Archive for January, 2012

Stress of Belief

Posted in belief, culture, faith, freethought, random, religion, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , on January 21, 2012 by chouck017894

In understanding the world around us through a scientific approach mankind has, through that passion to understand, gained a wider awareness of the universe.  This tends to make those persons who are blindly dedicated to limited man-conceived faith systems nervous, for those who are true seekers of enlightenment are willing to face the fact that we do not need supernatural explanations for what we see or do not see.  Scientific delving into the way things work and operate does not reduce the wonder and awe of Creation, nor does it instill a mechanistic view of the vast diversity that is necessary for maintaining balance in the process of manifesting all that is made visible to us.

All things that we see manifested around us may be better understood as out-buddings of creative energy.  Absolutely everything in the universe has emerged out of transformational charges of energy.  There is nothing in energy tranformations that must rely upon outside bits and pieces as in the assemply of some artifact; everything has manifested into existence through energy involvement, and has actually evolved into its definable form of existence.  This is understood in science, but is denied for the most part by those who take biblical tales literally.

Too many of the dogmatic “faithful” harbor suppressed feelings of dividedness because the tenets of their man-conceived faith system are deliberately designed to impose the faith system’s governing over personal spirit.  Man-formulated corporate-style faith systems do not really want anyone to think for themselves.  Physical sensuality, for example, is portrayed as a spiritual negative in conventional western faiths, but one’s spirit and one’s natural sensuality are never in any soul-threatening opposition.  The opposition is from the taught superstition that each person exists in some isolated state from the very power that sustains their life experience.  The intention of that holy lie is to make the individual feel incomplete.  That imposed feeling of self-lack is then played upon and claimed to be answered only by some man conceived faith system.  The fanatically devout commonly strive to make a virtue of that imposed inner sense of lack, but the faithful’s inner resentment at attempting to override their own basic circuitry is then too often revealed in their indulgence in hateful and degrading (and “sinful”) passing of negative judgments upon others who are unlike themselves.  The fanatically faithful of these formulated faith systems then stand out as sad examples of personalities that have been spiritually deformed by attempting to do the impossible task of cutting away part of their energy identity.

True piety is not a muscular activity; it is not something that can be grasped or enforced, for true piety—which properly refers to spiritual insight—rarely, if ever, comes when it is pursued.  Such an elated state of awareness can be pure only when it is encountered unsought.  In other words, genuine piety is a state of awareness that reveals itself when personal will is not anchored upon temporary material conditions.

This suggests spontaneity, which man-formulated faith systems, especially in the material-obsessed western world, routinely disapprove.  The reason for this is that spontaneity is personal responsiveness that has been elevated by the feeling of total emotional security.  The three structured and regimented religions of the western world stand more as monuments to spiritual paralysis than to spiritual rapture.  Being male-founded and male dominated, the three dominant western faith systems bristle with masculine rigidity and combative schemes for storming and taking possession of the keys of heaven.  In other words, these are faith systems that counsel believers to will themselves to support certain attack strategies which are deceitfully designed to influence believers to obsess over alleged soul-threatening weaknesses within themselves.  This inflexible understanding of true spirit is even illustrated in the lifeless rigidity that is cemented into the architectonic forms of churches, cathedrals, synagogues, mosques and the like.

Add into this assessment that the structured rituals devised in practically all Christian ceremonies were patterned upon the court ceremonies of Roman emperors.  Christianity had its origin in the aggressive Roman Empire, after all, so the stress placed upon obedience should not be surprising.  Judaism had been fashioned earlier as a regimented faith after the little kingdom of Israel to the north suffered military defeat to the Assyrians.  Thus it was militancy and materialism that prompted Judaism, devised in 8th century BCE Judah, to be a faith system of authoritarian laws.  Islam arose out of an atmosphere of constant tribal conflicts, and that background assured the aggressive “spirit” that then inspired invasion of regions around Arabia and the Mediterranean.  As a result, these three western “faith” systems predestined themselves to constant combative indulgences—spirit versus matter—which assures that believers of these strict faith systems will feel not only divided from all diverse life expressions, but even feel divided within themselves.   Consequently none of these man-conceived faith systems will ever experience the emotional security that is necessary for true spiritual advancement.

Under such rigid “guidance” the spiritual spontaneity of the believer is intentionally kept smothered down.  The greater “sin” that is perpetrated thus rests squarely within these three  regimented faith systems themselves, which methodically short-circuit the very creative energy that opens each person’s consciousness to Cosmic Consciousness.

3 Comments »

Teaching Holy Hatred

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, random, religion with tags , , , , on January 14, 2012 by chouck017894

The majority of people do not read through the priest-compiled scriptures before they are allowed to determine what is truly worthy of their belief.  For the most part, we all grow up having standards of belief crammed upon us from every side even before we might eventually try to read through the texts that are offered as “holy truth.”  By then a person has already been coached and indoctrinated into what is presented as superior belief, so any consulting of “holy” texts that is carried out is usually an attempt to justify some particular thread of belief.  This is glaringly epitomized by the rants and judgments of the dogmatists and fanatics of any faith system.

Such a means of teaching spiritual understanding is clearly the seed-ground for practices of hatred.  That tendency to justify hatred toward some unrealistic stance is met early on in the Old Testament book of Genesis, for even god is depicted as getting riled up and fuming with hatred over the trespassing upon the landscape feature of his garden by an inexperienced, blameless couple.  The couple is subjected to godly fury for not comprehending his vague rules.  For example, how could the newly created persons have any understanding of what a threat of death meant?

Every priest-conceived book contains some hate-fueled elements in them, but the priest-composed book of Leviticus, which was jammed unceremoniously between the storylines of the Israelite wanderings in Exodus and Numbers, is probably the most shameless counseling of hatemongering in all scriptures.  As a result of legitimizing hatred, the dogmatists and fanatics love to use the Bible as their weapon of intolerance against any human tendency that offends their ego-dreams of special favors.

In the main, all “laws” presented in Leviticus are crude, shamelessly prejudicial and insensitive, for they were designed solely for the purpose of establishing uncontested priestly authority over the people under the guise of godly installation.  A few of the Leviticus “truths” include: It is an abomination to eat pork; likewise god supposedly forbids the eating of shellfish such as lobsters (Lev. 11:10); drinking milk is a no-no; god is offended by any clothing made of mixed fibers; etc.  That the priest-authors really knew what they were talking about is shown in verse 5 of chapter 11: there it forbids the eating of the coney “…because he cheweth the cud.”  The coney or cony refers to a rabbit, especially an Old World species, which certainly does not regurgitate from its stomach to chew again.  (It is possible the translators really meant to refer to the hyrax, as was later used in Deuteronomy 14:7.)

Placed as Leviticus is between the books of Exodus and Numbers, the priest-authors virtually thumbed their noses at the commandment against killing and devoted the whole of chapter 20 to a list of offences for which god allegedly approved killing!  Indeed, in this holy book there is claimed to be 28 god-approved methods for killing priest-rejected people!  And chapter 21 then provides still more of god’s alleged prejudices by listing the physical “blemishes” that supposedly nauseated god and barred them from priesthood.  That appalling allegation of god’s prejudices was expounded upon, declaring that god also detests the blind, the lame, or “he that hath a flat nose or any thing superfluous, or has a broken foot or a broken hand.”  Continuing their rant, the priest-authors elaborate further: god is displeased with “…the crook back, or a dwarf or (those) that hath a blemish in his eye, or scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones (testicles) broken.”  On the other hand, to gain god’s good graces it is claimed that god finds the burning of a bull on the altar to be okay, because it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord.  It also happened to provide the priests with good food.

There is a heap of other little things that allegedly irks the Lord.  How about a neat haircut for males?  Heaven forbid!  Leviticus 19:27 states that trimming the hair around the ears and the temples is forbidden by god.  And farmers, take note: Leviticus 19:19 says that you are committing sin if you plant two different crops in the same field. And lordy! a man dares not curse nor blasphemy lest he be stoned to death by the village people (Lev. 24:10-16).  Leviticus 15: 19-24 instructs men that a woman is unclean during her menstrual period, and men should avoid any contact with a woman during her period.  Another “law” supposedly handed down by god, so the priest-authors said, was that if a man’s brother dies and his wife has not yet been made pregnant, the man is commanded to take his brother’s wife as his own: he is expected to impregnate her in his bother’s name to keep the family line going.

Moral regard for those purportedly not chosen by the Lord for special favors allowed plenty of room for indifference in the treatment of outsiders.  That’s why slavery could be tolerated, even though it was not widely practiced among the Hebrews.  Thus Leviticus, chapter 25: 44-45 was held up as example of god’s approval of slavery by Christians in the southern parts of the United States in the mid-1800s.  The passage allows possession of slaves, both male and female, as long as they are purchased from neighboring nations.  By that standard, the citizens of the US today should be free to purchase captured citizens from Canada or Mexico or elsewhere to use however they wish.

Today the book of Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 22, is still being used as heavenly allowance for practicing hatred against persons that have been created with same-sex attraction.  (Ugly examples of this spiritual perversion include such persons as Fred Phelps, the homophobic “reverend” in Kansas, and homophobic “Dr” Laura Schlesinger.)  Never taken into consideration in the bigots’ use of the Bible for practicing hatred of gays is that scientific studies—revealed realities—expose the Leviticus proposition that attraction to members of the same-sex is unnatural has absolutely no psychological, medical or psychiatric support.  And it is certain that such lifesaving medical procedures of blood transfusions, dialysis treatment, skin grafting or resuscitation would be regarded by the priest-authors of Leviticus as abominations.

Perhaps it is not particularly wise to cling so trustingly to bronze-age priest assertions in this age of space technology.

4 Comments »

Questions of Personhood

Posted in Christianity, culture, faith, Government, history, politics, random, religion, Social with tags , , , , , on January 1, 2012 by chouck017894

Having it both ways is a popular aspiration for those seeking to impose upon the United States citizens a mandatory faith system for acknowledging the Source out of which all things have been created.  On the one hand, some of the religiously obsessed have shamelessly insisted upon making a religious/political issue out of the process of biological development, declaring that pre-birth energy cells (protoplasm) are to be understood as a self-conscious person.  On the other hand, these same persons who declare themselves to be pro-life remain coolly insensitive when it comes to caring for the millions of babies that are born into life-robbing circumstances.

The so-called right-to-life harangue is nothing other than false piety used to disguise the fact that their clamor for personhood status of what is only a potential human has nothing to do with genuine right to life: it is all about trashing democratic style government and imposing dictatorial control.  And these phony issues have become increasingly prevalent since the radical religious right gained control of the Republican Party in 1996.  Attempting to enforce the claim of personhood for protoplasm is another case of ignoring facts that invalidate their claim.  Technically speaking, life is already present and at work in the sperm and the egg even before they unite, so is the egg and each sperm cell also to be regarded a person?  A half person?  How far is this absurdity to be pursued?

The protoplasm that results from the uniting of sperm and egg is the jellylike colloidal substance-form which becomes activated as the “living” energy-substance of animals and plant cells.  Basic functions for life are being initiate, yes, but the resulting unit of energy-substance is not endowed with the evolved sense of self-awareness.  In other words, that coagulating energy-substance has no conscious ability to declare, “I think, therefore I am.”

The activists for right-to-life reveal their true stripes in various attacks upon social structures that have served life and democracy well in the United States for many decades.  If they really are concerned about pro-life and right-to-life issues, why do they so adamantly insist upon cutting back on young life needs such as adequately paid teachers and even school lunch programs?  Why is education and developmental institutions such as libraries always among the first objectives that they want to cut?  How does keeping people dumbed down insure a more secure life for the infants coming into life?

The have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too crowd has slowly and religiously chipped away at voter approved democratic regulations for fair play and decency by pretending devotion to Christian principles.  Under the guise of biblical inspiration there has arisen an army of religious pretenders who have invaded the Senate, the House of Representative, the US Supreme Court, and political positions (governors) in various states.  The results in every case has been swift and ruthless attempts to severely limit citizen freedoms, commonly under the guise of a need for smaller government.  In actuality, the strictness they seek to force upon the people, and keep those restrictions in place, requires much more bureaucracy and organization than in democratic distribution.  Nazi Germany, which utilized the same tactics, stands as a testament of where that type of heavy-handed government can lead.

Carrying the pro-choice and right-to-life charade into even more extreme territory, they think that they can see god at work in conceptions that result even from rape and incest, which pretty much reduces their concept of god to something like a demented sex addict.  Their pretense that abortion under any circumstance amount to “sin” is presented as gospel even though the subject of abortion is never addressed anywhere in scriptural texts.  On the other hand, there are numerous priest-written accounts of pregnant women being killed and defenseless infants being destroyed with god’s approval—especially in those tales of Joshua, the Bible character from whom the name Jesus was derived.

But the pro-life, Bible pounding hypocrites are eager and willing to even carry spiritual corruption into the realm of psychosis, as witnessed by the US Supreme Court, dominated by five (out of nine) “Justices” who are Republican/Roman Catholic.  These five men, who apparently cling to a pope’s infallible assessment that a person suddenly exists at conception, then found it easy to judge that the nonhuman, manmade creations of corporations were to be regarded as endowed with personhood too!  In effect, this bloc of five devout Catholic “Justices” attempted to miraculously transform something that is unborn into a being that allegedly possesses the conscious awareness of “I am.”  That absurdity of extending to inanimate creations (corporations) the privileges of national citizenship and human rights is supported by neither the US Constitution nor by any scriptural texts.  That law interpretation, which is held to be incontestable—that corporations are persons—is all about materialism, and any spiritual standards claimed by those “justices” are merely utilized for camouflage.

As for the rest of the American citizens, these brainless perversions of democratic principles as determined by those five Republican/Roman Catholic Supreme Court “Justices,” intentionally reduced the living, breathing citizens to a surreal status suspended somewhere between the pre-born and the unborn.  That is not representative of the democratic values envisioned by the founding fathers of the United States of America.

7 Comments »