Raameses II Could Not Have Been the Pharoah of the Exodus

 Raameses II could not have been the Pharoah of the Exodus. He ruled from 1279 to 1213 BCE. This Pharoah is often named as the one from which Moses led Israel out of Egypt because the two cities he built are named in Exodus 1. The problem is that he's in the wrong time frame completely.
The seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties of Ancient Egypt are the only period in which the events of the Exodus can realistically be placed. The history of the arrival and rule of the "heqau khasut" or "Hyksos" ("foreign rulers" or "shepherd kings" West Asiatic peoples originating in Canaan and the Levant) to Egypt begins in roughly 1900 BCE, just about the right historical time period for the story of Joseph and his brothers to take place if we're assuming Abram left the Sumerian city of Ur in its sunset between 2100-2000 BCE.
      Eventually, Egypt broke into at least two distinct kingdoms, a more "pure" ethnically Egyptian Upper (southern) Kingdom ruled from Thebes, and Lower (northern) Kingdom ruled by the Hyksos from Avaris. Between roughly 1560 to 1510 BCE, the Upper Kingdom waged war against the Lower Kingdom ruled by the Hyksos and ultimately defeated it, driving the Hyksos out of power in Avaris and uniting the two kingdoms. The Pharoah who accomplished this was Ahmose I, the son of Seqenenre and brother of Kamose. 
     This parallels the biblical account of a Pharoah arising that didn't know Joseph which is what started the Hebrew enslavement period. It stands to reason that those West Semitic peoples associated with the Hyksos and possibly benefiting from their rule who could not have left would have been deposed and made slaves. After the conquest, Ahmose undertook major building projects in several cities, especially Thebes. It's not unreasonable that the backbone of those building projects were Hebrew (Hyksos) slaves. 
     Ahmose reigned for 25 years and was succeeded by Amenhotep I. Amenhotep I reigned for 21 years and was succeeded by Thutmose I. Thutmose I reigned for 10-12 years and was succeeded by Thutmose II. Thutmose II reigned for about 13-14 years and was succeeded by his sister/wife Hatshepsut who became Queen Regnant after he died and his son (her stepson), Thutmose III, was only two. Hatshepsut, the daughter of Thutmose I, reigned for 22 years before she died in 1459 BCE and Thutmose III became the sole ruler. He reigned a total of 54 years, 22 of which were coregent with Hatshepsut. Towards the end of his reign, his son and co-regent Amenhotep II tried to erase Hatshepsut from all inscriptions, iconography, and official records even though her reign was prosperous. So, from the time Ahmose I conquered the Hyksos to the time Hatshepsut's iconography was defaced was approximately 111 years give or take. There is one theory which suggests that Hatshepsut was the Pharoah's daughter who pulled Moses (Moshe/Mose) out of the river, and this is one of the reasons why they tried to erase her. It is also potentially one reason why, after Moses committed a murder and ran no one went hunting for him. His adopted mother was on the throne. Within that 111 years, it's possible for Hatshepsut to have found Moses and for him to grow up, flee, and then return at eighty years old to face Amenhotep II on the throne in the last years of his father's coregency.
     This is also the time period in which the Island of Santorini, Thera, volcanically exploded with a VEI 7. The effects were felt as far south as Egypt while the entire Minoan civilization next to it was completely destroyed. This was no small eruption and would have produced a year without summer. The next higher place on the VEI scale, 8, is described as nearly world ending. As Simcha Jacobi described, the cataclysmic effects of this eruption could have produced the same conditions in Egypt described by the Ten Plagues in the book of Exodus.
     The Amarna Letters from the 1300s BCE are a series of letters from Canaanite vassel lords to the Pharoah in Egypt begging for him to send help against the "Habiru" who were attacking their settlements. This demonstrates that by the time these letters were written, between 100-200 years after Amenhotep II, the "Habiru" were already in Canaan and at war against the Canaanite inhabitants in the land.
     Finally, this is also the only period (1600-1500 BCE) which matches the time frames involved up to the rise of David circa 1000 BCE. It was four hundred years between Joshua and David according to the Scriptures. Raameses II is simply too recent.
     Why are his cities then mentioned in Exodus 1? Chances are it's the same reason why Exodus was written in later, post-Davidic Hebrew. It was written down from an oral history that remembered these events but did not remember the names of the Pharoahs in question. (Really, the Biblical histories are fastidious about remembering the names of rulers nearly everywhere else; why wouldn't Moses have recorded the names of the Pharoahs in question if he actually wrote it since he knew them?) The  human author, not knowing who that Pharoah was or the exact chronology, was using cities, and possibly a Pharoah, that were known to make his point.

The Original "Christian Witch"

 Today I learned that "Christian Witches" are a thing. My discovery started with a YouTube video which showed up in my feed, and I ended up going to their website to learn more about this contradiction in terms. Even after perusing their FAQ, I still wasn't sure how these two things didn't contradict each other. But then I got to thinking about another possible "Christian Witch," though I'm not sure she would have ever described herself as such.
     Mariam of Migdol. You know her as Mary the Magdalene. What's really interesting about the word "Magdalene" is that while Magdala was a fishing village near Migdol, this word is never used to apply to anyone else from the region. There is another possible meaning for this appellation with just a couple of sound changes. It highly resembles two Greek words smashed together, "Magos" and "deleomai" or one of its cognates. The first one means "sorcerer," the second as a compound cognate can be construed as meaning "one who causes mischief or hurts by magic potions." In other words, Mariam from Migdol was what we might call a "witch." In my humble opinion, the Gospel writers changed certain sounds of her "surname" so that it wasn't quite so offensive to her memory.
      Consider it fiction or not, here is how I think of her.
     Mariam of Migdol was born to a priestess of Cybele at a smaller shrine to that goddess in Migdol. She was one of two fraternal twins, the other being her brother Thomas. Because Thomas was born male, their mother made him eunuch at a very early age because no intact male could serve at the altar of Cybele. Ritual prostitution, spellcraft, and the brewing of potions to either harm or heal were how she and her brother were raised and taught by her mother. To this end, she was taught to read Latin so that she could read the spell texts that were brought there from the temple in Rome. She and her brother were raped, sexually abused, and she in particular was subjected to horrific rites from early on by their mother. This upbringing from a very young age eventually split her mind and she developed what we would now call Dissociative Identity Disorder with seven personalities inside of her. When she was a young teenager, she escaped. It was only later that her brother was able to follow her and be reunited with her. From then on, she fiercely protected him, and he to the extent he could, to protect her.
     Mariam took what she knew and survived in a world that would just as easily stone her for what she was. She used her knowledge of spellcraft and potion making to develop a powerful and terrifying reputation. Her DID only added to the fear that surrounded and even protected her and her brother. She made potions to both heal and to harm. She made poisons for those who paid her with no questions asked. She made potions that could induce abortions; something that both common woman and wealthy elites came to her for, and not just the women, but their husbands too. People would come to her to put a spell on someone they wanted to suffer. There was a power of presence that radiated from her by the time she was introduced to Jesus by her brother.
      Her DID was becoming worse than Thomas had ever seen it. The "demons" were so out of control she could no longer truly function with any normalcy and he was afraid of what she might do, or what might be done to her. He had heard of Jesus and listened to the things He said, as well as having seen the things he could do. He was the only one who could approach his sister without fear, and he brought her to Jesus. Suddenly, the "demons" were gone and she was in a right mind she hadn't been in a long time. She was whole and perfectly sane. No one had every shown her the kindness Jesus had without demanding something in return. But He wanted nothing, only that she be able to live in peace.
      Not long after, maybe a day, maybe two, she knew Jesus had been invited to a dinner by a wealthy Pharisee. She knew the man. He'd been one of her "customers" along with several others among his peers. She knew where he lived. She wanted to do something for Jesus and she knew at least then where He would be. She didn't know exactly what she would do, only that she would think of something.
      She entered the house. No one dared stop her or tell her "no." That was like attempting to stop the "Baba Yaga" in their minds. She might put a curse on them. She might poison them just by looking at them. She found Jesus reclining at the table and quickly assessed what had happened. She looked at His feet which had not been washed as should have happened for an invited guest. She briefly stared daggers at Simon before settled on what she would do for Jesus, but as she knelt down at his feet, the flood of emotion consumed her. She started sobbing. Twenty years of abuse and hardship flooded out from her eyes and it all fell on His feet. She then used the water from her eyes to wash them properly, and removed her veil, humbling herself before Jesus in a way she had never allowed herself to be humbled by any man since leaving Migdol, to use her hair to dry them.
     Simon stammered a protest quietly as though she might not be able to hear him. But Jesus wasn't having any of it. He stood up and defended her in front of everyone. The only man in her life to stand up for her when He didn't have to, and someone who clearly had to be a real prophet no less! So much more, He shamed them and praised her!
     After that day, she was never far from Him. She took it upon herself to look after His needs from her own considerable stores. Whatever He needed she made sure He had it. She was the kind of person that once she was certain you were really her friend, that was it. Her loyalty and concern knew no bounds. And with Jesus, she was more devoted than any real wife could have been with a husband, even though they were neither. There was no "romance". But she made sure He ate. When she was concerned about His health, she acquired a horse and rode for two days to find and bring a Greek physician she knew back to Jesus to look after Him when her own skills failed. Everything came from her own pockets. She would eventually learned other healing skills from that same physician as he also traveled with Jesus, and gradually abandon the spellcraft that once was her and her brother's shield. It was she who broke open the flask of Nard spiked with Myrrh over Jesus' feet at the last supper in preparation for His burial. The Nard came from her own dwindling stores of ingredients which she had not fully sold off or disposed of by that point. It was some of her last.
     And on that day when He was taken for trial, she stood with His mother and His cousin John (His mother's nephew) through the entire travesty of justice as a member of His family, and neither His mother or cousin, His best friend, denied her that position. It is no accident that she was there that morning with His mother and His mother's sister to try and properly embalm the body. It is no accident that she lingered sobbing when she thought His body had been taken. Her whole world for the last three years had been placed in that tomb, and now He was just "gone." This is why it was no accident that she was the first one He appeared to, and why He tenderly called her by name when she couldn't see who He was through her tears. It's also why she grabbed Him and refused to let go, and why He gently told her not to cling to Him.
     Mariam of Migdol was an extraordinary woman. She was confident, powerful, and a survivor in a world that didn't want her. But she was also a fierce friend, a deeply sensitive and caring person, and loyal beyond a fault. She was courageous, compassionate, intelligent, and beautiful in every way.
      This is how I choose to imagine her. She deserves to never be forgotten for who she was, not who "tradition" bastardized her to be.

There Is No Point In Judging The Flesh

 It is pointless to try and tame the flesh and bend it to your will. That is, your brain will always see everything in terms of threats and needs, fear and desire. Nothing will really change this because that is what it does. It assesses the threat or need and reacts with fear that either it's going to happen or fear that the need isn't going to be met. It then becomes aggressive (or runs as the case may be). I was reflecting on this thought this morning after watching myself get frustrated with the animals and the extreme heat and reacting badly. I then started feeling really badly and getting upset that I wasn't a better person. Animals are going to be animals. They're not going to act in any other way than they are. I know this. Getting frustrated or angry isn't going to change that, but I still did. It went against my own self perception of a kind person, also generated by the brain. As a result, I then became the threat, and then the cognitive dissonance, the "fatal error," really went into overdrive with guilt, shame, and wondering whether I had really learned or practiced anything at all.
     And then I remembered, that's the point. Like the animals, the flesh, the dysfunctional survival system in the brain and the thoughts which it generates and reacts to, is going to do what it's going to do. That's not going to change until the flesh dies. Being upset that "I'm not a better person" is pointless. I'm not my brain, my thoughts, or even my body. It's my choice whether or not to confuse myself with the flesh. It's my choice whether or not to be aware of this and to let go of obeying its responses and taking the bait it drops. It's my choice to operate according to the Spirit, the Logos, or not.
      This "real me" is quiet. It's patient. It loves, taking no thought for itself because it doesn't need to. It's at peace. This "real me" doesn't react to anything as either a threat or a need because nothing can threaten it and it has no needs. Those things belong to the flesh, the brain, the body. The "real me" functions connected to the Head, the "seminal Logos," who is Jesus Christ. 
      There is no point in judging the flesh. It's going to react how it's going to react. It's going to do what it's going to do. It is neither good nor evil. It just is. It is the flesh judging the flesh in a downward spiral whether it agrees with its own reactions or not. Just be aware of it and do not engage with it. Just be aware of your thoughts, but do not let them dictate to you. Engage with the Spirit. Ask Him to act and speak through you with intention and He will. But getting upset because your flesh does not change is pointless. 

Guilt Is Not From God

      Guilt is not from God. We do not feel guilty because God is making us feel guilty. Guilt is a product of our common human malfunction. It is the result of something we’ve done or said conflicting with our own self-image as a morally good person. In psychology, this is called “cognitive dissonance.” The same can be said for shame, which is linked to guilt. This is why guilt and shame can linger over mistakes made far in the past even after we learn that we are forgiven by God. It is not God who needs to forgive because He was never holding those things which caused guilt and shame against us to begin with. It is not God who needs to forgive, it is we ourselves who need to accept that these things happened, drop them, and let them go. He does not hold our mistakes against us, and He is not the one who incites guilt within ourselves. That is caused by our own brains, our own amygdalae specifically, the cognitive dissonance when we have done something contrary to what we believe to be the "good" or "right" thing and it conflicts with our self-image as a "good" person.
     This is why there were sacrifices for unintentional wrongdoing in the Mosaic Law, but no sacrifices for intentional wrongdoing. There were sacrifices meant to assuage or propitiate the internal guilt felt for mistakes and wrongs committed unintentionally. By performing a symbolic action to “atone” for that unintentional wrong, that mistake, the internal guilt and shame can be appeased. These were for our psychological health, not for any need of “justice” on His part. But when someone did something wrong intentionally, they were meant to suffer the consequences of their actions as a means of correction. This is also why the Sanctuary cities existed for people who committed unintentional homicide. It was a mistake, and so He meant to shield them from avengers. This is why David was made to suffer for Uriah’s death and for adultery with his wife. It was a corrective action because David’s wrongdoing was intentional. God’s purpose was not to destroy David, but to correct and teach him. This is His purpose with every soul that He would bring that soul to completion. 
     God's justice is not our justice. God doesn't punish us for our mistakes, especially those we never intended to make. He corrects us for when we intentionally do wrong, but the intention of the correction is to set us on the right path like any good Father would do. It is not retribution for retribution’s sake. God does not hold our wrongs against us, and especially not to torture us forever for them. His goal is reconciliation and restoration, maturity, and union with Himself for all of us, not losing any of us to be tortured forever. He is the one who will leave the ninety nine to seek and save the one. He is the Father who takes no thought for the past wrongs of his son but runs to embrace him when he comes to his senses and comes home.

What "Sin" or the "Sin Nature" Actually Is

 Around 2014-15, I started trying to understand what "sin" actually is from two things. First, the actual meanings of the words "khata'," in the Old Testament, and "hamartia," in the New Testament, in the original languages. The former is an archery term and the latter a javelin throwing term and both meaning the same thing, "to miss the target". What I came to discover the more I looked into "hamartia" in particular, being in the language of the New Testament, was that there was an implied unintentionality to this word. This comes out actually very strongly in the Greek Septuagint translation of Leviticus, for example, where there were sacrifices made available for "hamartia" but no sacrifices made available for intentional wrongdoing. In other words, if someone made a mistake, a sacrifice could be brought. If someone deliberately did something, no sacrifice was available for propitiation but that person had to suffer the penalty which the Torah prescribed. In ancient Greek, this word came to mean error, mistake, or the "fatal flaw" by which a hero perished in Greek Tragedy. In other words, it's most basic meaning is that something happened which wasn't intended to or supposed to happen. As such, I have also come to render it at times as "malfunction," or when it is in the plural, "malfunctioning behaviors."

The second thing I started from was two things Paul said about hamartia in Romans which I think have been overlooked too much. The first thing he says in Romans 5 is that it is inherited in that our first ancestor "sinned" so too all human beings descended from him are afflicted with it. The second thing he says is in Romans 7, and this is really interesting to me because he says that it is located "in the flesh." As you probably know, the word here is "sarx" and it literally means the flesh of an animal or human being, that is, the meat, skin, organs, etc. I know the NIV and maybe a few others render it "sin nature" but this is an interpretive translation and not a literal one. It's based on the translator's own theological biases. Paul located hamartia within the physical, biological flesh of a human being. So, according to Paul, Hamartia is inherited from our first ancestor and it is physically or biologically based. It should be noted that, contrary to popular theological teaching, nowhere in Scripture is "sin" ever called "spiritual" or implied to be of a "spiritual" nature.

Once I came to this conclusion, I asked two questions, "What if Paul meant what he literally said?" and "Is there any way to locate where 'in the flesh' it might be?" This led to my taking a psychology major at Orange Coast College. I reasoned that if hamartia is located "in the flesh" then it has to be in the brain because it deals with human behavior, and the source of human behavior is in the brain. Paul described it as an "error" or a "malfunction" or "fatal flaw" when he used the word hamartia. This suggested that there was a flaw or an error in the human brain. As I went through my coursework, one particular part of the brain stood out: the limbic system and specifically the hypothalamus and the amygdala. These are the parts of the brain responsible for our survival responses of fear, aggression, feeding, and sex, and in women, childbirth (this last one caught my attention because of Genesis 3). The hypothalamus is what controls these responses, but the amygdala is kind of like the gateway to the hypothalamus. It essentially tells the hypothalamus when to engage and when not to.

One of the things I did next was I went back and looked at everything Paul described as the "works of the flesh," now understanding this in a far more literal sense. In particular in Galatians, what I saw now was that every single thing Paul lists, every single behavior, can be attributed to one or more of these survival responses in some way. People commit murder out of fear. They steal out of fear. They commit adultery out of the drive for sex. They overeat or overindulge out of the drive to eat. All of these are neurologically based, biologically based responses to different situations and stimuli. Any behavior born from the fear, aggression, feeding, or sex response is a "work of the flesh" as contrasted with the "fruit of the Spirit" which is not born from "the flesh," that is, anything biologically based.

One of the things about the brain's survival response system is that, in virtually all other animals, it is meant to deal with physical threats or needs. That is, if an animal is threatened, it responds by either running from the threat or attempting to fight or destroy the threat. Once the threat is averted, the system is meant to shut down. Again, if an animal needs food, it directs the animal to eat. It also controls the sexual drive meant for reproduction in order for the animal to propagate. But once these needs are met, it is meant to go back into standby.

It does not fully do this in human beings, and it does not just do this with perceived physical threats and needs. Instead, it does it with things remembered or imagined. It does it with perceived likes or dislikes. It does it when one's "self-identity" is threatened, or it feels the need to propagate the things with which the self identifies. In short, it does it with perceived physical, psychological, emotional, and even spiritual needs or threats. In other words, it does it with "everything." It is my contention that this is also the source of what we call "good" and "bad" or "evil." Those things we like are treated as needs and therefore "good". Those things we dislike for any reason are treated as "threats" and are dealt with accordingly. We tend to crave and hoard those things we like, and we tend to push away, run from, or attempt to destroy those things we dislike. In short, our survival response system as human beings is stuck in overdrive, or is at least way too sensitive and far more sensitive then it was ever intended to be.

Another thing I ran into in my studies of this is that the human amygdala is disproportionately larger than in any other primate. It is four times larger than our closest genetic animal cousins the chimpanzee and the bonobo. Recently, I read an article where a correlation was made between a larger left amygdala and a higher intolerance for differences. So, the size of the amygdala directly impacts the scope of its function. My conclusion to all of this is that, because of an abnormal enlargement, relatively speaking, our amygdala as human beings is reacting and responding to things as threats or needs that it was never originally designed to react to. Now, this does not make it "evil," nor what it is trying to do "evil." It means though that it is not functioning in the way it was supposed to or intended to. In short, it is attempting to fulfill its original program by protecting us from threats and fulfilling physical needs but, I believe the evidence points to, its physical parameters have changed and now it's "malfunctioning." I had some experience with a similar problem with a machine in a job I once worked as a Laser Drill Technician where the machine was still following its program, but a slight flaw with the power output produced circuit boards that were entirely useless (I lost my job over that). Even the smallest change in the hardware parameters produced catastrophic results, and it is a similar thing with our amygdala.

So, our Hamartia is an enlarged amygdala processing "everything" as either a survival threat or a survival need and attempting to respond accordingly and mostly with fear of some degree. This is why I liken us to a child with a neurodevelopmental or behavioral disorder, because in a way, that is exactly what is happening. Now as to how it happened, my hypothesis is that it had something to do with a reaction to something found in the fruit which our ancestors ate. We know compounds can alter human genetics both immediately and in pregnancy, and some compounds can alter genes and pass down mutations. I think something in it caused our amygdalas to enlarge more than they were supposed to producing the aberrant, "sinful" behaviors as it attempted to protect us from things it really didn't need to.

Jesus Taught Detachment

 What most Christians don't realize is that one of the core principles Jesus taught is detachment. That is, a letting go. When you look carefully, it undergirds everything He teaches in the Gospels right there along with loving kindness and compassion.
     Think about the conditions of discipleship laid out expressly in Luke. If you're too attached to your family relationships, you can't be His disciple. If you're too attached to your possessions, you can't be His disciple. If you're too attached to your own soul or self-identity, you can't be His disciple. 
     Jesus taught, "Don't judge and you won't be judged." Judgment is a kind of attachment to beliefs about right and wrong. Jesus taught "forgive and you will be forgiven." The word translated as forgive literally means "to drop from the hand," that is, to let go or to detach. 
     Think about the conditions He laid out for both the twelve and the seventy He sent out to prepare the towns and cities for His visits. Take nothing with you. Or the condition he laid on the "rich young ruler" when asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life, "go, sell everything you own, give it to the poor, then come and follow Me."
     Being a disciple of Jesus Christ, learning how to live as Jesus taught and walk as He walked, requires that we let go of... "everything" that would keep us from it. Why? Because He did. Jesus had let go of family that would have held Him back. He let go of any possessions or sense of a stable job or income. He let go of everything that did not contribute to His one goal of doing what His Father wanted. His disciples were required to live the same way. Jesus practiced detachment.
      We don't like this word because we associate caring with attachment. We associate love with attachment. How can you love if you have no attachment to a thing? But that's the dysfunctional human brain talking. Attachment is not love. It's not kindness. Attachment is about what someone or something means to you. What they can do for you. Love is about what you can do for the other person. Love and attachment are two very different things. Genuine love lets the other person go for them to be who they were meant to be. It does not cling, and it does not push away. It wants the best for the other person. Genuine love understands that things, people, ideas, and identities change, grow, and move on and it lets them. It is not unseated because someone or something is no longer a part of its life for a time. It does not cling to them.
     The human brain doesn't like this. It clings to things and people it thinks it needs to survive, and it equates "happiness" with survival. It will enslave itself to the service or care of a thing or a person if it means it gets to be happy, if it gets to receive dopamine or serotonin from it. We call this addiction. Jesus required His disciples to break their addictions because they weren't going to be able to live as He taught and walk as He walked if they didn't. 

What Does It Mean To Worship?

 What does it mean to worship?
In the Greek text of the New Testament, there are two words usually used, "latreuo" and "proskuneo". The first one means in ancient Greek something like "to serve as a priest in religious rites" while the second means "to prostrate oneself before someone". Think about those two pictures which these words give. The primary concept of worship in the language and culture of the New Testament is to serve and obey the object of that worship. What does "to serve" mean? It means to do whatever that person tells you to do. Again, it means to obey and attend to the object of that service in question.
        Now, in John 4, Jesus tells the woman at the well that God is Spirit, and those prostrating themselves before (worshiping) Him must do so with Spirit and with Truth. It's not optional. So, if someone is to actually "worship" God, it must be done with Spirit and with Truth. That is, that person must serve and obey Him honestly and not with the flesh, but with the Spirit. Anything else is not actually worship. And this holds up when we look at the Old Testament prophets who were very clear that God despised the "worship" of those who kept His festivals but trampled on the poor, the outcast, the widow, and the orphan. They were going through the motions, but they were neither serving nor obeying what He actually wanted which was mercy, compassion, fairness, and love.
     There are many in churches today who sing the songs, get emotional, recite the liturgies, perform the sacraments, and hit all the right performative notes, but through their words and actions outside, or often even inside, disregard, disobey, and make light of what He actually wants. They explain it away as common sense or being practical. These people are not worshiping Him at all.
     Genuine worship of the God and Father of Jesus Christ is, first and foremost to love the person next to you like yourself. It is to treat others as you want to be treated. It is to forgive, and to not pass judgment. It is to care for the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner and to defend them. These are the acts of worship which He has repeatedly asked for. Not songs. Not liturgy. Not sacrifices. Not performative shows and theater. Love. Compassion. Mercy.
     Until you engage with these, until you do these things, you are not worshiping Him and it's best to keep your songs, liturgies, and religious rites to yourself. They disgust Him.