Enough is Enough

When is Humanity Going to Get That We’re All in This Together?

Solomon Never Existed

Posted by honestpoet on February 18, 2007

Here’s an interesting bit. I’d known that there was no evidence of the temple, but I didn’t understand why the fiction of the Old Testament would have been invented. This man makes it pretty clear.

So Solomon was a fiction. Abraham, David, Jesus, the whole lot. Just stories. Propaganda.

And now look at the mess we’re in. Men killing each other over stories.

It’s as ludicrous as people fighting to the death as partisans of Sleeping Beauty or Cinderella.


33 Responses to “Solomon Never Existed”

  1. I doubt the facts expressed in the link.

  2. honestpoet said

    Horizonspeaks, the facts regarding the lack of evidence for the existence of Solomon and his kingdom are well known among archaeologists (they’ve been digging like crazy in Jerusalem trying to find even a scrap, and have been disappointed time after time). The only thing I hadn’t seen before (but which makes so much sense that I don’t have any trouble believing it) was the motive behind the fabrication of the old testament.

  3. whig said

    Honestpoet, am I a myth?

  4. honestpoet said

    No. You’re a person. Duh.

    Are you referring to that adolescent sort of gnosis in which you imagine that you are the temple?

    People are people. Myths are stories that serve a purpose until they outlive them. Then they’re mind-trash.

    The temple of Solomon, the actual structure, never existed, and the tales of his kingdom were, apparently, propaganda, just lies. Not even a true myth.

    That’s what makes the judeo-christian-islamic mind-burden so malignant. It’s a meme that didn’t evolve naturally. It was fabricated, and it was designed to be infectious and create people who are easy to control.

  5. whig said

    You are arguing with a straw person. You are the one fabricating an adversary whom you spar with as if it were me or someone you imagine I remind you of.

    If I am not a myth you know this how? Because you read my words and assume they belong to a person. I could be a committee of people, or something strange like that, but it would be hard to think that likely if I give a strong indication of having a consistently individual perspective.

    But if these writings were lost, if they were destroyed because they upset the political order, then how would anyone know I had existed, or that this very conversation between you and I was not some sort of hoax? Nothing in my personal life strongly ties me to these particular words, so whig could really be your own sockpuppet if you managed to make me look like a fool. Or you were mine, but I have no intention of fooling you.

    Posit that someone wrote those scriptures, okay? He (for given the patronizing quality of the writing, we may be fairly sure it was a he) wrote the books ascribed to Moses, or collected those books from writings he found and incorporated. We could again imagine it was a committee rather than a person, but there was a sufficient unanimity that these books were at some point made sacrilegious to alter by so much as a comma.

    But that conservatism had a price as well, and strictly construed this prohibits translation as well. But if people cannot speak and read your language and you want them to know your scripture, you must translate it unless you can convince them first to learn your language. Those translations did contain errors, and some of them are quite deliberate in fact. So then there was all of the conflict that arose naturally between those who held to different texts, and the malignancy you identify has been quite painful.

    In truth it’s a treatable kind of cancer. Cannabis will render it benign.

  6. honestpoet said

    I wasn’t actually arguing at all, Whig, just answering your question, the point of which I still really fail to grasp.

    What does your being or not being a real person have to do with whether or not Solomon and his temple were real? Obviously someone wrote the scriptures. But that person (or people) was not inspired by god, but by a desire to impel the Hebrews to leave Babylon, where they were living comfortably and on the verge of being assimilated.

    MY point is that the Jewish texts dealing with the line of Solomon and his kingdom were a lie. The other two religions founded on them are also lies. In all of these cases the books were used to reinforce or justify power structures.

    If people would accept this fact, that the religions that we know and assume to have some spiritual value are actually mind-poisons created to control people, we could finally recover from this huge hoodwink and get on with a more peaceful and sustainable future.

  7. whig said

    I simply don’t agree with you Honestpoet, and your claims to higher truth than the historical record are only your own self-perception. We are all free to choose what model works best for ourselves, and you do not have special knowledge that yours is better than mine.

  8. honestpoet said

    What historical record? The ONLY record of Solomon is in the Bible. I challenge you to find an archaeologist who says otherwise.

    The Bible says he had a huge army. Not a single shield or sword has been found, despite plenty of artifacts from contemporary armies.

    They’ve dug and dug where the temple was supposed to have been and have found not a stone or beam, not a single brick.

    Solomon was supposed to have collected tribute from all sorts of folks…not a single record has been found, though there are records of many such transactions at the time paid to other kings. The exodus of the Jews nor the plagues related to it are not mentioned in the Egyptian records, though they recorded when even a small number of slaves escaped.

    I’m not claiming any higher truth. I’m sharing historical truths that you simply don’t want to accept, though I’m not sure why.

  9. honestpoet said

    While we’re at it, there’s also no evidence that Muhammad ever went to Jerusalem, so Al Aqsa mosque shouldn’t be where it’s at, either. And of course Jesus never existed so never rode into the city on his ass.

    Basically it boils down to these three bickering cults choosing a corner of the desert to argue over for no reason whatsoever.

  10. whig said

    The scriptures are one historical record, Honestpoet. The archaeological evidence is another. Many places that existed in history do not exist today, and others were given names and descriptions that make identification difficult or impossible. To remove the written record and say that the historical record is something independent of the evidence is to try to find your way in the dark with your eyes closed. It’s possible, blind people do manage, but it’s more difficult.

    Now, in many writings there exists an element of truth and an element of metaphor. Try to discern the difference, and understand that just because you haven’t seen the evidence does not mean you cannot do so if and whenever you wish. I’ve even given you the recipe, which is what the story of the Exodus was about, the loss of the leaven and the forty years in the desert and waiting for manna. Make bread or do not, but that recipe was worth preserving.

  11. honestpoet said


    I do think you confuse mythology with historiography.

    Religions are based on myths, not on history. It’s the present’s problem that we’ve forgotten this.

  12. whig said

    Religions are based on culture, not myths. Myths are based on ignorance, which is to say what one believes contrary to fact.

  13. whig said

    Will you at least acknowledge that some aspects of culture, including recipes and other traditions, deserve to be preserved?

  14. honestpoet said

    Sure. But cookbooks and literature and historiography suffice. Scripture is always about controlling people. It’s what’s upheld the caste system in India for millennia.

    There are a few sutra (bahkti, yoga, and some Buddhist), that I’d have to say defy this description, but everything I’ve seen in the western and middle-eastern traditions has clearly been about control.

    And you’re wrong about religions being based on culture. There was no culture involved when Scientology was born, nor Mormonism. They’re both based on myths, as are all religions. You’re right to equate myth with ignorance, however. You just need to make the next connection and realize that religions are therefore also about ignorance.

  15. whig said

    Honestpoet, cookbooks do not suffice to explain recipes that are beyond simple explanation. You are displaying ignorance because you decline to investigate, as is your right. Because I have made bread with fine herbs, and described my process of doing so with some detail, I have some understanding of what the scriptures were about when speaking of such things.

    Please put yourself in a context of one living before modern instruments, such as microscopes, which can reveal the existence of yeasts and other simple microorganisms. The rules and procedures pertain to that which we tell people to do in order to make bread, without an understanding of yeast.

    It is still necessary to use metaphor to describe some of the properties of cannabis, and how it brings about higher consciousness, because we do not have instruments that can look at higher consciousness. Other techniques such as meditation can also be used, of course, but are less reliable and require more training and experience, and cannot always take you as far.

    As scientific knowledge expands we have less need of religious metaphors, but so long as there are important principles of life and growth that exceed our grasp to describe, we need to know ways of acting and performing to keep those principles.

    There is not one path, but many. What works for one may not for another, because it may not be understood by one or the other person how to follow the map. All paths are not equal for all people, but the destination is the same.

  16. whig said

    Understand that there is no reason to doubt that Moses (whether a person of that very name or whomever has come down to us by that name) encountered a burning bush and experienced a higher consciousness, because we can easily reproduce that experience.

    What you may question is the validity of the higher consciousness, but I should not assume you do. Taken outside the context of Judeo-Christian eschatology, do you recognize that cannabis alters consciousness in a perfectly valid way?

  17. whig said

    I will use a new metaphor, which you may understand, based upon the Egyptians. You are a pair of eyes (because you do presumably have two) atop your own pyramid of consciousness. What elevates you gives you perspective, and what you perceive requires some experience to interpret but ultimately allows you to have a greater ability to protect and transform your environment. How? If you go up in any building you can see a greater expanse beneath, and less obstruction above. So is it with what I am saying, and it requires no religion whatsoever to understand and believe this as confirmable by easy direct experience.

  18. But what about Jesus even if I accept Solomon did never existed.

  19. honestpoet said

    Horizonspeaks, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Jesus existed.

    “There is not one path, but many. What works for one may not for another, because it may not be understood by one or the other person how to follow the map. All paths are not equal for all people, but the destination is the same.”

    Whig, that’s just regurgitated mystical mumbo-jumbo. (The pyramid metaphor seems original enough, but hardly to the point.) No, diverse paths do not all lead to the same place. Some do — to delusion, ignorance, and suffering. The path of rationality leads somewhere else.

    I don’t deny the validity of altered consciousness with ganja. I deny the connection between these moldy old books and the lovely herb which you seem attached to. You can let go of religion without denying ganja’s benefits.

  20. tce said

    There is sufficient and credible non-Biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus. Writings of Josephus, Dead Sea Scrolls, official Roman writings, writings of the Muslim belief all confirm that Jesus was an actual, historical person, regardless of your belief in His divinity.

  21. honestpoet said

    If you study the historiography, it’s actually not at all obvious. The mentions of him in Josephus, for example, have been proven to be forgeries. They’re in a different hand.

    The writings about Jesus in the Koran are garbled stories that would have been passed on orally, long after the alleged life of Jesus. Hardly solid evidence. And there’s no mention of him at all in Roman records, which is damning, because they were excellent record keepers.

    It takes faith not only to believe in his divinity, but to believe in his historicity.

    I’m not a fan of faith, myself. I prefer reason.

  22. Michael said

    You have faith in what you call reason, anti-faith in all else. You think your path is special and leads to a place other than the grave?

  23. honestpoet said

    No, I know that ALL paths lead to the grave. It’s delusion to imagine otherwise.

  24. Michael said

    As I said in #15 above, “All paths are not equal for all people, but the destination is the same.” You denied this in #19, and said, “The path of rationality leads somewhere else.”

    No, it doesn’t.

  25. honestpoet said

    You are so tiresome. Must you be an advocate for marijuana? Methinks you give us a bad name.

    You really don’t know who your friends are, Michael.


  26. Michael said

    I didn’t mention marijuana.

    What are you smoking?

  27. honestpoet said

    Uh, you’re going to tell me that “cannablog” has nothing to do with marijuana? Duh.

    I’m not sure why you’re posturing and trying to pretend that history isn’t history, or fact isn’t fact.

    Oh, that’s right. You’re religious.

  28. Michael said

    I talk about cannabis there. I didn’t mention it in this thread. I am not here to advocate. If you don’t want to tell me what thread you are complaining about so that I can respond to whatever you think I may have unjustly said. Why should my religiousity have anything more to do with anything you are complaining about?

    Here’s the problem, HP. You say things and then you contradict yourself. I point out the contradiction and instead of refining your statement to say, yes, I take some cognizance of this apparent dilemma, you accuse me of being tiresome.

    In other words, you refuse to admit error.

  29. honestpoet said

    Hardly! I practice negative capability. I’m all about admitting contradiction, embracing it even. It’s the only way to deal with reality, which is contradictory and chaotic and absurd, and redeemed only by human kindness, a quality I find lacking in you, which is why I find you tiresome and would just as soon not deal with you, especially during this trying time in my life.

  30. Michael said

    Now why would you say I lack human kindness?

    I have given you bread recipes and other things that I hoped you might appreciate. I accept that seeming contradictions exist, as everything can be described by both wave and particle terms in quantum physics and we are all really here in a quantum reality together. Religion is just a metaphor and if you’d check out the LOLcat Bible for instance you might even see how it can be entertaining. It is more accurate to say certain things in religious terms than scientific, because of the failure of most scientists to appreciate quantum reality.

    I’m not your enemy. I just want to understand when you say things that seem so warm and good one moment and at another you seem angry and upset at me. So if you really don’t want to deal with me, fine. I’ll take my leave now.

  31. honestpoet said

    I say you lack human kindness because you insist on debating things I’d rather agree to disagree about, and I’m way too stressed to have the energy to deal with that.

    I attempt to maintain emotional equilibrium (it’s a useful practice), but my family has recently been attacked with horrible rumor-mongering that culminated in my husband’s losing his job, largely because we don’t go to church and have dared to help a member of the community they’d rather pretend doesn’t exist.

    So I’m not feeling very warm and fuzzy about organized religion at the moment, ‘kay? Someone can be warm and good and angry at the same time, can’t she?

    So, if you’ve changed your mind (you had excused yourself from our last conversation, which you seem to have conveniently forgotten, by accusing me of not being very honest) about my honesty, then you’re welcome back. But please don’t insist on airing your well-known views about religion here. I’ve got no interest in going around in circles. I have to get my house and garden ready to sell, and at the holidays, too. Merry frickin’ Christmas.

  32. Michael said

    I don’t belong to an organized church, nor do the ones I have seen seem particularly close to the teachings of Jesus. You think I am an enemy when I am not. I do not defend the people who attack you.

  33. billwalker said

    I am impressed with ALL of the postings here. Both sides have presented cogent arguments. As an Atheist, I find myself on ‘the side of’ Honestpoet, but I respect Michaels views,altho I don’t share them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: