Banjo

Yes, I think like you do, that it is interpreted by the male ego.

Interesting thoughts. However think about hunter gatherer society.
The men go out and the women look after the children while gathering.
The women will have a responsibility for the children of their mates.
The avoidance of inbreeding would have been known from the earliest
times. That would have led to marriage of one form or another.

When agriculture developed, the ownership of a plot of land would have
reinforced the need to declare a family and a public declaration of
a marriage.

Dear Banjo,

The Hebrew word for rib, "Tselå" can also mean "side", but not "underside".

Well if you believe that Moses wrote the bible, then you would also believe that he had no say in it - according to tradition, he just sat on the mountain and wrote exactly as God dictated, including about his own death (traditionally he was "writing and crying").

But I do agree that it is all allegorical - and so I believe does Peter Sellick.

If any "machismo" was intended, then it is the fact that man no longer needs to suffer the agonising pains of giving birth, now that the woman, due to her sin, took on that punishment instead. However, I think that man's punishment is even more severe!

The division of the bible into chapters is a late feature (13th century), so let's look at the bright side:

Genesis 1 (including the first 3 verses of Genesis 2) is there to teach us the importance of the Sabbath: without taking time off work, one never has the time to study and reflect on spirituality, thus will never get around to read the rest of the book.

Genesis 2+3 teach about free will and responsibility for one's actions.

Genesis 4 teaches about prayer and surrender to God.

Genesis 6 teaches about refraining from lust and greed.

Genesis 7-8 teach compassion.

Genesis 9 teaches about purity and refraining from intoxication.

Genesis 10 teaches about refraining from pride.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Well if you believe that Moses wrote the bible, then you would also believe that he had no say in it - according to tradition, he just sat on the mountain and wrote exactly as God dictated, including about his own death (traditionally he was "writing and crying") »
.

The only belief I have regarding the bible is that it was written by religious zealots considered authorities on the monotheistic religions. It is an ontology of narratives which express the individual authors’ religious beliefs. Its prime purpose is not to relate historical facts but to show how to relate to the monotheistic God. I see it as a handbook or manual of the monotheistic religions.

From a purely historical point of view, everything it relates must be examined with caution and circumspection and verified by reference to more reliable, independent historical sources.
.

The god hypothesis was imagined by primeval man as an explanation for natural phenomena which he did not understand. That hypothesis has been handed down to us, generation after generation. It has evolved and been transformed along the way to adapt to modern needs and conceptions, including scientific knowledge such as physics, chemistry, biology, sociology etc.

Political leaders have capitalised on it, down the ages, using it as a powerful tool to control the vast, widely dispersed populations under their rule, which they could not control otherwise.

I, personally, feel no need for it. Many others do. I see it essentially as an aid for those who have difficulty coping with the vicissitudes of their daily life – their existential angst. Like primeval man, they place their trust in a hypothetical god, ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.

No, I do not “believe that Moses wrote the bible” nor that he “sat on the mountain and wrote exactly as God dictated”.

However, I have no objection to you or anybody else believing that – if that is what you, or they, wish to believe.

.

Dear Banjo,

I do not believe that Moses wrote the bible either (nor do I think does Peter Sellick), if he existed at all, however the old testament is a multifarious compilation which was gathered not by religious zealots, but by politicians with the aim of unifying the Jewish nation - some of the sources they picked were spiritual gems while others were historical garbage. Thus the bible's prime purpose is political and god is only incidental, inasmuch that He served the national purpose.

When you speak of "The god hypothesis", God is not an hypothesis - yes people make hypotheses about the qualities of God, which do have a positive religious use, but God Himself has no qualities. Political leaders promoted those "qualities" of God that benefited their purpose and censored those that opposed it.

«I see it essentially as an aid for those who have difficulty coping with the vicissitudes of their daily life – their existential angst.»

Wait, these are two completely different issues: coping with daily life is the simpler problem and has simple practical solutions. Existential angst is the bigger issue and while always there, it is often only uncovered once daily life is no longer a burden.

Trying to use God for solving everyday problems is a mistake, but finding God is the only solution for existential angst. Without God, our existence seems to be temporary, our consciousness limited and our happiness fleeting. Only by realising God, which is our true nature, does existential angst vanish: once we know who we really are, there is no longer a question of temporariness, unconsciousness or unhappiness.

.

Dear Yuyututsu,

.

You wrote :

« God is not an hypothesis … Without God, our existence seems to be temporary, our consciousness limited and our happiness fleeting. Only by realising God, which is our true nature, does existential angst vanish: once we know who we really are »
.

That sounds more like Socratic philosophy than religion, Yuyutsu : “know yourself !” Here is an interesting article on how to go about it :

http://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/know-yourself/

The ancient Greek philosopher, who lived from 470 – 399 BC, was a man of great wisdom. I am pleased to see that you share his thoughts. I do too.

In many respects, the life, trial, condemnation and death of Jesus of Nazareth was similar to that of Socrates. Neither left any writings. Our knowledge of each is through the writings of others, the major difference being that for Socrates we have access to the writings of his most famous student and “devoted young follower”, Plato. Whereas, there are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus of Nazareth.

I have great esteem for the wisdom of Socrates, but I do not consider his wisdom to be any sort of god - certainly nothing to be venerated or worshiped, obeyed, held sacred, or with which I should yearn to be at one for eternity.

My understanding of the term “God” is that provided by the Oxford English Dictionary which is generally recognised as the authority in the English language :

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

It is this “God” that I consider to be an hypothesis, i.e., “a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth” (OED philosophical definition).

To the best of my knowledge, Yuyutsu, the God hypothesis continues to remain simply that : an hypothesis. Its validity has never been established.

If it had, everybody would know !

.