If you bother to have rules for behavior, why not designate a single, ultimate ruler? Why not buttress your thinking by building a super-duper-supreme court, with only one chief gavel-whacker, in your mind? None of this vote-by-jury stuff. Humans are fallible. So put the responsibility for absolute justice up there in the clouds, where it belongs.
The almighty god of Christianity is no Sheriff Andy from Mayberry, RFD. He’s a cross between the biggest and baddest Judge Judy and an invisible parental chaperone. He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you’re awake, he knows when you’ve been jerking off, so be good for heaven’s sake.
Misbehave and no endless Christmas morning for you in the afterlife.
You buy that? I don’t. Which makes me a heretic. Watch out — I’m not afraid of getting coal in the stocking of my oblivion, I’m liable to do anything.
But really. It’s ridiculous to assume that belief in a gavel-whacking god automatically bestows upon individuals the ability to behave. Count the cross tattoos in prisons.
Okay, many don’t find their god/Jesus until they are incarcerated. Maybe he’s easier to locate when hemmed in by four walls, when the thought of escaping to heaven for the next life makes the pious pied-piper’s flute song more enticing.
But what’s the recidivism rate with the baritone commandments of the Big Daddy and/or the melodic promises of Jesus echoing in your ear? What is it when the freed criminal keeps repeating to himself, What would Jesus do? . . . What would Jesus do? . . . Nice set of wheels! . . . What would Jesus do? . . . Yo, check out the nuggets on that happy meal! . . . What would Jesus do? . . . You talking to me, you @$%^#*!!!
I recall a video clip featuring Paul Ekman that I regularly included in my general psychology class. It showed an elder man from a remote tribe in India being greeted by females. In the ritualistic greeting, he placed his bare foot atop their heads, one by one, as they knelt before him. Dominance/submissive gesture, anyone?
One of the most interesting questions concerning the evolution of Bible religions, if you ask me, is why the baldly despotic deity of the Old Testament became the more touchy-feely, Alan-Alda-like deity of the New: Jesus “I’m kinda-one-of-you” Christ.
To illustrate the significance of the transition consider this verse from the Old Testament:
“Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you.” (Psalms 90:11, New International Version)
A quick online search of the New International Version of the Bible revealed that mention of “wrath” falls off 50% in the New Testament. As for the word “anger” that appears at roughly 5% of the rate in the New Testament as it does the old. Why?
Additionally, the agent to be worshipped in the Old Testament tended to speak with select, elite intermediaries. Only Moses was allowed on the mountain top. Meanwhile, with Jesus we find a significantly different dynamic. In John 13:1 he washes his disciples feet, for crying out loud! He rubs elbows with prostitutes and outcastes of all sorts. As a leader, Jesus was one who did not rule by fear and intimidation (at least not nearly as much), but rather by messages of love and togetherness. Why?
Allow me to give my short, albeit speculative, answer. Jesus — a presumably human individual — lived and preached in a time when he faced two entrenched hierarchies: the Jewish priesthood and the ruling Roman empire that occupied the land. Facing those odds, Jesus chose the route of arguing for a reverse hierarchy (see previous posts in the “Alpha” series for more on this). He preached about egalitarianism. At least on earth. What does a reverse hierarchy do but level the playing field? It emphasizes the equality of individuals and in doing so it brings those in power down to earth. It dethrones them, so to speak.
Jesus was not a king nor a tribe leader. Why would then behave like a typical alpha? Instead, he became a charismatic leader. Which is an alpha of sorts. But you might say one that inspires others not to accept the subordinate position they occupy. Again, what this accomplishes, at least theoretically, is to knock the current leaders down a peg or two.
As many a biblical scholar has pointed out — look at the standing of Jesus’ followers. Basically, they were outsiders. Outcasts, you might say. What ladder was there to ascend? If there is one, they had many a missing rung before them.
Matthew 21:32 (New International Version) provides an apt example of the “reverse hierarchy” Jesus preached about:
“Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, the tax collectors [despised individuals] and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.’”
And of course there is this from Matthew 5:5:
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
The meek — gee, what social position do they occupy?
Yet, with all Jesus’ talk about raising up the lowly (and, consequently, lowering the lofty) he still left open a huge door to his own exalted nature. Though on earth he was elbow-to-elbow with the common man and woman, he had an alliance with the greatest of alphas. Or perhaps he was the greatest of alphas incarnate and disguised as an omega.
“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. (Mark 15:2)
“They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, ‘Jesus, Master, have pity on us!’” (Luke 17: 12,13)
A master who rubs elbows with us? That is radical.
“Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ ” (Matthew 4:10)
Exclusivity, such as expressed above is certainly a hallmark of alpha-thinking.
Perhaps another element unique to Jesus was his use of a metaphysical carrot — the promise of a kingdom to come — as well as a stick. While the stick of the Old Testament consisted of such things as plagues and occupations by foreign people, in the New it consisted of a hell. Later. Did a relative hell on earth already exist for the meek, thus that threat carried little heft?
In the United States today a common refrain of one class of Christians is, “You have a friend in Jesus.” A friend? That word expresses relative equality. Similarly, in some churches you will witness forms of worship including singing and dancing. Any fearful subordinate would not draw attention to him/herself that way. Just what is going on?
As mentioned in previous “Alpha” posts, it is possible for one primate to gain an alliance with another, higher ranking individual. An alpha, even. Among chimpanzees, provided the lesser doesn’t directly challenge the greater, he or she does not have to show the same degree of social caution and deference.
So when, say, congregations of southern blacks stand up and sing, waving their arms, etc. — a no-no to fearful subordinates — rather than expressing insubordination, they are celebrating their perceived alliance with a revolutionary leader. Although they may have a socio-economically meek position (historically, at least), they have an ally in a deity who promises to elevate them.
On the other hand, Christian congregations that represent the other end of the socio-economic spectrum would naturally favor an alpha not so fond of potentially order-disrupting behavior. Bow your heads. Stay in line. Because things are good and we don’t want to rock the boat.
The cleverness and perhaps success of Christianity lies in a deity that viewed a number of ways, including the following two. First, Jesus is a god who judges and wields a gavel that can send a person to a heaven or a hell. He may even initiate the end of times and a cataclysm that comes with it. So watch out. Second is the messenger/intermediary hero, the “one of us,” who can feel compassion and who works to right the wrongs of those lacking the power to do it themselves. Naturally, the currently or historically downtrodden, the social outcasts, would be more interested in Jesus the friend. Those Christians in power, or on the cusp of it, are more likely to worship the Jesus Almighty. The one who brought the sword and will enforce the laws. At least the laws deemed important by the more liberal, educated believers of our century.
Of course, all of the above may be a simple case of just-so, post-hoc reasoning. In a future series of posts I will explore ways in which my god-as-an-alpha idea could be tested.
That fiery volcano putting up a plume of smoke — what’s going on? Well, electrons are being ripped from here and added there: chemical reactions. Reactions that give off heat (molecular agitation) and light (escaping photons) as electrons find a lower energy state.
That “cold” bolt of lightning — what’s going on? Electrons (the particles of charge) ripping through space and giving off photons — “particles” of light (or are they waves?).
Damn. What a wild planet this is.
By the way. To add a god to the whole affair would be akin to affixing a smiley face sticker to the above image. An improvement? Get real.
—
[image thanks to NASA]
When looking into the cosmo many people see the “face of God.” Well, at least the tracks left by their Gawd. Even in the Moon. Oh wait, the above celestial body is not “our” moon. It’s a pic of Neptune’s moon, Triton. I wonder, is it also made out of cheese?
A cheesy moon — pretty ridiculous, right? What about a moon made from godstuff? Is that likewise ridiculous? It reminds me of a ditty I once penned. I’ll share it here:
Survivor – Divinity Island
“Do you believe in god?”
When people ask this question they are not talking about Zeus or Murdock or Shiva. Typically, they are referring to the Judeo-Christian god, recognized as “the” god in this country due to popular vote.
By “god” people do not mean the Egyptian god Ptah, the Polynesian Io. Not Krishna, Vishnu, Indra. And although El, Yahwah, and Elohim may have been precursors, they’re not really talking about them, either. Not Knum, Isis & Orisis, or Adonis. Not Ra, Obatala, Proteus, Coyote, Sedna, Springsteen. Not Wakantaka, Atum, Enki, Chaos, Gaea, or Uranus. Not Hurakan, Tawa, Citlaltonac and Citlalicue. Not Qat, Kinharingan, Wanojo, Negacork, Tien Mu, Wang Chung, Prajapati, Tawhiri-ma-tea, Tane-mahuta, Nommo, Mexitli, Apollo, Spider Grandmother. Not even Thor. Not Li-Ching, not Kassa, Athene, Shamash, Kassa, Kena, or Gananina. They mean God. You know — THE God. Almighty John Doe.
There is only one true god, people will insist. The above bunch, then, must be a confederacy of lesser gods. Or trick gods that have been exposed and tossed aside.
The religious people of this country have advanced, if that term is fitting, to the point where they believe in just one invisible agent. This is called monotheism, or theism, for short. The theist is not one who believes in a separate wind god, rain god, and a god of those things that creepeth upon the earth, such as lizards and cockroaches. He or she believes in a single god of the rain, the wind, and the cockroaches. The theist worships a catch-all god, which is handy because this type of god encompasses everything and can be considered above and beyond everything. It eliminates a lot of red tape and intra-cosmos conflict.
The real world is a polytheistic world, one god per religion, creed, and denomination, though people attempt to find some slipshod unity in all the clamoring about a god. Once you get into the details, however, the consensus disappears. The assertion that there is but one god is a political ploy.
The LORD of the Old Testament was, interestingly, a polytheist. He believed in other gods, of which he wanted to be first. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. What we have in the LORD is a god who reached the sweet sixteen round of the NCAA divinity tournament. He waved his large, foam hand and cried, “I’m number one! I’m number one!” Meanwhile, a squad of uniformly-dressed rabbis shook their pom-poms and rallied the crowd: “Go Yahweh! Goooo Yahweh! Go, fight, win!”
Today’s supposed one god remaining, the sole survivor, has been so vaporized by abstraction that few people can find reason to vote him off the island.
—
[image thanks to NASA]
Is God a He, a She, an It, or the sensation you get when biting into a York Peppermint Patty?
After much deliberation, two foil-wrapped candies, and the toss of a coin, my vote goes to “he.” If the Bible god is to be gender-ized, thou shalt refer to him as Him. I guess.
“She” did get 2 nominations from me, for the following reasons:
1) I came into this world through my mother. Sure, my father gave his ounce of input, but my mother did all the work. In this regard, it would be more fitting for the great creator to be a she.
2) I’d like to use “she” as a way of saying Na na-na na-na na! to the legions of men who have written the books and set down the rules that have generated and advanced organizations controlled by men. They did this while the women were raising their children.
How, I wonder, can a modern woman believe in the traditional, most high, He-god, and still be a self-respecting woman?
Fidelity to history and current poll results necessitates the use of “he” as well. The supposedly singular God, the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god, was traditionally a masculine entity and still widely is. Our Father.
(Heinz is my pet name for the god of the Old and New Testaments. Judging by the many religions and the many denominations of the many religions and the many sects of the many denominations of the many religions based upon this one god, it’s apparent that Heinz comes in at least 57 varieties.)
That the Bible is a sexist document is obvious to those few believers who have actually read the whole thing. Livestock play as prominent role as women.
And of course there’s that whole rib thing. Why weren’t both Eve and Adam fashioned out of, say, God’s toes? This little piggy gets a penis; this little piggy gets a vagina. Because on outy trumps an inny, by my decree the piggy with the outy will be the boss of the inny piggy.
The above explanation makes as much sense as the biblical mythology proposing that womanhood began as a spare rib.
But hey, what do you expect a bunch of guys in an ancient culture in ancient times to believe? Wives with as much power and respect as husbands? Puh-lease!
Some modern believers assert that the God is more of an It, lacking gender. By doing so they have given their God an extreme makeover. Cosmetic surgery even. Some of us, however, can still see his wrinkles.
The God Concept: One Form False, the Other Irrelevant
he concept of an almighty god brings to mind the vehicle Fred Flintstone drove along the cartoon roads of Bedrock. The vehicle didn’t do any actual work—that was up to Fred. But the idea of a car on stone rollers, with bare feet sticking out the bottom pushing it along, was entertaining. In the real world, of course, Fred’s vehicle would be more of an impediment to getting anywhere than an aid.
And so it is with the god concept. When used, this archaic term is unlikely to help us get somewhere. And by that I mean gain an increased understanding of the universe.
Words are speech sounds that in themselves are arbitrary: they carry no inherent meaning. Only when associated with objects, events, and internal sensations, do words acquire meaning and can be put to work. Transport yourself to a city of people who speak a language unfamiliar to you, and you will not comprehend the meaning of their speech sounds. Your ability to operate would be severely hampered.
Good researchers, and savvy speakers and writers in general, understand that the more clearly they use language, starting with but not limited to the definition of terms, the better they can communicate. Listeners and readers must know the meaning of words in order to evaluate reasoning and, if they so desire, replicate findings. The replication of findings is essential to the advancement of human knowledge because without it we can have no confidence that the world we know is the same world other people know.
To the question, “Do you believe in God?” a reasonable response is, “What do you mean by God?” Without defining a god in any way, a stated belief in a god is no different than a belief in “@#$%^.” It is also no more worthy of the energy expended to speak it than the statement, “Your car won’t start because of @#$%^.” Defining terms is essential to making claims of knowledge; without clear definitions, claims cannot be adequately understood, evaluated, and verified. Misunderstanding follows on the heels of sloppy language.
