Which God, If Any?

In chapter 19 of Genesis, we suddenly encounter Lot meeting at the gate of Sodom two angels disguised as men, and bowing down to them invited them to his home. Lot wasn't the only one noticing them. The horny men of Sodom decided to have sex with the new men, but Lot tried to protect them in what to us would normally be a strange way. Fearing them, the bible says he said to the men in verse 8:

"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out undo you, and do ye to them as is good in our eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

In our way, we definitely see the valueless worth of women as compared to men here. Better to give your daughters up to men rather than let them have strange men to be used sexually. That was the weird custom of the Jews of the Old Testament, and doubtless, the writers of the Old Testament even to the time of the Babylonian captivity.

But those were angels, some might say. Okay, but we'll see in a moment that it didn't matter, just that men were not to be violated sexually if there was a woman to be given instead.

A little later, we're also told of God raining, literally, fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah and utterly destroying them:

"...because the cry of them [not telling what the cry was, nor about what] is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it." (Verse 13)

Being forewarned, Lot and his family leave, but are told not to look back. After some wrangling, they left with the warning of verse17, to not "...look behind thee," but not why they weren't to look. Sure enough, Lot's wife did look, and lo and behold, verse 26 tells us:

"But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt."

Why, and why his wife? That's the way the men who wrote this story thought it should be, but we are not told why. The story simply segues to Abraham once more.

However, the story of the uses of women continues in chapter 20 of Genesis, Abraham, whom God has covenanted with, is in Gerar and whose king, Abimelech, sees and desires Sarah. As with Pharaoh before, they say she is his sister again, but this time God intervenes and Sarah is for sure untouched sexually this time, as we're told.

Why weren't we told if Sarai was, or wasn't touched by Pharaoh? Still, she was to be bartered as before, and as were Lot's daughters. That's called being chattel., or slave, or, in this and other cases, property.

Again, would you believe, in chapter 26 of Genesis, we have the exact same thing, but this time with Isaac who goes to a same named person, Abimelech, this time called king of the Philistines in Gerar. As his father Abraham, he too said that Rebekah was his sister and not his wife. Again, apparently she was untouched by any, but we're left with the sense that she would have been bartered just as Sarai was, and as Sarah in her later guise.

* * * *

In the book of Leviticus we have a very clear example of treatment of women being severe as compared to the treatment of a man. In chapter 19, verses 20 through 22, it says:

"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid [slave in the Catholic bible], betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged [the Catholic bible omits the punishment of the female only saying that"they shall be punished; the New Int'l Version says that"...there must be due punishment," but don't say what that is; the NRSV says that"...an inquiry shall be held", these about the woman];"they shall not be put to death, because she was not free."

"And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

"And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before he Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

Huh?

She's a bondmaid and not free, but they have sex and she is scourged (whipped), and all he does is "pay a fine" as it were? Misogynist writers to be sure, and no just God according to one interpretation.

The other two interpretations are much more ambiguous, but in a way, less promising for the woman. She's to be put before a tribunal, as it were, and rely on the "kindnesses" of men? In an Old Testament that treats women harshly? We'll see shortly.

Again in Leviticus, chapter 21 deals with priests. Much is said about women in various settings concerning priests, but in verse 9, there is a harsh punishment for a daughter, but nothing is said about a son in like manner:

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

Since it doesn't say anything about being stoned or otherwise killed first, we're left to presume that she is to be burned alive.

And, as mentioned, there is nothing about a son in any similar situation.

* * * *

In the book of Numbers, chapter 5, there is a convoluted series of verses, 12 through 31, with regard to a man's wife that may"...go aside, and commit a trespass against him, and a man lie with her carnally...", it is called the spirit of jealousy. A test is performed by the priest that involves the drinking of "bitter water".

In verse 27, it says:

"And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter,and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people."

That this sounds like Voodoo is one thing, but the main thing is that there is no mention of a man of similar trespass being made to drink a bitter water, or his belly swelling, or this thigh rotting—only the woman.

The pattern goes on.

In Numbers, chapter 12, Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses, and the Lord gets upset. The result is in verse 10:

"And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and behold, she was leprous."

The question here is why Miriam, or why not both of them? Did "the woman" make Aaron to speak out against Moses as Eve had made Adam to eat also? This pattern against women will continue.

In Deuteronomy, chapter 25, verses 11 and 12, the King James Version says:

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

"then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."

The Catholic bible puts it a bit more plainly saying about her:

"...if she stretches out her hand and seizes the latter by his private parts, you shall chop off her hand without pity."

Never mind that the other man may have begun the fight without cause, she is to be summarily punished for daring to touch a man's privates.

Now isn't that male chauvinism? Would a real creator of the Universe be such a misogynist? Yes, if men made up this God out of whole cloth of fiction.

If a lack of any real caring about women is not yet believed, such as the tale of Lot offering up his virgin daughters to save strangers, here's another biblical tale that more than supports the near total lack of care for women no matter how close they may be to the man of the house.

Though I've mentioned this in other essays, it's worth repeating. In the book of Judges, chapter 19, it is dedicated to the tale of a Levite stranger in Gibeah in the land of Benjamin who traveled with his concubine. As the story goes on, a local invites them to stay with him, which they did. However, after eating, some men demand that the man be handed over to them much as in the story of Lot.

The master of the house tries to beg them of by offering his "maiden" daughter and the man's concubine. What is said to transpire then is in verse 25:

"...so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go."

Verses 26 and 29 give the gruesome aftermath.

"Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

"And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him into his place

"And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel."

One would think that this is enough of this tale, that it is too sordid, unbelievable, and all that can be stomached, and never mind the rest. It is bad enough to know that giving them a woman to satisfy their lusts, and the men sleep in comfort without worry. Disgusting! To add salt to the "wound", he simply tells her to get up and let's go, never mind seeing if she is well, or what.

There's even more to come that proves that this is a story too fantastic to be real. In the following chapter, we are told that after other tribes are made known as to the happenings in Benjamin, that in chapter 20 the Israelites (including Judah) are said to number four hundred thousand men to seek justice.

They go to ask that the perpetrators be given up to be brought to justice, but the men of Benjamin say no, and more, array twenty six thousand seven hundred men to withstand the four hundred thousand. Incredibly, they do, and more, kill, over two days, forty thousand Israelites, but nothing is said about any Benjamin losses. On the third day, more Israelites are reported killed, but finally, in verse 35, we are told that the Lord smote Benjamin. In the end, twenty five thousand of Benjamin are killed, but six hundred escape.

How could four hundred thousand be bested by twenty six thousand seven hundred?

Did God really let this happen? I don't think any God let anything like this happen for it is all too far fetched to believe, but the attitudes of the initial men is not unbelievable. Women were held in low regard, as property really.

* * * *

Then again, the New Testament has its own offering of women being wronged.

In the gospel of John, Chapter 8, verses 3 through 5, we are told:

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; when they had set her in the midst,

They said unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?"

This, too, ties Jesus to Moses and the law, but...

What's wrong with this?

She was taken in the act. So why shouldn't the man be there and Jesus being asked what should be done, if they had to ask?

Because she's a woman, and men wrote this, and you don't fault men, as has already been shown.

And why didn't Jesus ask: "What about the man?"

Yes, men wrote this, and it was not inspired by any loving father, nor did any Jesus who treated women fairly in other writings, say any of this.

WHAT IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED ABOUT GENDER

Many places in the bible, especially visible in the Old Testament, is that the male is supreme, that woman was made from a man, that man is the template of humanity.

This is not true.

Nor is it true that there is only male and female in nature, and that includes humanity.

Yes, in general, we will seemingly be either male or female, and as we're constituted right now, it takes a man's sperm penetrating a woman's egg to start the process of making a new human being—but it doesn't always work out as we commonly believe.

Male and female contribute their DNA, each providing one strand of it, and both halves rewind together to create a new DNA that will become the new person. However, the messages DNA sends out go through processes that are often ambiguous—or, to put it another way, create random mutations; errors in protein folding (yes, proteins, the workhorse of all of us, literally fold); errors by "start" "stop" portions of our genes controlling messages regarding the chemicals that say one is to be male or female, and more.

Though I've read it many times before, as simple an explanation of this process can be found in the introduction to the book, The Riddle of Gender, by Deborah Rudacille (Anchor Books, 2005), on page xvii, as well as later in a chapter that has much in it that is thought provoking, namely chapter 7 starting on page 241, especially from pages 248 onward.

To summarize it all, more people than are generally publicized, are born with mixed inner and outer genitalia, and in varying degrees. Their bodies may be said to look like one gender or the other at birth, and sometimes both, but their brains, which can't be readily seen at birth, say that they're another gender. The most recent, and well publicized case (one I've mentioned in another essay) is the one of Steve/Stevie.

Born Steve, he grew up, married, and he and his wife had children. Years later, due to illness, he was looked at by his doctor and found to be a female, and with his family's input, changed his sexual orientation to female—Stevie. It can be found on the Internet as reported by many major news organizations.

Are these people to be called abominations? Did God make an error?

The answer is: No, it is simply how it's always been; we are all different in one way or another, some much different, some less different, and some of the differences make us ambiguous sexually—and we often don't see it immediately. Those chemical messengers also send signals to the brain that may be conflicting due to both genitalia being present in incomplete ways.

The main thing to be taken away here is that there are things which we don't yet understand, don't have all the facts on, and we do need to continue research before judging.

Religious beliefs are just that—beliefs—and beliefs that are religious aren't susceptible to new evidence that challenges those beliefs. Too often they serve to judge even though they do not know—think Galileo, even Copernicus, or any who disputed "interpretations" of the ruling church of the area they happened to be in.

I read where, in a meeting with Pope John Paul II, the noted scientist, Stephen Hawkings, in a conversation with the Pope was told by him that it was all right to question and investigate things like the Big Bang, but to leave what happened prior to that alone as it was the province of God. Hawking was reported to say that he didn't respond otherwise for he didn't want to face the same fate as Galileo. In other words, the church(es) don't brook anything that may make them change their beliefs. Churches have too often held research back. He knew his church history!

ADAM & EVE, PLUS NEANDERTHALS, ET.AL.

Did God really create Adam our of the soil, clay, and before Eve? Did this start humanity? Did it all really happen six or ten thousand years ago?

This is definitely not leading to the theory of evolution, so just read on and see what the past is still telling us.

Adam is said to be made first, a whole person, and Eve was made out of a part of his body—is that cloning? That was supposed to be, according to most Fundamentalists, either six or ten thousand years ago. This is taken from some extrapolations from assumptions about when events of the so-called past occurred, including Noah and his flood, and Abraham's time after that.

The questions that arise from this are:

Did it all really start about ten or so thousand years ago?

Was Adam the beginning of humankind?

Was Eve really taken out of Adam to make the first woman?

Alternative questions come up from recent scientific endeavors in DNA and the finding of ancient peoples such as Neanderthals. There isn't much question but that Neanderthals existed, but were they human, or were they some aberration that was very unhuman? What is it that Fundamentalists say about them? At this time, I don't know.

Until recently though, DNA couldn't be extracted from any of the findings of these ancient people, but now they can, though not always. Technology is getting better and better though. What has recently come about is that sampling of many people has revealed that some present day people share about two (2) percent of their DNA with Neanderthals. Moreover, it is reported that the same two percent of the shared DNA with Neanderthals is not the same as the two percent in all of the other groups.

Also, as much as nine (9) percent of DNA is derived from Neanderthals in some people. This can only mean that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals. (See Lone Survivors, by Chris Stringer, Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, 2012.) (Chris Stringer is a paleoanthropologist and researcher at the Natural History Museum in London.)

More than that, though most of us haven't heard of Denisovans, they are a known group similar to Neanderthals (as are Homo Heidelbergensis) (Check the Internet for both of them.). Here, I quote from Dr. Stringer's book (page 200):

"But something else even more remarkable has still to be explained properly: the Denisovans are also related to one group of living humans—Melanesians—which may explain Jeffery Long's hunch, discussed earlier in this chapter, that they contain distinct archaic genes from the rest of us. The most plausible explanation for this is that Denisovans were present in southeast Asia an well as Siberia, and pre-Melanesian populations migrating through the region from Africa interbred with some of these Denisovans, picking up some 5 [five] percent of their genes."

DNA is unarguably an efficient way of identifying people, and is used very often in our time to determine if a person is guilty or not guilty of crimes when DNA is found at the scene and compared with victim and possible perpetrator. DNA, in other words, is considered scientifically accurate by one and all.

So the question is asked again: was Adam the first human? Also, was this time when Adam is supposed to have been created, only about ten (10) thousand years ago at the most?

DNA unequivocally says no!

* * * *

That leaves the question of whether Eve was made from Adam's body thus creating the first woman ever.

There are several books I have read that indicate that this is not possible. The one that gives the clearest understanding of why this is not so is from Deborah Rudacille's book, The Riddle of Gender mentioned previously. She gives these facts:

Every embryo develops two paired sets of germinal ducts—th mullerian duct and the wolffian duct. Without the influence of the Y chromosome and it's chemical messenger, sending androgen in the requisite quantity, or not at all, the wolffian ducts will begin to regress in the sixth week of pregnancy, then the primitive gonad will differentiate into an estrogen-producing ovary.

However, under the influence of the Y chromosome, and the androgen receptor gene, all going as it should be expected. on the male fetus's X chromosome, the mullerian ducts will atrophy, and the gonads differentiate into androgen-producing testicles.

...the endocrine system directs this.

She quotes researcher, Lindsey Berkson from her book, Hormone Deception, "If the timed sequence of hormone signals is disrupted, development of the male reproductive organs can be skewed, resulting in undescended testicles or other problems.