"Were Lactose-Intolerant People Unchosen in the All-Knowing, Prejudiced/Xenophobic Creator of All's Promised Land of Milk and Honey?" Are we still ?

Lactose intolerance is the body’s inability to fully digest lactose, the sugar found in milk, particularly bovine (cow’s) milk. For those who are lactose intolerant, the consumption of dairy can lead to discomfort, including bloating, gas, and digestive distress. 

 In this context, lactose intolerance becomes more than a biological limitation; it highlights a fundamental incompatibility with the biblical “Promised Land of Milk and Honey.” If milk—derived from or not from bovine lactose—is the selling point/ deal maker and central to this land, then an all-knowing creator’s choice of a “milk-rich” promise as promo, press, PR to for lactose-intolerant people, this in my opinion invites questions.

The Insult To Modern Intelligence, The Condescension, The Patronizing, The Narratives of Divinity: Examining the Limitations and Contradictions of These Insult To Basic Intelligence And Rude Texts

Intro 

For thousands of years, stories from sacred texts have shaped human societies, dictating moral frameworks, justifying political power, and creating hierarchical structures that often seem out of alignment with the fundamental values of equality and justice. 

When we look at the contents of these texts, we find a depiction of “a God” that seems remarkably human, subject to biases, favoritism, and inconsistencies that challenge the traditional view of a perfect, all-knowing deity. Could these tales genuinely be divine revelations? Or are they, rather, human creations poisoned by and soaked in the cultural, social, and psychological limitations of their time?

A God of Bias and Prejudice

The intentional trouble making dysfunctional mindset of a presumed '' all knowing '' entity who/ that came up with the idea of a so called “chosen people,” a central theme in relative scriptures [ relative to folks who are beneficiaries ]  is perhaps one of the most glaring contradictions to the idea of a universal, loving creator. In the book of Exodus, God declares a group in his creation as his chosen people, setting them apart from others and promising them a land “flowing with milk and honey.” 

But why would a truly omnipotent, omniscient deity favor one small group of people, implicitly devaluing others? This favoritism appears more like human prejudice than divine impartiality, reflecting tribalism rather than a universal, unconditional love for all creation.

The concept of “chosenness” has justified countless acts of violence and conquest. The wars of conquest over Canaan, for instance, involved orders to commit genocide against other peoples, as documented in the book of Joshua. If these acts are seen as divinely sanctioned, it becomes difficult to reconcile them with a God meant to embody love, justice, and mercy. 

In this context alone, even among the most naive and simple people anywhere in a sentient cosmos this chosen-people narrative leads to a troubling conclusion: that  the entity in reference [ if one is: indeed ]  is a prejudiced figure, endorsing a form of spiritual and racial elitism that goes against any universal ethical standard.

The Promise of Milk and Honey: A Metaphor or a Misunderstanding?

The promise of “a land flowing with milk and honey” is another example of how these stories may be far more human than divine. If God truly understood the nature of humanity’s diversity, it would follow that such a promise would be meaningful and inclusive of all. 

Instead, the symbol of “milk,” in particular, is ironic, given that large portions of the world are lactose intolerant 80 to 85 %  [ fig relative to the time of writing this article ].

 Lactose intolerance, far from being a small exception, is dominant in most regions.

An omniscient creator would likely know this, and a literal promise of milk as a divine reward seems bizarrely insensitive to the biological diversity of the people for whom these promises were made.

The disconnect goes even further when considering the general nature of promises made, the metaphorical nature of these “blessings” implies an entity who does not operate on universal, eternal principles but rather offers rewards that reflect the material desires of ancient pastoral societies. Is this really the work of a transcendent being, or does it more plausibly represent human authors projecting their own wishes onto an imaginary divine figure?

Creation Myths: The Garden of Eden and its Absurdities

The story of the Garden of Eden, often regarded as foundational, brings another set of contradictions. According to the text, this being creates a paradise and places Adam and Eve there with only one prohibition: not to eat from the tree of knowledge. 

This simple setup, however, raises numerous problems. The presence of a talking snake—who allegedly tempts Eve into disobedience—strains credibility. If this were genuinely a divine setup, why introduce such a clearly manipulative element, effectively setting up humanity to fail?

The consequences of this “sin” are eternal suffering and banishment, not just for Adam and Eve but for all of humanity. 

This punishment suggests to me, a petulant, vengeful mindset that is more in line with human tyrants than an eternally loving deity. 

Why would a god supposedly free of error, infinitely loving, and just, devise a system where a single act could condemn billions? 

And why craft the temptation in such a way that failure seemed inevitable? The Eden story functions less as a divine origin tale and more as a mechanism to instill guilt, control, and obedience.

Human Traits in a Supposedly Divine Figure

Throughout the Old Testament, this entity is depicted with traits that seem startlingly human: anger, jealousy, vengeance, and favoritism. He issues punishments like plagues, floods, and even demands for human sacrifice, as seen in the story of Abraham and Isaac. This so-called “divine” behavior is inconsistent with an idealized vision of a perfect, omnibenevolent creator. 

Instead, it points to a projection of human emotions and fears onto an imaginary deity, underlying the psychological struggles of ancient societies rather than a universally applicable moral framework.

The Impact of These Narratives on Human Development

For millennia, these stories have shaped human civilizations, often stunting intellectual growth and critical thinking by demanding unquestioning faith in narratives riddled with contradictions. 

The authoritarian nature of these texts has kept humanity bound to outdated beliefs and practices, hindering progress. 

The prohibitions on questioning and exploring alternative views have led to centuries of stagnation in many fields, from science to philosophy. 

In effect, these stories have instilled a culture of fear, guilt, and blind obedience rather than birthing and encouraging open-mindedness and self-empowerment.

If these tales and myths are indeed culturally constructed rather than divinely inspired, it becomes important now than ever to question their place in modern society. 

Should humanity continue to accept teachings that were crafted in a time of limited knowledge and pronounced social divisions? Or should we hug a future guided by reason, empathy, and universal ethical principles that recognize the intrinsic value of all people, free from favoritism?

A truly just, universal vision of “God” would be one that transcends human limitations and biases, offering a message of love, respect, and equality. 

This vision, however, stands in stark contrast to the God of the Old Testament. If we wish to progress, we must be willing to shed beliefs that divide, limit, and distort our understanding of ourselves and the universe. 

It’s time to recognize these stories for what they are: human-made myths, reflecting human desires and fears, not divine revelations.We must break free from their constraints with debates, queries, questions, accuracy, truth, compassion, and a deeper understanding of our shared humanity now or we will eventually die as a species sooner than nature intends.