“Fools never die, they are merely replaced by others.” – Unknown

In February 1997, the Israeli Air Force suffered its worst disaster ever. Two transport helicopters carrying troops collided in mid-air over the village of She’ar Yashuv in northern Galilee, resulting in the death of 73 soldiers. The small country mourned, and a commission of inquiry was established to determine the cause of the disaster.

During the days that followed the disaster, several religious radio stations quoted Isaiah, chapter 7, verses 3-4:

“Then said the Lord unto Isaiah: ‘Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fullers’ field; and say unto him: Keep calm, and be quiet; fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands …”

The phrase ‘Shear-jashub’ (pronounced She’ar Yashuv) is mentioned several times in the book of Isaiah – sometimes as the name of Isaiah’s son. In fact, the northern Israeli village was named after this reference. Still, it was easy for some to make the association between the name ‘She’ar Yashuv’, the two burnt helicopters, the phrase ‘two tails of smoking firebrands’ and the fact that Isaiah is considered a prophet.

Six years later, in February 2003, the world watched in horror as the space shuttle Columbia broke into burning pieces high in the sky. During the week after, the righteous were busy again rummaging the Bible for clues. It eventually came out in the shape of some other claptrap called Bible code sometimes also referred to as letter skips. It appears that if you take the current Hebrew version of the Bible, start somewhere in the middle of the 7th verse of Genesis (that talks about the sky), and skip 1822 letters at a time, you reveal the phrase ‘Death to Columbia’. Of-course, the discovery is made with computers, courtesy of simple software that you can write at home over night.

In this game of hocus-pocus there are typically two sides – the instructor and the audience. They share the enthusiasm of finding mystical clues in allegedly God-given texts. They typically also share the lack of basic knowledge in statistics, or at least have the will to ignore it.

The game is most effective when the instructor possesses good presentation skills, and the student is a teenager at the age of “asking yourself questions” about important stuff, such as life in general and the world around us. The game is even more effective when there is a large and efficient organization or system backing up and supporting the instructor, perhaps even with some public funding. The background and environment of the students have strong relation to the expected outcome of the game. In a Jewish environment, the student may become an Orthodox Jewish believer. In a Christian atmosphere, he or she may eventually become a good Christian. In an Islamic environment, the game has been known to produce faithful Muslims.

The game itself has various flavors. They may be used separately or together. Let’s examine some of the most common approaches to this mind-blunting game:

(i) Bible Code (also known as Letter Skips or ‘Dilugim’ in Hebrew) – in this version of the game, we use a trick similar to the one explained above with the Columbia disaster. We scan the Biblical text and locate combinations of letters (that have a fixed distance from one another) which make some sense. Then (this is the tricky part) we tune our mind to believe that it cannot be a coincidence. It must be some secret message coded into the text by the Almighty – how else did it get there?

In practice, fooling around with the text enough time – with any sufficiently long text – will yield almost any desired result. You can probably locate your own name (if it’s not too long or complicated) as well as obvious hints to most famous disasters in human history. Just ask Michael Drosnin, the author of The Bible Code. If you proceed to read the Skeptic column of the Scientific American, June 2003 issue – you’ll find an outstanding article named Codified Claptrap by Michael Shermer. There you can discover in other masterpieces, such as Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace, some interesting messages coded using this method. You can also read about the discovery of messages denying the method of the Bible Code, found in the book Bible Code II itself.

By the way, if you continue with the Columbia trick above and count two additional letters, you’ll get ‘No death to Columbia’. It’s also interesting to note that opposing religious trends have been known to find conflicting messages in the Bible. Jesus seems to be a major star of this scheme, for example, unless of-course you’re an Orthodox Jew. The other interesting thing to note is that the Biblical text itself – according to recent research – has changed quite a lot, especially (but not only) during the first millennium BC.

(ii) Numerology and Gimatria – these are other tricks to fool around with letters and numbers. Gimatria is a Hebrew version of numerology, where each letter is assigned a numeric value, based on the decimal method of counting.

The trick here is to sum up the values of all the letters in a certain word, name or phrase. Then to sum up the values of some other word, name or phrase. If by some coincidence the result is the same, it means, of-course, that God meant it to be that way. So – there must be some relationship between the two.

Example: During the first Gulf War in 1991, some wise guy found that Saddam Hussein is equal to Amalek in Gimatria. ‘Amalek’ is the ancient enemy nation that was allegedly defeated by the ancient Israelites with some help from God (see Exodus, chapter 17). Apparently, this brilliant finding did not help at the time with the total defeat of Saddam Hussein. It also did not help to defeat the use of this funny method by Israeli spiritual leaders, such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who discovered that Evil Haman (book of Esther) is equal to Yosef Sarid (a left-wing Israeli parliament member, hated by ultra-Orthodox Jews). Ovadia Yosef himself, by the way, is equal to Talks of Nonsense, using this same trick.

<< Prev Contents Next (soon to be published)

“He who sues his friend in their secular court – his sin is unforgivable.” (Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, book published in 1981)

“Thus, a harsh edict, almost incurable, in the shape of democracy has fallen upon the world. That is a horrible disease that spreads and devours from soul to flesh.” (‘Yated Neeman’ – ‘Faithful Tent-Peg’, Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspaper, January 1999)

“The dark Zionist regime of the last century will be extinct … The supreme court’s halls shall be swept from their current occupants, whose place will be taken … by Sanhedrin [religious court] …” (‘BaKehilla’ – ‘In the Community’, Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspaper, February 1999)

“The Knesset [the Israeli parliament] as a whole is against the Bible … It does not matter which laws are made there … Even if we ourselves [the ultra-Orthodox Jews] vote and send our representatives there … to prevent harsh edicts … it does not imply any recognition of this institute …” (Rabbi Chaim Shaul Karelitz, a major ultra-Orthodox Jewish leader, article published in May 2000)

“The ideological perverts also named ‘secular’ … which are beasts. Perhaps improved beasts, one must say, as their external shape is human.” (‘HaShavua’ – ‘This Week’, Israeli ultra-Orthodox Jewish newspaper, April 2001)

And the poor “secular” people – what do they say? Where are they? Alas, there are not too many real secular people, especially not in the Middle East. In fact, most of those granted the title “secular” are exactly those mentioned in the beginning of this book, which wander between the “reality mode” and the “religious mode”. The presence of many secular people, so to speak, is more of a worldwide illusion. There are mainly the more religious and the less religious.

Putting people with religious thinking in power may be hazardous to your health. By definition, a person who surrenders his or her sovereignty to some god of their choice is due to surrender his or her free will (and decisions) to the rules dictated by that god. These rules may not always represent the optimal solution in the real world.

Would you put a country’s education in the hands of a leader who believes that all species were created simultaneously? Would you trust a decision about the future of some territory to be purely rational, when one’s god has already sentenced this territory’s future? What about public busses in Tel Aviv during the Sabbath? And letting poor Mr. Cohen marry his loved one, who happens to be divorced, or even recognizing atheists (e.g., heretics) as patriots? Here is what Vice President George H.W. Bush had to say to Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, in 1987:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.

Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, a Holocaust survivor, is considered a moderate man. Yet, in his 2005 speech during the March of the Living at the former site of the Auschwitz death camp in Poland, while representing the state of Israel, he counted all evils one by one:

“Don’t we understand it easily, what the snake understood? … like poverty, like crime, like ignorance, like atheism, like terror, like anti-Semitism, like atom, like cancer, like AIDS, … isn’t a time that we understand we all must live together?”

Thus creating the equation: atheism = terror and cancer (or pick any other evil of choice).

As opposed to the United States, Israel cannot afford to fall back too much into religion. Yet this process is so clear, that many people simply fail to pay attention to it.

Leaving religion is what made the modern State of Israel, and returning to religion is what will destroy it. Moreover, when this happens, the few remaining secular people will be the ones blamed for the consequences.

<< Prev Contents Next >>

“My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.” – Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.

You’ve probably heard of the term “Separation of Church and State”. What does it mean? For many it means exactly what it says: Let each and every religious person (or community) go about their own business. Let the state (or country) take care of the people’s business in general: Education, economy, defense, etc. In short: Don’t mix personal beliefs with the regime.

Is there a separation of church and state in Iran? Most readers would probably say ‘No’. Is there a separation of church and state in the United States, in Egypt, in Israel, or in other places?

In August 2003 there was a big debate in the American media over the federal court order, to move a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building. Was it appropriate to have the monument there? Hundreds of people demonstrated against the decision to remove it. A quick survey taken by the CNN web site proved the public opinion was more or less split as to whether it should be there.

While it may be argued that the monument simply symbolizes some sort of striving for justice, it’s a little bit more difficult to use the same “symbolic” argument in the case of Israel’s laws of matrimony.

You see, long ago Jewish priests were not allowed to marry divorced women. Since the State of Israel irresponsibly abandoned all formal treatment of matrimony to the religious courts, then at the time of writing these lines (21st century, to remind you), it’s still impossible for people carrying the last name of Cohen to marry divorced women in Israel. In fact, it’s also totally impossible for people who are registered as having different religions (!) to marry in Israel. How do they work around this? Travel to some other nearby country – typically Cyprus – get married there, and return home.

The gluing of church and state in Israel does not end with the Cohens. The very existence of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, sponsored by the Israeli taxpayer, is another clear aspect of the phenomenon. Let alone other religious coercive laws, such as the formal forbiddance of displaying bread for commercial purposes during Passover (it’s still okay to sell it under the table), or the many limitations on raising pigs. Does stopping all public busses in Tel Aviv during the Sabbath make people more Jewish? It probably makes them more pissed off if they don’t own a car, but still it happens.

When Theodor Herzl envisioned the Jewish state at the end of the 19th century, he wrote:

“We shall therefore prevent any theocratic tendencies from coming to the fore on the part of our priesthood. We shall keep our priests within the confines of their temples in the same way as we shall keep our professional army within the confines of their barracks.”

In fact, the pre-birth of the State of Israel was at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, by young Jewish people who abandoned the religious way of life in favor of Zionism. Many of them were shunned by their communities, and often by their own families, for the sin of leaving the religion and heresy.

<< Prev Contents Next >>

“England and America are two countries separated by a common language.” – George Bernard Shaw

Religion deserves a dictionary of its own, and indeed there are already quite a few. However, they typically use a very serious approach. How about something lighter, but one that still carries the correct meaning of things?

So here it comes – The Ultimate Religious Dictionary:

Angel – An alien humanoid of male gender, with wings and knowledge of the Bible. Typically guards the righteous (see ‘Righteous’).

Ape – Charles Darwin’s grandfather.

Bless – Recite ancient text while looking as if you’re making an effort.

Christian – (if the speaker is a Christian:) A good man; (if the speaker is a religious Jew:) A pagan; (if the speaker is a Muslim:) A criminal and a conqueror.

Church – A place where God wants us to be without hats.

Democracy – A regime that conducts elections.

Dinosaur – A non-existing animal, part of some anti-religious scheme.

Evolution – A fantasy designed by some poor lunatics in order to demonstrate their hate of the truth (see ‘Hate’, ‘Truth’).

Freedom – Your option to choose what your priest or rabbi or sheikh tells you.

God – (There’s no definition to this word, but you’re supposed to understand it anyway.)

Hate – Possessing non-religious opinions; Opposing the religious way of life; Criticizing religious beliefs.

Heretic – One who dares to say things, which religious literature defines as heresy, regardless of their meaning and content.

Jew – (if the speaker is a religious Jew:) A good man, if religious; a potentially good man, if non-religious; (if the speaker is Muslim:) a conqueror with American friends; (if the speaker is Christian:) a chosen person who might or might not abandon the right way.

Kangaroo – An animal that swam all the way from Noah’s Ark to Australia, some 4000 years ago.

Kosher – Food (and sometimes other things) stamped by a well-paid person, who has learned kosher rules (see ‘Learn’).

Learn – Study the text of the Bible and other religious literature; Practice logic rules that appear in ancient religious texts (such as the Talmud) as long as the outcome is identical to the one that is found in the text.

Love – Converting one’s belief to religion (‘Love of Israel’ – converting one’s belief to Orthodox Judaism).

Messiah – An unclear title, for which there is a strong competition between Jesus of Nazareth, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Chabad-Lubavitch, and a futuristic stranger riding a white donkey.

Miracle – Something that perhaps happens and that makes you feel good if it happens.

Mosque – A place where God wants us to be with no shoes on.

Muslim – (if the speaker is a Muslim:) A good man; (if the speaker is a Christian:) A terrorist; (if the speaker is a religious Jew:) A somewhat primitive religious person.

Pluralism – Justification for missionary activity.

Protein – The evidence for evolutionists’ conspiracy.

Psalms – A Jewish medicine for everything. Since the Gulf War in 1991 it has been known to stop missiles.

Pure – Exercising not having sex for a long time; not being dead; not during menstruation.

Purpose – The plan designed for the future of a thing or a person in the blueprint of the universe drawn by God.

Righteous – A person, typically a male, who performs religious rituals in detail.

Save – A Christian flavor of ‘Love’ (See ‘Love’).

Sex – Something that God lets you get away with, under certain conditions.

Strengthen – Act in a way that encourages others not to think rationally.

Sun – A big source of light created after Earth, circling Earth ever since.

Synagogue – A place where God wants us to be with hats.

Tradition – A logical method of proving things beyond doubt.

Truth – Anything that correlates with the speaker’s belief.

Unity – A situation where everybody follows my religious rules.

Okay. Now you may put the book aside, have a short break, freshen up and come back soon invigorated.

<< Prev Contents Next >>

“In India, as elsewhere in our darkening world, religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of “respect”.” – Salman Rushdie

“Where one burns books, one will soon burn people.” – Heinrich Heine

You may have heard that some Christians have a thing against Harry Potter. Rev. John Hagee, the famous pastor from San Antonio, Texas, devoted several of his shows to battling “the great evil of Harry Potter”, as part of his war against so-called witchcraft.

Certain Christians find the justification they need for such a battle in the New Testament:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;” (1 Timothy, chapter 4, verses 1-2)

Whether Harry Potter encourages kids to delve into witchcraft (as claimed by some parent organizations across the US) is yet to be seen. One should wonder what is witchcraft anyway – not too many parents seem to ban Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, though similar reasoning may apply in this case. Does it sound too absurd? Not if you ask Rev. George Bender of the Harvest Assembly of God Church. On March 2001, the congregation gathered around a bonfire in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and burned Harry Potter books, together with Disney videos such as Pinocchio, some rock CDs and literature from other religions. The act was naturally justified as based on the Bible.

In various states in the US (especially in the south) there is a history of book banning. All over the world many Orthodox Jews have banned the New Testament itself. In recent years the issue of Harry Potter has appeared in several Jewish discussions because a central part of Judaism is the 613 Mitzvot (613 commandments) derived from the Bible, of which the 62nd one reads: “Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live” (Exodus, chapter 22, verse 17).

Burning witches in the past millennium was more of a Christian business. Yet, burning printed material and destroying other precious things – in the name of religion – has been the business of others as well. Islamic revolutions, such as the one in Sudan during the late 80s, experienced breaking and destroying many bottles of wine and other forbidden alcoholic beverages. The destruction of the huge stone Buddhas by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 shook the civilized world. The famous Egyptian Sphinx escaped a similar Fatwah (a religious edict) in the beginning of 2006. The Satanic Verses, a famous book by Salman Rushdie, was for Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini much more than what Harry Potter has been for Rev. John Hagee. In 1989, the now deceased leader of Iran declared that the book was blasphemous, and called for the death of Mr. Rushdie. Salman Rushdie went into hiding, with the protection of the British government. A million dollar reward was offered for Rushdie’s murder, and worldwide, many people associated with the book’s publishing were physically attacked.

It seems that some religious leaders are eager to limit the possibilities for the flock under their care to even know of other things, whether factual or fictitious. Not knowing seems to be a major part of not believing. Is religious belief so fragile that it needs to be nurtured all the time?

The issue is even deeper – it’s related again to the sensitive matter of believing vs. knowing. If people knew (scientifically speaking) about a God above who enjoyed our doing certain things, then there wouldn’t be any real reason to prevent them from reading opposing literature and opinions. Hence the very existence of the thought police is the best indication for the need for its existence. Guard and protect – this is one of religion’s self-defense mechanisms.

Orthodox Judaism generally forbids causing any harm to written religious texts. A hand-written official Bible even gets a proper burial ceremony if damaged. Yet, there seems to be a good excuse for anything when it’s arbitrarily deemed necessary. For example: When written by a heretic, the book should to be burned.

In the year 2000, a small Israeli organization named Daat Emet (Knowing the Truth) compiled and distributed interesting pamphlets among ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Israel. Most of the content of those pamphlets consisted of actual quotes from traditional Jewish religious literature, such as the Talmud, and even the Bible. However, the material was well organized in a way that demonstrated numerous contradictions and factual errors in the ancient texts.

The people who compiled the pamphlets obviously had a background in Judaism. Their purpose in creating the pamphlets was simple: Encourage people to raise doubts and be able to criticize, while talking their own language, using the very same texts that are studied on a day-to-day basis.

The response to the pamphlets was in many instances quite extreme and varied from public slander to actual violence. In several cases, the pamphlets were gathered and burned in public. Needless to say, in privacy many religious people did read the forbidden material, just as many of John Hagee’s followers probably read Harry Potter and many Iranians read Salman Rushdie.

With a bit of luck, this book will be banned as well.

<< Prev Contents Next >>

In a previous chapter, we already mentioned the wonderful logical statement “There’s no proof that there’s no God”. Perhaps this is the proper time to complement that statement with a well-known joke:

A couple went on vacation to a fishing resort up north. The husband liked to fish at the crack of dawn. The wife liked to read. One morning the husband returned after several hours of fishing and decided to take a short nap. Although she wasn’t familiar with the lake, the wife decided to take the boat. She rowed out a short distance, anchored, and returned to reading her book.

Along came the sheriff in his boat. He pulled up alongside her and said, “Good morning, Ma’am. What are you doing?”

“Reading my book,” she replied …as she thought to herself, “isn’t it obvious?”

“You’re in a restricted fishing area,” he informed her.

“But officer, I’m not fishing. Can’t you see that?”

“Yes, but you have all the equipment. I’ll have to take you in and write you up.”

“If you do that, I’ll have to charge you with rape,” snapped the irate woman.

“But, I haven’t even touched you,” groused the sheriff.

“Yes, that’s true,” she replied, “but you have all the equipment.”

And then, perhaps the most disturbing and truly amazing logical conflict is the one that deals with democracy and pluralism. It’s best described as “Help us to make you unable to help!”

1991-1992 was a rather tempestuous election time in Algeria. The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), an Islamic fundamentalist organization intent on governing by Koranic law, made huge gains in the elections. The elections were considered fair, but still the fundamentalist victory made people think that future elections were not going to be so democratic. Eventually, the regime cancelled the elections that would have created a Muslim state.

In 1997, Mr. Israel Eichler (who later became an Israeli parliament member, in an Orthodox Jewish religious political party) was a regular guest on Israeli TV talk shows. On one particular show one of the discussions focused on a case of a large Orthodox Jewish family, which – for some reason – wanted to live within a closed secular community.

“You must accept them,” said Mr. Eichler, “you believe in pluralism!”

“Would you accept me and my family in your ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhood?” asked one of the secular participants.

“Of-course not,” said Mr. Eichler, “we do not believe in pluralism!”

There’s no worse method of abusing the term “freedom of speech” than using it to promote religious ideas that encourage control of speech and thought. Similarly, there’s no worse method of abusing the term “democracy” than using it to promote a religious anti-democratic regime. It’s as fair as using your feet in a basketball game. Either you take part in the pluralistic game and obey its rules, or you don’t, but please choose your arena clearly!

In February 1999 there was a big ultra-Orthodox Jewish demonstration against the Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem. Hundreds of thousands of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox Jewish) people demonstrated against the court’s recent decisions, which they seemed to dislike. In a nearby park, a much smaller demonstration was spontaneously formed, of non-religious people who protested against this mass abuse of democracy. Two of them held a big sign that read “Daddy, why didn’t you protest when it was still allowed?”

<< Prev Contents Next >>

“’Contrariwise,’ continued Tweedledee, ‘if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.’” – ‘Through the Looking-Glass’, Lewis Carroll

I had an argument recently with someone over the Internet. It had to do with the origins of the Hebrew names for God, as part of the overall argument about the origins of the Bible itself. “According to the Bible,” he said, “the name ‘Yehova’ was being used around 3500 BC. Therefore, the archaeological Canaanite findings from 800 BC are much more recent.” – He actually wrote ‘Ye-ho-va’ (including the hyphens) rather than ‘Yehova’, well, you know…

One of the most curious methods of arguing about the origins of the Biblical text, is to use the stories told by the text itself as some kind of absolute evidence. Of-course! It is God’s word! The Bible itself says so, end of argument!

Has something gone wrong with the inference mechanism in some people? It seems as if this issue was deeply imprinted within us during our religious education, up to the point where some of us simply ignore the circularity within this kind of logic. “It’s written in the Bible” has become to be considered hard evidence, regardless of the fact that the issue under dispute may be the integrity of the Biblical text itself.

Such circular logic is much more common than what you may think. In previous chapters we discussed the Jewish perception that “succeeding generations are said to lessen in spiritual power” as well as the Biblical text “…and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee.” (Deuteronomy, chapter 17, verse 10). God tells me I should do what the old sages say. In turn, they interpret these words as an order to follow my rabbi’s instructions. Thus the chain of “decreasing spiritual power” is followed all the way to me, instructing me to follow and obey the very concept of decreasing spiritual power, and teaching me to take the Biblical God for granted. In other words, as has already been written: God says I should listen to my rabbi, which in turn teaches me that everything God says is right. Hallelujah!

Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’, which has been mentioned in a previous chapter, is a masterpiece of satire that has appropriate scenes for many religious whims. This time we’ll quote the somewhat educational discussion between the reluctant Brian and his followers:

Follower: Hail Messiah!

Brian: I’m not the Messiah!

Follower: I say you are, Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few.

Crowd: Hail Messiah!

Brian: I’m not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly!

Girl: Only the true Messiah denies his divinity.

Brian: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!

Crowd: He is! He is the Messiah!

Brian: Now, fuck off!

Follower: How shall we fuck off, O Lord?

Imagine yourself in the following situation: Someone sells you precious consultation advice on a topic that is very important for your future. The consultant also warns you that others may say totally different things about this topic. However, when they do so – it’s just a test, actually managed by the consultant him/herself. Wouldn’t you be a bit suspicious about such strange advice? What sort of chance does that give you or the other consultants?

In the same vein, here is what the book of Deuteronomy advises you in the beginning of chapter 13 (verses 2-4):

“If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying: ‘Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them’; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; For the Lord your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

<< Prev Contents Next >>

Man: It’s the influence of television. Yeah, now Marshall McLuhan deals with it in terms of it being a-a high, uh, high intensity, you understand? A hot medium … as opposed to a …

Singer: What I wouldn’t give for a large sock o’ horse manure.

Man: … as opposed to a print …

Singer: (addressing the audience) What do you do when you get stuck in a movie line with a guy like this behind you? I mean it’s just maddening!

Man: (addressing the audience) Wait a minute, why can’t I give my opinion? It’s a free country!

Singer: I mean, d- He can give you- Do you hafta give it so loud? I mean, aren’t you ashamed to pontificate like that? And-and the funny part of it is, M-Marshall McLuhan, you don’t know anything about Marshall McLuhan’s…work!

Man: Wait a minute! Really? Really? I happen to teach a class at Columbia called “TV Media and Culture”! So I think that my insights into Mr. McLuhan – well, have a great deal of validity.

Singer: Oh, do yuh?

Man: Yes.

Singer: Well, that’s funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here. So … so, here, just let me – I mean, all right. Come over here … a second.

Man: Oh.

Singer: (To McLuhan) Tell him.

McLuhan: (To the man) I hear – I heard what you were saying. You- you know nothing of my work. You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.

Singer: (addressing the audience) Boy, if life were only like this!

Taking it even one step further: A Biblical verse, if containing some controversial idea, will most likely be criticized or dismissed as “misunderstood” when quoted by a non-religious person (try it – it’s fun). The interpretation in this case may often be proposed as a wrong one. However, the same verse may get lots of attention, perhaps even hours of lecture time when presented by a religious authority. The interpretation then is not to be argued, even if it’s similar to the previous one.

The issue of the alleged divinity of the sages has another interesting perspective. Theoretically speaking, there are two contradicting options: Either those who wrote the Talmud, for instance, were speaking the actual words of God, or they simply wrote whatever was on their human minds. If they did quote the Almighty on everything, then this raises considerable doubts about His Holiness’ knowledge of the world he’d created. Doesn’t he know insects are not formed of human sweat (the tractate of ‘Shabbos’)? Doesn’t he know cats and birds don’t carry poison in their fingernails (the tractate of ‘Chulin’)? Isn’t he aware of the fact that the trachea does not reach the heart and the liver (again the tractate of ‘Chulin’)? Doesn’t he know rabbits, hares and badgers don’t ruminate (the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy)? Is he confused about the relative movement of the Sun and the Earth (the tractate of ‘Pesachim’)? Hell, he can’t even properly count the verses of his own Bible (the tractate of ‘Kidushin’)! And there are many more similar examples!

On the other hand, if they simply wrote whatever was on their earthly minds, then why follow the ancient dictated rules? Why follow commands that were perhaps more appropriate for the era when they were written? Why not adopt an updated codex of rules, made also by humans – but humans who are equipped with modern knowledge of our recent time? And even more importantly: Why not allow the questioning and changing of the old man-made rules?

Even if we do distinguish (as some people do) between the Biblical text and the later extensions – as it happens, most of the religious day-to-day rituals and rules are derived from those extensions and not from the original Bible. This is certainly true for Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

So we make good use of our ancient messengers, our “middle men”. In practice, they are our gods much more than the concept we use to name as such.

<< Prev Contents Next >>

Any chance of help from serious WordPress and php experts who share this blog’s ideology…?

Thanks anyway, back with you soon.
Bud

“Wise men make proverbs, but fools repeat them.” – Samuel Palmer

How do we know God wants us to refrain from stealing from others? How can we be so sure the Almighty is against adultery? After all, it’s kind of difficult to pinpoint any individual meeting with him (her? them?) recently. Yet, millions of people seem to know exactly what this mysterious super-power requires from them, to the very last detail.

Not to worry. Where the distance between God and man appears to be too big, there comes the messenger. He is typically a male figure. He carries with him some impressive personality and often also certain extreme physical characteristics. Painters and sculptors love him. He seems to have had breakfast with God every other day. What’s much more important – he has been dead for quite a while now, so there’s no way to really ask him about God’s favorite kind of coffee. Some say he’ll come back one day, as part of the overall deal, so there’s another good reason to follow his messages.

We call them “prophets”, “saviors”, “sages” and “Messiahs”. We name them “Moses”, “Jesus”, “Eliyahu”, “Muhammad”, and other ancient names. It’s easier for us to relate to their human appearance and to the tangible texts they allegedly left behind, than to some abstract God. They of-course penetrate our mind at a young age, together in the same package with heaven, angels and respect to the unknown.

So, not all men are created equal. If you ask the Christians, not all men are even created men – some are genetically related to God (hmmm). Actually, the Hebrew Bible also mentions “sons of gods” in various places (Genesis, Psalms), which seems to be inherited from older Canaanite texts. The Jews have it organized a bit differently: The sages are said to be closer to God and succeeding generations are said to lessen in spiritual power – thus simply reversing the facts of human and cultural development.

Our tendency to look for cosmic conspiracies makes it easy for us to glorify ancient events as well as old heroes. The stories about them are found here and now, but their human weaknesses are not visible to us. Can you imagine your favorite hero in some embarrassing situations? Perhaps cheating someone, having a sexual fantasy, or even suffering from diarrhea? Instead we typically imagine them with shiny eyes, standing powerfully in a high spot, speaking words of guidance.

Alas, even the words they speak in our books are not necessarily their own words. We almost take for granted the way modern media and politics alter what leaders and politicians have to say. Yet we totally ignore the fact that this trend has not been recently invented. Putting words in someone else’s mouth is a very old art. Modern studies demonstrate many such cases in the Jewish Talmud, for example. It requires a great measure of naivety to assume the absolute integrity of any ancient text, especially one that deals with people.

If you came across the legendary British TV series “Yes, Minister” (and later named, “Yes, Prime Minister”) – lucky you! Manipulating someone else’s words can be done directly, but the more elegant and stealth way to do it is to reinterpret the meaning. You can say almost anything you want about someone’s words as long as he or she is not there to defend their original meaning. The Talmud is literally full with “X said Y but he actually meant Z”. The sentence gets extra strength when the interpreter himself (never herself!) is also considered sacred enough.

<< Prev Contents Next >>