My Journey: Why No Prophetess?

If the word "Prophetess" seems odd to both the secular and religious, it does for good reason: the overwhelming majority of the representatives of Gods in human history are male; as such, they are called "Prophets" or "Heroes" (in Greek, Roman and Norse faiths). In a house beaming with feminist pride from my three sisters, I find it difficult to believe that no one has critically analyzed this aspect of religion and I want to delve deeper into the subject in this post. I find the gender discussions that concentrate on the meaning of holy texts to be extremely relative to one's beliefs, whereby, the Atheist always sees an oppressive sexist God while a progressive theist always sees a gender-neutral and gender-loving divine being. Instead, I want to look at the statistics of the prophecy which are quite revealing.

Let us first look at the numbers. Judaism and Islam both clarify that they believe that Yahweh/Allah has sent thousands if not hundreds of thousands of prophets across the world to preach the word of God. Of those many, most of the messages were meant to be restricted to their time and/or circumstances. Those noted in different holy texts were the ones with the most important messages for all humanity. This notion of thousands of prophets isn't so different from Buddhist, Hindu, Greek, Roman, Norse, and Egyptian belief in thousands of Heroes, Deities, and those things in between. I may be wrong, however, I can't tell if Christianity also holds a similar belief, but as you will see, that's irrelevant. Given that thousands of prophets have gone undocumented, it wouldn't be worth wondering (if even possible) what their teachings much have been like. Therefore, we are stuck looking at the prophets that were of notable mention in different holy texts when looking at gender balances (or rather imbalances). 

By my own count, it is easy to see the overwhelming gender inequality in the prophecy. Out of Judaism's 55 mentioned prophets, 7 were female; in percentages, that means that 87% of the time, Yahweh chose a man over a woman to preach to the crowd and commit glorious acts. 

In Islam, out of 24 prophets mentioned in the Quran 0 are female. That means, Allah chose a man over a woman to spread word of his existence 100% of the time. Even when considering 7 "other prophets" recognized by Islamic scholars but not explicitly mentioned by the Quran, the number remains unchanged. It should be noted that Islam does recognize "holy women" but none, not even the "holiest woman" Miriam (Mother of Jesus) is considered a prophet despite talking to angels. 

In Christianity, out of the 75 explicitly recognized prophets in both the Old and New Testament, 9 are female. One wouldn't be surprised to find the difference to be so stark: 88% of all recognized prophets were men. Even when considering those who had "prophetic" experiences (14 others and the genderless "seventy elders of Israel") only two more women are added and the percentage declines to an unimpressive 87.6%. To get an even more complete picture, we can also include "False prophets" or those recognized as having misused their gifts from Jehovah. Out of the ten, 1 is female and the percentage changes to 87.8% male prophets.

I won't discuss the gender inequalities in the Christian Sainthood and Islamic Umah (among others) lest I start to bore you.

With such stark contrasts in gender balances, one wonders why feminists haven't analyzed why God avoided women when spreading word of his existence. What is more interesting is that, if this inequality existed in any other institution, we would all be outraged (and have been).

Let's remember when women were (in the U.S.) and still are (in Saudi Arabia) specifically not allowed to attend colleges. Let's remember when women were specifically barred from voting (still exists in many countries). Let us remember when institutions barred women from leadership positions because of their gender. By resisting the inevitable push toward greater gender equality, the men of their time actively and consciously chose male candidates for jobs in the private and public sectors (even after the institutional sexism was long gone). In all these cases, women (and some men) became outraged that personal sexism became institutionalized sexism. If the Abrahamic God shows the sexism of a university in the 1800s in U.S. history, why do we avoid calling it like it is? We have at all other instances, yet in this case, we blind ourselves to the striking statistics.

It seems plainly obvious to me, from my studies and family religious teachings, that God makes conscious decisions and in fact, his existence as the omnipresent omnipotent creator of all things demands it. Therefore, such a divine being actively made decision after decision to choose men over women.

After researching it and asking around (everyone from my father, brother in law and friends pitched in), I've received unsatisfactory excuses for God's sexist selection of prophets. Some have suggested that women can't be prophets because they have periods (also used as an excuse many decades ago against females in leadership roles). During their periods, women can't think straight and can't possibly preach the word of God. Such an argument is constantly proven wrong by millions of women today in leadership positions unaffected by their menstruation cycle.

Another honestly made argument is that the words of God prove that men and women are equal. Although all my atheist friends will take up the challenge to debate such a statement, it doesn't really matter. Like many institutions, the declaration of the equality of sexes has been given many times, yet when words don't match the statistics, it is plainly obvious that sexism exists, no matter what the institution or person says. Take a law school that says it views female and male applications as equal, yet has a population of 90% male. More likely than not there are sexist practices barring women from joining. Words are different than numbers.

After sifting through some other bad reasons, another one stuck out: Women weren't respected and couldn't have been taken seriously by the people of their time. This excuse is especially troubling. The nature of prophet-hood includes doubt by members of any community. Almost all prophets have had to prove that they were truly the messengers of God, take Moses' staff transformation into a snake; Jesus resurrecting the dead; Mohammad ascending to Heaven; Lot's protection of the angel (the list goes on). I can't see how with a female, it would be very different. Yes, there will be doubt, and strong doubt because of her gender, but a few staff transformations or angel visits and God could have easily given the women the validation they needed. If you reject that proposal, then it seems to me that God is a push-over to human biases. The idea that God would bend to what humans want is complete lunacy as shown by the story of Lot, by destroying entire cities because of sin, and Moses, by sending wave after wave against the Pharaoh of Egypt. The Abrahamic God is not a push-over, and makes his decisions on who he wants to represent him; we can clearly see who he's chosen. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Religion's Oppression

It has been quite some time since I began contemplating the existence of God (some 3 years ago) and during that time, I've discovered a discussion like no other: debates on the source of morality, historical evidence of miracles, and gaps in science that can never be explained, to name just a few, yet there is something that hasn't been properly addressed; what I consider the 500 lb gorilla in the room : Homosexuality. 



I won't entertain debates on the natural-ity of homosexuality for other reasons than being distasteful: 

1. Homosexuality is a direct product of natural processes, of which can not be dictated by the parents, environment, or person.
2. Science is verifying such a belief with many discovering that it is a mix of neurological and genetic alternations from the "norm" of heterosexuality. See here.

By concentrating on the gay community (as I've done in the past), many atheists may be offended by my choice to address just one aspect of the divine; their impression of the Abrahamic God is best described in the opening paragraph of Chapter 2 of Richard Dawkin's bestseller The God Delusion:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, magalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

I choose to address just one aspect of his intense description because I believe it is the most relevant today. No group (that I know of), in the history of the world, has faced as much religious hatred as gays have. Nearly every religion in the world denounces homosexuality as unnatural, deviant, unholy, blasphemous, and impure (Buddhism and Hinduism have thousands of denominations that vary in belief, so it's harder to pinpoint)

To name the Abrahamic religions:

Islam:  

Sura 7:80-84: "And Lot, when he said to his people, 'Do ye approach an abomination which no one in all the world ever anticipated you in? Verily, ye approach men with lust rather than women- nay, ye are a people who exceed.' But his people's answer only was to say, 'Turn them out of your village, verily, they are a people who pretend to purity.'  But we saved him and his people, except his wife, who was of those who lingered; and we rained down upon them a rain; -- see then how was the end of the sinners!" [Here, God massacres thousands of people] Christianity and Judaism: Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." There is much more in all the texts, but these help summarize the basis of belief; All center around the story of the Sodom and Gommorah. All translations, yet homophobia is prevalent in English speaking Muslim, Christian, and Jews as they are in Hebrew and Arabic speaking believers; the homophobia exists inter-linguistically. Of course, I recognize Islamic history's shaky acceptance of flamboyant men and masculine women, but this is no substitute for the hateful anti-gay speech found in many other places. I'm also well aware of the debates within the religious community that center around whether homosexuality is the sin, or homosexual intercourse is; either way, it's just as disgusting. If homosexuality is accepted but not the relationship, do we force all gays to marry people they don't want? Of course not, that's absurd. Despite the debate (some more lively than others), there is one thing that can't be denied: The belief in the divine is the the reason that children are raised believing gays are wrong; the reason gays grow up in hiding; the reason outed gays are hung in Iran; the reason the Catholic Church (as well as most others) denounce gays; the reason gay girls and boys are bullied; the reason they are beat. Two gay men hung in Iran Why such torment? Because of who they are. Their sin? No evil action, no far worse: Their sin is in their state of being. No other issue boils my blood as this does. The debate here in the United States about gay rights and gay marriage is quite a step forward from other countries where expressing one's homosexual tendencies will have them jailed, tortured, raped, and killed. This isn't abuse of man of the "loving" word of the divine, no, nor is it the changing of rules by the corruption of men; this is a God that hates the people he makes.  "Hate for being" quickly reminds me of human slavery where colored people were considered property to others because of who they were; regardless of their natural equality.  The hatred toward gays is as open today as the hatred toward colored people was all over the world (from Native Americans, to Africans, to the Chinese) at it's peak. Pink Triangles Labeled Holocaust prisoners as Gay; similar to the Star for Jews Could homophobia exist in a secular world? Sure, but it would never have the mandate and authority of an all-wise, all-powerful divine being; thus easier to overcome. In fact, the only reason homosexuality is as big of an issue anywhere in the world is because of religion, be it personal faith or religious institution. What should have been addressed long ago is being dragged out (far past the end of my lifetime) to deny gays safety, equality, and dignity in all countries.  The hatred toward homosexuals isn't limited to the boisterous protesters of the Westboro Baptist Church nor the loudest demagogues in the mosques of Saudi Arabia nor in the longest public decrees of radical rabbis. Overwhelming majorities throughout the world believe homosexuality is morally wrong.  There is nearly 0% tolerance of homosexuality in the UK Muslim community while 75% of French and German Muslims also believe homosexuality is, by nature, immoral.  (See here).   Even in the United States, 43% of Americans (regardless of faith) believe that homosexuality is wrong. That's around  129 million people that believe a state of being is wrong.  On this issue, more-so than any other, even the most (seemingly) intelligent and open-minded people I know, express (with pride) their denouncement of homosexuality. They don't base their decree on any evidence, because they don't need to: Whatever contradicts the word of God should be shunned. No other force on earth gets people to believe in such hateful things as the divine does.  No one can deny that the belief in the divine is the direct cause to the imprisonment, torture, rape, and murder of millions of gays throughout history. We can put aside the killing of children, the genocide, the rape that has been sanctioned by the divine throughout the Torah, Bible and Qur'an because even then, this divine being shows itself to be quite hateful, quite unforgiving by sentencing a girl who grows up to love women, to an eternity in hell.  Think about that. To burn forever, for loving someone she wasn't supposed to love.   If God does exist, I'm not sure I'd want to worship him.

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Bell's Hell or Hell's Bells?

There has been an extremely interesting discussion going on across the country as of late; its about the existence of hell. 

Although primarily a discussion about the Christian concept of Hell, it think it is an extremely important discussion, one that wouldn't have begun without an Evangelical preacher named Robert Bell. A  growing controversial figure, he's become famous for his "hip" look as a preacher wearing more than tight clothing, even, jeans! (HOW DARE HE!) His cool look and young attitude has gained him a very youthful crowd, and one willing to listen to his preaching. 

Earlier this year, Mr. Bell wrote a new best-seller book titled "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived." In it, he challenges modern Evangelical (and Christian) beliefs in Hell (some have called him a heretic). The idea of the book came from his church of 7,000 goers, where the preacher stresses discussion among the people about the faith instead of religious dogma. Since then, he's gained even more attention when TIME Magazine put him on the front of their cover with the question: Does Hell Exist?  Meanwhile, the Magazine has listed him in their annual TIME 100 most influential people in the world. 

The questions that the pastor raises are important ones; ones that began during an art exhibit in his church. The pastor writes about it in his book:

An artist in the show had included a quotation from Mohandas Gandhi. Hardly a controversial touch, one would have thought. But one would have been wrong.
A visitor to the exhibit had stuck a note next to the Gandhi quotation: "Reality check: He's in hell." Bell was struck.
Really? he recalls thinking.
Gandhi's in hell?He is?We have confirmation of this?Somebody knows this?Without a doubt?And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?

The experiences poses important questions: Is Gandhi in Hell? How do we know? What is it based on? Does Hell even exist? 

Traditional religious teachings from the three Abrahamic religions strongly believe and warn of some form of hell (though there are variations from the Christian Hell). Other religions don't include hell, but an endless cycle of reincarnation until you reach Nirvana, or simply no end of life at all. 

I would highly recommend you read the TIME magazine coverage of the discussion here. I've come to think that the idea of hell is inseparable from any belief system and I'm not the only one. 

Regardless of how this place of punishment is described, there is one thing in common: it is used as an enforcement tool. Religion without a place for punishment isn't much of a religion because there is no way to enforce consistency in belief and also no form justice system. 

What happens to the mass murders? Straight to heaven? Probably not. To the adherents of the faith? (depending on the belief) Sure, they have a ticket to some kind of heaven. Without Hell, there is no incentive through fear of burning for all eternity, to not have sex before marriage, fight yourself from being gay, not masturbate, drink or eat pork (depending on the faith). Yet nothing is black and white; the gray area comes with the Gandhi question and its a question that needs to be answered. 

Gandhi spent his entire life working for justice, freedom, and improving the lives of so many, but because of his own divine beliefs, he's not in heaven. In fact, he's being punished for his beliefs on earth. This is where the Pastor is so shocked. Gandhi? Well then, what of Aung San Sui Kyi?  The peace driven Dalai Lama? Malcolm X? The freedom activists in the Middle East?  and the endless list of non-Christians who've made the world a better place and helped their fellow humans in good deeds?

This doesn't just apply to the Christian idea of Hell. What of Judaism? Islam (although I think Islam's idea of heaven is far more accepting of more people from personal knowledge). But if you think that is the extent of our exploration, you'd be wrong. We have to take a step deeper, and one I have been thinking about for sometime. Gandhi is burning in hell because, although he did great deeds for his fellow man, he (supposedly) believed in the wrong god. If you  have the personal belief that perhaps Gandhi is actually in Heaven (despite thousands of years of religious doctrine that Hell exists for those that don't accept Jesus as their Savior, or Allah as the only God, or Vishnu as the Destroyer of the World) the remains question: Why is a belief in any of the divine beings mandatory for our acts to be judged well and rewarded? 

Isn't the act itself moral? Or is it such when someone believes in the higher being? Is an act only moral when it has the blessing by a holy book? When an atheist helps his neighbor, why isn't that considered a good act? The fact is, the act IS good, especially considering that many a holy books advocate for very immoral behavior.

If there is a God, there must be a heaven, and also a hell. Religion and faith can never be separated from the idea of hell because without some form of punishment, what is my incentive to believe in any of the Gods? I can do whatever I want without having to worry about being punished since we are all going to Heaven someday. 

It is a tough relationship, and one that really needs to be discussed further. Robert Bell's stance has forced the discussion to us all, but his position is dangerous for religion. He doesn't explicitly say that hell doesn't exist, but he does say that our idea of what happens after earth is just speculation (some choose to talk about that speculation further). If his speculation leads to less of a stress of hell, religion's enforcer is lost and overtime, its adherents. What do you think? Must hell exist for religion to stay solvent? Can it exist without it? Are acts considered moral by a God? or are they moral per se?

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

Science and Religion

In my earlier post, I talked about my journey to figure what world view I could believe. I detailed my criteria in my previous post: "My Journey: With or Without God."

From the feedback I got, there was no problem with my criteria, but something I mentioned much earlier on: the incompatibility of the Science worldview and the Religious worldview.

Today, many more liberal or progressive believers of faith try to bend the two views together, arguing that they compliment one another (while most others take either or as the only true story). The story of the divine beings (the thousands of them) are our first effort to explain the world around us (and the universe). For this, these divine stories should be given due credit and I would never take that away from them because they take on human curiosity and seek to explain what we see around us. 

The reason why I say they are incompatible is because of the trend that has been going on since the beginning of man. As the earliest world view, belief in the divine has been used to explain everything: 

1. Cavemen used it to explain nature by talking about different natural Gods. 
2. This was also reflected in Roman and Greek Gods for explaining everything from the season changes to lighting. 
3. The divine Gods (from the Greeks to today's religion) explained why the Sun rose every day. 
4. Stories of the Gods explained love, the flaws of man, different kinds of hell (Hades, Hell, or Jhannam)
5. Most importantly, they detailed the creation of our universe
• God created the universe in 6 days, rested the 7th. 
• Egyptian God ejaculated and his sperm created the earth and all humans (no joke). 
6. They also spent no time explaining things like how humans came about
• Made of clay, breath of life
• A God is ripped to shreds and his lifeless body parts turn into man. 

Even now, we still haven't touched on the thousands of differing beliefs about how the world came about, as well as humanity. There is, however, one consistency: Religion's retreat over time. 

When people explained lightning as the anger of Zeus, scientists struck that down and explained that they were naturally occurring. When people explained the mountain's and God's direct hand, science explained that they were a result of plate tectonics. When worried about crops and praying to different Gods, scientists explained different weather cycles and the seasons.

This gradual retreat by religion hasn't stopped either, even though believers constantly bend their beliefs to get around science. Where once, the Gods raised the mountains, now, the Gods just set in motion the process for raising mountains. Where once, God made man of clay, now God set the "spark" that led to evolution.  Where once the earth was the center of the universe since man was God's "greatest" creation, now, humans are one of the most irrelevant pieces in our universe. The end of our species wouldn't even be noticed by any part of the universe. 

The divine stories were written to be understood literally, however, we can always say that that is just because of the influence of man, and that the god (whichever one) knew we would discover the true reality of our world (like a child story, where the child eventually learns the truth). This again, is another example of a retreat. Where once these stories were literal, now they are metaphorical. 

The idea of intelligent design is also a biased one. Most intelligent design believers believe in one God ruling the universe. What kind of intelligent design will Hindu's, Daoists, and Buddhists, who belief in (literally) thousands of gods hold? What makes the beliefs of the monotheistic religions any more intelligent in design than the polytheists or pagans? 

If the beliefs were so compatible, then religious beliefs wouldn't constantly be bending to new science discoveries (and it doesn't in many areas where science is dismissed). To many, the earthquake in Japan is not the result of a converging (or reverse) dip/slip at the tectonic plate boundary at Japan's sub-duction zone deep underground (which caused the tsunami), it is God's punishment of a nation with the highest concentration of atheists. 

I'll be the first to admit  that humans don't know everything, and science leaves more answers than questions. "Science" back in the day, had very little rules and very little oversight on reliability. In fact, early on, observations of the universe were made to try proving the beliefs of one set of religion over another. 

Today's standards are much different and much higher which is why so much "science" thousands of years ago is dismissed today. As time goes on, we can imagine that our standards will continue to increase and although science may not be able to explain such complex processes like love, anger, sexual attraction, and most other things in our minds, this is not a reason to dismiss it because there is always the prospect of discovery. 

This is why the two views are incompatible and why I believe you can't have both. I think that those who think they are compatible don't understand the extent of what belief each entails (the divine and science belief). 

Please feel free to comment with your thoughts!

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!

My Journey: With or Without God

Since my junior year in high school almost 3 years ago I have been on a journey. It is one that many take; one of great emotional strain and and greater length. I haven't really articulated it to anyone until now, but the journey isn't uncommon. The personal journey will establish my worldview for the remainder of my life. Everyone must go through it, if they are to understand everything around them, or else be stuck in ignorant bliss. 

There are two worldviews that humans hold: the Divine View and the Scientific View (as I'll call them). Despite the insistence of some of the former and a fewer of the latter, the two are largely incompatible; I can not reasonably have both. As of this post, I am a Muslim-by-birth and I've grown to pray and live without violation  of the faith (for the most part). 

I draw a distinction between a Muslim-by-Conversion and a Muslim-by-Birth because the latter never chose. I was raised to do things (as we all are, Christians with going to Church, etc) and have done so believing what those around me believe, and what my parents taught me. Despite your anticipated rejection, you do the same: all your practices were learned such as your speech, walk, dress, faith and more.

I can't accept being a believer-by-birth because far too often I'm stuck when I ask myself  "Why am I not a Buddhist? Or Jew?" The only answer I conjure up is: "I was raised as a Muslim." But what if I was born into another family in another country with different circumstances? Wouldn't I be just as convinced in my faith in Buddha as I am now of God? Can I really hold the beliefs of anyone  else as wrong since they oppose my own religious convictions? Or are we all fools doing what others have taught us to do? This is where the journey begins. Where it leads will be interesting, but I have several criteria that are both reasonable and necessary as I take a deeper plunge: 

1. I must learn more about my religion's specific beliefs before deciding which worldview I should take. 
1. What is the Muslim belief of the creation of the Universe? How is it different from other faiths, etc.  
2. No worldview I choose can contradict the most basic scientific understandings of the universe.
1. For example: A rejection of the idea of plate tectonics also denies the science behind our ability to detect and track earthquakes (something no one disputes). If you accept one, you must accept the other.
3. My choice can never be effected by what is most convenient.
1. If I find the truth to be a belief in the divine, then so be it;
2. If not, I will believe in the alternate regardless of how hard it will make my personal life.
3. The Truth should never be rejected out of one's circumstances.
4. I can not start the journey as a Muslim (or a person of any faith). It must be as objective as possible. In other words, I can not start with the belief in Islam (the conclusion) and reason my way to it (the logic). Basic thought processes tell us it must be the opposite: Follow the truth, and then make your conclusion. If the Divine View is the truth, the facts/logic will naturally lead me to it to reach my conclusion; if not, I will be left with the only other view. 

The criteria are based on things that must exist before I make a decision in order to be true to myself and not regret my decision later on.

From this journey there are several possible outcomes: 1. I choose science as my worldview exclusively and reject all faith (the basis of rejection of one faith, will be the basis of rejection for all other faiths) 2. I choose the Divine View as the reasonable conclusion and then decide which faith makes the most sense. 2a. I become a Muslim-by-conversion. 

 My current Divine View of the world is held because I was raised to believe it was truth, not because I chose to; this is the basis of the trip I'm taking. I, nor anyone else from any other faith, should not accept a belief in ANY political, religious, or social ideology without taking a thorough look at it first. There comes a point in everyone's life where the self-reflection can do a lot of good.

There are countless examples of this. Take defectors from the infamous Waco ranch in Texas during 1993. Although raised to believe different things like Korensh was the messiah, or in his interpretation of the Bible defectors reflected on their beliefs and lifestyles and chose another path, others reflected and chose to stay with him. For another example, think of early white supporters of the black civil rights movement. Although raised with a specific belief of societal, political, and religious superiority (every religion claims divine superiority) these men and women questioned how they were raised and fought against it. Self-reflection is key.

I hope you will join me and I hope I can provide assistance  to others who are also on the journey (from any faith). Feel free to provide your advice and input in the comments. Is there anything wrong with my criteria? Should I add anything? Take anything out?


You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!