Zeus the Almighty!

Within all human cultures over all of recorded history, there have been literally multi-thousands and thousands of supernatural deities that have formed the heart and soul of the world’s religions. Today, most educated people can name say a dozen or so of the better known. First and foremost would be the monotheistic deity, God, Allah and related names. Within the remaining polytheistic deities, most would have heard of Thor, Apollo, Quetzalcoatl, Atlas, Gaia, Poseidon, and related. One such related is the Greek King of the [Olympian] Gods – Zeus (Jupiter to the Romans). The heavyweight champion believability fight – God vs. Zeus – is the match-up of the millennia.  

God vs. Zeus: Let’s start with a thought experiment or hypothetical question. What’s more believable, monotheism or polytheism? Well, ask yourself this, if you see a bird (singular) fly overhead, do you assume that’s a one-off mono-bird or a part of a poly-bird set? Even if you just see the one, you no doubt assume the latter. A bird does not exist in isolation. Why should deities be any different? You cannot have a species of one and only one individual. The species called ‘deity’, ditto. The species God cannot exist in isolation. Monotheism is nonsense. The species of Zeus is part of polytheism – there are many Zeus-like deities. Zeus does not exist in isolation.

God’s empire vs. the domain of Zeus is cheek-by-jowl, though the contrast couldn’t be more different. You must have some general idea what life must have been like under Zeus in the days of Homer, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle right through to Alexander the Great. Equally, you must have some notion of life under the rule of the God of Israel in Old Testament times, from Moses to Abraham to Joshua and Solomon (assuming these ‘historical’ figures were actually historical. So, given a choice, which society would you opt to live in – Ancient Greece or the lands of the Bible, the so-called Holy Lands. For me it is a no-brainer. Zeus could hurl around the lightning bolts with the best of the Sky Gods, but compared to God, God’s wrath and God’s laws, Zeus is my kind of deity – if deities there must be.

Both Zeus, king of the Greek pantheon, and God (of Israel) have human qualities, but of the two, Zeus is way more credible as something humans can identify with – if you’ve got to believe in any deity that is. God’s just plain nasty, wrathful, vain and jealous. Zeus at least has some other qualities that we can admire, like bedding down the ladies, goddesses, demigoddesses and mortals alike.

Put it this way, God is prohibition, the Salem Witch trials, the Inquisition, hellfire and brimstone and the Taliban rolled into one. God’s idea of a fun afternoon is having sinners stoned to death or burned at the stake. Zeus on the other hand is a Hugh Heffner type; Zeus is a party animal. Mount Olympus is the Playboy Mansion of Ancient Greece. Zeus too has a fun afternoon of, well, never mind. This is a family-friendly essay and displayed on a family-friendly website. 

Most people in most societies have to earn or work their way up to whatever level in whatever occupation they aspire to. And so it was with Zeus. No one handed him the Olympian throne on a silver platter. He fought like the dickens for that position. God, on the other hand, we assume always had that silver spoon in His mouth and occupied that top penthouse in Heaven from Day One.

Mount Olympus vs. Heaven (somewhere over the rainbow in Never-Never Land). Zeus and company chose to live in a readily identifiable geographic location – Mount Olympus. Any mortal tourist or worshiper could venture there and pay homage. God’s abode, on the other hand, isn’t on the map. In fact it’s totally invisible geography that’s never been verified.

We know what Zeus looked like. One of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World was a super-statue of Zeus at Olympia inside a super-temple, by the Greek sculptor Phidias. Zeus, at 42 feet high, is depicted sitting on an elaborate cedar-wood throne ornamented with ebony, ivory, gold, and precious stones - and that’s just one of many statues that existed or still exist to this day. Although the Olympia super-statue is no more, we know what it, and Zeus, looked like – records survive. No Wonder of the Ancient World is dedicated to the God of Israel – nobody has the foggiest idea what God looks like even though images of God are modelled after Zeus by those who artists who have to work with something, anything. It’s not east imaging the invisible.

Zeus is clearly supernatural – he can and does shape-shift for example into both organic and inorganic forms, usually for randy purposes. But, as you’d expect, the species or clan to which Zeus belongs also are supernatural, or at least exhibit some supernatural abilities. For example, Prometheus created humans from the ground up (without need of any rib structures for the female of the species). Poseidon can ‘wave’ his magic trident and cause the seas to boil with tempest. Hermes had his magic helmet and winged sandals. And if the Gorgon Medusa could turn someone to stone just by looking at them (the evil eye?), well that’s got to be the equal of that Pillar of Salt episode. 

Poor God of Israel, He has no parents or grandparents; no brothers of sisters; He had no childhood, no playmates; He has no wife, no lovers or a mistress; He has no children. In fact, no other of His species exists. He can’t even celebrate His birthday since He has no actual birth (not having a Mum and all). How sad. I wonder what Sigmund Freud or Carl Gustav Jung would make of that? I’m no psychoanalyst or psychiatrist, but with an upbringing (or rather lack thereof), God’s got to be a few coins short of a dollar.

Zeus on the other hand had parents (Cronus and Rhea) and grandparents (Gaia and Uranus); lots of brothers (Hades and Poseidon) and sisters (Hestia, Demeter & Hera); Zeus had a childhood spend on Crete; Zeus has a sister-wife (Hera – the last of several) and many lovers/mistresses; Zeus begat lots of brats, both legit and illegit (Hercules and Helen of Troy and a whole lot more besides), and many other species of his kind – the Olympians – exist.

One quality often quoted about as a generality has something to do with absolute power and corruption. God wields absolute power, and not always for the betterment of the human race as the Old Testament verifies in graphic and gory detail. Zeus on the other hand, while king of the gods, didn’t hold absolute power. It was shared with the other Olympians. Zeus is also way more modest, making no grandiose claims about creating life, the universe and everything. Further, Zeus doesn’t refer to himself in capital letters, unlike the LORD God. It’s hard to read the Old Testament and not come to the conclusion that God is an egomaniac.

It’s rather unlikely that Zeus would have had any bone to pick with God’s realm to the east. God, on the other hand, if He be consistent, would have had two bones to chew over with His neighbour to the west. Firstly, there be gods over there, and that’s a Big No-No to the Lord God of Israel who refers to Himself as the One-and-only-God (reference the first of the Ten Commandments).  Secondly, the realm of Zeus condoned homosexuality. Zeus himself apparently had a close encounter of the gay kind with a strapping handsome young lad by the name of Ganymede. However, God apparently adopted a live-and-let-live policy. That’s just as well since, as the Titans and the Giants found out to their cost, you don’t mess with the Olympians.

Zeus and company, as well as God share one thing in common. None have been seen or heard from in thousands of years. They’ve all vanished into thin air, or maybe into the Bermuda Triangle – who knows. Perhaps that says a lot about their reality in the first place.

People Kill: God Doesn’t Care: Part Two

Following yet another mass shooting in the US of A, with all the predictable and understandable gut reactions that pour forth, my gut feeling is that nothing of substance will be done since American history, culture and the Constitution rule; gun control isn’t the real issue; things will get worse; people kill (it’s in our genes – deal with it); and it provides another reason why God is an increasing irrelevance in society.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

The Religious Element

I personally find it amazing, even astounding that in the aftermath of a mass murder episode, people flock to churches and pray and hold candlelight prayer vigils, and express total faith in the Almighty the He will look after the slain innocents. I’d of thought people, especially religious people, should be taking to the streets with raised fists screaming in pure rage and outrage against the alleged loving, compassionate, merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful God for standing by on the sidelines and not lifting a godly digit to prevent the tragedy in the first place.

Of course the obvious answer is that God gave us free will, and a person who slaughters the innocent is just exercising God’s free will gift and therefore God is not going to interfere. God does not want to get involved in the petty daily affairs of humankind.

Or, some might suggest that God works in mysterious ways and that the slaughter of the innocents is part of God’s plan, part of the Almighty’s Big Picture which us mortals can’t comprehend. Well, if mass murder is part of God’s plan, do we really want any part of God?

Some suggest that God doesn’t work in mysterious ways and this is just pure and simple another example of God’s wrath. While that would be keeping within God’s actions and reactions in the Old Testament, I somehow find it hard to believe that God would need to employ a middleman. Further, by employing a middleman, God would lose the benefit of letting all and sundry know that He was pissed off and this was an example of His wrath. So, sorry ‘bout that Westboro Baptist Church but God did not ‘send the shooter’ as per one of your favourite phrases – this time or ever. We do not need God’s help to kill.

Some, especially the extreme Right Wing Fundamentalists, suggest that humans have turned their back on God and therefore God has turned His back on us. That sort of spitting the dummy doesn’t quite ring true with those godly attributes of compassion, etc. I mean a child might in a hissy fit turn their back on Mum & Dad, but Mum & Dad aren’t as likely to reciprocate.

Of course the final answer as to why God ignores us, and allows extreme evil, is that there is no God in the first damn place, and this (mass murder of the innocents) is just part of that evidence.

In conclusion, in one sense, such mass murder episodes are in a strange way ‘good news’ stories for they should re-re-re-reinforce the concept that, sorry Virginia, there is no God, or if there is He does not give a DAMN about the sorry affairs of mankind. He does not want to get His godly hands dirty. So all the vigils, and all the prayers, and all the church attendances, all of which may be psychological comforting responses, in the long and short term, well these actions are absolutely meaningless and a waste of time, effort, energy and tears. Ultimately, it amounts to another nail in God’s coffin. 

P.S. - In a Darwinian sense, when you have a global population of over seven billion and increasing, well, life is cheap. The mass shooting of millions in one day would be of no lasting consequence to the human species; just the opposite, it might improve things – slightly.

People Kill: God Doesn’t Care: Part One

Following yet another mass shooting in the US of A, with all the predictable and understandable gut reactions that pour forth, my gut feeling is that nothing of substance will be done since American history, culture and the Constitution rule; gun control isn’t the real issue; things will get worse; people kill (it’s in our genes – deal with it); and it provides another reason why God is an increasing irrelevance in society.

One undesirable cultural phenomena, often witnessed in the United States, though hardly the exclusive property of the US of A, is the fairly indiscriminate and outright random killings of innocents that the killer has some apparent, albeit impersonal, grudge against. The most recent in a long line of case histories involved the Sandy Hook Elementary School at Newtown, Connecticut (December 2012). However, I don’t want to get into specific cases, nor dwell on the human element as experienced by those most intimately involved, friends, family, and authority figures like the police who have to deal with the situation. Rather, I’m going to focus on the broader issues, two of which are always present in the aftermath. There’s the human element, and often the related gun control issues, and there’s the religious element, an often focus being why does God allow evil and why do people seemingly ignore this facet?

The Human Element

People kill. We’re very good at it. That we are killing machines seems to be hardwired into our neural networks. Why is probably irrelevant, but no doubt can be traced back to our early hominid ancestors and the days of nature red in tooth and claw and that famous summation of biological evolution – survival of the fittest – kill or be killed - or in more modern phraseology, shoot first and ask questions later. Is there any human on this planet over the age of five who hasn’t secretly wished to bash somebody’s head in to a brain dead pulp? If so, the numbers are probably so low as to be statistically meaningless.

People kill. Again, we’re very good at it. And so now and again someone with a gun(s) goes off the deep end and lots of innocents die (or are seriously wounded but pull through even though the intention was for them to snuff it). Whenever one of these mass killing events ensues, especially in the US of A, there will be the inevitable outcry for tougher gun control measures. There will also be the inevitable outcome of keeping the status quo. It’s not easy to change the American Constitution which gives Americans the right to bear arms! American history and culture reinforce that right. Gun control isn’t the issue though that’s the gut reaction, but gun control just ain’t going to happen. But even if it does, even if not one private citizen in the US of A had a gun, so what? If I wish to kill someone indiscriminately or at random, I’m not going to be stopped just because I don’t have a gun. It’s a trite but accurate phrase that “guns don’t kill, people kill”.

How can I kill thee, let me count the ways. Well there are still knives, bows and arrows, swords, and spears. Eliminate those, well I can throw rocks or bang you over the head with a brick. No rocks, no bricks; well I can choke you to death. Maybe I have access to hand grenades, sticks of dynamite, Molotov cocktails, or have the know-how to make homemade bombs or make nerve gas or otherwise employ poisons effectively. Clubs, like baseball bats, are pretty effective too since they can clobber more than just a baseball. I can always drive my car into a crowd at high speed, and cars are unlikely to be banned just because their drivers can employ them to kill. If you really want to go out with a bang rent a fully fuelled plane and crash it into a crowded sports stadium. Then there’s arson via the humble match. No, eliminating guns is not going to end the slaughter of the innocents. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

People kill. We love it. You’d probably be hard pressed to pick up any general history text of any nation and not find, somewhere between the covers, at least one killing contained therein, and truth be known, probably lots of them. Recall all those human sacrifices made to the Aztec gods – slicing open the chest and ripping the heart out kills just as effectively as a gun. Closer to American hearts and minds, once upon a time it was peachy keen to slaughter the Native Americans including women, children and infants, as in “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”. Afro-Americans fared only slightly better. 

We almost tend to make cultural ‘heroes’ of those who kill, from Billy the Kid to Captain Kidd, Jesse James to Ned Kelly (Australian), Doc Holiday to Bonnie & Clyde, even villains like John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Jack the Ripper have acquired a certain mythological aura that surrounds them. The passing of time has a way of softening their impact. If you source though the histories of all nations that list could be extended a thousand-fold.

The total number of biographies of the bad guys (and gals), killers and serial killers, the gangsters, the outlaws, the pirates, the assassins, even famous celebrities who were murdered, would fill up the entire shelf space of many a good sized public library. There’s just something about the cold blooded killer that appeals to our genetic makeup.

Our works of fiction are full of human slaughter and not just war novels and westerns. There’s that whole genre of slasher films aimed usually at the teenagers.  We love a whodunit murder mystery and those with a ‘license to kill’ like the ever popular 007. Cop and P.I. TV shows do well; even courtroom dramas which usually feature a murder trial. The Bible (another work of fiction) contains more blood and guts and gore and slaughter of the innocents per page than the most graphic of novels, and you’ll find murder ranging from Shakespeare, Homer and even unto operas – there’s a least one murder in each of Richard Wagner’s “Ring Cycle” quartet of ‘musical dramas’. 

                                                                                                            

And if we get tired of humans killing humans, there are always aliens and monsters on the rampage to satisfy the bloodlust.

I forget exactly the number now, but a study was made of the number of fictional murders shown on make-believe TV shows but the end result was alarming. We are graphically exposed day-in-and-day-out to humans killing humans, and not just on the evening TV news, though that too of course.

I fail to see why people get all worked up over the mass slaughter of, say, 30 innocents. What they are worked up about is the fact that one person killed 30 people, not that 30 people were killed. I’m sure that everyday, in everyway, in the US of A, even a lot more than 30 people are murdered, but hardly a headline, apart from the local murder mentioned in the local rag, gives note to the daily 30 killed by 30 others. But if one individual does murder 30 people at one go, then its global headlines and hundreds of human interest stories follow. In either case it’s the same number of innocent people dead, so why does one rate a massive outpouring of soul searching and the other rates barely a whimper of concern? Is there really anything different in principle between killing 30 or the one? Murder is murder; mass murder is still murder.

And what of that other mass slaughter? It’s what humans do best, not only killing other humans but innocent animals, especially animals, for no reason. A ‘sportsman’ hunter kills 30 deer; a ‘sportsman’ fisherman kills 30 fish. If anything, the ‘sportsman’ gets a pat on the back for his skill.

Speaking of skill, doesn’t the military award marksmanship medals for such gunmanship skills? What about sportsmen (and women) in competition up through and including the Olympic Games for their shooting skills in not only marksmanship with a gun, but say in archery. We reward those who can shoot, and in a manner of speaking, shoot to kill (by hitting the bullseye).

The bottom line is that while most of us are restrained most of the time from acting out our primeval instincts by the laws of the land, each and every one of us can snap; some more readily than others, but snap nonetheless. Perhaps the really amazing thing is that the slaughter of the innocents is as at a low a level as it is. And though this sounds cruel, in the time it takes one person to snuff out 30 lives, another 30 are born. In a nation of 300 million, if 30 are murdered, well that’s a drop in the ocean, but in the real world, the world of nature red in tooth and claw, that sort of ratio wouldn’t cause Mother Nature to bat a proverbial eyebrow, and aren’t humans part of that real world (although we’d probably deny it, since we think we’re something special, like something special in the eyes of God). In the cosmic scheme of things, an elephant stepping on an ant hill, while a tragedy for the ants concerned, is of no consequence for the overall survival of the ant species.

So what’s going to happen? Nothing is going to happen except things will get worse! With every passing day there are more and more people – more and more chances for a massacre of the innocent to come to pass. With every passing day, more and more instruments that have lethal powers are manufactured. Even if there come to pass legal ways of preventing the two trends from interacting, there are always the illegal ways and means, and if history is any guide, what Lola wants, Lola gets, even if Lola has to beg, borrow or steal.

To be continued…

What the Bible Doesn’t Mention: Part Two

We all know what the Bible mentions. Books featuring ‘stories from the Bible’ are a dime a dozen in bookstores. What doesn’t the Bible mention is way more interesting and amounts to just about most of life, the universe and everything. What the Bible omits tells heaps about the bona-fides of God the alleged deity, and ultimate author!

What the Bible* doesn’t contain is perhaps of far greater importance than what it does say when one comes to examining the relative importance of the document and it’s proper place in the world’s literature. Because of fairly major omissions, I conclude that the Bible is just a fairly minor piece of site-specific pseudo-historical literature (to be kind) or a potpourri anthology of fairly mundane science fantasy short stories because most of the historical context is unverifiable. 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Genesis 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

Genesis 1: 27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Presumably that means all of the earth’s peoples that populated the earth ultimately were God’s creations (even if many times removed by natural acts of human reproduction), and not just the two original individuals (Adam & Eve) nor just those peoples and human cultures of the Mediterranean region. So, what peoples in general or nationalities or tribes are noted and logged in the Bible (apart from the names of selected individuals).

People’s Positive Mentions: Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Egyptians, Greeks, Hittites, Israelites, Persians, Philistines, Romans, and probably a few other inhabitants, nationalities and tribal cultures located north, south and east of the (unnamed) Mediterranean Sea.

People’s Negative Mentions: Any and all of the ancestral tribes of the Aztecs, Incas, Maya, and Olmecs fail to rate a mention. Any and all of the various Amerindian tribes you can think of - ditto. Aborigines, Asian(s), Asiatic, Blacks, Celts, Chinese, Cro-Magnon(s), Danes or the Danish, Eskimos, Indians (India), Irish, Neanderthals, Negro(s), Nubians, Sea Peoples, Spanish, Sumerians, Welsh, and on and on it goes, or doesn’t go. While God needn’t have noted the natives of Antarctica (penguins), there’s no excuse for ignoring a rather large fraction of humanity that just didn’t happen to be blessed with a Mediterranean climate. 

Discussion:  There’s a whole potful of people and places that should give God the Big Middle Finger for leaving them out of his Big Picture as related via Biblical texts. For God to entirely ignore the entirety of the Western Hemisphere, all of the Americas and all of her native peoples – who existed in Biblical times – is totally inexcusable and unforgivable. 

What about Northern Europe and inhabitants? Confined it would seem to non-existence. God creates the world and the human species but perhaps is embarrassed by those barbarians and pagans way north of the Mediterranean (again surprisingly not mentioned either) and so Biblically deletes them to a sort of Orwellian non-persons status. 

Of course nearly all of the Southern Hemisphere is also conspicuous by its absence from all things Biblical. No acknowledgement of the Australian aborigines; the New Zealand Maoris; the Polynesians, the Micronesians, the Melanesians. Apparently all of these peoples aren’t important enough to rate a mention in God’s Holy Bible, yet aren’t these humans too supposed to be among God’s creations?

While there’s little or no historical evidence for many of the characters that appear and feature prominently in the Bible, right up to and including Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth depending on personal choice, really real individuals whose historical bona-fides aren’t in any doubt living in that neck of the woods in those times don’t rate even a Biblical one-liner. No Greek philosophers or poets or historians get a mention. There’s no Hercules (Roman) or Herakles (Greek) noted (hey, if the Bible acknowledges Goliath and Samson, the least it can do is tell a tale or two of Hercules – besides Goliath and Samson never rated their own TV shows); King Gilgamesh is conspicuous by his absence; there’s no Ptolemy, Cleopatra or Alexandria the Great; no Agamemnon (of Troy fame) mentioned in passing either.

Egyptian pharaohs aren’t identified by their names even though there are about 240 references to ‘pharaoh’ or ‘pharaohs’ in the Bible. That alone reeks of pure Biblical make-believe and identifies the Bible as having no credibility whatever. Pharaohs had actual names, the same as you and I. So that failure is as phoney as a $3 bill and a disgrace to whoever authored those bits on God’s behalf.

Instead of all of these historical individuals that played major roles in the Mediterranean region during Biblical times, we get science fantasy stories like Moses holding a conversation with a burning bush; Jonah and his whale; Joshua’s sonic trumpets at Jericho not to mention his ability to manipulate celestial physics; Methuselah’s marvellous lifespan; and of course Noah and his (never to be found) ark.  Then there are those loaves and fishes breeding like rabbits! At least King Sargon gets one mention, so that’s a positive, and a Caesar or two gets a mention as well. 

Other Non-Mentions: After places and peoples come things. No famous monuments are given their due in the Bible – not the Parthenon, not cities like Troy, not massive structures like ziggurats or mastabas or the Great Sphinx; not even the pyramids. In fact I don’t believe the Bible mentions any of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World – a major oversight IMHO. 

Speaking of the Southern Hemisphere and Noah above, while I don’t expect a massive amount of nitty-gritty detail, there should be some accounting for how a pair of flightless New Zealand Kiwi birds made it to Noah’s Ark and back again! Oh, and by the way, how did Noah have knowledge enough to sex all the animals and how did he know that each pair that he sexed as male and female was actually fertile? Some of those animals may well have been senior enough to have been over-the-hill and off-the-pill or just plain suffering from impotency! Just asking!

Lastly, the Bible fails to mention some fairly obvious legal concepts like genocide is wrong; that there should be equal rights for women; that same-sex relationships behind closed doors is nobody else’s business; that belief in other gods isn’t the end of the world, and so on and so forth. The Bible fails to condemn slavery. It also fails to argue against the death penalty – so much for an all-loving, all-forgiving God. The Bible is very good on instructing people what not to do (‘thou shall not…’), and literal followers of Biblical passages have in fact inflicted massive amounts of personal harm and cultural damage over thousands of years – just ask the Mesoamericans; those tried and convicted by the Inquisition; or alleged witches – always guilt until proven innocent. The Bible most certainly does not turn the other cheek when it comes to paganism and polytheism. It tends to advocate the philosophy of smite first and ask questions later.

Failure to mention, even in passing, all of the above negatives is very odd indeed. It’s as if you built, furnished and decorated your new four-bedroom, two-car garage home, yet the only bits you mention in your letter to Mum was something about the sofa, the kitchen sink, the master bedroom wallpaper and that it was constructed out of bricks – that’s it.

Something is screwy somewhere. So what do we conclude from all of these Biblical omissions?

Despite all the grandiose statements about creating life, the universe and everything, the Bible is just well embellished pseudo-history of a relatively small part of the globe, areas part and parcel of the Mediterranean region, controlled by one alleged deity, no different in principle than Odin controlling the Norse lands; Quetzalcoatl’s strutting his stuff in Mesoamerica; or Viracocha being revered by the Incas of Peru. The proof of that local Mediterranean pudding is that the phrase “God of Israel” appears 201 times in the Bible. Not God of life, the universe and everything – just little old Israel. If you’re not of Israel, then apparently God doesn’t need concern himself with you, at least not in a positive way.

The Bible all up: It’s ultimately a case of what’s included in those Biblical stories (names and places) is not largely supported by archaeological evidence or logic. What is not included is, in a global context, things that any self respecting deity responsible for all things global should have been delighted to have included. That they weren’t speaks volumes – loud and clear.

*King James Version