to follow him would face awful consequences.

Two Added Christian Traits

The Christians added two qualifications that purportedly showed that Jesus was the messiah and additionally that he was divine.  They were that he was (1) born of a virgin and (2) resurrected.  Even if these had been true (and there is great question about them), he could still fail to be the messiah.  The Christians extended the nature of Jesus from being the messiah to being the son of God.  These two facts were supposed to prove that he was divine, which Jesus himself never claimed.

(1) He could have been born of a virgin and God himself and still never have attained the status of messiah.  God could have had great hopes for him and yet later decided against allowing him to be the messiah, for whatever reasons.  Remember that God previously changed his mind in connection with two of his early favorites, Moses and Saul.  Likewise, the Lord could have become displeased with Jesus at any point along the way and decided not to support him as the messiah or make him his son even if he had first conceived him from a virgin.  Why did the Christians insist that Jesus be born of a virgin?  Because ancient myths had it that some heroes were born of virgins.  The early Christians wanted to impress the pagans with claiming that Jesus had also been born this way.

(2) The same is true of the resurrection condition imposed by the Christians.  Before Jesus, there had been reports in the past of pagans being resurrected.  Then there is the story in the gospel of John about Lazarus who after dying and lying for four days in his tomb was resurrected.(John 11:1-44)  We know clearly that Lazarus did not become the messiah.  So being resurrected does not make you a god.  Of course, there is much to be questioned about the physical possibility of resurrection and many have done it.  That is one reason i would prefer to concentrate on other questions regarding the divine status of Jesus.

Bones

Here is another potentially fatal blow to Christianity.  Professor of religion James Tabor worked for a long time trying to find the burial tomb of the family of Jesus.  It looks very much like he finally succeeded around 2010.  It looks as if one of the skeletons could be that of Jesus.  That would mean that Jesus never ascended to heaven, a crucial Christian teaching related to his divinity.  Tabor wrote a book delineating this called The Jesus Discovery.(James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici, The Jesus Discovery, 2013.)  Further study of the skeleton is needed to determine if it is Jesus, but Israeli authorities strangely denied access.  Perhaps they are afraid of incurring Christian ire if it is shown that these are the bones of Jesus.

2,000 Years

Consider in more detail that Jesus did not return by 230 or even 300 when it would have been fully expected that he would have by then.  You can bet that some followers dropped out of the Jesus movement after noticing how much time had passed without his reappearance. 

This disproving point need not involve any of the details on whether Jesus was the messiah.  It can stand alone even he was not the messiah.  He could well only have been an impressive leader whose goal was to lead a successful liberation of Judea from the Romans.  Assume only that there was an understanding between him and his disciples--even if it was not clearly spelled out--that after his crucifixion that he would have to go away for a time, return to expel the Romans, and bring an end to the world as they knew it.  They would not have to believe he was the son of God, only a smart and powerful human.

The Jewish contemporaries of Jesus wanted the Romans gone and replaced by a benevolent and successful state run by Jews.  They wanted this to happen soon, witness the rebellions that took place.  Even giving Jesus more than enough time to come back, you would certainly expect him to return by 300.  When he didn't, the only rational conclusion would be that he and his contemporary followers had been mistaken.  He had not been given any mandate by God to return to do anything along with the powers necessary to carry out anything.  He had just been another human with high hopes and ambitions.

The fundamental idea here is that if a person assures others that he will perform an action at a later time and fails to do so, they are justified in not believing he will do it.  This is especially true if a long time passes and he does not even return to explain why he has not done what he said he would.  Those who were depending on him would then naturally cease to expect anything from him, not make up excuses for him, and move forward to find new ways to solve their problems.

This is the situation with Jesus and his supposed statement that he would return.  He did not return within any expected time so the only conclusion was that he (1) was wrong to expect he would be able to return and (2) was not going to return.  The Roman Empire had disappeared by 500 and he had not returned.  All Christians should have definitely stopped believing he would return and should have gone on living their lives without that reliance.  They should have then proceeded to look for the proper beliefs to support sound living.

There are two more very important facts to consider in this analysis.  The first is that there was not simply a vague and unspoken understanding that Jesus would return.  The first three gospels maintain that he made a very clear assurance that was definitely measurable in time of when he would return.  He talked of the "son of man" and not in the first person, i.e. not about himself doing this.  In Hebrew "son of man" means nothing more than humankind.  In Matthew he stated that the son of man would come in the clouds with angels and "gather his chosen people from one end of the world to the other."(Matthew 24:30-31)  Then he stated, "Remember all these things will happen before the people now living have all died."(Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32)  He made it very clear.  The world would end very soon.  That could happen on any day, at any hour, so people should be alert and watchful.  Christians still talk about being prepared for this to occur at any time.

Now let us calculate what is the latest year that this apocalyptic end of the world could happen.  It would the latest year in which "the people now living have all died."  The youngest person living on the year 30, the year Jesus died, would have been a baby born that year.  There is no credible documentation that any human has ever lived to 130 years.  Nevertheless, assume that baby did manage to live to 130 years of age.  S/he would have died in 160.  We know he did not return by then.

Earlier, we gave Jesus even greater flexibility for returning.  We gave him to the year 230.  Let's say we even stretch the time period to 300.  We know he did not return by then.  Jesus was under some delusion that he would return to lead an apocalyptic event.  He was just another human being.  Based alone on this failed promise to return, the Christian religion has no validity.

The Christian answer to this longevity problem is to claim, "There is no difference in the Lord's sight between one year and a thousand years; to him the two are the same."(2 Peter 2:8)  There are a number of problems with this response.  First, the statement is mumbo-jumbo.  The Lord would not engage in such sophistry.  Second, where did Peter get the knowledge and the right to speak for God and declare this preposterous assertion?  Did God tell him this?

Third, the assertion was made in a letter and not even in an official position of any Christian organization.  It cannot be counted as having any authority.  The letter was written as a warning to Christians against false teachings.  It is not clear that the letter was written by the Peter who was the closest disciple of Jesus.  It is now known that there were a number of groups around the Mediterranean who were espousing different ideas and explanations of the nature of Jesus.  Peter was trying to combat the influence of those rival teachers.  The letter was likely written around 100 to refute those who were pointing out that Jesus was taking too long to come back and were doubting he would return.  Is it any wonder there would be questions after Jesus had indicated he would return within present lifetimes?

Fourth, the problem with Peter's answer is that Jesus did not phrase his prediction in terms of years.  He stated the end would come by the time all persons then living would die.  So direct reference to years is irrelevant.  The time limit while indefinite still had to fall within a couple of centuries.

The fifth problem is that of Peter's attributing to God such unreliability, such flakiness with respect to time.  God might count time in one way with respect to himself, but if he is dealing with humans, you might expect him to follow time measurements the way humans understand them.  Then again, the difference between "one year and one thousand years" is huge.  Even the Lord would be cognizant of such a difference.  He might follow a variability of years or even decades but a century or more is another matter especially in view of the urgent need of his people in the year 30.  Also, Jesus should have informed his listeners that one year could be one thousand years.

The sixth problem is with Jesus confidently declaring a readily ascertainable time limit and then not keeping it, not even coming close.  This is especially important since it has been so long ago if we look back from the present time.  Jesus was crucified around the year 30.  That means that in 2030 it will be 2,000 years since Jesus allegedly claimed that he would return.  Even back in the year 1030, it would have been said that it had been an excruciatingly long time since he made his prediction.  It cannot be denied that something went awry if he has not returned after such a long time.

Some would still maintain that Jesus was allowed to use a different method of timekeeping, e.g. one year can equal one thousand years.  If that was the case, problem seven is that Jesus should have been more forthcoming.  He should have said something like, "I will come back within 200 years but then it could be another 2,000 years."  You can be sure that most of his followers at the time would have deserted him in droves.  They would have gone out to look for the messiah that was slated to enjoy success in their day.  They would not have been concerned with what was going to happen 2,000 years later.

The imminent return of Jesus was a sine qua non for Christianity.  Today the only sensible conclusion from his not having returned for two centuries is that he was an ordinary human with no special mission and that he will not return.  Christianity collapses.

Yahweh's Jealousy

There is an extremely serious, self-condemning problem that Christians face without being aware of it.  This is connected to monotheism.  The idea of God the Father of everything and his Holy Spirit as coexisting is not objectionable from a monotheistic standpoint.  This assumes a dualistic view of reality, as questionable as that is.  Dualism is by far the most common belief on the nature of conscious entities.  It maintains that beings are composed of both a body and a spirit.  These two components are inseparable but, at the same time, they compose one and the same person. 

Consequently with respect to God, it is not such a problem to consider that God consists of both a body and a spirit so long as he is considered as one and the same being just like a human is.  It is a much more complicated matter when you introduce a putative son of God into the mix.

First, you have to get past the hurdle of what exactly is the status of a "son of God."  Humans are at times called "children of God."  A son of God is then simply a male child of God.  Since humans consider humans as a special creation of God, then "children" points to that special status.  Other animals are creations of God but are not his children.  Nevertheless, even humans readily admit that human status is well below that of gods of any kind.  Angels are on a level above humans but below God.  There can be disagreements on these concepts, but they are not great.  It is another matter when talking about a "son" of God on a level above the angels.  Is he just a special angel?  Can he be put on the level of divinity?  If so, on what basis?  Are angels divine?

There are not any cases in any religion in which a chief god allowed someone else to share equally in his position.  It was always clear the one head god ruled supremely and showed no desire to share his power.  Examples of these prime gods are Zeus of Greek mythology and Odin of Norse mythology.  Lesser gods may have shown disagreement or displeasure with a supreme god, but none ever had equal status with him.

The same can be said for human kings.  It has been rare for one to agree to share the throne with anyone else.  The opposite has been more the case.  Much blood has been shed for the purpose of having only one person on the throne.  Good examples come from the kingdoms we have been considering.  In the Roman empire, many men were killed trying to gain or keep the sole position of emperor.  At times emperors were replaced in rapid succession after only a few years or even months on the throne.

Even when human royalty have been very sick and on their death bed, they have not handed over their throne to a child.  In some instances, the successor might issue some necessary orders because the king is too weak to do so.  Still, the custom has been that the office remains with the king until death.  There have been kings so desperate to hold onto their power that they have killed sons in order to ensure not to be dethroned by them.  Remember King Herod I of Judea.

How is it that the Christians could decide that God, the supreme being of the universe, would want to cede even a little of his power and position to anyone else?  There would be no reason to believe that.  There would be no need for God to do this.  He would not be on this deathbed.  He would not gain any power, only lose some of it.

Would the Lord of the Yahwehists want to share any of the attention and adulation that he appeared so desirous to receive in the Tanakh?  Yahweh would be the last god who would be willing to share any power.  He is the god who is far beyond all the others in his intolerance of the worship of other gods.  Remember his pronouncements in the Ten Commandments.  There are many passages in the Tanakh in which the Lord easily became angry at anyone even coming close to paying attention to any other god.  He declared he was a jealous God.  This is not a god who would share any power or adulation with anyone else.  Like human kings, he would not cede any part of his reign to a son.

With respect to Yahweh, he does not die so there would be no need at all to groom a son as a successor.  There would be even less of a need to give him any share of the deity whatsoever.  Given the personality of Yahweh, it is not credible that he would have changed so drastically that he would at any point have handed over any power to anyone else.

The early Christians who elevated Jesus to the son of God did so out of the great admiration they had engendered for him.  If they had taken the time to read the Tanakh, they should have readily realized that Yahweh was the last god who would have possibly established a son with whom to share any power especially equal power.  It is not very likely that the early Jewish followers in Judea, even his brother James, deified Jesus.  They would have been familiar with the Lord's unbending monotheistic exclusivity and would have readily considered any human claims to divinity as blasphemous.  Jesus would have felt the same way.

The ones who were more susceptible to believing the proposition of the divinity of Jesus were the gentiles living on the northern Mediterranean coast.  They would have grown up surrounded by Greek religion with its various gods.  It was more natural for them to accept a new set of beliefs with more than one god.  Paul worked very hard to convert gentiles.

Given the foregoing considerations, Christians take a tremendous risk in adhering to Christian theology.  Its central tenet is that Jesus is the son of God.  All humans must accept him as such and believe that he died on his cross for their sins if they want to be saved.  It would be bad enough to count Jesus as a minor divinity like Hermes or Eros of Greek mythology.  This would be enough to make Yahweh mad, but remember that Christians make Jesus a co-equal God with Yahweh through the doctrine of the Trinity.

There is more.  Many Christians can even be said to put Jesus before the Father Yahweh.  They often pray specifically to Jesus addressing him as they speak.  Then at times some Catholics make entreaties to saints who are supposed to be in charge of helping humans in assigned areas of living.  For instance, St. Christopher is supposed to protect people when they travel.  Then there is the Catholic high reverence of Mary, mother of Jesus.  It was especially widespread in the MIddle Ages when it appears many Christians paid more attention to her than to either Jesus or the Father.  Doesn't the power of Mary and these empowered saints make them gods?

It s very hard to believe that God would not be highly offended and incensed at the attention given by Christians to persons including humans other than he.  From what we know about Yahweh, he would not allow those beliefs to pass unnoticed without the most severe punishment.  Ironically, longstanding Christian doctrine holds that the most severe punishment is spending eternity in hell.  Christians take great chances in possibly going there because of that most cherished doctrine of the divinity of Jesus.  Christians have only seen the upside of their religion and not this very risky downside.

You cannot believe in Jesus as divine and at the same time believe in Yahweh.  It is a striking contradiction.  Therefore, the Christian religion is false based on this additional ground.  Christians would be wise to return to Judaism.  Alternatively, they could start a new religion that would be centered on Jesus and not include Yahweh and the thorny issues that come with him.  The big problem with this is that Jesus was a thorough believer in Yahweh and his laws.  More importantly, if Yahweh is the true God, he would still punish Christians severely for not worshipping him exclusively.

Pascal's Wager

The previous section touching on the personality of Yahweh makes a nice segue into assessment of Pascal's Wager.  Many have believed it to be a sound reason for professing belief in God.  The Wager's basic thrust is that you have nothing to lose if you believe in God and everything to lose if you do not.  So it would be to your benefit to bet on professing belief in God.

If God exists, the picture is simple in those religions that believe in heaven and hell.  If you were an unbeliever, you unfortunately consigned yourself to tremendous suffering in hell for eternity.  It is a stark difference; you should have chosen belief.  As a consolation, you reaped some benefit while on this earth.  You saved time and money in not being involved in any religion.  You were able to enjoy a freer life without guilt about sin or fear of what God was doing.  If you believed in God during your life, you go to a fantastic place called heaven for eternity.  Is it that simple?

If God does not exist and you did not believe, you would have the same benefits as in the situation of the nonbeliever above without having to pay any penalty in hell.  If you were a believer, you may have lost much unnecessarily.  Granted you may have received some psychological and social benefit.  You may have felt more secure with your belief that God was looking out for you.  Studies have shown that people who are active religionists and have deep faith in God often have better health and greater peace of mind.  It should not be surprising that belief, even if it is false, that a super being is watching out for you would make you feel happy.

Socially, it helped you that others were aware that you believed in God.  You did not have to worry about being ostracized.  It may have been an advantage in your advancement in your career.    If you were a light believer, you may not have wasted much money or time.

Yet belief can be detrimental.  A spouse can follow the teaching of the Catholic church that a married person should never divorce but suffer greatly through all her/is adult life because the other spouse is an insensitive, sadistic person.  Because she was a Catholic, she may have followed the teaching against birth control and had ten  children.  That has brought a great economic burden.

Everyone who knows a certain beautiful young girl with a great personality and kind disposition believes she will later be a good wife and mother.  However, she decides to become a Catholic nun and remains a virgin until she dies at age 85.  Similarly, a young man becomes a priest and remains in that position until he dies at 86 while remaining a virgin.  His whole life he is tortured by feelings of sexual desire.  He occasionally has to masturbate but is racked by deep feelings of guilt.  There are those who are not clergy but nevertheless often abstain from sex because they believe that one is more pure if one does and that pleases God.  Those of us who have found sex to be a wonderful pleasure feel it is unfortunate to go through life without experiencing the joy of sex.

Then there is the 21-year-old Muslim who is strongly inspired to fight the infidels.  He goes into a crowded market place with a hidden bomb.  He sets it off killing himself and five innocent people.  By doing this deed, he has been told by his Muslim imam that he will go to heaven and have the pleasure of enjoying 72 virgins.  Even if there is a God, it is a seriously open question whether he is impressed by celibacy or suicide to please him.  Most people do not believe that, witness the widespread engagement in sex and nonparticipation in suicide bombing.  It is a sad enough tragedy if God exists but does not require sacrifices.  If God does not exist, it is that much more tragic.

A person can spend thousands of hours praying and going to worship God.  Then there is all the money that people give.  Even if there is a God, the money never goes to him.  Certainly the money given to fight religious wars is bad.  Rich donors are not deprived as much as poor people who are dependable donors.  Too often what the poor give can be spent on items they readily need.  Some people suffer significant aggravation worrying about their sins and how much punishment they will receive for them from God.  They may worry about when the day of judgment will come.  Belief in God can have a number of detriments in earthly living.

Incidentally, even if Pascal was not a fully sincere Christian but a skeptical one, he probably thought of the possibility of hell and decided to claim he was a believer.  That is how he came upon the thought of a wager.  Note that he did not simply have to consider hell.  In his time, the Inquisition was still in effect.  In Pascal's home of France, it was not particularly strong in his time but there was no guarantee that it would not flare up there.  Better to line up as a Christian and avoid possible torture and even death at the hands of Inquisitors.

But wait.  Pascal was looking at this issue of belief from the Christian perspective.  The plain fact is that God might not be a Christian.  That is, there is the possibility that the true God would not be concerned with belief in him the way Yahweh was pictured to be.  Under this scenario, he would not care if someone did not believe that he does not exist.  Since he would not make himself available, he would understand that people would disbelieve.

However, he would be concerned with human sin and keep close track of it.  There could be a day of judgment and people would be consigned to heaven or hell.  The only gauge would be their record of personal behavior and would have nothing to do with how they believed.  The Christian perspective on faith in God would be of no benefit.  Pascal's Wager in favor of belief would be of no avail with regard to going to heaven or hell.  All those sacrifices made to please God such as being celibate would unnecessarily deprive them of enjoyment.

Wait, it gets worse.  Here is the connection mentioned before between Pascal's Wager and the personality of Yahweh.  A Christian who wagers to believe in God is thinking of the Christian god.  Remember that is the tripartite god called the Trinity, which means that Jesus gets equal billing with the Father Yahweh.  It became clear to us that Yahweh would not be at all happy with such an arrangement.

He is a jealous God who harshly punishes those who diminish his stature by having any regard for other gods.  To worship Jesus is to worship an additional god.  A Christian then who chooses to believe that Jesus is God is not believing in the true Yahweh who is supposed to be the exclusive God.  The Christian is unintentionally bringing on the wrath of Yahweh.  It may be that instead of getting to go to heaven the Christian is unwittingly buying a ticket to hell.  Pascal's Wager may backfire for Christians if the true God is not their god, but is the jealous God of the Tanakh.

As is often the case, it would probably be better not to wager at all.  If you do wager, you could hedge your bets.  You could take the position that Yahweh is supreme but claim that you are open to the idea that Jesus was only his very special emissary but not divine.  This could be the position of a timid Jew who is afraid the Christians may be right.  Or it could be an open-minded Christian who would say that Jesus had only been a very special angel.  This seems closer to the Unitarian position than the mainstream Christian one.

Using more flexible positions like these may give believers a better chance on judgment day.  They can contend that they truly believed in the Trinity if they find themselves in front of the God of the Christians.  If instead they find themselves in front of the Judaic version of God, they can try to downplay the importance they gave to Jesus.  It is hard to believe that Christians have failed to realize the risk they take in not worshipping Yahweh exclusively.

Sincerity of Belief

It might not be enough to believe out of fear or based on wanting to go along with one's peers or to gain the social advantages of believing.  Pascal's Wager really says, "I don't know whether God exists but i better bet that he does just to be safe."  It would seem that God would expect people to believe in him with sincerity.  Perhaps sincerity is very important to Yahweh although there is no extensive discussion of this in the Bible.  Sincerity could be important even if the God of the universe turned out not to be Yahweh.  Yes, Yahwehists should be aware of the possibility that the God of the universe is not Yahweh or Jesus and that, all this time, the true God has chosen to only be secretly sitting on the sidelines.

Regardless of who God is, he may still maintain a heaven and a hell and concomitantly a day of judgment.  God could look very closely at the sincerity of those who claimed they had believed in God.  He could despise the lack of sincerity and correspondingly demand that each person have truly felt a high degree of sincerity.  Naturally, he would look with suspicion upon those who had only wagered in his favor without further feeling.

In addition, he could look down on feelings of cowardice.  After all, God never shows fear.  He could strongly disapprove of those who feigned belief out of cowardice.  Ironically, those who would be inclined to declare belief in God based on a safer bet would most likely be among the less sincere.

Here is a thought.  It is possible that atheists and agnostics would stand a better chance of getting through the gates of heaven on the day of judgment.  God (even if it were Yahweh) could look favorably upon their not worshipping other gods.  He could excuse not following other gods over worshipping of Jesus or false gods.  He could also admire the choice not to believe because it was a totally sincere one made with courage and honesty.

The Sacrifice of Jesus

It is part of the most fundamental Christian doctrine that Jesus died as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity so that we could be saved.  Paul proclaimed that Jesus "our Passover lamb has been sacrificed."(1 Corinthians 5:7)  The Letter to the Hebrews (not written by Paul) contains a discussion of the sacrifice of Jesus.(Hebrews 9:7 thru 10:21)

The idea of sacrifice to gods is a very old one that was invented well before the Israelites ever used it and continued to be used by people in different parts of the world.  It involved the assumption that gods could become displeased with humans and consequently decide to harm them.  The gods then had to be appeased in some impressive way.  The burning of animals on an altar was the most common sacrifice.  The sacrificer performed the sacrifices to the gods as a way of giving thanks for blessings and hopefully assuage their anger.

The Israelites performed both voluntary and mandatory offerings, with the latter functioning to atone for sin.  The atonement ones were classified as sin offerings and guilt offerings.  The animals sacrificed were said to be burned, but it was allowed to eat what was edible.  This must have been a definite advantage in times of famine or drought.  The priests were allowed to keep what was edible for themselves.  The pertinent rules are found in the book of Leviticus.  One wonders how much of the animal sacrifices the priests of other religions got to keep.

The question to be asked is what was the benefit to God and what was the benefit to the sacrificer.  In Genesis, after Noah's ark landed, he offered as a sacrifice to the Lord one of each kind of ritually clean animal and bird.  Allegedly, "the odor of the sacrifice pleased the Lord."  Genesis did not say that he ate any sacrifices.

It is hard to believe that he would have been that thrilled with an odor that he should have been sufficiently powerful to reproduce on his own whenever he desired.  Plus if that many animals were sacrificed, the odor must have lasted so long that it ceased to be of much enjoyment.  Furthermore, the sacrifices continued frequently for centuries so the odor may well have lost its power to impress.  All this assumes that God is truly anthropomorphic as the Judaic writers declared he was.

Apart from scent, God could be impressed that the sinner is contrite about past misdeeds and enough to offer a sacrifice.  However, that is only the beginning.  What remains to be seen is whether the sacrificer is going to reform and avoid committing the sin again.  This is much more important.  If the sinner merely performs the sacrifices but does not appreciate the significance and does not try to improve her/is actions, then the sacrifices were for nought.  So by far, the most important component in all this is the inner attitude of the penitent and not the act of burning an animal.

Isaiah allegedly quoted the Lord who railed against meaningless sacrifices, "Do you think I want all these sacrifices you keep offering me?  I have had more than enough of the sheep you burn . . . ."(Isaiah 1:11)  The Lord supposedly went on complaining about the sacrifices that did not impress him.(Isaiah 1:11-17)

The benefit to the human offeror of the sacrifice was mostly psychological--the feeling the gods would forgive transgressions and would more likely give succor to the offeror.  Surely, the believers realized that the gods did not actually receive any nutritional sustenance from the burned meat.  It would be a gesture that showed to the gods the self-denial that the believer was going through and was willing to continue in the future.  S/he hoped that reciprocally this would in the future win the favor of the gods.

The downside of the sacrifice of animals was that it could deprive a poor family of needed food since the priests got to keep at least a portion of it.  The family did not complain because it was all for the glory of God.  In time, the practice of animal sacrifice died out.  Isaiah was questioning it sometime before 700 B.C.E.  There must have been a few who looked at it skeptically before that but were ignored if they said anything.  Still the practice continued for centuries both among the Judaics and others.

Christians did not perform animal sacrifices.  For one thing, the pagans did and they were not about to engage in something they did.  More importantly, they considered that Jesus was the last sacrifice.  After his crucifixional sacrifice, no further sacrifices would supposedly be needed.  His crucifixion was the final atonement for the sins of all humans in the world.

This brings up the question of why anyone should have to stand in for another person to make atonement for that person's sins.  Why shouldn't the sinner suffer deprivation directly rather than have someone else substitute for them in paying for their sins?  The impact on malefactors has to be more dramatic and hopefully more effective if they have to suffer deprivation directly.  This is why with respect to crimes we require that the convicted person himself serve his time in prison and no one else.  There were a few societies in the past that allowed substitutionary incarceration but that is no longer done.

Incidentally, this brings into question the use of fines as punishment.  It leaves the door open for someone's friend to pay a fine for them.  It is unfair to those who cannot afford it.  The richer the convict the easier it is to pay away the punishment with less deprivation.

A similar case could be made with respect to prayer.  You sometimes hear entreaties that a large number of prayers be offered on behalf of others.  It often sounds as if the more prayer-hours are logged on behalf of a particular request, the better chance that God will grant the wish.  If that is the case, then the petitioner would be wise to enlist as many people as possible to pray for a favorable outcome.  Maybe payment for prayers should be allowed.  For example Carl's mother has several health problems and is near death.  Carl pays 100 fellow parishioners to each pray for ten hours asking God to allow her to continue living.

All this along with other observations leads to the possibility that ritual sacrifice of whatever kind can lead to mechanical observance.  Believers can get into the habit of simply going through the motions and not reflecting on the reason and nature of the sacrifice.

Most Christians do not seem to reflect on the concept of the crucifixion of Jesus as a sacrifice.  For one thing, the Biblical reports that Jesus died for the sins of humanity are murky.  It appears that his intention was to bring a messianic age in his time and not becoming a sacrifice.  He did not talk about dying for humanity's sins.  If anyone claims that he said anything along that line, it is probably based on misimpressions or misquotes of the writers of the gospels.  Remember that the gospels were not written down until after 65 C.E., long after Jesus had spoken his words.  It is especially doubtful that he would have been thinking about anybody's sins who was to live 2,000 years later.

The fact is that most Christians do not realize the true import of Jesus dying for our sins, i.e. of his substitutionary atonement for us.  Children are taught that it is wrong to have someone else take the blame for their misbehavior.  We are told that it is wrong to lie that someone else stole a missing item when it was we who did it.  It is inculcated in all of us that it is a sign of good character to stand up and pay the price for our own bad deeds rather than have someone else take the blame.

Ask Christians if they think it is fair for someone to serve the sentence of someone convicted of a crime and they will give an emphatic "no."  Ask them if they think it is fair for someone to atone for the sins of another sinner or should the sinner be responsible for her/is own sins.  They will most likely say that everyone should be responsible for their own guilt.  Most people will claim that they are willing to pay for their own sin.  They will also point out that they do their best not to sin in the first place--a very good idea.

There will be some who accept substitutionary atonement.  The habitually selfish and the sociopathic will mostly say that they would have no problem with someone taking their place of suffering for their wrongs.  Another group that would accept it would be the Christians who would realize that is exactly what Jesus is claimed to have done.  This group would include the clergy and those who would fear being accused of not being completely faithful to Christianity.  They would agree that no one should stand in for another in the making of atonement.  However with respect to Jesus, they would try to maintain that it was acceptable just because it was decreed by God.  That would not make it right.  Besides, it is agonizingly sad and tragic that Jesus should have suffered so much for our sins when we should be responsible for them.

If you look at the situation more carefully, it does not seem that onerous for each one of us to suffer the punishment for our own individual sins.  A list of punishments could be drawn up specifying how long a time in hell should be spent for each sin.  Here is an example list.  Each harmful lie could mean at least one month and petty theft could start at three months.  The more harm caused, the greater the punishment.  Adultery was considered a very big sin in the Ten Commandments.  Maybe it should start at ten years.  Murder could be given 1,000 years.  Mass murder like that committed by Stalin and Hitler could start at one million years.

If you wanted to show greater mercy, you could implement the later Catholic invention of purgatory, which is less harsh than hell.  Having a never ending punishment in hell is questionable.  It is certainly possible for people to pay for their own sins.  It would certainly seem that it would be more of a deterrent to bad behavior than to know that punishment for your sins had been prepaid by someone else.

Catholic and Protestant.  This leads to an interesting difference in the approach to hell between Catholic and Protestant Christianity.  Both hold that one must believe that Jesus was the savior in order to be saved from eternal hell.  If you don't accept Jesus as your savior, you are out of luck.  Catholics have the additional requirement that your lifetime sins and good works must be assessed on Judgment Day.

Protestants concluded from reading the Christian testament that all that God required was that people accept Jesus as their savior.  This difference of belief was a big reason for the Protestant rebellion of the 1500's.  This means that once you have accepted Jesus as your savior, you can commit the most despicable sins and still not have to fear.  You will be saved.  The recent slogan in this respect is "once saved, always saved."

Take the following example using Adolf Hitler who was a Catholic.  As far as is known, he never renounced his Catholicism.  Assume that he correctly and knowingly accepted Jesus as his savior early in his life.  On Judgment Day then, he would pass the faith in Jesus test but his record of deeds would also be examined.  Surely, he would be dispatched to torment in the underworld.  However, under Protestant (and Paul's) teaching, the only investigation would be into whether he had properly professed his faith in Jesus as his savior.  His deeds would not be reviewed.

Now look at this.  Under the Catholic version, the sacrifice by Jesus was in vain with respect to HItler, Stalin, Tomas de Torquemada, a brutal Inquisitor, and other malefactors even if they accepted Jesus.  His having died for their sins would be of no help to them since they still have to face the consequences of their foul deeds.  Then again even many minor sinners have to pay for their sins under the Catholic system in the place called purgatory.  This could include many depending on where you draw the line on who should go to this place.  So with respect to them too the sacrifice of Jesus would have been of no avail since they have to suffer a purgation for their sins.  After you separate out those who have to pay for their sins in either hell or purgatory, you are left with only a small number of very righteous Catholics.

These are the ones who are almost sin free and get to go straight to heaven.  Now consider this.  If they only committed a few minor sins in their entire lives, it would not be much of a burden for them to pay for their sins.  Usually people like these may well seek to atone for a misdeed by performing an act of benevolence for someone.  They are so sensitive to others that they would not think of anyone else paying for their sins.  Jesus did not have to die for the sins of these good people.  They would willingly pay for their sins, which in any case would only be a few.  They could perform their penance "standing on their heads."

It turns out that under the Catholic version Jesus didn't have to die at all.  The righteous people could easily pay for their own sin.  The ones sentenced to purgatory and hell have to suffer for their sins anyway.

It is a very different story with the Protestants.  If they are correct, all you have to do is profess your faith in Jesus as your savior.  On Judgment Day, the Christians sail through.  The depraved Christians who were steeped in sin may squirm and twist as their sins are read out in front of everybody, but they will get to enter heaven.  This means that if HItler in the end ever became a Protestant and professed faith in Jesus as his savior, he would escape punishment and go to heaven.  This would also be the case for those who tortured and killed many thousands in the name of Jesus during the Inquisitions.

The Needless Crucifixion

Is the sin in the world so much that God had to send his only son to suffer a torturous and degrading death in order to secure a pardon for all the sins of humanity?  If you think of God and Jesus as being one and the same, then it was God himself who came down to be crucified for the sin.  Is the sin as bad as the religious like to preach?

Make an assessment of all humans and you will find that the vast majority have only committed minor sins during their lives.  Most people lie from time to time.  These lies usually commit little harm.  Many lies protect the listener's feelings or allow the speaker to save face.  By far and luckily, most crimes that are committed are minor.  Thefts usually only involve small sums and assaults can involve a couple of blows or throwing down a person.  Then there are those who in their lifetimes hardly commit any sins.  Furthermore, they engage in good deeds.

The lucky fact is that most of those who commit crimes, even those who have to serve time in confinement, decide to conform their behavior and later stay clear of the law.  Even murderers can be dramatically rehabilitated.  After all, many times they kill only one person with whom they become extremely angry.  Studies have shown that murder is one of the most rehabilitatable of offenses.

It is only a small percentage who become "habitual offenders" or "career criminals."  Most of them have serious psychological problems or had a difficult upbringing or both.  Habitual criminals, especially the ones who commit serious crimes, can be considered as being serious sinners.  These include the repeat aggravators of other persons' peace and dignity including the drug dealers, white-collar thieves, serial killers, repeat rapists, and the dictators who have committed thousands even millions of murders.  Some of them may not be the most agreeable and sociable people and may commit a number of noncriminal sins.  Even these aggravated miscreants are not likely to have racked up so many sins that it would be an insuperable burden for them to atone for them. 

So in the end, Jesus did not need to die.  Most people could atone for their own minor sins without much distress.  This may well be 98% of the population.  It is only the other 2% that would face more aggravating punishment.  Even among these, most would eventually pay for their sins.  Something like 100 years in hell would be agony but there would be light at the end of the tunnel.  After serving their time, they would be allowed into heaven.

It would be the truly serious, mass malefactors who would find it especially burdensome.  Ironically, it is those who would truly benefit from the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.  At least according to Protestant doctrine, this would mean that their sins would be completely washed away as long as at some point in their lives they had properly accepted Jesus as their savior.  If they had, they would not receive any punishment.

The vast majority of people would be disgusted with this outcome.  They would find it greatly unjust that such miscreants would not have to face any punishment.  Even most Protestants would find it objectionable.  Here on earth, Christians are often among those who are the most demanding that criminals be given long sentences.  Given these various results from Jesus allegedly dying for our sins, it cannot be a basis for Protestant Christianity.

Quantity of Sin.  Apart from the sacrifice of Jesus, let's take another look at the quantity of sin in the world.  I have estimated that around 98% of all humanity, Christian and nonChristian, have not committed great sin in either seriousness or in continuing recurrence.

Consider the 98%.  Many of their sins are simply forgiven or forgotten by their victims.  They are not serious.  A person intentionally insults another but the other person later ceases to feel hurt.  Perhaps this is after the offender apologizes or makes amends in some way.  A self-activating punishment may also take place through feelings of shame and guilt and for the loss of good friendship.

With respect to crimes, some are never reported because the victims do not consider them aggravating enough.  Many crimes are reported but not prosecuted by the legal authorities if they judge that the victim was not seriously affected.  Certainly, time spent in prison is often excruciating.  It does not seem necessary for there to be further punishment after death.  Whatever punishment could be handed out would only need to be brief, definitely in comparison to eternal punishment in hell.

It is the sins of the 2% that make it look like humanity is awash in sin.  They can be shocking.  They are the ones that are reported on the television news, sometimes involving terrorist acts and wars.  Then there are the television shows and movies that go into detail in depicting this.  This violence and the other serious injury are deplorable and should be punished but are not representative of what occurs among most people.  It may help here to ask people what serious crimes they have suffered as victims.  It is likely that the vast majority of respondents would not have been victims of serious crimes or even of serious noncriminal sins.  Adultery may the most frequent of the sins suffered by victims.  Today adultery is not a crime in most countries.

The plain fact is that for centuries religious leaders have exaggerated the quantity and seriousness of sin that is committed.  For the most part people learn that it is better to refrain from harmful acts.  It is commendable to punish serious sins.  It is another matter when disproportionate punishment is taught and advocated, such as the idea of eternal punishment in hell.  It is a dark mark against those religions and their leaders who promote that thinking.

Child Sacrifice

The practice of people to sacrifice their children--often their first-born--in order to win the favor of their gods goes back for millennia.  Sacrifices in general could be a hardship for a person or a family.  That was to be expected.  So if it was the sacrifice of a child, you can expect that was a matter of special agony.  In the old days, children were not as protected and respected as they are today, but you can bet that parents still loved their children.  This practice has not been used in the world for centuries.  Today it is especially abhorrent.  Also it was probably observed that the sacrifices did not bring the benefits that were sought.

The Judaics were in the forefront in opposing child sacrifice.  They looked down on the surrounding tribes for practicing it.  The Romans also opposed it.  Before the Israelites went to Egypt, they themselves may well have practiced child sacrifice like their surrounding neighbors.  This may be indicated in the famous story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac.  It is interesting that Abraham did not decide to sacrifice the boy on his own.  Instead, it was God (maybe some god other than Yahweh) who clearly commanded him to do it.

"Take your son," God said, "your only son Isaac, who you love so much, and go to the land of Moriah.  There on a mountain that I will show you offer him as a sacrifice to me."(Genesis 22:2)

Abraham made all the necessary preparations and was about to stab the boy when an angel called him from heaven and told him not to kill Isaac.  Instead, Abraham sacrificed a ram.  A number of important questions spring out of this incident.

Since God himself directly told Abraham to perform the sacrifice, why did he not then personally withdraw his order?  Why did an angel have to do it?  Could it be that the angel on his own decided to countermand the order of God?  If so, God did not correct or punish the angel for interfering.  Does that mean God had been accepting of child sacrifice and then changed his mind about it?  If so, why had he not changed his mind long before?

Some scholars opine that the story indicates that at an earlier time, say before the time of Abraham, his ancestors and those around them practiced human sacrifice with apparent approval from their god.  Later, a higher spirit of compassion or love symbolized by an angel prompted them to stop using children and instead use animals.  For some reason, the writers of the story did not want to declare that God had personally put a stop to it.

Nevertheless, it did become very clear that God became very much opposed to child sacrifice.  There was backsliding among the Judaics, witness the story of Jephthah and his daughter at Judges 11:30-40.  Even the kings disobeyed.  In Judah, Ahaz and Manasseh were said to have sacrificed their sons.(2 Chronicles 28:2,3)  It should be pointed out that they were under threat from the empire of Assyria as well as their smaller neighbors.  They must have noticed that the Lord was not of much help in fighting off their enemies so they decided to experiment with other gods to see if they would be more effective.

Jeremiah spoke for God, "In Hinnom Valley, they have built an altar called Topheth, so that they can sacrifice their sons and daughters in the fire.  I did not command them to do this--it did not even enter my mind."(Jeremiah 7:31)

The Personages in the Sacrifice of Jesus

Here is the important connection between the sacrifice of Jesus and Yahweh's abhorrence of child sacrifice.  In any human sacrifice, one person initiates and conducts the sacrifice to a god of a second person who is the one to be sacrificed.  Call the first one the offeror and the second one the offering.

In the case of Jesus, he was clearly the offering.  The offeror had to be God himself.  He reportedly ordered and directed the sacrifice.  This is demonstrated through several Christian testament claims including the oft-repeated John 3:16.  It is well established that God was the Father of his only begotten son Jesus.  So the Christian scheme claims that God knowingly and willingly ordered and allowed the sacrifice of his child Jesus.  There has to be something wrong here since it had been made undeniably clear that God was adamantly opposed to child sacrifice.  He did not set a good example by sacrificing his child.

One would think that the Lord would be highly offended and angry to be accused of engaging in child sacrifice.  One would assume that he would do this only if it were a matter of utmost necessity and that was not the case.  Whatever God wanted to accomplish through the crucifixion, he had the power to carry it out directly.  Any kind of animal (including human) sacrifice was bloody and gruesome.  The crucifixion of Jesus was that and more.  God did not like that, so why would he order it especially if it was of his own special son?

Christians risk incurring grave punishment for asserting that God sacrificed his own child.  Perhaps they are already being punished for this.  This would explain why Christians have suffered for centuries in different ways.  There is no way that Yahweh, the God of the Tanakh and the God worshipped by Jesus, would have sacrificed Jesus.  Christianity depends on the assumption that he did.  Therefore, since this cannot be correct, it is another ground that proves Christianity invalid.

Let us examine all this more closely.  The common sacrifice in ancient times was an animal like a sheep or a cow.  In the well-known near-sacrifice mentioned before, Abraham was the offeror, Isaac, the offering, and God was the deity that Abraham sought to obey and impress.  The three-way relationship can be illustrated this way.

deity. . . . . . . God

|

|

|

offeror . . . . . Abraham offering . . . . Isaac

In thinking about the sacrifice of Jesus, i came upon the startling realization i will present here.  God was the offeror and Jesus was the offering.  The purpose of any sacrifice is to gain a pardon, approval, or favor from a deity.  So in this instance, who is the deity that God is trying to please?  The divinity is God himself.  Here is the illustration.

deity. . . . . . . God

|

|

|

offeror . . . . . God offering . . . . Jesus

This can't be.  What divinity could there be besides God?  He is the Supreme Being.  He is the sole God of the universe.  It is absurd to think that God would make a sacrifice to himself (or anyone else for that matter).

Here is an even more preposterous problem with the personages.  Remember that Christians believe that Jesus is none other than God.  You will sometimes hear them say that God himself came down to earth to suffer and be crucified for our sins.  The sacrifice illustration would then look like this.

deity. . . . . . . God

|

|

|

offeror . . . . . God offering . . . . God

God would be all three participants.  He would be the offeror (in the form of the Father) presenting the offering, who would also be God (in the form of Jesus), to the divinity above who would also be the very same God.  Could it be more preposterous?

Yes, it could be because this would all be absolutely unnecessary.  God would not need to send Jesus down to be crucified in order for humanity to be saved and presumably be granted immortal life in heaven.  He could have issued a decree with the wave of his hand or the snap of his fingers.  He could have simply declared something like, "I command that all who believe in me will be saved."  The fact is that he had already declared several times that all those who followed him and had faith in him would be protected and blessed by him.  There was no need to perform any sacrifice.  If his promise had not been clear, he could have issued clarifying orders and instructions on what he planned to do.  The plain fact is that Paul and other early Christians found it hard to get over that Jesus had failed and died in vain.  So they invented an elaborate mythology around him that resulted in Christianity.

Jesus Resurrected Himself

Under the idea that Jesus was God, it has to be concluded that Jesus had to resurrect himself.  Christians have said that God came to earth in the form of Jesus to die for our sins.  God died and remained dead for three days.  He had to be alive in order to resurrect anybody.  Yet he was dead.  He could not be dead and resurrect himself.  To believe that he could resurrect himself while being dead is an absurdity

Chapter Summary

We observed several avenues by which Christianity is proven not valid.  They were (1) Jesus was not the messiah, (2) he said he would return soon (no later than 300) and did not, (3) Yahweh's extreme jealousy would not have allowed his sharing his godship with anyone, (4) the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus was unacceptable and unnecessary given that everyone can pay for their own sin, and (5) the sacrifice of Jesus was an abhorrent human, and even worse, a child sacrifice.  The most powerful proof was (6) that in sacrificing Jesus, God had to be offering the sacrifice from himself of himself to himself.  That is an absurdity.  (7) God was dead so he could not possibly resurrect himself.  These proofs are irrefutable.  With all this, there is simply no foundation for Christianity.  It rests on false notions about God.

14 The Meaning of Morality

Religion expresses a concern with morality so this is a good point at which to explore morality.  The realization that evil is nothing more than the causing of unnecessary suffering leads to the inference that immorality is the unnecessary causing of suffering.  Moral action is taken when a person has a choice to inflict unnecessary suffering and refrains from doing so.  A moral person is one who tries to avoid the suffering of others.  Of course, one can cause suffering accidentally but that is not immoral.  Then there are those actions in which no one is hurt but only because the act failed to accomplish the intended results.  In such cases, the ill intent behind the act makes the attempt immoral even if it is abortive.  Moral codes are largely concerned with discouraging harmful actions.  Even some of the prohibitions in old codes that seem strange today were written with the intention of avoiding harm.

For instance, the Jewish/Muslim prohibition against eating pork was likely based on the observation that it could cause the disease now called trichinosis.  The prohibition may have originated in the 1200's B.C.E.  Since then it has been found that trichinosis can be avoided by cooking pork at a high enough temperature.  It is questionable whether the prohibition should be part of a moral code.  Today many Jews eat pork and receive no condemnation.  It is not a sin.  Those who refrain do it out of a sense of tradition and respect for Judaism.   On the other hand, there would surely be moral condemnation of anyone who deliberately gave undercooked pork to someone to eat with the intention of making them sick.  However, this disapproval would be motivated by the distaste for the causation of suffering and not on any ancient moral code.

There has been the moral prohibition in many cultures against marrying outside the group.  This idea has been gradually fading away but still persists.  It seems arrogant to those situated outside these cultures, but the rule must be based on the fear that the social group will suffer.  If an outsider becomes a member of the group, s/he could introduce new ideas or even foment dissent thus injuring the cohesion of the group.  This could lead to having one less family to uphold and aid the group when necessary as in time of war or famine.

There are actions that are universally prohibited among cultures around the world.  People today still disapprove of these without much question.  These are objectionable actions like murder, rape, assault, and theft in its different forms.  Serious malfeasance can rise to the level of being counted as a crime.  These acts are considered so serious that there must be redress sanctioned by the society.  There must be some form of punishment of the offender to discourage her/im from committing further crimes as well as to serve notice to others that injurious behavior will not be tolerated.

Prohibitive Social Customs

Crimes usually involve immoral actions, but this is not always the case.  Throughout history societies have written laws that do not clearly prohibit serious harms.  These have often been laws like those that disrespected the king or the state or some other other powerful institution.  There may have been a genuine concern that disdain toward institutions was an important threat to social order and harmony.  Or it could have been that the dictator or autocrat had an enormous ego and could not stand to be criticized much less depreciated.  Freedom to criticize was not recognized.

Today attitudes have changed in various parts of the world.  Today it is less acceptable to pass laws that prohibit strong criticism or disparagement of national or religious leaders.  Defamation, the damaging spread of falsehood about a person, is still widely proscribed.  However, it is usually not a crime, just a prohibition under civil law.  It is certainly considered an immoral act.

Crimes are now more often aimed at actions that clearly cause palpable and specific harm other than any insult to authorities or privileged groups like an aristocracy.  Speaking against the government is not considered immoral unless it involves lies.  In some situations, it can be seen as a moral obligation to lash out against a government or a particular government practice.

An example of a practice that was once considered highly immoral to violate was the law of doing work on a particular day of the week.  This moral prohibition is the fourth of the ten commandments in the Bible and has been followed for centuries.  It could be considered an affront to God himself if it was violated.

This example is a good illustration of a moral rule or law of a particular society that does not involve clear and direct suffering to anyone.  One wonders just how strict was the actual application of the law even in the era in which it was first promulgated.  If time was of the essence during a harvest, was it advisable to suspend operations for a whole day?  Birds and insects could eat a substantial amount of some plants in one day.  What about times of war in which an invading army did not believe in resting on any day of the week?  We saw Jewish leaders relax the commandment when attacked by Seleucid soldiers.  In modern times, industrialization developed its own time schedule.  Retail stores had to be open on the Sabbath or risk losing business to stores whose owners had no regard for the Sabbath.

People began to realize that there was not much harm if people worked on the Sabbath.  At times it could be more harmful not to engage in work on that day.  Medical employees, police, firefighters, repair persons, and some retail clerks could be needed on the Sabbath.  The idea of resting at least one full day of the week was a good one, but did it always have to be on one specific day of the week?  Then there was the more recent idea of having two rest days in the week.  Why wasn't God's commandment that there be two rest days in the week?

Charity

The important illustration is that moral precepts have become more a matter of preventing direct harm rather than upholding powerful interests or religious customs.  Jews have gone from counting work on the Sabbath as a crime to considering it merely a moral violation to now simply an undesirable ignoring of a custom.  The same is true of other practices once considered unlawful in other societies.

In this discussion of morality, it may have become clear to you that reference has been only to actions that are to be avoided and disapproved.  First of all, evil is associated with negative effects like suffering.  We do not consider persons who do not perform kind and charitable acts to be evil except in very unusual circumstances.

Mostly we consider someone who openly declares that s/he does not like to give to charity or otherwise help others as not admirable.  We may conclude that they are not very caring of others.  However, we would not think of their being immoral simply on the basis of their not being generous.  Morality is then more involved with understanding what actions should be disapproved because they cause harm.  It is more a matter of knowing and following the don'ts rather than the do's.  This is as it should be.  It would be better for morality to focus on willful conduct that brings harm or suffering to others.  Trying to conflate morality with charitable conduct complicates matters immensely.

There is another important reason for thinking of virtue and morality as separate.  Moral conduct is to be expected, in fact demanded, of everyone in a society.  It should be the minimal standard.  It should be expected that all but those with severe mental retardation adhere to a strict standard of not causing harm to others.  This is certainly expected with respect to criminality, a subcategory of morality.  It is frowned upon so much that it can be the subject of severe punishment.  Immorality that is short of being criminal can have unfortunate consequences.  A person who is untrustworthy and reputed to act hurtfully can be shunned and even ostracized.

When a parent tells a child not to be bad, it means that the child is not to engage in negative behavior, that is s/he is not to hurt or disturb others.  In saying this the parent is not concerned with the child performing kind or charitable deeds.  This does not mean that the parent would discourage the child from kind behavior.

Suppose that a parent informed other parents that s/he queried her/is child at the end of every day to see if the child had performed at least three good deeds each day.  If the child failed to perform the deeds, s/he would be punished.  While others would approve of teaching children to perform positive acts of aid, they would no doubt find the parent's discipline odd or misguided.

They could first point out that the child could very easily learn to lie about the good deeds performed.  This would not be a result most parents would want.  They could also point out that this method could teach the child to perform mechanically because it was simply under orders to perform.  Kindness could turn out to be a joyless endeavor.  It would be preferable to find a way to get the child to act from an inner genuine desire to help others.  Opportunities to help do not always turn up.  Why not strive to inculcate a genuine charitable response when a true need arises?  This example hopefully illustrates the desirability of separating our thinking on benevolence from morality.  Failure to be moral can be punished, failure to be kind should not.

Those who do not exhibit benevolence, never donate to charity, or never offer to help others should not be judged harshly.  It should be enough to expect them to be moral--to not do harm.  This is really the fundamental rule of human conduct:  do no unnecessary harm.  It subsumes the Golden Rule.  It is also much like what physicians have been instructed:  first do no harm.  In the precept i have set down, the word "unnecessary" allows for situations in which it is necessary to take the risk of causing unintended harm in order to help someone.  The admonition for physicians has to carry the understanding that at times doctors can bring disastrous results while trying to cure a patient.  This seems especially true in the case of surgeons who try to perform a surgery but are unsuccessful.  If people followed this rule, the human race would go so much further in moral accomplishment.

You can try to get a person including a child to be kind, charitable, and concerned by demanding it, by inducing pangs of guilt, or by calling them bad if they are not.  That approach could backfire.  The individual could go on to feel (1) negatively about kindness, (2) without much admiration for those who are kind, and (3) without any urge to give charitably.

Whenever we imagine a person who would be considered virtuous, we do not picture their being kind grudgingly, joylessly, coldly, or with a sour sense of obligation.  Nor do you admire a benefactor who appears cordial, warm, and friendly to beneficiaries but who afterwards grouches behind their backs about how unpleasant it is to give to those who should not be so lazy.  S/he says s/he gives because s/he was taught it should be done and because being rich s/he would surely be harangued for not giving to the poor.  We might understand those reluctant motives for giving but still not count the person as genuinely good.  Instead, they would seem hypocritical and false even if they gave away large sums.

It is not enough for a person to perform good deeds or charitable acts to be considered good.  Most people expect to see a sincere inner attitude and sympathetic emotions.  There is not a parallel in the case of evildoers.  In that respect the mere perpetration of a harmful deed is cause for calling the wrongdoer bad or evil or mean.  There is not much delving into the inner soul of a bad person unless there is clear indication of some form of mental illness.

With respect to kind persons we want to see sincerity, honesty, a genuine pleasure in serving others.  Perhaps this is because we are wary of people who always act concerned about us and cater to our needs.  We may or may not have suspected something all along, but eventually it turns out they were not sincere.  There was an ulterior motive behind all that kindness.  They wanted something for themselves.  Seeking genuine actions may be based on a defense mechanism on our part.

Perhaps it is becoming more clear to you why it is better to refrain from classifying as bad or immoral those who fail to be kind.  There are a number of reasons why certain persons may not be kind.  They may not have been examples of it while growing up.  After becoming adults they could have been abused or exploited by other adults.  For instance a spouse could have left them with a vengeful and negative feeling toward others.  It could be genetic.  Some families are not by nature sociable or much concerned for others.  They can be selfish.  Lecturing them or making them feel guilty will probably be of no avail.

Even if one gets a reluctant person to be kind by making them feel guilty, the result may only be temporary.  The sole act may not be genuine and the person may not go on to be kind in the future.  Better to find ways to get people to be good gladly and spontaneously for a lifetime.

The difference between morality and benevolence can perhaps be further illustrated by reviewing a practice sometimes seen in schools.  The students in each class cover a specified amount of material in a course.  They are expected to complete a number of set tasks including the passing of tests.  Everyone who wants to get credit for the course must do this.  At times some teachers will give students the opportunity to earn extra credit by performing additional tasks.  No one is required to do this.  It is completely voluntary.  The incentive for doing the extra work is that if it is done successfully it can raise the volunteering student's grade for the course.

The nature of morality and generosity operates in much the same way.  Morality is what is expected of everyone and there can be serious consequences for not measuring up.  Benevolence is conduct beyond what is expected of everyone.  It is something a person seeks after searching the level of conduct by which s/he causes no suffering.  It is going beyond the basic requirement.  It should be encouraged.  Luckily it is not uncommon.  It can sometimes be observed in animals.

To say that morality should only be concerned with harmful (bad) acts is not to say that we should not study what is good.  It is only to say that for the most part good and bad should be considered separately.  This is so because in common usage people do consider morality as connected to negative or prohibited behavior.  When we refer to a moral person, we think of someone who is careful not to breach rules for not hurting other people.  They definitely do not commit crimes.  They are scrupulous about not offending others.

Alternatively, we may talk about a person who is kind, caring, considerate, and charitable.  S/he may always be readily disposed to help friends or even strangers when they need something.  S/he may give money to charities on a regular basis as well as donate when there is a special need.  Most people would likely say the person was kind or charitable or humanitarian or good.  The word "moral" may not be the first one to come to mind.  Of course, the person could at the same time be a moral person who does not commit crimes or cause suffering to other people or animals.  By far, people who are kind are going to be moral.

It is certainly desirable to continue to study what is good apart from morality.  It is very important to know what it means to be a good person and to encourage individuals especially young ones to aspire to being one.  There are other expressions for the quality such as virtue or character.  In recent years the topic of virtue has reappeared in philosophy, and it needs to be encouraged.

Morality has been defined here as the avoidance of causing harm to others.  In respect to this it would be a good idea to review the well-known ethical theories to see how they stand in this regard.

Two Ethical Theories

Consequential ethics and deontological ethics are the approaches that predominate in philosophy.  Consequentialism holds that decisions of an ethical nature are to be judged by the consequences they "intend" to bring about.  The word "intend" is used here to emphasize that the intention is what has to be judged.  You have to consider intentions rather than final results because intentions do not always produce the desired results.  Good intentions can accidentally bring bad results and bad intentions can end up (fortuitously for the intended victim) failing to produce harmful results.

The function of morality espoused above, that it should involve the avoidance of suffering to others, appears to coordinate well with consequentialism.  Both are concerned with the results of morally relevant actions.  A morality that focuses on examining bad actions is also concerned with the consequences of those actions.

Deontological ethics is cited as the other major style of viewing morality.  It is not concerned with consequences but instead maintains that an act is moral in itself.  A person has a duty to perform an act that is moral.  There should be no calculation of the consequences.  With that view deontologists place much greater emphasis on following rules rather than studying acts.  Rules are to be followed with little deviation to consider the possible results.  Certainly that seems what Kant, a well known deontologist, expected.  Yet this approach sounds very rigid with little room for exceptions to rules that could at times provide better results.  Allegedly deontology does not adhere to an absolute standard by which a rule must be followed unswervingly whatever the consequences.("Deontological Ethics," Oxford Companion to Philosophy 2nd ed. (Oxford, England:  Oxford University Press, 2005).)  It is hard to see how this can be so, given deontology's strict adherence to rules.

A very serious question arises immediately:  how do you determine when a rule can be broken?  Consider the rule i have submitted here:  do no unnecessary harm.  This is really a metarule by which to judge other moral rules.  It is a rule that points toward assessing the ultimate consequences.  So it is a consequentialist rule.  You really can't avoid consequences.

It is understandable that one fear that deontologists hold is that looking at consequences leaves the door open for people to fashion excuses for what are in reality immoral acts.  So they deem it better for a moral system to consist of clear rules to which there should be strict adherence.

This is a legitimate concern but is it that serious a threat?  A consequentialist who is sincerely concerned with doing the right thing--one who possesses a good will as Kant described it--would very likely reach a favorable moral result.  If a person is inclined to commit an immoral act, s/he will find a way to do it without regard to moral systems.

There are situations in which a consequentialist and a deontologist will reach different conclusions even after careful deliberation.  They would almost always agree with regard to acts like murder, theft, or assault.  It could be another matter in cases of lying and promise-keeping.  A deontologist would say that there is never an excuse for violating those two rules.  A consequentialist would be more likely to admit exceptions.

A consequentialist would be more open to telling "white lies."  A white lie does not hurt anyone and may even provide a benefit.  Nancy asks Cecilia if she looks attractive.  Cecilia is taken by surprise and answers in the affirmative although it is not true.  Most of us would give the same answer in such a situation unless it was clearly harmful to Nancy to mislead at the time.  There are various times like this in which people tell white lies rather than make the other person feel bad.

Breaking a promise does not occur as frequently as telling lies.  A contract between two people involves mutual promises to take an action in order to fulfill the contract.  There are times when each side desires to break the contract.  That involves the violating of promises but each party is happy with that.  They walk away from the contract and no harm is done.  No one but the most rigid deontologists would complain of this.

Another situation that can involve the breaking of promises is in the marriage contract.  Usually there is harm done but there can be special situations.  Say that a couple decides mutually that they no longer desire to be married.  They have not been married long and have no children.  No one objects; no one will be adversely affected.  Their divorce lawyers will receive some benefit.  Upon their divorce two promises will be broken but the consequences will not be bad.  In fact things could be positive if both parties go on to be happier.  A deontologist may object that the rule that requires promise-keeping would be broken.  This does not seem reasonable.  Why argue with results that turn out well?  There are any number of examples in which the mutual breaking of promises turns out to have more favorable results than if the promisors had felt iron bound to keep the promises.

There are cases in which there is only one promise made, then broken, and the results come out better than if the promise had been kept.  A father promises to take his son to a professional baseball game on Friday night.  The boy is thrilled with anticipation because he is very fond of the hometown Cubs.  Come Friday night his father backs out because he has a bad headache.  He is afraid he would not enjoy the game.  He points out that it is the month of June and there will be plenty of opportunities to attend a game at a later date.  The son is angry because he opines that a headache is not enough reason for his father to go back on his word.  Deontologists could agree.

Suppose that there exist other deontologists who believe the father was justified in breaking the rule on promise-keeping.  On what basis could they accept this exception?  It would seem that they would have to take one of two possible approaches.  The first could be to arbitrarily make an exception without justification.  The exception would simply be made.  This would not be following rationality.  Possibly they could claim that they did not desire to fashion a rule because it would set an undesirable precedent.  It could become a subrule that might be followed again in the future and that would open the door to moral confusion.

The second avenue would be to study the consequences of either keeping the promise and of not keeping it and then deciding on that basis.  If they used that approach, it would be the consequentialist method.  Supposedly deontologists are not so rigid as to never accept exceptions.  If that is the case, that means that they may at least become consequentialists part of the time.  Why not be consequentialists all of the time?  After all there is such a thing as rule consequentialism.

Consequentialism is usually thought of as a way to decide what individual moral acts are to be undertaken.  That is the way it may have started out historically.  Persons may have begun trying to make moral decisions by weighing all the consequences in each individual case.

The Origin of Moral Rules

10,000 years ago Ted pondered whether it was acceptable to steal a cow from another man.  Ted's family had just recently settled down from being nomads to try farming.  They had no cows and the neighbor in question who had settled some time before had been able to accumulate property including three cows.  If he killed the farmer, he could take all three cows and additional property as well.  Even if Ted could succeed in getting what he wanted, he had to consider not being trusted and well-liked in the community.  Other members of the community might feel greater justification to steal from him.  Clearly Ted had a number of considerations to ponder.

No clear moral rules had been established at the time, so Ted would have to go through the same deliberation process every time he would be faced with a moral a decision.  This would have involved a lot of time.  He could have come to a different decision in very similar situations.  He may have been more likely to come to mistaken conclusions because he would not remember his thought process the first time he made the decision he had made.  All this thinking could have been frustrating and ponderous at times so that he might have acted arbitrarily and erroneously.  His fellow community members would have gone through the same process in making moral decisions.  It would have been confusing and cumbersome for all.  This would have all been the result of trying to analyze all the relevant consequences for every situation that cropped up.

More problems surely emerged after people came up with different solutions to very similar moral problems.  Things could have even gotten violent.  The idea of rules that were uniform and consistent in the long run probably emerged from this.  This would have helped people feel that there would be no arbitrariness in the way they or those close to them were treated.  With rules there would a better idea of what actions were taken in the past in order to strive for an ongoing consistency.

The question then has to be:  where did the rules come from?  Were they just pulled out of the air?  Were they handed down by the gods?  The more likely explanation is that that people took notice that certain acts often counted as fit to be prohibited.  Acts like killing and stealing must have consistently been considered wrong.  At first even accidental killing may have been treated harshly.  Eventually rules were written down prohibiting the acts that were consistently disapproved.  The more serious ones became crimes with more effort expended to try to discourage them through strict punishment.

Lesser transgressions would not always be treated harshly.  Lying must have been one of them.  Lesser lies did not receive criminal punishment but could incur social disapproval and avoidance by others--even friends.  On the other hand lying in the form of perjury has always been taken more seriously.  After all it involves giving false information about a person that can get them in trouble.  If a community took action on the basis of the perjury, it could cause the accused unjust harm.  The breaking of promises could involve failure to pay for items sold.

The moral rules that were adopted came from observing that certain acts repeatedly brought unnecessary harm to others.  Rather than try to decide what was wrong on a case-by-case basis, it was better to catalog the bad acts and devise rules against them from that.  It must have been decided that certain acts were completely unacceptable such as murder and stealing had to be prohibited categorically.

So the sequence of events in setting up moral systems was first to catalog, over time, the acts that caused unnecessary harm, then to disapprove or prohibit these.  To simplify matters, draw up rules based on these regularly prohibited acts.  If you will examine the rules (and the more serious rules called laws) followed by different cultures, you will observe that there is widespread similarity.  The paramount concern is preventing harm to victims.

There are rules that are no longer followed by many cultures.  Apparently the acts stopped being considered sufficiently harmful.  Examples are blasphemy against the gods and performing of any work on the sabbath.  The fear when these laws were in use had to be that the gods would become incensed at the offensive actions and hurl their angry punishment on the whole community.  Today believers usually do not think the gods punish the entire community, but instead the individual only.

The development of rules must have been empirical with the aim of determining and rooting out unnecessary harm.  The acts that needed to be prohibited were first discovered.  Then generalizations were made about the acts that should not be performed.  These generalizations became the rules that were installed in the moral system.  There was a basis for installing these rules.  It was not simply a matter of adopting a set of rules without any clear aim and then claiming that it was the duty of everyone to follow them, as deontologists hold.

After all a member of the community could decide to defy everyone and claim that it was not his duty to follow the accepted rules.  Nevertheless the community could still maintain it was justified in enforcing its rules for the sake of protecting its members from harm.  Besides following the rules of the community without question simply because it is considered a duty can lead to undesirable results.

An example of this is the prohibition against marrying outside the community.  There is the rule still followed in some communities by which it is expected that everyone will adhere to the same religion and anyone not doing so is relegated to second class status.  There are the communities in which women have fewer rights than men.  Rules like these continue to be followed even though the group might see more benefit from abrogating them. 

Deontologists need to ponder on examples such as these.  Insistence that rules be followed that are no longer useful--if they ever were--because it is a duty is misplaced.  Moral rules need to be formulated that take into account consequences.  It can be detrimental to individuals and to societies to perpetuate rules out of custom or tradition or history.  Ethics starts with the study of the right acts.  This leads to act consequentialism once we apply the ultimate moral standard of prohibiting unnecessary harm.

From act consequentialism we have seen that it is an easy transition to rule consequentialism.  So we wind up with a set of rules, and deontologists should be happy with having rules.  The rules may be derived from examining consequences but they are nevertheless rules.  Additionally to hopefully further satisfy the deontologists, the rules can come to inspire a sense of duty and the obligation that follows.  Hopefully, satisfaction from what is right can come from the perception of a benefit to others rather than from a simple rigid adherence to rules.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the best known consequentialist moral system.  It is the method of finding what is right by calculating which act or which rule is going to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number.  Utilitarianism has been open to a number of criticisms.  It is not necessary to discuss all of them but two are important to mention.

The calculations that need to be made to decide on the right course of action can be cumbersome, inaccurate, and controversial even among utilitarians.  This is more applicable to act utilitarianism--the deciding on which individual moral act is appropriate.  There may be situations in which there is not enough time to make the necessary calculations.  Here is where rule utilitarianism-the deciding on what rules to establish--is probably the better alternative.

The goal of bringing the greatest happiness (or benefit or pleasure) to the greatest number has been attacked for allowing slavery.  Under New World slavery, a relatively small number of slaves suffered for the greater benefit of the much greater number of whites.

The problems for utilitarian consequentialism can be greatly diminished if the two frameworks i have proposed are adopted.  Reviewing, they are (1) separate morality and benevolence and (2) adopt as the fundamental moral rule:  do no unnecessary harm.  There would then be moral consequentialism as well as benevolent consequentialism.  The former would be concerned with avoiding harm to others and not much with calculating the happiness or benefit of those involved.  This is what complicates matters for utilitarianism.  Focusing on harm to others precludes any calculations like those involving a serious issue like slavery.  It would be immediately obvious what the consequences would be.

The harm in allowing slavery was enormous to the slaves including the possibility of being sold and separated from family.  The harm of prohibiting slavery to the owners was much less.  Their profits were less but not by much since they could continue to use the same slaves as low-wage workers.  They could also hire poor people who had not been slaves before.  The benefit to everyone would not be calculated.  The suffering caused by slavery was unnecessary because there were acceptable alternatives.

In moral consequentialism, there is little consideration of benefit unless it could favor the potential victim.  A situation involving medical treatment especially surgery could involve such an assessment.  Those types of cases involve causing a necessary harm in the effort to potentially alleviate the plight of the sufferer.  The consideration is more a matter of weighing whether the harm of taking an action to help a sufferer could be worse than the harm of doing nothing.  It is harm against harm.

Utilitarianism complicates matters by holding that considerations of positive benefaction involve moral rectitude.  It makes calculations more difficult.  In addition it is not useful in everyday moral decisions.  Usually everyday decisions involve one-on-one situations.  It is one person contemplating action that could harm another.  Nate ponders whether to steal the laptop computer of another student in his college dormitory.  Henrietta is in desperate need of money fast and is wondering about all the possible ramifications of embezzling $1,000 from her employer just this one time.

These people and others in similar situations would not spend time in carrying out careful utilitarian calculations in order to decide whether to proceed with their thefts.  It could very well be that they would not carry out any assessments.  If they did, it would probably involve the harm to the victim, the risk of apprehension, and the benefit to the thief.  However any considerations of benefit to the wrongdoer should not be involved in moral assessment.  Utilitarianism would presumably allow for this benefit; deontology would not.  The moral consequentialism that i am proposing here would not.

Utilitarianism is not suitable for deciding correct moral actions.  It is more useful for determining the proper beneficent or charitable course of action.  It can clearly be applied in situations involving several potential beneficiaries such as in deciding to which charities to donate.  Harm is normally not a factor in these utilitarian calculations.

There can be quandaries in utilitarian calculation.  Alvin is 80 years old and needs to make a will.  The only heirs are his three nephews.  The two oldest have families that they are raising and could certainly use some money.  The youngest one is single, has no children, and has little need of money.  In line with utilitarianism, Alvin should confer benefits to the greatest number.  That would mean giving greater proportions to the two nephews with children.  Alvin has a special fondness for the youngest one and wants to bequeath 50% to him.  If he does this, can he deliberately refuse to maximize benefit and still be considered benevolent?

Utilitarian calculations are definitely expected of those in government in any position that has control over dispensing benefits.  First of all an honest and upright government representative would not allow any personal interests or those of close friends or family to have any influence on the decisions.  So the only consideration would be the benefit of the people affected.  There will be competing interests and potential benefits to sort out but the fairest approach is normally to seek to bestow the greatest benefit to the greatest number.

Summary of Ethical Proposals

The first proposal here has been to divide social conduct into two categories of (1) maleficent or bad and (2) beneficent or good.  The first category was named morality and the second, benevolence .  Morality has usually been the reference for both of these together.  However benevolence has for a long time been used for positive conduct.  Morality usually involves negative behavior.  When it is especially distasteful, it may be referred to as immorality.  It is not out of tune to think of morality in reference to maleficent conduct.

The next step is to find the simplest rule possible for guidance for each of the two.  The one regarding maleficent conduct (or its avoidance) is clearer than the one for beneficent conduct.  It is that one should commit "no unnecessary harm."  A study of the moral codes that have been used by most groups around the world will show that this rule is behind most of the rules and laws in those codes.  All in all societies have found their members want to be free from harm.  Some individuals may find it appealing to be able to harm others in order to gain an advantage for themselves.  However, they will generally find that is better to abide by the rules because if they don't there will be retaliation in one form or another.

If you do not believe that the rule against doing unnecessary harm is fundamental, imagine a society that does not abide by it.  Everyone would be free to carry out whatever action they desired without regard for committing harm.  Murder, rape, theft, and assault would be common.  You could not trust anyone to tell you the truth.  Commerce would be very weak because contracts would be impossible.  Would you want to live in a society like that?

Fashioning a fundamental rule for how to be benevolent is not simple.  It could be to do as much as you can for others.  That sounds easy and noncontroversial enough.  Keep in mind that it is better that it be accompanied by real feelings of sincerity, empathy, compassion, and caring.

That rule could also be interpreted as an expectation that benefactors be charitable to the farthest degree possible even to the point of significantly neglecting themselves or their own families.  That is too much to ask.  There should be no disapproval of anyone wanting to look out for her/is own welfare before performing charitable acts.  Benevolence should not require self-negating sacrifice.  The only demand to be expected of anyone is that they do no unnecessary harm, i.e. be moral.

Then there is the requirement by utilitarianism that a virtuous person effect "the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number."  This is much more demanding than the simple rule of doing as much good as one can.  It requires that the benefactor do the maximum amount of good every time.  Presumably the beneficent person would be excused from conferring the maximum benefit if it were too difficult to determine it.  Nevertheless it would be expected that the effort be made and that the virtuous deed be as close to the maximum as possible.  That seems too demanding.

It does not look like utilitarianism offers the ultimate test for benevolence.  A flexible rule exhorting people to help others whenever possible is probably going to have to fit the bill.  The rule could be:  practice benevolence.  Anyone looking around will realize that there is much aid needed in the world by many.  While charity may not be required, it certainly needs to be encouraged.

From all the evidence about morality in this book, it should be clear that humans have been the ones to slowly develop a viable moral system.  It is not necessary for gods to hand down moral rules, and in any case, they have not done it .

15 Problems with Belief

Abundant evidence has been presented proving that there can be no God that is even close to the one that has been believed to exist.  The world's religions have been woefully unsuccessful in showing that any god exists.  The religions, both individually and collectively, have gone far in unintentionally giving additional evidence that God cannot exist.  The search for God has found no one there.  This is unfortunate since the world has always needed a good and proactively protecting God.

In spite of all the evidence you may still insist that you have to believe in God.  If that is the case, you will be faced with some problems in what you are specifically going to believe.  It would also be useful to consider a sound method for acquiring the knowledge upon which to base your belief.  The method we have used in this book for attaining knowledge has been the investigation of the universe, mainly the world.  This approach is named empiricism.  It includes knowledge of empirical facts gained through the senses.

The Bedrock of Faith

Faith has been the bedrock of religious allegiance.  Too often it shies from accepting empirical facts.  Faith is belief in a proposition based on the conviction that it is true.  The belief need not be justified by either facts or by rational argument.  Therefore religious faith can be called belief without evidence.  There may not be any evidence for holding the religious belief or for accepting the entire religion yet the person persists in the belief based on faith.  There are cases in which it is rationally inconclusive what to believe.  The best approach is to accept there is no knowledge of what is true--to be agnostic about the issue.

There are situations in which there is ample evidence against a belief and little in favor of it, such as that God has ever sent or will send a messiah.  Nevertheless many still believe the proposition.  This is more than simply belief without evidence; it is belief against the evidence.  Many religious persons boast that their faith is this ardent.  One of the early Christian theologians Tertullian declared, "Credo quia ineptum"!  (I believe because it is absurd.)("Faith," Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy (New York:  Paragon House, 1991).)  Soren Kirkegaard, a Danish clergyman, exalted irrational belief.

The religious do not rely on faith exclusively in justifying their beliefs.  They do sometimes refer to the facts of the world to support their ideas.  They agree with the science of biology that there are many different species, with the characteristics of these species, and with their extensive classification.  Then there is biological evolution that has been shown to be true by different means.  Here many of them stop here because it clashes with the story of creation in Genesis.  Faith in the Bible takes precedence over empirical findings.  So the religious accept the facts of the world as long it is convenient.  If it is not, they fall back on faith.

Sometimes the religious make unflinching declarations that are not teachings of any religion such as "I have faith that i am protected by a guardian angel" or " I have faith that God punishes abortion" or "I am a Christian but believe that there is reincarnation."  Faith has always been an important part of religion partly because religion requires its followers to believe in entities, events, and concepts that are difficult to accept as true.  It is hard to believe in any living entity that is invisible.  Yet people have readily adopted strong belief in gods who are invisible on the basis of faith.  Invisible and inaudible gods are also said to move objects although no one has ever seen this happen.  In other words, gods are not perceived by any of the senses through which most things are ordinarily perceived.

Faith is pervasive throughout the different religions though multifaceted in meaning.  In Buddhism, faith, called suddha, is necessary in order to follow in the path of enlightenment.("Faith," The Wordsworth Dictionary of Beliefs & Religions (Hertfordshire:  Wordsworth Reference, 1995).)  In Judaism, you need to have faith to believe at least some of its important claims.  You have to believe that God made the Israelites his chosen people, communicated only with their group, that Moses received tablets with the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai directly from God who talked to him personally, and so forth.

Christianity has to have faith in all of the claims made in Judaism and then further have faith in some central tenets of its own.  Some of these are that its central character Jesus was engendered directly by God and a married human virgin, that he eventually died, and was then resurrected three days later although the evidence in the Gospels is very questionable.  Further, after his death Jesus appeared only to his disciples.  Yet, one would think that he would have also taken the time to appear before thousands of people in different parts of the globe.  He could have at least visited the big cities like Jerusalem and Rome where he could have appeared to the Emperor and the Senate.  He could have appeared high in the air to everyone like angels and gods are reputed to do.  This would surely still be talked about to this day.  After all, Jesus impliedly went into the air when he ascended to heaven, although no one is reported to have been present to observe this.

In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas sought to bolster Christianity with reason, which included his five ways to show the existence of God.  In the Reformation, Protestants placed a greater emphasis on faith.  The rational method led gradually to the development of rational or natural theology.  It also led to deism in the 1600's.  Immanuel Kant, a Protestant, later decisively refuted the five ways of Aquinas and unwittingly began the gradual demise of rational theology.

After that, faith became increasingly important in Christianity as it became increasingly clear that certain religious concepts could not be explained by ordinary or rational means.  Consequently, faith gained ground as the ultimate foundation for belief.  Theologians wrote books about the fundamental place of faith, such as The Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich.

Fideism

Faith was even given a boost by some philosophers with the concept that has become known as fideism.  A big aid to the acceptance of fideism came from Ludwig Wittgenstein, the most influential philosopher in the mid-1900's.  Wittgenstein came to believe that there was a specific language for every different form of endeavor independent from every other form of endeavor.  For instance take the construction industry.  The language used to describe all the materials, tools, and methods in the construction industry was separate from the language used in the field of music or art or cooking as well as other distinct areas of activity.  The terms of one could not be used to describe the objects in the other areas.  Wittgenstein thought of each area as a different "game."  The language of each game was a "language game."

To him the language of religion and the language of science were very different. They were involved in separate language games.  A conclusion that was drawn from that was that one of the two areas was not justified in evaluating or criticizing the other.  Thus the language of science, or supposedly even ordinary language, could not be used to criticize the concepts found in religion.  In particular, religious faith could not be questioned with using language outside religious language.  Once a basis in faith was claimed for believing in something within religion, it could stand on its own without further inquiry by a language other than religion.  This is where the label "fideism" comes from.  Faith could be discussed and examined within religion without fear of attack from the outside.  Criticism from outside religion would be illegitimate because it has to involve a different language game.

It is interesting that those who have sought to buttress religion through the use of science, for instance those who have invented "creation science," have not hesitated to conflate the two language games.  It is hard to see how religion can be sheltered from science or ordinary fact.  Religion makes abundant claims of physical events that happened that are an important foundation of religion.  In doing this, it leaves the religious language game.  Yet, these events clearly clash with what is widely accepted as factual.  For examples, we can return to the parting of the Red Sea by Moses and the belief that Jesus died and was resurrected.  These claims involve physical issues.  They should certainly be open to examination using physical knowledge.

Christians maintain that Jesus and God are one and the same even though Jesus was also fully a man, at least while on this earth.  Christianity depends very much on two assertion:  (1) Jesus was resurrected and (2) he ascended to heaven.  These claims are assertions that physical events took place.  They should be open to investigation using principles of physics, chemistry, and biology.  With what is known in these sciences, both events are impossible.  Resurrection cannot occur after three days of being dead.  The only way that objects can ascend through the sky for miles is with the aid of some external propelling force like a rocket.  There is no record, even in the Christian Testament, of anyone witnessing the ascension.  Furthermore, how could Jesus, who is supposedly God, resurrect himself while he was dead? 

The way that believers counter any criticisms based on scientific knowledge is to assert that God can perform acts that are physically impossible, but how did they come to know this about God?  For starters, there is no record  of anyone personally conversing with God so that he could convey this verity to them.  There is no authentication or explanation of just exactly how the physically impossible can be accomplished.  It is simply a claim that has been faithfully accepted by millions.

Then there are miracles.  They have supposedly been performed by God continually for thousands of years.  Of course, the religious assert that the intentions of God are always clear.  He is aware of the tribulations and needs of individuals and is very benevolent.  At times, he decides to intervene in the lives of people and makes a miracle occur that helps them.

An example could be a four year-old child who is hit by a car and is in a coma for fifteen days. The hopes for survival look very dim but then surprisingly the child awakens and recuperates although this occurs slowly and with the very active involvement of doctors and physical therapists.  It is called a miracle from God.  The efforts of the medical caregivers are ignored.

There are the mass disasters such as the large airplane crashes, apartment building fires, or work plant explosions.  Say, 70 people are killed in one of these and 20 survive.  The faithful assert that God worked a miracle in sparing the survivors.  Why he allowed the crashes and fires in the first place is something they never ask.  Why did he only save 20?

It is well advertised by Christians that Jesus performed many miracles that healed people.  He even resurrected Lazarus after the latter had been in a tomb for four days.  Then there were healing miracles later performed by apostles of Jesus as they traveled the countryside telling people he was to return.  Since that age, there have been countless Christians who have claimed to heal in the name of God or Jesus.

More recently, there have been faith-healing preachers whose ministry has been to give sermons and to offer to heal people who suffer from various ailments.  Some of the best known have been Oral Roberts and Benny Hinn.  Some of these healers, upon investigation, have been exposed as not delivering on their promises.  Sometimes there is outright fraud.

At other times the subject appears to be healed at the service but the next day returns to the same condition as before.  The effectiveness of the healing is supposed to depend on the strength of the faith of the subject.  It is declared that the person did not have enough faith in God to sustain the healing forward.  More plausibly, the power of suggestion, i.e. faith, within the person somehow gave them the strength to walk for a short time.  Or the person had always been able to walk but only for short distances.

As in the situation of the power of suggestion, science (or logic) can explain many of the cases that are supposed to be miraculous.  It can also cast great doubt on the alleged occurrence of certain events if they have not otherwise been known to take place or if they violate well-accepted scientific principles.  Religious beliefs related to miracles and other unusual physical events can conflict with scientific fact and principle.  Therefore, they cannot be immune from scrutiny that is based on science.  In fact, such beliefs cannot even escape examination and criticism based on ordinary fact and observation.  If religious dogma contradicts well-established knowledge, it seems that there should be a credible explanation for that inconsistency.  It should not be enough for the religious to fall back on their faith and nothing more.

Take another example involving the overlap of science and religion.  There is the well-known Yahwehist claim that the universe was created in six days.  This clashes with the estimate by scientists that it began about 13.7 billion years ago.  This is based on extensive knowledge accumulated in physics, chemistry, geology, and biology.  The difference in time claims screams out for an explanation.  It cannot be that they do not need to be investigated because one claim is inside the religion or faith "language game" and the other within the science "language game."

There is another situation in which religion and science overlap.  This is where religion seeks to evaluate and criticize science.  Here the religious do not seem concerned that there should be a separation between religion and science.  Religious writers have readily engaged in discussion of how science is wrong to engage in any attempt to investigate and gauge the evidence for customarily religious questions like the existence of God, his creation of the universe, and the beginning of and control over life.

In the medical field, religious representatives have not had a problem in trying to exercise influence over decisions in medical ethics.  This has been done through the writing of articles and books as well as through participation on panels on medical ethics dealing with issues such as indirect insemination, stem-cell research, and artificial (machine-supported) life.

Religious Evaluation of Religions

How is one--perhaps an honestly seeking young person--to resolve which is the best religion to follow?  To decide which religion has the highest likelihood of being the true path to God, the seeker needs to compare their respective claims.  The religious would like to believe that this only involves comparative evaluations within the religious language game.  However, they cannot escape that it also entails--at least partly--investigation into the different claims of what is alleged to take place in the physical world using the scientific and ordinary language games.

Take some examples.  In old Greek religion, it was held that there were a number of gods and demigods who were in charge of different aspects of the world.  For instance, Poseidon was the god of the sea and Aries the god of war.  A religion investigator might want to see what evidence there was that showed that the sea and war were in fact controlled by conscious beings with the intention and ability to control those two phenomena.  To test these two teachings, it would be necessary to make observations and perform tests in the physical world.  Another belief in the Greek religion was that the gods lived on Mt. Olympus.  Confirmation of this would involve a very simple test--a physical one.  This would be to climb to Mt. Olympus and explore it to find if the gods were truly there.  No doubt some Greeks must have performed that test.

In Judaism the Jews are the chosen people of God.  We assessed this claim by conducting a historical investigation of human events in the physical world.  In order to choose Christianity as the true religion, a seeker would want to scrutinize the various events involving Jesus, which would include a physical and historical appraisal.  Our historical appraisal entailed an investigation of what happened physically in history.  Someone looking into Hinduism would want to evaluate the evidence for reincarnation and karma.  The latter is supposed to determine a person's fate in each reincarnation based on their prior moral actions.  This would involve reference to physical, including biological, knowledge.

Even within the language game of religion itself, religion has to depend on language and facts outside of religion.  To understand and evaluate religious doctrines there is no getting around the need to refer to all relevant criteria--even outside religion--that touch upon or are affected by the doctrines.  The notion of faith has to be open to complete scrutiny.  Furthermore, this cannot help but put the lie to the more general notion of language games that are supposed to work in complete isolation from one another.

Scientism

There is a related issue.  This is the accusation made that scientists and science commentators sometimes engage in scientism.  This is the position that science, in particular physical science, has the answers to all the questions and problems of the world including abstract concepts such as beauty, truth, grief, pain, and mortality.  These kinds of questions are often counted as falling in the spiritual category, usually by spiritual or religious people.  Therefore science has no right to claim that it can reach complete explanation of everything.

The fact is that science has made inroads into finding answers to these kinds of questions.  This is especially true if one includes sciences such as biology, medicine, and psychology.  For instance, drugs have been invented to help people suffering from schizophrenia, depression, and other mental maladies.  These drugs are not cures for the illnesses but at least provide welcome relief from the symptoms suffered by victims of the diseases.  Sometimes the drugs cause unwelcome side effects.  They do not help everyone to the same degree.  Research to find improved cures is being conducted all the time.

For sure, it has been a tremendous improvement over the situation of say 200 years ago when it was thought that the sufferer had a spiritual problem that was outside the reach of science.  The cure, if any was even attempted, was often along religious lines.  The person with the problem had to follow certain simple remedies.  One commonly prescribed medicine was to pray often to God to send a cure.  Another way to become closer to God was to be continually diligent against committing sin.  Also, the sufferer should attend a house of worship on a regular basis.

Taking these measures could help some people for a time.  Following these directions could help distract them from their maladies and thus make them feel better and more free from their symptoms.  This could apply more clearly in the case of depression.  In mild or temporary cases of depression, it helps to get out and have more regular contact with people especially in a group that has common interests and projects.  Note that this is a psychological explanation for any improvement in mental state and not a religious one.

On those occasions that the patient reported that there had been no improvement and admitted it to the church, the explanation would often be that the ailing person still did not have enough faith and should work at gaining more of it.  It could also be opined--outside the person's hearing--that the person was not leading enough of a sin-free life.

The troubled church member might then notice that s/he might be judged unfavorably if s/he did not show an improvement or even better a cure in her/is ailment.  The member might then figure that it would be better to feign that s/he was doing much better and would make every effort to always appear cheerful.  To fellow congregants, this would then be witness to the power of faith in God.

Today all but the most ardent Christian Scientists will readily resort to what modern medicine has to offer.  It has become clear to everyone that what science has discovered and brought forth has been much more beneficent and reliable than the old methods.  Understandably then, some scientists and their admirers got carried away in their optimism in what science could accomplish.  They estimated that science could solve all problems or at least explain all in a "theory of everything."

Not all scientists expressed such optimism.  Most were surely well aware that it was premature to predict that science would reveal the explanation of everything.  It is now clear that any wide-ranging solutions are still a long way from coming.  Nevertheless, there does seem to be progress in the explanation by science of areas like mental illness as well as subjects like art appreciation.  New knowledge of brain interactions and brain chemistry show promise in explaining several areas of human behavior.

The attention given to scientism was overblown.  Much of the clamor was created by members of the clergy and like-minded critics eager to point out the limits of science and the arrogance of its promoters.  This may have been a useful and necessary criticism, but there was probably an additional important motive.

All this was supposed to show that religion, not science, was the final answer to important matters.  People were supposed to stop putting so much faith in science and return to religion.  This, however, does not follow.  Just because science still leaves many questions unanswered does not mean that religion has the answers.  For instance, science is far from being able to understand and predict the weather, but that does not mean we should return to depending on rain dances and prayer.

Here is an illustration from my personal experience.  My friend Leonard's dog developed a large abscess on her back.  It looked gruesome.  Leonard is a very anxiety-ridden person so he began to fret intensely.  He was very attached to the dog.  The veterinarian told Leonard that surgically excising the growth should not be a problem, but there could always be complications.  It was unlikely to be carcinogenic.  The surgery had to be scheduled several days away.  Leonard is very religious, so during those days he prayed all the time.  Leonard got so distraught that he told me that he made a pact with God that if he saw the dog through successfully he would perform some acts of gratitude.

I asked Leonard, "Why don't you save some money on vet bills and leave it all up to God"?

"Oh, no," he immediately and emphatically retorted.  "We're still going to the vet."

Even those with great faith in what God will do in these matters still seek the methods of medical science.  It is clear that faith is not the answer to everything.

16 The World without God

People with great faith in God are horrified by the thought of the world without God.  They fear that the world and its living residents would be in an impossible situation.  This is a big reason they do not even want to think of the possibility of a Godless world.  They prefer to continue to think dogmatically about their religious beliefs.  This is not necessary.  There are many acceptable possibilities that upon examination offer a comforting picture of what life can be in the face of reality.  Let us examine the world without God by reviewing the topics of (1) morality, (2) punishment, and (3) the meaning of life.

Morality

The theists say that without God people will have no way to know what is right and what is wrong.  Nor could they learn the difference.  They would be lost without close guidance from God.  The world would be awash in sin.  It would be reminiscent of the conduct that took place in Sodom.  Humans need God to set down the precise set of rules to follow.

Is this true?  We have seen that the moral rules through commands and actions of Yahweh could be highly objectionable.  The Hindu gods condoned the pervasive caste system and in some places human sacrifice.  Gods of other religions also appeared to hold some fondness for human sacrifice.  These objectionable rules and practices really depended on the culture that had installed its gods.  After all it is clear that their men had invented those gods.

It has been thousands of years since these gods were first created and supposedly set down their moral codes.  There has been no contact between those gods and humanity to announce that they have revised their norms.  They did not show much interest in promulgating new prohibitions on sexual assault or child abuse.  Nor have they personally shown up to give moral instruction and encouragement in living a moral life.  Guidance would be very helpful.  Especially in the last seventy years a number of new questions and controversies have come to the fore on which God could be giving his direct personal wisdom.

Then there is the question of why God (or gods) have allowed so many immoral and destructive men to wield power in so many different parts of the world.  These men have been not only immoral in their own lives but have set a terrible example for their families and their followers.  Whenever these men have been tyrants with sway over great numbers of people, they have brought great pain upon them.  Men like the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal and the Jewish king Alexander Yannai are examples.

What is worse is that some of these immoral leaders have been religious officials.  The errant Catholic popes of the past come to mind.  Some abused their office through vile conduct in managing the internal business of the church.  Others caused the loss of many lives and wide suffering by instigating the Crusades.  Other Christian clergy have acted improperly and exploited their followers.  There has been the recent spate of child abuse cases that have come out against Catholic priests.  Extremist imams have exhorted devout Muslims to engage in holy wars that are supposed to advance Islam.  God has not prevented all these actions that have been perpetrated by his self-proclaimed representatives here on earth.  With all this, it is clear that God has fallen short in advancing human morality.

Then it has to be asked whether it is all that difficult for humans to figure out sound rules of conduct on their own.  Criminal codes are subsumed under moral codes.  Societies today have criminal codes that contain a number of crimes in common.  Humans all over the world have realized that acts like murder, assault, and rape cannot  be tolerated.  In the interest of peace and social cohesion, crimes cannot be allowed.  If they are ignored, it can bring retaliation by families and groups and that can turn into greater injustice and social chaos.

On the noncriminal moral front, it is not hard to see which acts should be disapproved.  Lying that is harmful or the forwarding of rumors that are likely false can count as immoral.  Adultery, while no longer considered a criminal offense, can be seen as immoral when it is potentially harmful.  More than 4,000 years ago there may have been some difficulty in humanity designing a sound moral code.  God was not of much help.  More recently philosophers and theologians have done a better job in searching for a moral code.  Unfortunately people have not always done well in applying the right rules to their conduct.  Mob mentality comes to mind by which people who should know better allow themselves to be influenced into committing heinous acts.

I previously proposed that there is only one simple basic guiding rule of morality:  do no unnecessary harm.  It has been a mistake in some moral codes to conflate morality and altruism.  The two need to be kept apart.  A person who does no harm but is not altruistic should be considered moral.

Another misconception among some moral philosophers has been that, in the long run at least, it is always in the self-interest of a person to act morally.  It would be nice if this were true but there are numerous examples of persons acting in their self-interest and yet immorally causing suffering to others.  Some have done so on a large scale.  We have already pointed out leaders like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong who were responsible for the deaths of millions and stayed in happy, well-respected power until they died.  There is no moral rule or external power that compels persons to refrain from evil acts.  Not everyone has a conscience that can act to deter them.  Sociopaths demonstrate that.

Moral sensitivity in a society can be increased through education about morality begun in early childhood.  All the different considerations involving morality could be studied including the logic of moral reasoning.  However the most important subject to try to teach is the emotional one of empathy and its related aspects.

Punishment

There are a few who will regularly ignore moral rules.  The ones who cause serious harm are classified as criminals.  Societies have systems that apprehend and punish people.  These systems are imperfect and do not always produce the correct result.  Nevertheless societies have needed to punish because God (or the gods) has not shown interest in getting involved in openly punishing offenders here on earth.  He could establish a tribunal (perhaps run by angels) that would administer perfect justice.  He could go further and even adjudicate in civil cases such as slander and auto accidents.

If this were so, justice would always prevail and perfectly.  Clearly this has not been the case.  The assertion is correct that God (or someone like him with sufficient power) is needed to enforce morality.  Simply said, he has been absent in this connection.  We humans had to proceed haltingly and it looks like we will have to continue into the future to erect acceptable moral systems.  We had no choice.

Then there is the event that the religious insist will correct all the injustices that have taken place--Final Judgment.  The religion writers came up with the idea after it became apparent that justice was often not being done for the inhabitants of the world, not even for the professed followers of God.  It was very hard for everyone to accept that ruthless men would never have to receive their just punishment.  So if there was not any punishment in this world, it must be that God is waiting to take action in the after life.  Why he should wait for thousands of years to bring justice is bewildering.  It would certainly be preferable for God to punish evildoers right here on the spot on this earth.  That way the evil ones would be stopped in their tracks and their victims would not have to wait so long for vindication.

If there were a tribunal of final judgment, it would have to amass detailed evidence on the actions of each person who has ever lived.  This would involve a tremendous amount of information.  There would have to be means of surveillance everywhere at all times.  Perhaps there are trillions of invisible cameras and microphones around the world and in the sky spying on us right now.  No one has uncovered any divine surveillance taking place to keep track of our sins.  Again, if there is such a surveillance and recording system, why wait?  Why not use the information to carry out justice right now?  At least share that information with law enforcement agencies today.

Another aspect that discourages belief in a final judgment is the various details that the religious have added to the concept.  The punishment does not just cover the usual crimes and transgressions.  It can also involve failure to exhibit faith in the gods of a particular religion or to follow certain tenets of a sect of a religion.  Then the punishment is not just a harsh punishment for a long time.  It is supposed to be excruciatingly painful and to last through eternity.  Apparently there is never a possibility of pardon at any time once you land in hell.  No one has ever come to tell us that they witnessed any tribunal for final punishment.  There is no indication that final judgment is based on anything other than wishful feelings.

It should be sufficiently clear that God has not been and will not be involved in teaching and enforcing morality in the world.  Yet humanity has not been mired in moral chaos during all this time.  Societies have slowly made progress in coming up with moral codes however imperfect.  If the whole world were to stop believing in God, moral codes would continue to improve.  They would probably advance faster without the impediment of false religious rules.

The Meaning of Life

Theists have always pointed out that life is meaningless if there is no God.  Without God there is no design of anything in the world, no plan on how events are supposed to unfold, no direction for either the cosmos or for each individual to follow.  Then there would be the lack of all the benefits that God provides like food, water, sunshine, and all the love that he bears for us.  Without his esteem, we would feel worthless and empty.  Worst of all, he would not be there to confer immortality on us.

Given this bleak scenario most people decide that they will continue to believe in God even if they might have some doubts about his existence.  The problem is that believing that something is true does not make it true.  The existence of God has to be true in order for it to be the basis for correctly believing that God exists and that he provides the meaning of our existence.  If there is no God, then the idea that he provides the meaning of the universe and of our lives is just an illusion.

This is not to deny that the illusion can be comforting.  It can make a person feel great serenity in living under the assumption s/he is part of an important and holy design that provides great security and comfort.  On the other hand if that person engages in extensive self-denial (like Catholic priests and nuns) to win the favor of God and there is no God, then the illusion would have led to a waste of time and energy that could have been used in doing something more constructive and enjoyable.

It is tempting to assume that if there was no conscious being present to ordain a plan and direction for the world then it could have no meaning.  Book I delineated what happened as the early universe developed.  It began in an explosion of hot energy.  It was a chaotic development.  For much of the existence of the universe there was no sign of life whatsoever. 

The universe saw violent collisions of atomic particles, then later of rocks that sometimes went on to form planets.  Many planets went on to just float in space without any forms of life on them.  Uninhabited planets float meaninglessly in space for billions of years.

Our star and its planets did not begin to take shape until the universe was 9 billion years old.  Development of the solar system was a very slow and violent process consisting of aimless spinning rocks with only one having any sign of life.  What we see today is just the way the universe happened to come out.  There were other possibilities.  There did not have to be our planet with life on it.

Visible life did not begin until the planet was 4 billion years old, which was 600 million years ago.  The development of living beings has been violent in our "dog-eat-dog" world.  99% of the world's species have been wiped out.  Humans only appeared at the tail end of that time, at most 600,000 years ago.  That is .1% of that time.  They were not much more developed than the other animals.  They were very primitive, violent, brutal, insensitive savages.  Why didn't God present them the Ten Commandments then--at our very beginning?

All this is not indicative of any plan, much less any well-thought-out plan.  The universe is an accidental universe.  It was that at the beginning and has continued to move with a series of accidents in random fashion of development.  In all that, there is no sign of intelligent or conscious direction.

From all this, it is a fair conclusion that the universe has no meaning.  It certainly shows no desirable direction, especially not one with the human species in mind.  There is no purpose that can be discerned.  It is hard to see any grand and illustrious goal at which the world and its passengers are aiming.  The goal of each member of each species is simply to survive against the great forces of nature as well as against other desperate creatures.  The mothers of many species suffer the most because alone they have to not only provide for and defend themselves, they also have to look out for their offspring.  Theirs is an admirable mission.  Yet sadly when their children begin to fend for themselves, they abandon them never to see them again.  They then go on to raise another brood and the same script is played out again.

Each living individual dies and no one is there to give them any reward for what they have endured and accomplished.  You wonder if in those last moments they feel any sense of futility.  The same scenario has been playing over and over and over countless times and will continue to unfold for maybe billions of more years.

Physical scientists estimate that our earth will not be able to exist much more than 5 billion years.  Billions of years after that the universe is expected to come to a complete halt.  There will be no life left anywhere.  Every creature and what they have accomplished will be totally forgotten.  There will not be a trace left of any civilizations in the universe.  There will not even be any skeletons to be found of those alive today.

This frightens the religious and makes them deny the scientific estimates.  They continue to cling to their faiths and what they teach them about the divine plan for the world.  Nonbelievers are also very much frightened by the prospect.  It is like the Kohelet said at the beginning of the Tanakh book of Ecclesiastics, "Vanity of vanities . . . All is vanity."  Thinking of the meaninglessness and futility can bring depression.

The faith of Christians is that if they properly follow the correct doctrines they will be allowed into heaven on Judgment Day.  Muslim and Hindu religion is similar.  This sounds wonderful for those who are able to win the prize, but upon closer thought questions arise.

First consider those sad individuals who would not make it to heaven.  We don't know exactly the criteria that God will use.  There are a number of possibilities.  It could be that hell is not a place where you have to endure excruciating tortures like searing flames.  One possibility could be that final punishment would only be that you would go to your grave in the ground and remain there for eternity.  It would mean you would never exist again.  This seems to be all some primitive people thought would happen, if they gave it any thought at all.  If the righteous people got to spend eternity in the joy of heaven, it would be all the more sad and tragic for those who would have to disappear in the ground.  It could be that all would eventually be forgiven after spending a period of time in hell.

The meaning of life for all who go to heaven is wonderful, right?  Let us take a look at this.  In heaven everything is given to you.  It is an incredibly wonderful place.  You will never have to work again, get sick or injured, never feel disappointment or other emotional distress.  You can continue imagining all the countless benefits you would enjoy and then some.  It is an ideal existence.

Now there might be one worry you would have.  What if one day God decided to throw everybody out of heaven.  It could happen after he became angry after someone committed a single sin like Eve did or because he decided everyone was evil like when he sent down the Flood.  Or he could only get upset at you individually and throw you out.  Given God's history it looks like everyone would always have to tread lightly to make sure they did not upset him.

Apart from that concern, you would have nothing to strive for, no goods to be concerned about.  On the other hand this could bring great boredom and that can be agonizing.  It wouldn't last for just a short time; it would last for eternity!  Now it has been said that what you do in heaven is just sing praise hymns to the Lord.  That may furnish some sense of fulfillment but you may get bored after a few million years of that.  You would think that God would also get bored even if the hymns were all about him.

Now all this lack of work goes against what many cultures here on earth say about idleness and the lack of goals for people to which to look ahead and strive toward.  There are warnings about the detriment that idleness can bring, psychological and otherwise.  It is insisted that it should be avoided as much as possible.  An old saying goes:  idle hands are the devil's work.

How can it be that heaven would encourage such idleness?  It does seem that people thrive better when they have a strong purpose in their lives.  Singing to God may be a purposeful action but humans probably need at least one additional purpose in order to live happily.  Heaven is supposed to be the ultimate existence, the place for which so many people make excruciating sacrifices to gain admittance.  Yet it may nevertheless be a place of endless ennui without any meaning for its residents.  The residents of hell may at least have a more engaging life as they try to find resourceful ways to avoid the horrors.  So if even in heaven the meaning of existence is open to question, it is not surprising that it cannot be found anywhere else.

Humans (and humanoids) lead lives in which they encounter various problems.  They often bring children into the world, grow old, suffer the infirmities of old age, and die.  Their children go through the same cycle of living and it goes on and on.  Climate scientists, through numerous observations, have concluded that the environment will continue to deteriorate significantly unless humans make some drastic changes.  Part of the reason is that people have produced too many children, which ironically are one of the great pleasures that all living creatures seek.  This degradation of the planet is already having a significant effect on life on earth.  The climate change could precipitate a severe ice age.

This and other catastrophes like nuclear war, pandemics, and large meteorites could completely wipe out many species including the human one.  In any case whatever species manage to survive into the future will be completely destroyed at the end of the world.  This fate will likely also meet all other living beings on planets in the rest of the cosmos.  With all this, the conclusion has to be that the universe is meaningless.

This realization makes many people despair.  It is what has inspired writings like The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus.  If you remember, the myth involves the condemnation of Sisyphus by the Greek gods to roll a heavy boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down.  He was then supposed to roll the boulder up again and continue indefinitely.  This is what it feels like living through a human life.  This thought of meaninglessness is more likely to affect young adults trying to figure what they want to do with their lives as well as others who are going through serious problems.  Thinking of this futility can lead to thoughts of suicide.  After all, why go on living if it ends in nothingness?  It has probably caused some people to kill themselves.  Please don't do that to yourself.  If you are thinking of doing it, you are probably going through a rough patch right now and things will get better.

The truth is that the universe and life in it can be meaningless and life can still be worth living.  In the past there have been plenty of people who never pondered the meaning of life for very long and yet led satisfying and contented lives.  (1) Some of them were religious and did not give the question much thought because they simply accepted what their religion taught about life.  (2) Others were not religious but never gave the question much thought because they were lucky to lead happy lives.

(3) Then there are those of us who despair during a challenging time in our lives and question the meaning of life.  After a struggle with their problems--philosophical and otherwise--they reach a time in which they feel at ease and content.  It helps to go through the experiences and to gain the insights that are involved in reaching what is called maturity.  The vast majority of people follow one of these three paths.  A very small number take their lives or go through the rest of their lives unhappy.  These are often the ones who have been classified as "chronic complainers."  They fail to find any aspects of their lives as joyful or at least positive.  When we consider the nonhuman animals, we observe that they must go through considerable struggles, yet it appears that they enjoy some moments of happiness.

The question of the meaning of life does not affect the lives of the first three sets of people.  They go on to feel satisfaction, bliss, contentment, joy, ecstasy, and other desirable emotions that we usually wrap up under the label of "happiness."  They don't think of a general meaning but do engage in individual meanings like marriage, accomplishments, healthiness, or winning a bowling tournament.  So what we can learn from them is that life can go on very well though it is in general meaningless.  All is not lost if we live in a meaningless world.  It may not be the best life we can imagine but it can be worth the effort.  Yes, it would be great if there were an omnipotent being to guide and protect us.  It would be good if we never had to die and could continue living in a youthful condition in perfect health and peace.

Some people say they don't want to live forever, not even in a perfect existence.  They opine that they would find that boring.  They may be correct that it could be boring but death would be final.  A better solution would be to keep on living and find a way to check out of life for as long as they chose.  They could do this by controlled sleep.  Persons could determine how long they wanted to remain asleep.  They could have an alarm clock in their head that they could set for as long as they wanted.  They could go to sleep for a million years if they so chose.

When they woke up they could look around and see how things were going in the world or wherever they had previously chosen to live.  They could continue being awake as long as they found daily life agreeable.  If at any time they decided they did not enjoy being awake for whatever reason, they could go back to sleep.  They could reset their alarm clock for as long they desired.  They would have the choice to remain alive forever whether awake or asleep.

The universe is meaningless because it is simply the way it turned out.  That is the way it began and the way it has continued to develop.  No one has been directing it.  It is an accidental universe.  Possibly it could have come out different.  It could have been more favorable or less favorable to living beings.  If there are other universes they may be different, possibly very different.  Hopefully they are more hospitable to beings there.

It is also possible that there could have been nothing.  The universe could have just been totally dark space extending endlessly in all directions.  Or there could have been no space.  It is hard to imagine no space.  Would that mean the universe would be one slab of some solid material throughout?  What would make up the solid material?

These are questions that will probably never be answered.  What we do know is that this is the universe we got.  There is not much we can do to make big changes to it or the world anytime soon.  In that respect we have to make the best of it.  It is a waste of life to complain that the universe is not better, and even worse, to spend time feeling sorry for ourselves.  Self-pity many times only exacerbates feelings of dejection and deprivation.  We are fated to live short lives so to spend much time in grief and sadness is to squander the little time we have here.

The "chronic complainers" who spend time habitually complaining about negative events in life that are out of their control such as inclement weather are usually operating under the burden of perfectionism.  They expect everything to be just right including natural events that occur.  They need to learn to expect disappointment at times.  It helps to truly understand that many things are beyond our control.  It is necessary to resign oneself to fate in certain instances.  It is bad for our well-being to get emotionally upset when things are out of our control.  The nearest factor we can try to control is our emotions.

One can come to understand that the universe is not being directed by anyone.  Its future path cannot be closely predicted.  It helps to feel the full import of this if you reflect upon the beginning and the development of the universe.  Remember that it began with a big explosion of energy and then very slowly grew into an enormous vessel containing floating objects in space.  The development was a continuing series of accidents and its pattern followed only a very broad outline.  For instance at the very beginning our solar system, it could have been predicted that there would be a sun and planets but it could not be told what many of the details would be.

It is a great help to know of this accidental development in understanding the way things are today.  So much of the suffering is the product of impersonal, unconscious natural events.  Some animals are vicious because it turned out they had to be that way in order to eat to stay alive.  Even the ones who depend on predation are not always successful.  Many of the young ones do not learn how to hunt well and die early.  There are numerous psychological shortcomings found in humans and that may be due to the extremely quick evolution of the human brain.  Recognizing this unplanned development of the cosmos helps one to not get upset about it, to accept it, and to be more forgiving of the weaknesses of others.

With everything spinning in the universe without any reason, you can simply decide that rather than follow the path of nihilism you can follow the path of enjoyment.  You can avoid lamenting that life is not perfect but instead appreciate that there are various aspects of life that you can enjoy.  You can also stay away from fantasy that some god is going to make everything right.  You can savor a range of pleasantness from the small to the large.  The great joys regretfully do not come very often so it is best to learn to delight in the small ones. 

It is surprising how the small moments can turn out to be pleasant.  You can find a moment of great serenity just sitting and looking at a simple scene in an ordinary location.  You don't have to travel to the Grand Tetons to feel elation.  I have felt serene just looking at the sun reflecting on my neighbor's garage door or at passing clouds or at a patch of grass.  You can train yourself to enjoy at least a few moments of just gazing.  There is formal meditation that helps with this but you need not go that far.  Just taking moments to totally relax whether you are looking at something or just keeping your eyes closed is very worthwhile.

It also makes a big difference if you are fully aware of your mortality.  After you reach that state, you know that you will not always be around to appreciate the little moments--nor any big ones for that matter.  You will not be alive to appreciate anything.  Mortality will also make you aware that the time is uncomfortably near when the end will happen.  The years fly by.

If you believe you will be immortal, you don't imagine that belief in mortality could actually enhance the enjoyment of living because of the awareness that it will eventually end.  Remember that the gods are supposed to be the only ones who partake of immortality.  We humans are relegated to being mere mortals.  The gods are jealous gods (most of all Yahweh) and do not grant immortality to humans.

We humans have to learn to be satisfied with short lives, with no complete control over them, and with few possessions.  As the population of the world grows larger and resources diminish, it will be hard for a great number of the people to possess riches.  Besides it has been said many times before and it is true, "You don't need to be rich."  There are many factors that make you happy:  a clean environment, sound health, secure surroundings, reliable friends, etc.  A modest abode and adequate income is enough in most circumstances.

There are a myriad of people who live in dire circumstances who are able to keep themselves happy.  We need to observe and learn from them.  They exhibit resilience.  They can be knocked down by misfortunes and get up and keep going.  Some people carry misfortune with them all their lives and still live happy and productive lives.  These are the handicapped:  blind, deaf, crippled, mentally deficient, or paralyzed.  People in this situation usually need others to help them.  Getting used to depending on others is usually the hardest part for them.  Luckily there are people who will help them but not always.  When there is no one to step up to help, they have to rely on government agencies.  They better hope their country has adequate government agencies up for the task.  If these unfortunate persons can lead happy lives, the rest of us can also.

Another term that is used when people lead happy lives is "meaningful."  They are said to live "meaningful lives."  So even in a godless and meaningless universe, we can still live meaningful lives.  It helps to find a purpose or purposes.  Most people have jobs and can point to what they do in them as giving them purpose.  What people in employment do is almost always of benefit to others--criminal enterprises excepted.

Most people have children and find great purpose and satisfaction in bringing them up and possibly later helping with grandchildren.  Then there are those who never have children and do not hold a job, at least not for very long.  They could be mentally retarded.  They do not feel much purpose, probably never even think about it.  They spend everyday amusing themselves in one way or another.  They may play a lot of video games on their cellphones.  The meaning in their lives is to amuse themselves.  They are happy.

There are countless ways to enjoy ourselves.  Some of those ways may involve taking on big responsibilities that can be daunting and nerve-wracking but that ultimately bring great satisfaction in the accomplishments reached.  We live in an accidental universe that just happened to appear.  It makes no demands on us, not even that we survive if we don't want to.  Nevertheless we are here so we might as well make the best of it.  We are not here for long.  Why not savor the joys that we can--even if they are only going to be a limited number--and accept that it just turned out that there will be an end to it all.

I once had the opinion that life was worth living as long as the pleasant times outweighed the unpleasant ones.  I then realized that my friend Steve lived a life in which this did not take place.  His pain and sorrow were greater than the enjoyment by a large margin.  Part of the sadness was that he had been suffering clinical depression all his life.  Another big part was that his adult daughter--an only child--had stopped communicating with him without good reason.  Steve used to mention suicide at times as a way to end his pain including very poor health.  He admitted that he hesitated simply from the primal fear of death.  He had a good sense of humor and easily fell into hearty laughter.  He certainly enjoyed various moments in his life.

One day it occurred to me to ask him:  did he endure the bleakness that controlled most of his life in order to stay around to experience the occasional moments of happiness?  Steve had not thought about it but realized that was the reason he wanted to stay, along with hope.  He held out the hope that his daughter would contact him and that his health would improve if only a little.  Two other impeding conditions were that he was poor and that his infirmities prevented him from traveling very far.  So pleasures had to be modest ones.  He got much pleasure from reading.  He pointed out that just the act of reading lifted the depression.  I have observed that other depressives read a lot.

So we gain two insights into the enjoyment of life that are important to adopt.  One is that life can be worth living even if it is even torturous a great proportion of the time, say even as high as 80%.  Where the line is drawn depends on the individual circumstances including the tolerance for pain of the person.  Examples are found in prisoners who have to serve long sentences, even a life sentence, and still maintain that they freely desire to keep living.  Yes, life is much better when it is pleasurable most of the time.  Yet if you are in pain most of the time, you may be willing to endure it for the happy moments.  It becomes especially desirable to enjoy those moments when you fully appreciate that after your end you will never experience a single pleasurable moment again.

You can also learn to appreciate other people and pets more than you have before.  What is behind this is that you enjoy the feeling of simply being conscious, awake.  You realize that you cannot take this for granted.  You will not always be alive to experience these scenes.  You may not even be alive tomorrow.

After a person decides that there is no divine punishment because there is no God, the picture can change considerably.  This is especially true if the person was strictly religious and followed all the rules.  They may now feel free to engage in nonmarital sex or to say "goddamn."  They may feel liberated from the obligation of attending church or even better the expectation of giving money to the church.

There is an even more important decision.  Are you going to be good or bad?  You have freedom.  You can follow a path in which you feel free to disrespect others whenever you so desire.  You can cheat others and lie to them whenever you please.  You are free to become a bank robber since there will be no hell's punishment.  It shouldn't take long to figure that going that route is not comforting.  At best you would be lucky to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars but then have to be on the run and always looking over your shoulder.  At worst you would go to prison for a long time.  It is not comfortable spending years in a prison cell.

So these are the calculations you have to make if you contemplate following a selfish path.  Assume you determine that you will not commit criminal acts but only act in your own interest with a Me First attitude.  You will do what benefits you even if that comes at the expense of others.  You will say and do what you want and not worry if that hurts the feelings of other people.  You will relish in your open freedom to act as you feel at the moment--without being dragged out by social niceties.

If you go this way, you need to accept that many people will not like you.  If your reputation spreads far enough, people you never met may also develop an antipathy toward you.  People that you hurt sufficiently may strive to take revenge.  You will have to always be looking over your shoulder even if no one is ever successful in taking vengeance.  If they are, it would that much worse for you.

Maybe being disliked does not affect you now but in time that could become continually unpleasant.  If you are in business and break contracts and intentionally fail to pay your debts, you may find it hard to find other businesses that will provide you the supplies and services that you need.  If you do not treat your employees fairly, you may not be able to keep good ones.  The ones that stay with you will cheat you whenever they have a chance.

Then there is the avenue of being in harmony with others.  You can resolve to get along with others, which means you will try hard not to hurt them.  Obviously this means not hurting them physically or financially but you must also be sensitive to their feelings.  This is the bigger challenge and more easily violated.  It means studying others, including animals, in general as well as getting to know the peculiarities of specific individuals.  It helps to be always mindful of the moral rule offered before:  do no unnecessary harm.

It can be beneficial to you not to antagonize others.  They can be more at ease with you.  They are more likely not to oppose or harm you.  They may even help you when you need it.  Then there is the matter of reputation.  We considered that if you have a reputation for selfishness, people who have never met you may avoid you.  There can be the opposite effect.  People who don't know you but have heard that you are easy to get along with may have no fear of you and be willing to associate with you.

You may even want to go beyond just getting along because it is in your interest.  The next step would be to be kind even when it is clear that it won't redound in your favor.  This may involve aiding a complete stranger, even someone halfway around  the world.  This takes empathy and compassion.  It is hard to see how to build these in people.  One factor that may be involved is that those who were abused or neglected as children find it difficult to feel kindly toward others.  You may even decide to enter one of the caring professions like that of doctor or social worker.  If not you may want to engage in philanthropy.  If you don't have a lot of money, you can do volunteer work for charitable organizations.  You may set an example for others to be charitable.

Studies have shown that helping others can actually make the benefactor feel better.  It does not just benefit the recipient.  Nor does it make the donors feel better simply because they feel more secure in believing that others are more likely to come to their rescue in their time of need.  They derive a psychological benefit simply from the act of helping.  That may be a characteristic that was passed down by evolution.  Nonhumans are sometimes observed to act charitably.

There are many avenues open for you to be good and do good and it is not necessary for preachers to be hounding you to be this way or that so you will not be considered a sinner.  You can lead a happy life and be a moral and kind person at the same time.  There is plenty of need throughout the world giving you the opportunity to use your energy in helping others.

This can be without the necessity of a God to orchestrate any of it or a universe with a beneficial direction.  In fact there are many people who act kindly all the time from the basic motivation that others need help in a harsh world.  Even if they follow a religion, their primary motivation is simply to help others and to find satisfaction for themselves.  Luckily there are already many benevolent individuals and organizations including religious ones working throughout the world that provide useful services. 

There are plenty of reasons for choosing to be a good person rather than a bad one.  You can take some time to perform some additional assessments including those that involve your individual circumstances.  It is hard to see how anyone would readily choose to be a bad person.  The vast majority of people are good.  This does not mean they are perfect.  Some people can only be said to be minimally good.

Too many times those that fall into the bad category are the young.  There are many forces that work on people at a young age.  Feelings of invulnerability are a big force along with wide inexperience in life and peer pressure from the wrong companions.  Lack of sound guidance from parents can be an impediment.  The young are more likely to get into criminal activity, use unnecessary drugs, and become poor spouses and parents.  Fortunately most of them learn, become mature, and develop into good persons.

The fact that the majority of humans choose to be good persons helps demonstrate that it is the better course to follow.  They found that they can lead more peaceful and satisfying lives if they have harmony with others as much as possible.  Those who lead bad and selfish lives do not always truly have a choice.  They cannot control their actions even if they wish it.

Even among the bad or asocial people, most would say that they are glad to be alive and that they want to keep on living.  The majority of people want to keep living and you can bet that this would not change even if they were thoroughly convinced that there was no God.  They would continue to appreciate the enjoyment and varied purposes they find in their lives.

There might be a very few of the very religious who would become so afflicted by the knowledge that they would permanently cease to find good reasons to keep living.  Others would insist on continuing to believe in God no matter what the evidence against belief might be.  Life is worth living even in a godless and meaningless world.

A Better Life

A person has a good chance of living a good life in this world by relying on themselves and other humans.  That is, if they can be fortunate enough not to meet with disaster along the way like a long-term illness or injury, financial misfortune, a bad marriage, problem children, catastrophes of nature, or residence in a bad community.  Even with serious obstacles like these working against them, there are individuals who have lived a contented life for many years.

Life for people is better today than it has ever been before.  Even those in the poor countries are in better shape than in the past.  They at least have access to some newer medicines.  You hear people talking about the good old days but that is mostly a fantasy.  They better not be talking about any time before 1946.  Think about what life was like before then.  Read some history books dealing with living conditions.  Investigate wars, infectious diseases, individual rights, medicine, surgery, poverty, and so on.

Nevertheless there is still much room for improvement and it could be done with manageable effort.  You can have a quiet, happy life not bothering anyone, but you can go beyond that.  There are always needs to be met all over the world.  Even if you contribute only a little, it is of help.  If everybody does just a little, it can have great impact.  Additional effort is needed to tackle looming problems like global warming and power-hungry dictators and oligarchies.

The different societies of the world need much more cooperation among themselves.  Wars need to become a relic of the past.  One change that would probably help is to have a closely-knit, genuinely democratic world federation that would have global laws that could be enforced.  Something like the United Nations but more effective.  Another very important factor would be that all the people of the world would adopt more uniform values that would be based on the facts of the world, rational analysis, and the value of individuals.  There would still be room for differences of opinion but on the important issues like individual rights there would be agreement.

The governments of the world should all become very well aware that their reason for existing is solely to provide for the welfare of their constituents.  They are not there to advance the interests of any one dictator or group at the expense of everyone else.  By the same token, citizens need to be involved in making their governments as fair and beneficial as possible.  In this regard it is a big help for people to have common values so that when they address their officials they can push together in the same direction rather than being at loggerheads.

Another basic change that is needed is that there be a smaller gap between rich and poor.  This difference has always been great but has increased since 1980 with the greater dominance of computer technology.  Computers have taken the jobs of many people and at the same time made many millionaires and billionaires who have been lucky enough to capitalize on the trend.  This will continue as we employ more automation.  This should not be discouraged just to save jobs but something has to be done for those who experience poverty.

It looks like the rich will simply have to find ways to share their wealth with the middle class and the poor.  It would be of benefit if the nonrich would not attack and insult the wealthy for having money.  This has been done to excess in the past.  Trying to foster guilt only makes the other side angry and defensive.  Better to present the rich with reasons why they should be more generous.  One reason is that they have been lucky to be at the right place at the right time.

The goal of improving societies, including the world society, can count as giving purpose for all humanity in this generation and all those to come.  It can help bring much needed unity around the globe.  This would provide for "believing in something greater than ourselves."  It can provide a joint purpose for all that can be a substitute for the lack of purpose and meaning of the universe.  Part of that purpose can be to leave the world in better condition for living beings that will live later.  Perhaps enjoyable life on earth can be extended from today for 1 million years, possibly 1 billion years.  We can help in that accomplishment or we can act selfishly.

Closer community and better communication is needed especially in working toward this great goal of promoting life.  Plenty of meeting places in neighborhoods should be available for neighbors to meet and talk about any number of subjects.  They could tackle the many social and political problems that are always present.  They could form various psychological support groups like those for divorce and addiction.  Or they could just provide a chance to socialize.  Today's places of worship could all be closed permanently and then reopened and rededicated as community buildings.  Some churches already offer some opportunity for secular social interaction.

Resurrection, final judgment, and immortality are very unlikely to ever become a reality.  No one should spend much time hoping for them as desirable as they may be.  However human ingenuity and persistence have brought great innovations that no one before could conceive possible.  There would be many obstacles to making these come true.  One can harbor hope.  Hope brings serenity.

THE END

Home