Let's examine them in reverse order.
Muslims claim that Muhammed is the "final prophet" whose many changes (e.g., from Sha•bâtꞋ to 6thday and all other changes from the preceding historical documentation) "fixed" what his predecessors Jesus, Mosh•ëhꞋ and Av•râ•hâmꞋ had wrong.
Thus, Muhammed, Islam and Muslims, both Sunni and Shiite, clearly hold that the premise from which Muhammed derived Islam was flawed. Elsewise, there would be nothing for Muhammed to "fix."
This proves that either:
Muhammed based Islam on a false (flawed) premise of his predecessors and is, therefore logically false (ex falso quodlibet) and, therefore, a false prophet; or,
the premise of his predecessors was true – in which case Muhammed's changes from it are necessarily false and Muhammed is necessarily a false prophet.
Christians (namely, followers of Paul as Hellenized by Roman gentiles primarily from 135 C.E. through the 4th century C.E.), claim that Jesus is "God" whose many changes (e.g., from Sha•bâtꞋ to Sun[god]day, claimed supersession and obsolescing of úÌåÉøÈä, and all other changes from the preceding historical documentation) "fixed" what its predecessors, Mosh•ëhꞋ and Av•râ•hâmꞋ, had wrong.
Thus, Jesus, Christianity and Christians, both Roman Catholic and all of its offspring, clearly hold that the premise from which Jesus derived Christianity was flawed. Elsewise, there would be nothing for Jesus to supersede or obsolesce.
This proves that either:
Jesus and Christianity are based on a false (flawed) premise of its predecessors and is, therefore logically false (ex falso quodlibet) and, therefore, a false god – defining Christianity as idolatry; or,
the premise of its predecessors was true – in which case Jesus's changes from it are necessarily false and Jesus is necessarily a false God.
Mosh•ëhꞋ is significantly different from his poseur successors, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, Jesus and Muhammed. In stark contrast to his poseur successors, while Jesus and Muhammed each made extensive changes to what they perceived were errors by Av•râ•hâmꞋ or Mosh•ëhꞋ, Mosh•ëhꞋ made no changes in the faith tradition handed down from Av•râ•hâmꞋ! Rather, Mosh•ëhꞋ merely compiled the faith tradition of Av•râ•hâmꞋ, which had fractured into 13 tribal traditions, into one, unifying, corpus and, most significantly, changing or contradicting nothing. In contrast to the Christian and Islam Displacement Theologies, Mosh•ëhꞋ transmitted faithfully the principles of Av•râ•hâmꞋ – úÌåÉøÈä. Mosh•ëhꞋ's mission was not to change anything but, rather, to relate and implement the principles of úÌåÉøÈä faithfully in his era.
So, Mosh•ëhꞋ differed from, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, Jesus and Muhammed is a fundamental and significant way: confirming, not changing, the faith tradition of Av•râ•hâmꞋ.
 |
 Map Middle East: Ur, Babylon, Kharan & Nineveh |
As fundamentally different as Mosh•ëhꞋ was from the two poseur successors, the original author of this faith tradition was vastly more different even than Mosh•ëhꞋ. Mosh•ëhꞋ was merely passing along the faith tradition that derived not from himself, but from an earlier source: Av•râ•hâmꞋ, which brings us to…
Ta•na"khꞋ tells us that Av•râ•hâmꞋ was born into an idolatrous home and culture in the city-kingdom of Ur, in southern Iraq – no different than everyone today who finds himself or herself alien to úÌåÉøÈä today.
Av•râ•hâmꞋ's success proves that what a human being can discern, on his or her own, about the Creator of our universe, with only the logic and science available to Av•râ•hâmꞋ, provides the only grounds needed to work this out. If you haven't worked this out by the end of your life, there is only one reason: you weren't committed to search for, and connect with your Creator. Perhaps you looked to men instead of the Creator. You don't need a rabbi, priest, imam, guru or any other intermediary – most of whom misdirect you and almost none of whom genuinely know the Creator himself or herself. With extremely rare exception, they are, every one, an institutional fraud.
 |
 360° wraparound photo of our "Milky Way" galaxy (horiz. band). Our entire solar system is a mere pinpoint in this band, ≈⅓ the distance from the center to an edge of the band, earth a blue nanopoint within our solar system, and you and me just 2 nanopoints on the planet. Dots above and below the band (see enlargement) are countless other entire galaxies like our "Milky Way". From any of the galaxies out there, our entire "Milky Way" is just another nanopoint in the universe. Even all of that visible universe is only 5%; 95% of the universe is dark matter and energy, Signature of the Creator, keeping the universe's engine running properly but invisible to our eyes! |
The Creator didn't design creation for us to worship, be dependent on, or enslaved to clerics. Just go out some clear night far from city lights, look up at creation, and think how it, and you, got here – and how insignificant you (and I and every other person from kings to homeless) are in our world, how insignificant our world is among the tens of billions of solar systems in our own Milky Way galaxy and how insignificant our galaxy is among more than 100 billion galaxies in our Creator's laboratory. Why did the Creator bother with all this?
Creation abides unfailingly to laws that govern the season, the apparent movement of the stars (which, back then, included the planets).
So, how did Av•râ•hâmꞋ tease out the core úÌåÉøÈä? It's critical to you because if úÌåÉøÈä can be discerned by a human being, using logic and science, é‑‑ä endowed the human being with the mind to do so. That means if you devote yourself to it sufficiently, you can ascertain úÌåÉøÈä the same way Av•râ•hâmꞋ did.
How big, intelligent and powerful must the Creator be in order to have created such an endless universe? And how nanoscule, insignificant and near chimp-like intelligence, then, must we, so minute in the Creator's crucible, appear from the Creator's Perspective? How this reality check contrasts with the egocentric world of those around us.
The next question is one I've often heard: Why were we, and all of this, created?
Don't even think about whether we're alone in the universe. Maybe, maybe not. We aren't likely to find out in this life (due to the time required for communications to travel the expanse) and it doesn't make any difference. If there are other inhabited worlds, whatever their bodies might look like, their beings are subject to the same laws that govern the rest of the universe, the same Creator, and, it follows, the Creator's same expectations even if this Creator has many experiments ongoing.
Physical bodies are, after all, mere avatars to engage us, and perhaps to keep those of us who choose evil in isolation, in the crucible of the universe. After our sojourn in this universe, there can be no physical avatar – in a non-physical after-universe – as a vessel constraining "us." The reader should give thought to the implications of existence after having shed our physical avatar and this physical universe – including the end of our 5 physical-dependent, bodily senses.
Think about it deeply enough and it raises the issue of free will. Heck, even we can build robots to bow down to us, to worship us and to parrot recitations to us on whatever schedule we demand. Yet, I don't know of anyone who has bothered to do that; well, not anyone sane anyway. Why is that? Enter the issue, and evil byproducts, of free will.
Since the Creator is inconceivably more intelligent than we are, it's silly to imagine Him bothering to create a universe of robots or zombies. We humans don't even find such a simplistic exercise interesting. But what would beings with a free will do? Would any at all adhere to good and be worth saving and knowing? Now that's interesting. It's also us.
Putting our world and ourselves in perspective relative to the expanse of the universe and its Creator should convince each of us to be less arrogant and certain of the "almighty" political and self-righteous correctness we see reflected in the opinions of so many human beings. It is this self-righteous correctness that drives radical Muslim Jihad, the Holocaust, the Crusades, etc. – all like warring bands of chimps or ants, all undeserving of recognition as human beings.
Respecting our own limited perspective implies tolerance of the countless other creatures created by our Creator – all of which, including "they," are His creatures, not only "us." Even animals should be treated with respect as His creatures.
And what does that imply? The Golden Rule of wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 19.18. As the following example from Ta•lᵊmudꞋ shows, in contrast to Hi•leilꞋ, Sha•maiꞋ interpreted this radically misanthropically (Ma•sëkꞋët Sha•bâtꞋ 31a):
 Roman was approx 17 in) Liverpool World Mus 250x68.jpg "ccc") |
 Roman was approx 17 in) Liverpool World Mus 986x270.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Builder's cubit measure-rod (Egyptian approx. 53cm/20" – just over a half-meter or half-yard). The Roman cubit was just short of a half-meter or half-yard (45cm/17"; Liverpool World Museum) |
"Another occurrence involved a foreigner who came before Sha•maiꞋ, saying to him, 'Convert me on condition that you teach me the entirety of úÌåÉøÈä while I stand on one foot.' [Sha•maiꞋ] drove him away with a half-meter construction measuring-rod in his hand.
[The conversion seeker] then came before Hi•leilꞋ, who converted him saying to him: 'That which you eschew, do not perpetrate on your khâ•veirꞋ. This is the entirety of úÌåÉøÈä while the rest is interpretation of it. Go and learn it.'"
The interpretation of RibꞋi Hi•leilꞋ was carried on by his most famous student: RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, who subsequently refined this teaching even more concisely, correcting the radically misanthropic interpretation that had been asserted by Beit Sha•maiꞋ (NHM 5.43-48).
The struggle of human beings against one another for limited physical resources, greed exemplified in the "Me Generation," conflicts irreconcilably with the principle of the Golden Rule. This struggle, combined with free will, is the root of all conflicts, wars and evils and inescapably confronts each person with the choice: me first or the Golden Rule?
At some point as Av•râ•hâmꞋ contemplated these things, he must have imagined the Creator looking down on his creation as a shepherd watches over his flock – each must receive their proper share of food, water and care – and a father watches over his family – treating each with the same love and care and expecting each to treat his or her siblings the same – the Golden Rule, that is the entirety of úÌåÉøÈä. The rest is interpretation to apply it in one's own era.
Thus, we find basic core principles of úÌåÉøÈä issuing from this Golden Rule: e.g., MikhꞋâh 6.8: What does é‑‑ä require of you? Do mi•shᵊpâtꞋ, love khësꞋëd and be moderate in your walking with é‑‑ä."
"Do the mi•shᵊpâtꞋ." Where there is a conflict, the health and welfare of one's community is a higher priority than the individual. Not difficult for Av•râ•hâmꞋ or other ancient thinkers to figure out. This is the principle from which many of the morals derive that have endured for millennia, proving their enduring propriety and value, from recognition and respect for the Creator to societal obligations pre-marital sexual abstinence to prohibitions against murder (not "killing"), adultery, stealing (and, by extension, deceit), etc. – the A•sërꞋët ha-Di•bᵊr•otꞋ – as well as homosexuality, bestiality, rape, pedophilia, etc.
"Love khësꞋëd." Also clearly within intellectual reach of Av•râ•hâmꞋ. Yet, this was one of Sha•maiꞋ's great failings.
"Be moderate in your walking with é‑‑ä." In other words, "me" doesn't come before "you" or our community; clearly also within the intellectual reach of ancient thinkers. Yet, this, too, was another of Sha•maiꞋ's great failings.
Loading ox carts – the 39 rabbinic ancient occupations and imagineered derivatives – like animal sacrifices, was an era-dependent application that hasn't been adequate to define mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ for eons. The úÌåÉøÈä practicer must distinguish between era-dependent interpretations (e.g., animal sacrifices) that are temporary versus the underlying principles (e.g., punitive fines), which endure. Intelligent and educated people know that electricity is not fire and has no connection to the mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ of gathering kindling and preparing to make a fire the ancient way on Sha•bâtꞋ. (Note that úÌåÉøÈä (Shᵊm•otꞋ 35:1-3) doesn't record that the man who was executed in this regard ever actually lit the fire! The crime was the mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ of cutting and gathering kindling and the preparation going into the ancient method of kindling a fire – try it sometime, you'll find it's more work than the average modern person can handle.) Interpretations must constantly be adapted as necessary to keep up with the times. On the other hand, when a reformer comes along presuming to know better than these principles that have endured for millennia, it's a case of arrogant shallowness arguing that square wheels should replace round.
 |
|
 |