The birth of the Hebrew Devil

So I explained how the Hebrews survived as long as they did when they were nearly eliminated as a society, facing many hardships for many years, while other societies, other groups of people, other religions disappeared.  I explained it had to do with a monotheistic God and the belief in the afterlife, and the desire to be good as a group, a united group, in order to reach heaven.

A problem that evolved with this strict monotheistic religion was that if God created all good, then he must have created all that is bad.  In much of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) this is exactly what happened.  God rewarded and God punished.  

This dilemma was solved in the Middle Ages with the creation of a devil.  He is in a position of godly-like powers like god, although he was created by God.  Those who are evil, those who choose to to bad, will be punished by the Devil, or live eternally with him.  Some may even present the Devil as eternal nothingness, or the loss of the soul.

Regardless, the Devil of the Middle ages is similar to the one we imagine.  He is responsible for the ills of mankind and God alleviates the ills.  

The truth is, the Ancient Hebrew, in ancient Israel, the figure who was the Devil did not have the power of the Devil of the Middle Ages.  God created all good and all bad.  God made people sick and God made them well.  God build nations and God destroyed nations.  

This kind of effected medicine in the Hebrew world because God was viewed as almighty, any attempt to interfere by medicine would be considered as not necessary or even blasphemy.  God created sickness and God alone made them well.  

Although this view changed eventually, and medicine was considered to be created by God to make people well.  It worked by mystical means because that's what God wanted.  Yet this was not the original view.  

It's for this reason that most medicine mentioned in the Bible is supernaturalistic in the version of prayers, sayings, Psalms, Proverbs, and songs.  To get well you lived well.  To stay healthy you lived clean and did clean things.  You didn't touch the dead.  Those who touched a dead body were believed to be dirty, and they must bathe before moving on.  

So while many people interpret "cleanliness" in the Bible as sanitation, this might be true, although it might not be. They may have associated the dead as having a disease that may be spread to other people.  Although this in all likelihood may not be true.  Yet to create "purity" to get to Heaven, to stay healthy, sounds like a viable thing.

While medicine may have been frowned upon in Ancient Israel, when prayer didn't work some may have sought out a physician, which are many mentioned in the Bible, so we know they existed.  Medicine was sought by some, and even beneficial.  Yet as a top  line therapy for health God was worshiped, and medicine was a mere after-thought.

This may explain why the Bible mentions medicine hardly at all.  

Cuneiform: the first system of writing

For hundreds of thousands of years man walked the earth searching for food and shelter like savage, hairy beasts.  They lived in trees and caves.  They died before their brains had a chance to develop any gray matter, taking what they learned with them to their graves.

Men learned to use stones to kill and cut animals for food.  They learned that blunt stones could mash in animal skulls, and sharp stones were good for hunting.  They learned a language so they could share what they learned with the next generation, which learned to attach the stones to sticks to make knives, arrows and axes.

They gathered together in little groups and learned to live as one among the land.  They learned that by working together it was easier to find food and shelter.  They learned what plants were good to eat and learned to cultivate the land so they could make their own food.

Along the Tigris and Euphrates a variety of small civilizations formed.  They knew from previous generations how to kill, and they knew where to aim their sharp objects to make killing quicker.  Around 30,000 B.C. they teamed together to kill large mammoths, which fed many mouths.

They painted pictures in caves using black ochre of the kill, using red to mark the organ that beats. Surely future generations will know that by placing the spear through this organ the beast will fall, setting it up for attack by the rest of the clan.

They learned of the inundation of the river, and worked together to manage the waters.  They created canals and pumps to pump water to irrigate the land.  This was the beginning of the agricultural revolution.  Small villages formed and grew into independent cities.  Each city was a state in itself, called a city state.

Each city was a domain of a god who resided in the center of the city, in the temple and to whom everything belonged: the temple, the city, the land around it.  He was served by minor gods and by humans: free farmers who tilled the soil, and slaves who helped the free farmers.

They were able to do this because because of a language was created.  It is of my opinion that the discovery of language, even more so than the discovery of stone tools, was the main thing that separated paleolithic humans from their rudimentary ancestors and other animals.

Humans developed a language so what one generation learned could be communicated to the next, with each new generation adding their own knowledge.  This accumulation of knowledge lead to  better ways of hunting, better ways of making housing, and easier living.

This gave one man, or a group of men and women, time to sit around, to mingle their minds, to create even better things.  They learned they needed to record events so they could better manage the land.  They learned to draw pictures to represent ideas, hence the first cave drawings. These were not done so much for fun but to relay information to the next generation.

The first civilization was between the Tigris and Euphrates, a land called Mesopotamia -- the land between two rivers.  Here the individual rulers of the city states decided they must work together to manage the rivers because separate the task was impossible. One of the societies that emigrated to the area were the Phoenicians, and they were the first to create a form of writing.  It was pictographic, with each picture representing an idea.  this allowed them to record events, stories, myths, legends, magic lore, and recipes for food and medicine.

Yet it was the Sumerians who formed the first civilization, and one man man became the leader, the king of all the city states.  It was his job to make sure people worked together to please the gods and manage the land. Their language was Sumerian, and they borrowed the Phoenician form of writing and fixed it up to suit their own needs.  This happened sometimes around 3200 B.C.

The written language was called Cuneiform, and it required scribes to use a stylus to draw the pictures on stone tablets, and the tablets were dried in ovens and made so they were easily portable.  They could be set in temples for all who learned there to see and learn. The people who learned to read and write the language were called scribes, and these were among the most intelligent and important people in the land.

For a language, myths, legends, and other ideas to be shared across generations it had to be communicated.  At first these were shared from parent to child, perhaps by songs or poems that were easy to recite and remember.  Yet ultimately better systems were developed.

The best method was draw on soft clay with a stylus, perhaps a reed.  After the clay tablet was covered with writing it was sun dried or baked in an oven to become hard enough that many have lasted to modern times.  An individual tablet was not large, and a book consisted of series of numbered tablets.  Each tablet was marked with the title of the book and frequently having a "catch phrase" of the last line of words from the previous tablet.

The scribe drew pictures of objects (pictograms) that simply meant the object represented.  Yet the language evolved so that the drawings were replaced by wedge-shaped imprints on clay tablet, probably made with a reed.  This system of writing is referred to as cuneiform.

Each generation added to the system of writing.  Their system, best known as cuneiform, became the greatest gift of the Sumerian people.  This language was subsequently adapted not only by the Babylonians and Assyrians, other civilizations that developed in Mesopotamia, but also the Hittites and later the Persians.

Yet as the language was adapted by other societies, difficulties arose.  The language was adapted for Sumerian language, so the Babylonians had to make changes to adapt it to their own.  They gave new rules and values to the signs and, as a result, a sign may possess several different values making it difficult for modern historians to decipher.  

The ancient Egyptians needed a written language too, and for the same reasons as the Mesopotamians.  At firs they borrowed from the Babylonians, as is evidenced by the stone tablets that Moses had the 10 Commandments engraved into.

Yet the Egyptians, some time around 2700 B.C., created a written language of their own, and they discovered the papyri could be prepared in such a way as to create white scrolls to be written upon.  The Ancient Hebrew created a language too, with both the Egyptian and Hebrew languages going even further than cuneiform to where there were signs for every consonant, and a phonetic (from Phoenicians) language developed.  They even started writing left to right, instead of right to left. 

Yet Mesopotamia was so centrally located that their writings, and their civilization, had a strong influence on it's neighbors -- Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Persia.  Some even believe they had contact with and an influence upon India and maybe even China.  

Trails and caravans developed between nations that allowed people to cross distant lands, including deserts, to share goods, fairy tales, legends, technical knowledge, recipes, drugs, surgical operations, culture and language.  Ideas could not be shared with other people and from one generation to the next.  

Despite the complications of this cuneiform system, it allowed stories and myths, mathematics, astronomy, astrology and other ideas that were brought in by the various societies assimilated to the area to  be learned by all, and shared with later generations.  

Thanks to this system of writing ideas of the Ancient Sumerians ultimately influenced the Hebrews and, thanks to the Bible they wrote in the 1000 years prior to the invasion of Alexander the Great, Sumerian ideas influence people to this day.  

2,000 B.C.: The dangers of travel

Today when we think of traveling we hop into our car, or book a flight, and think not much of it.  We might complain due to sitting too long, we may have a sore but, or we may get bored.  But these problems are nothing compared to traveling over 100 years ago.

If we travel back to 30,000 B.C. man had to walk wherever he wanted to travel to.  Traveling was done for the purpose of finding food only.  They had to walk through brush, as there were no trails.  They lived like wild animals.

Eventually they invented knives, swords and axes to cut shrubs to make it a little easier to travel.  They made trails. As civilizations formed along the Tigris, Euphrates and Nile man learned to domesticate animals, such as oxen, asses and horses.  This made travel easier.  At first man walked an had the animals carry essential equipment, but ultimately man learned to ride.

Still, even into the middle of the 19th century it took about a day to travel as little as 20 miles.  What I consider an easy ride between my home town and the one next to me would have been a major ordeal the first time it was done.

At about 2,000 B.C. and prior traveling was such a risk that finding food wasn't always easy.  Sometimes man resorted to some hasty means to stay alive.  Sometimes as one man died they feasted on their fellow man.  I know this sounds bad, but to stay alive they may have decided they had no choice.

Another method of staying alive, and very desperate, must have been to eat human feces.  The Egyptian Book of the Dead, mentions some incantations that are to be said prior to going on a long journey.  They were spells, warnings:

...I detest what is detestable, I will not eat faeces, I will not drink urine, I will not walk head downward.  

I am the owner of bread... (1)

And...

What I doubly detest, I will not eat; what I detest is faeces, and I will not eat it; excrement, I will not consume it.  It shall not fall from my belly, it shall not come near my fingers, and I will not touch it with my toes 

"What will you live on," say the gods and spirits to me, "In this place to which you have been brought?"

"I will live on seven loaves which have been brought to me; four loaves are with Horus and three loaves with Thoth." 

What I detest, I will not eat; what I detest is faeces, and I will not eat it..."  (2)

References:  

1. Prioreschi, Plinio, "A History of Medicine," volume I, 1991, page 327, reference refers to Book of the Dead, translated by Raymond O. Faulkneer, London, British Museum Publications, 1985, Spell  53, page 65
2. Prioreschi, ibid, reference refers to Book of the Dead, same translation as noted above, Spell 189, page 185

Where was the Garden of Eden?

Philosophical and religious elements from the 1000 years prior to the conquest of Alexander the Great are what influenced the writers of many passages of the Bible.  These elements continue to influence Western Civilizations to this day.  (1) 

The History Channel has been featuring a series on the history of Christianity this week, and one of the shows attempted to explain the Garden of Eden and to find where it might be located.

First it is significant to know that stories change over time. And back in the day of Jesus it was common for one religious group, or one kingdom, to adapt older stories to suit their own needs. That is significant because that might have been exactly what happened to many of the stories of the Bible.
Two thousand years before the Bible was written the Ancient Sumerians had a story they called the Epic of Gilgamesh. This is a story very similar to the story of Adam and Even, and how a massive flood wiped out much of society. It also mentions a man similar to Noah.

The Epic of Galgamesh is a story of the King of Urek, a city-state in Ancient Sumeria, from around 2750-2500 B.C.  It's written in Akkadian form on stone tablets.  Galgamesh went on many journey's, and one of his journeys involved a Great Flood where two of each animal was collected and placed on the arc.  A storm raged for seven days and flooded the earth.  The ship grounded on mount Nisir, which is similar to the Biblical urartu that was used in the Bible).  After a few days a dove, a swallow and a Raven were sent out.  When the other two returned and the raven did not, it was understood that the waters were down enough so that there was land ahead.  He set for land and let out all the animals.  (2)

The writers of the Bible altered this story, but the basic components are the same. And since the readers of the Bible back then had no possible way to read the Epic of Gilgamesh, they would have had no idea the story had been changed.

Likewise, in the Bible there is no mention of the word Satan in Genesis. Therefore, there really is no proof that the Serpent is Satan, only metaphorically. The Sumerians referred to the Serpant as Tiamut (not sure of spelling spelling), which was a symbol of the snake goddess, perhaps of the sun. The Biblical writers changed the snake to be a metaphor for Satan.

Was the original metaphor of this story completely misinterpreted by both the Sumerians and the Biblical writers? Well, of course we know it wasn't "misinterpreted," because that would mean it was "accidentally," misunderstood. No, it was intentionally changed to convince people that God existed.

No, I'm not trying to convince you that God does not exist. In fact, I think it's things like this that prove that God does exist. Bare with me and I will explain.

Of course we know that God does exist, but how do you convince a people that he does. Likewise, as our Founding Fathers noted as they were writing the Constitution, a religion is needed in order to keep the people from rioting and killing each other, to prevent them from stealing, killing, and doing other things contrary to civil life. So, how do we do this? You inculcate religious values. You inculcate the idea that if you are evil you go to Hell, and if you are good you go to Heaven.

The Founding fathers knew this, and that's why they inculcated God in their speeches, and God in many of the things they did, even though many of them, perhaps Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, did not even indicate that they believed in God. Still, they were smart enough to know that society needed religion. And, since Christianity was popular and successful as a religion, that was the religion they adapted for America. Well, they really didn't adapt it because it already existed.

This idea that society needed religion was not new in 1776, it was something rulers figured out greater than 6,000 years ago. And, 6,000 years ago the Epic of Gilgamesh was adapted to represent the gods.

Still, one historian has theorized that the Epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Adam and Eve, had nothing to do with the gods, or God, at all. That's right: it had to do with something else altogether.

The main focus of research focused on the fruit. Today many people think the fruit mentioned that was on the tree of Knowledge (there were two trees, the tree of wisdom and the tree of knowledge) was an apple. However, there were no apples in Sumeria until hundreds of years later. So, it is theorized that the word apple was associated with the fruit at around 500 BC by the Romans. The word apple in Latin means evil. Thus, the apple was believed to be the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

However, historians think the fruit was a fig. They think that because figs were common in that area of the world in 6,000 BC. Likewise, a fossil of a fig that was carved into a mountain was found to be 11,000 years old. Therefore, it can be theorized the fruit was a fig.

The Bible is also inconsistent. It says once that a man and a woman were created by God. Then in the next chapter it states that God took the rib of Adam and created woman. However, and this is the part of the Bible that is ignored by many of today's religions, the Bible also mentions a woman named Lilith. Thus, it is theorized that Lilith was Adam's first wife.

She fought with Adam. She said she wanted to be on top. Adam said it was his role to be on top. Thus, man had control of women. So Lilith got mad and left Adam. The Bible states that Lilith left and randomly killed children. In ancient times, people sang songs at night to their children to ward off Lilith. That is where the term Lullaby comes from, it's a Good-by to Lilith.

Likewise, the song: Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep." Is a prayer to keep Liluth away from their child. Likewise, and this is significant, most of the kids who did die, neonates perhaps, just stopped breathing in their sleep. Today we refer to this as sids.


A neat thing about this creation story is it probably wasn't even a Christian story, but an older story adapted for the Bible.  According to one Egyptian tradition the Egyptian sun got Re created man and there was no female to mate with.  The first sexual act was not sexual at all as described by a German writer and historian Plinio Prioreschi:  

"He grasped his phallus with his hand to produce orgasm.  In this way the twins brother and sister Shu and Tefnut were born.  Shu and Tefnut, were the divine equivalent of Adam and Eve."  (1)

So, historians think that the Serpent was not initially associated with God. The theory goes like this: 6,000 years ago, at the time of the Sumerians, most of the people were hunters and gatherers. But, at around 6,000 BC farming and cities started to form. So, these historians think the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor to represent the fact that once you bite the fruit of, once you start farming, you will never go back to hunting and gathering.

The story also talks about a great flood. Scientists have proven that around 6,000 BC there really was a big flood. There was a period of global warming around this time (proof that it's nothing new), and this caused many of the glaciers to melt. This would have resulted in the water level rising significantly enought so that water would have blown right over large mountains causing water falls like that of Niagara Falls. This would have cause great terror and panic, as was described in the Bible. Six-thousand BC, thus, marked the end of the ice age.

This story was told over and over and over and changed along the way by different religious leaders and rulers and by the time Jesus was born it was changed again to represent the will of God.

Now, you might ask, does this prove that God does not exist? No. It does not in any way prove that God does not exist. What it does prove is that the Bible is a historical document of significant value. It was an attempt by ancient writers to document history, and show the events that lead to the birth of Christianity.

(Originally published on December 26, 2008.  This story has been edited and improved by the original author.  Note:  The author is a good Christian, and this post is merely an attempt to write an accurate history, and not to disprove the contents of the Bible.  He believes in no way does this fray the value of virtues inculcated in the Bible.)

References (other than what are noted above):

1. Prioreschi, Plinio, "A History of Medicine," vol I, page 504
2. Prioreschi, ibid, page 435
3. Prioreschi, ibid, page 323, in reference to Die altagyptischen Pyramidentexte, neu herausgegeben und erlaut von K. Sethe, Liepzig, 1908, 1248 a-d. German translation in Herman Kees, Des Gotterglaube im alten Agypten, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1956, p. 219-220. Translation from the German by P. Prioreschi.

The maturation of morals and virtues

I always contend that it's important for our kids to learn the truth in school, and that includes when it comes to truths that we don't necessarily agree with.  One of the best examples all time when it comes to avoiding the truth is when it comes to morals, virtues and religion.

This goes for both the right and the left.  It's quite apparent that many on the left try adamantly to get Jesus out of schools.  They don't want anything that has to do with Christianity to be mentioned, including God, Jesus and even Christmas.  Hence the term "Holidays" is used.  This is true even Holiday is in reference to a "Holy-day."

I won't delve into that because we read about it adnauseum, hear about it adnauseum, in the news, mainly news from the right.  Yet what we don't hear about is the truth about the moral and virtue shift.  A perfect example here is that in Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece, where the weather was fairly warmer, it was normal to walk around naked and have people not even do a double take.  

Yet it was also considered normal to be gay, for a man to have a boy lover, for a man to seek prostitution, to have out of wedlock children, and to abort an unwanted boy or girl.  In fact, a man was more likely to be seen in public with his boy child rather than with his wife.  

Pederasty was an accepted and universal institution in the Greek world.  This doesn't imply Greek men were homosexual (it doesn't prove they weren't either), because a majority of men were married, had normal sex relations with their wives, with slave girls, and with courtesans at times.  Yet the woman stayed home and took care of the kids, and were ready when her husband was ready to have sex.  Her job was to take care of the home, cook, make kids and take care of them.  (1)

Because a woman stayed at home, a man was more likely to be seen in public with his adolescent boy lover than his wife.  Yet he would take care of his boy, and he'd mentor him and make sure he grew up to be a productive member of society.  

Henry Sigerist, who wrote "A History of Medicine," contends that the sexual frustrations of adolescent boys did not exist in antiquity.  As soon as a boy was ready he was allowed to have sex. In fact, in Sparta boys were encouraged to go out and rape a girl, but if he got caught he was whipped.  This was standard and accepted practice. (1, 2)

War was common in the ancient world, and to a soldier far from home it was normal to seek satisfaction by a prostitute.  This was also common in Ancient Egypt, and if a child was born it was okay because extra hands were always needed.  Yet in Ancient Egypt 8 out of 10 babies were not born alive, and therefore nature was the most common form of contraception.  Plus many kids died before they reached the age of two due to diseases they were highly susceptible to.

Homer mentions relations between men, although this was most common during periods of war.  Alexander the Great is written about by some historians as a man who had relations with boys or other men, yet this, once again, does not mean he was a homosexual.  It was simply accepted the practice during his time.  

In Egypt it was common for young girls to be married off at the age of 12 or 13, as soon as they reached puberty.  Their husbands were 15 or 16.  Marriage to brothers and sisters was not uncommon, and to have many wives and many children was not abnormal either.  Ramses II had 170 children.  (2)

Lesbian acts were also common in Greece mainly because the women were confined to the house, and their husbands were often off abroad for long periods of time, or simply off at work or in the markets or participating in sports all day long.  

Sigerist explains this way of living:  

"when we study ancient cultures our task is not to judge but to understand them.  To that end we must avoid measuring them with the moral yardstick of our own time, realizing that our own morals have no absolute value but are the result of certain historical developments in which we happen to be involved at the moment.  This is particularly necessary when we study the sex life of other civilizations.  Customs vary; the style of living changes.  to the superficial observer it may look as if the Greeks had been highly promiscuous, having intercourse with whoever happened to be around -- wife, slave girl, courtesan, boy, man -- but this was not at all the case.  Affections were at least as deep as they are today.  No Don Juan creates an art, literature, and philosophy as the Greeks have.  Human relations were broader and deeper, and there was less hypocrisy in matters of sex than in our present world." (2, page 222)

Somewhere along the line our moralistic views changed.  Perhaps men like Moses, who lived withing the Egyptian world, saw how difficult life was for children living amid these circumstances. It was men like him, thousands of years ago, who saw the value in creating a stable environment for children to mature in.  

Perhaps it's for this reason that homosexuality and prostitution were frowned upon, as well as extramarital affairs, sex with young boys and girls, multiple marriages, etc.  Perhaps I'm safe in making this speculation because the Bible in itself is a book of virtues, values, morals, family unity, discipline, individualism, capitalism, etc.  

So when people today talk about making homosexuality, abortion, sodomy, and the like normal parts of our life, or acceptable, they are in a sense trying to take the morals of mankind full circle, back to the way they were during ancient Greek and Egyptian times.  

I doubt that most of these people know this.  I doubt they think of the consequences of this change that they are calling for.  However, it's hard to argue with them when as Americans, as people who live in a free world, we preach the importance of freedom, personal choice, and accountability. 

People should have the right to live the way they choose, whether that be by their environmental choice or natural calling.  If such a choice has a consequence on their children, family life, or on society as a whole, it is their choice not the choice of government.  Such may be the case, or argument, by those who call for gay marriage or the right to abortion (choice).  

Yet it is the risks of such a promiscuous living, or choices, that have many in our society, mainly the religious among us (either Christians, Muslims or other).  It is the religious majority who wish to place restraints on society, and who yearn to encourage governments to make abortion, homosexuality, and other such activities abnormal.

Such values and virtues were recognized by the founding fathers.  Jefferson and Madison wrote letters at length discussing the importance of the government inculcating religion among the people. And hence is why we have religious words all over Washington, on our coins, and why Presidents said prayers and encouraged prayers in schools.  

The founding fathers new that the government could not afford a military or a police, and so they needed to do something to encourage people to be good.  The recognized this by studying ancient societies. 

So even those who did not believe in God decided that God was important.  People who believe in God also believe in the Devil and Hell.  People will try to be good to get to Heaven and to avoid the fires of Hell.  

Those who wish to change what the founding fathers created for America wish to go back to life as it was in Ancient Greece or Egypt or even Mesopotamia.  Yet now that we have studied our history, and wrote the truth about that history instead of telling children the history we want them to know about, we can understand both sides a little better. We must continue to strive for a happy medium.  

What do you think?

References:

1. Sigerist, Henry E, "A History of Medicine," volume I; Primitive and Archaic Medicine, second printing, 1955, New York, Oxford University Press, pages 240-241
2. Sigerist, Henry E, "A History of Medicine," volume II: Early Greek, Hindu, and Persian Medicine, second printing, 1955, pages 219-221

Life in Ancient India

If I had to go back in time to live in any nation I wanted to, I'd choose Ancient India.  It's true that life   in Ancient India was in many ways far better than it is today.  Diseases were less prevalent, and people lived longer.  Society was much greater back then, and since it has, in a way, gone backwards.  The people went from living in an established nation to one that is primitive and impoverished.

The Indians weren't concerned about spirits as Greece, Mesopotamia and Egypt was.  India never felt the urge to subjugate her neighbors as the Greeks did under Alexander the Great.  The Indians were happy right where they were.  In fact, the Indians were more concerned with relaxing and enjoying life than were other nations.  It is here where the Indians developed a nation of peace and nonviolence, meditation, yoda, Buddhism, etc.

The nation stretches over two thousand miles and therefore has a great variety of climate.  While the temperatures in the north may be cool in the summer, in the south temperatures may be very pleasant, although get up to 110 degrees during April.  Still, most of the nation was tropical, meaning it was privy to all sorts of herbs for creating foods and medicine (which it did create many, including using Ma Huang for breathing).

The Indians sought to master nature.  Yogi masters nature through the spirit.  He is not afraid of death because he knows he will be reborn.  He will be reborn as another human if he is good, and he will ultimately to to the path of happiness if he is good in all his lives.  Yet if he is not so good he may come back as an animal.  If he is really bad he may come back to life as some unpleasant animal.

So for this reason, it was normal practice in India not to eat animals.  This was good in a way, yet it was bad because many of these animals became overpopulated.  This caused a breeding ground for diseases, many diseases.  They are not allowed to kill mice or even mosquitoes, animals and insects that are known to carry deadly diseases.

What makes these even worse is that water was plentiful in India, which made it so bugs were ever present.  It is believed that many of the diseases that would plague the world in antiquity and even today originate in India.

While modern medicine can treat and even prevent many of these diseases, Indian society is so primitive that it's nearly impossible for doctors to inhabit most of the land, and it's likewise impossible for medicine to reach the people.  What makes matters worse is instead of believing in rational medicine, many in India still believe in the ancient way of life.

Yes, while the west -- mainly Europe and the United States, have let go of ancient ways of belief and medicine, people in India have hung on to them.  They still refuse to kill animals that harbor disease.  Their governments are primitive and prevent modernization.

Still, in the ancient world, the Indians had it pretty well. They were a peaceful nation and they yearned to be one with nature as opposed to conquering it and other nations.  It is for this reason that if I had to live prior to Jesus I might be inclined to choose Ancient India.

Most of the people of Ancient India had five acres of land, the minimum needed to feed a family

1300 B.C: The birth of individualism

The first great civilizations of the world were in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.  These civilizations were formed by a need to master the waters in order to irrigate the land, a task that cannot be done individually.  A strong central power was needed to enforce the work and create discipline.  Thus, the need for irrigation united the people of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

These people were forced to work long hours, often 12 hours per day, on their land.  The only time off they got was during the yearly flood. At this time they partied and relaxed.  Of course those who worked in mines never got days off.  Other people worked in stores, made axes, swords, knives, food etc.  They too got time off during the flooding season

Then the only product the people were able to keep was what was needed to care for their families.  While the storekeepers were able to keep some of what they made, they were given everything else from the collective, the government, or the king.

And people lived this way willingly because they believed in evil spirits and gods, and the wealthy, the kinds, would build monuments, and make sacrifices, by offerings from the people, and this was all done to keep the gods and the spirits happy.  In this way, each person, by working hard and giving most of what they produced to the king and the few wealthy, believed they were doing their part to keep the spirits and gods happy.  In this sense, this kept the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians United as one Kingdom.*

Greece, on the other hand, is a country that doesn't require irrigation. For this reason Greece was never united, and instead developed along individual lines.  Everything about Greek culture was based on individualism.

The Greek City States are a good example.  While they did unite during times of war, they were completely independent of one another.  Sparta was a a nation that was based on war.  Children were prepared for war from the time they reached seven.  Athens was a nation based on science, reason and art.  Athens left for us many great monuments and statues that we still admire today.  Athens, in this way, gave birth to art.

Another example is Greek art and writings.  While Ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian writings and art and dramas were written for the collective -- the general good of the nation, authorship wasn't needed.  Yet in Greece a name of an "individual" was required for all arts and writings and dramas.  This was true even when the original author wasn't known, which may be the case with the Corpus Hippocraticum, Odyssey and Iliad.

Greek tribes started inhabiting the land that would one day become Greece around 2,000 B.C., a time when Egypt and Mesopotamia held hugely successful nations.  Colonization started taking place around 1300 to 1000 B.C.  So we can probably say that individualism got it's start around 1300 B.C.

Irrigation wasn't necessary, which made it ideal for farming.  Food was prevalent, and consisted of sheep, goats.  Resources were lignites, iron pyrites, lead, silver and a few other minerals.  There was the sea that provided plenty of irrigation for everyone. The temperature was generally between 56 and 68 degrees, which meant it wasn't too hard to adapt clothing and housing.

Many of the nations of Greece were further divided into individualism, and this helped create the first democracies.  Since it was surrounded by walls, a strong fleet protected the people. Instead of involving themselves in wars they were able to live in societies that concerned themselves more with hunting, games and dances.

The product of such a life was craftsmen, pottery, and jewelry.  This type of art was brought about by time brought by security, and the ability to introspect and appreciate and study the land.  This was the direct result of individualism.

One of the greatest results of Ancient Greek individualism was Greek philosophy and democracy.  A senate and a jury were allowed for people to partake in government and judge their peers, as opposed to the monarchy of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The greatest philosopher of all was Socrates, and he was sentenced to death for voicing his opinion by a jury of 501 of his peers.  Surely he was wrongly sentenced, yet it was a fair, or at least democratic, trial nonetheless.

Civilization western Europe from the Renaissance on was also individualistic, like that of Ancient Greece.  In this way Greek individualism

*An empire is defined as a nation that has taken over other lands, such as the Egyptians and British Empire.  A Kingdom is a monarchy within one original nation, such as the Egyptian Kingdom.  Later on in Ancient Egypt the form of government expanded, and the region occupied by Egypt was referred to as the Egyptian Empire.  

The real history of Israel

Note: The following was written by me on February 16, 2003, five years before I started blogging.

For 2,000 years the Jews had been looking for a home. Hatred of them over the years was unlike hatred for any other nationality in the history of the world. During WWII over two million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, and, as a result of that, there was a lot of pressure following the war to provide the Jews with a homeland.

The liberation of Israel, the search for a homeland, is called Zionism. In the late 1940s it was believed that much of the hate for the Jews -- called anti-Semitism -- may have stemmed from the fact that they were without a home. After the war, the British and French had obtained land in the Middle East that had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks for over two hundred years. The land was divided up, and a very small portion was given to the Jews so they could form their nation state of Israel.

The area was small and broken up into three parts. At it's narrowest spot the new nation was a mere ten miles wide. At this time there were Jews and Arabs scattered all over the Middle East, and only ten percent of the Palestinians made their homes in the land that was to become Israel at that time. And there was no talk of creating a Palestinian homeland. In fact, the Palestinians didn't even exist.

However, almost immediately after the inception of Israel, most Arab nations in the Middle East declared war against Israel, figuring Israel would be quite vulnerable. And, since they figured the Arabs would easily win, most of the Palestinians (the 10% of them that happened to actually live in Israel) left Israel thinking they would return as soon as the war was over.

No Arab was kicked out of Israel, as many progressive historians will tell you, or as many Arab nations will tell you, or as anti-Semites around the world will have you believe. In fact, the Israeli government wanted the Arabs to live in peace in Israel with the Jews. Yet the Arabs did not want that; they did not want peace with Israel.

So the Palestinians left, and they never returned. Israelis, many only recently removed from concentration camps, were determined to win this war -- and they did. Therefore, the Arabs who left Israel vowed never to return until Israel was defeated, which they (many of them anyway) still believe will happen.

After this war Israel had gained access to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, but declined this land. The Arabs refused to admit defeat, and they also refused to provide any help for the Palestinian refugees either. They wanted to use the Palestinians (as they were now termed) as pawns to make the rest of the world look as though Israel was the bad guy here. They wanted people to think the Jews forced the Palestinians out of Israel, and now refuse to let them back in. But that's not what happened at all.

The Israeli's, on the other hand, developed a very successful democracy and gave all the people the freedoms that came with it. The Palestinians that chose to remain in Israel were allowed to enjoy those same freedoms. Israel became the only democracy in that part of the world at that time, and, thus, developed one of the greatest economies in the region.

Despite this, however, the Arabs continued to tell the world that Israel refused to let the Palestinians back into their homeland. But the Arabs were claiming that all the Palestinians were from Israel not simply the 10% that lived there in 1948 and fled on their own accord -- but all of them. This created much world-wide animosity toward the Israelites. In many cases, the Israelites fought to keep the Palestinians out, but this was only to protect their homeland, for if all the Palestinians were allowed into Israel, the Jews would become far outnumbered by Arabs and the Jews would be easily driven out.

And the Palestinian refugees gained sympathy from the rest of the world as planned by the Muslim nations, and a whole lot of money too. They even received money from the Israelites. They even received (and still do) money from the U.S. Much of this money was used by PLO leader Yasser Arafat to support terrorism against Israel.

In 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel for a second time, only to be defeated once again. At this time Israel did not annex the West Bank or the Gaza Strip (however they had every right to), but did maintain control of the land. David Horowitz, "Why Israel is the Victim", (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/), wrote, "No responsible Israeli government could relinquish a territorial buffer while its hostile neighbors were still formally at war. This is the reality that frames the Middle East conflict."

The Arabs, despite the defeat, continued to declare war. In 1973, Israel was again attacked by the Arabs, and this time by a total of eleven Arab nations. And, once again, Israel came out as the victors.

Horowitz writes:

Even to this day the Arabs claim that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are the obstacle to peace. But there are Arab settlements in Israel that are not a problem for Israel, so why should Jewish settlements be a problem for the Arabs? The claim that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are an obstacle to peace is based first of all on the assumption that the Jews will never relinquish any of their settlements, which the Camp David Accords prove is false. It is really based, however, on the assumption that Jewish settlements will not be allowed in a Palestinian state -- which is an Arab decision and is the essence of the entire problem: the unwillingness of the Arabs to live side by side with the 'infidel' Jews... The Middle East conflict is not about Israel's occupation of the territories; it's about the refusal of the Arabs to make peace with Israel, which is an inevitable by-product of their desire to destroy it."

Another lie, Horowitz writes, is that the Palestinians want a Palestinian State and the Israelites refuse to give it to them. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was not even formed until 16 years after the Arabs first declared war against Israel, and at the time the West Bank wasn't even under Israeli control.

But it doesn't matter because the world was buying it. If you tell a lie enough times people begin to believe it as fact. Most liberal (progressive) world leaders supported the PLO cause, most media outlets support the PLO, many leaders have made statements regarding Zionism being a racist movement, and the U.N. even passed a resolution stating this. (Typical of progressives who don't seem to care about facts anyway -- just change history, and twist the truth).

A few years ago former President Jimmy Carter went to Syria, a country which is responsible for a large number of crimes against humanity, but instead of crying out against those crimes, he complained about the way the Israeli's were fighting Palestinians who were stoning Israelis. It gets ridiculous.

And, as I stated earlier, you cannot negotiate with a terrorist. The Palestinians, like all Arabs, have only one goal and that is absolutism. They will not settle for anything less. Oh, they say they want peace, but by Arafat's refusal to accept the Oslo Peace Accords, which would have provided the Palestinians 95 percent of everything they wanted, nearly everything they wanted was turned down by Arafat. The reason he turned it down is because "These concessions confronted Arafat with the one outcome he did not want: Peace with Israel. Peace without the destruction of the 'Jewish Entity,'" stated Horowitz.

As part of preaching hate in Arab schools, Horowitz writes that the Arabs refuse to do anything to ease the Palestinian refugees problem because that is part of their strategy to incite hatred of Jews in "the wars to come." Arafat may talk big, but when it comes right down to it he will not sign any peace agreement, and neither will his eventual successors.

Horowiitz writes:

It is hatred, moreover, that is increasingly lethal. today, 70% of the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza approve the suicide bombings of women and children if the targets are Jews. There is no Arab 'Peace Now' movement, not even a small one, whereas in Israel the movement demanding concessions to the Arabs in the name of peace is a formidable political force. There is not Arab spokesman who will speak for the rights and sufferings of Jews, but there are hundreds of thousands of Jews in Israel -- and all over the world -- who will speak for 'justice' for the Palestinians. How can the Jews expect fair treatment from a people that collectively does not even recognize their humanity?"

Well, perhaps after we defeat Iraq we can help clean up the Middle East, and make changes for the better of all -- especially Israel.

Are Bible stories really miracles?

You have doubters of the Bible. They often wonder: Are Bible stories really miracles? Allow me to discuss this issue and come to a logical conclusion.

The history channel has been doing an interesting series this week on the history of the Bible and the scientific basis that could make some of the things happen back then. Modern experts "propose" that while Divine intervention may have caused many of the Biblical events, Hebrew Priests may also have had scientific wisdom that was lost to time.

It is noted in the Bible that the Arc of the Covenant hovered over a platform while it was carried by men. It also hovered whenever it sat in the Temple and had kind of a mist spewing from it.

The neat thing is, one scientist recently found a metal that if cooled to a certain degree Kelvin caused magnets to hover over it. So, he proceeded to make an replica of the Arc and he put magnets under it and he used only artifacts that were available to the ancient peoples of that time. And, using a cooling machine, the Arc really hovered over the platform. It was really cool.

Of course how the Hebrews would have cooled the metal is unknown. Or, perhaps they had another technique of making this phenomenon happen at room temperature that we are still unaware of to this day.

One story in the Bible talks of a battle where the Hebrews defeated a king's army that was far superior in man power and weapons. However, in the Bible it says: "Do not eat the honey, as honey can kill you." (or something like that.) So, it is speculated, based on Biblical descriptions, that the Hebrews lured the King's army to a field. Once the King was ready to slaughter the Hebrew army, the Hebrews surrendered and fled, leaving behind jars of honey.

The King's soldiers thought the honey was a gift acknowledging that the Kings army was far superior. The soldiers ate the honey. Then, and this is where the speculating comes in, the soldiers became drunk and vomited. That was when the Hebrew's returned and slaughtered the kings men and won the battle.

So, modern experts found a mixture if blended in with honey causes these symptoms that were described in the Bible. They had a volunteer who was fit as the King's soldiers would have been eat honey mixed with this substance and he got to the point he couldn't do anything physical.

Another Biblical story talks about a biblical prophet (I can't remember his name) who lived during a time when their were many Hebrew tribes, all of whom worshiped their own version of God. The Hebrew prophet wanted to unite all the Hebrew, so he proposed all the Kings of each tribe create an altar of wood. The first King to have a fire spontaneously erupt by pouring water on it in front of witnesses would be the true God.

All the kings built their alters. Not one of the altars burned. So then it was the Hebrew Prophets turn. He told his men, "Pour water on it... Come on, pour more water... pour some more water... keep coming." The men were skeptical, "What good does water on wood going to do, when water is to put out fire not start it. Still, the men did as they were instructed and poured more and more water onto the altar. Finally it started to smoke. Then it started to burn. A miracle?

In Biblical terms it was. But modern scientists discovered a mixture that was available at that time in history. When it is mixed with water it causes a chemical reaction that warms it and can cause a fire.

A scientist recently performed a study in his lab, and he caused this chemical reaction to happen, and it cooked an egg. He later built an altar of wood like the Hebrew Prophet might have, and he told his men to pour water on it. He re-enacted what would have happened. His men were skeptical. Yet, a fire occurred.

Were these miracles, or were the Hebrew Prophets just excellent scientists?

Now, I do not think any of these new scientific revelations show that the Bible's stories do not refer to miracles of God. They do not prove God does not exist. Even the scientist who proved you can make wood burn by adding water to it as I described above said this new science does not prove a Divine Miracle didn't occur.

What this may prove is that God gave man the wisdom to prove to his people that he does exist, and set them on the path in life that was the best path for the future of man in a Christian world. And, in essence, yes, Bible stories are really miracles.

When was Jesus really born?

I love the history channel. They have been doing a series on Christmas, the birth of Jesus, and events of the Bible and how they could have occurred -- if not by miracle.

Today I watched a show that discussed when Jesus might have been born. Several hundred years after the Birth of Christ Christian Priests got together and they thought it would be really cool to have a calendar based on the birth of Christ, and not on some random Roman King.

Since no one, even during the time of Jesus, knew for sure when Jesus was born (mainly because the main emphasis back then was on the death of Jesus), it was determined that the best day to celebrate Christmas was on December 25.

Why was that date chosen? Because it was the chief Pagan holiday. The Priests thought that celebrating the birth of Christ on this day would be a great way of overriding the old celebration and inculcating the new.

A scholar determined that Jesus must have been born on year 473 or something like that of the Roman calendar, so a week after the Birth of Christ starts the new year. That pretty much put to rest the search for the date of the Birth of Christ.

Eighteen hundred years later researchers determined that the scholar who chose the year failed to take into account a few specific details mentioned in the Bible. For one thing, Jesus was born during the rein of King Herad, who died in 2 BC. Therefore, since Herad is mentioned in the Bible for 4 years after the birth of Jesus, then he must have been born in 6 BC.

Another scientist used information about the star of Bethlehem that the three Kings (of course the Bible does not say how many Kings there were) used to find the baby Jesus. The Bible states it occurred in the East. In Jesus's time, the east referred to the Eastern sky in the morning where the sun rises. So, the search was on to determine what event would have occurred in the Easter sky that might have occurred around 6 BC.

Another account of the Bible states that Jesus was born in a manger, during a time when the Shepherds were watching their sheep. During the time of Jesus Shepherds only watched over their sheep at night, which meant he was born at night. Also significant, most of the year sheep were not watched. The only time they were was in the spring, so Jesus would have been born in the spring not winter.

Another scientist determined that other manuscripts of the time make note that the star occurred in the constellation (what was it called?) that was a symbol of of Judaism. Likewise, Zeus was also mentions. More significant, the planet that represented Zeus was Jupiter. Thus, this scientist determined that the star of Bethlehem would have been an event involving Jupiter in the eastern sky, at night, and in the spring, and around the year 6 BC.

So, using his computer, he set out to determine when such an event would have occurred, and he determined, according to his computer, that Jupiter would have been aligned in the Easter sky in this particular constellation on April 18, of 6 BC., which would have been during the rein of King Heran and during the spring.

Likewise, so too would the moon and other things in the sky. The result of such an alignment would have been a remarkable sight for those who saw it, but it would not have been too bright. Which is significant, because the Bible mentions that the Kings (magi, which means they were magicians) had to convince King Herad that there was such a sight in the sky the night Jesus was born, which meant that the sight was there but wasn't too obvious that someone who wasn't looking for it would have seen it.

Isn't that cool? Man I love history. And it just so happens that's my daughter's birthday. She's a Christmas baby -- well, sorta.