Archive for July, 2012

Boundaries of Belief

Posted in Atheist, belief, faith, random, religion with tags , , , , on July 26, 2012 by chouck017894

Even if the projected time span is only a few thousand years since the event of Creation, as some religious factions insist, man has managed to invent an astonishing number of gods in that short period.  That collection of gods presents a huge dilemma for the religiously devout, for how are they to be certain that they have chosen the “one true faith” or the correct interpretation of god to believe in?  That dilemma has been a continuous golden opportunity for imaginative schemers, allowing the religious hucksters to maneuver back and forth between god and go-L-d.

The three major corporate styled faith systems of the western world stand as monuments raised to spiritual deceit.  Being male-founded and male dominated, the three domineering western faith systems bristle with masculine rigidity and combative schemes for forcibly taking possession of the “kingdom of heaven.”  These are faith systems that counsel believers to will themselves to believe in what amounts to nothing more than certain attack strategies for wheedling godly favors.  As a result a stubborn dysfunction is embedded in these man-conceived faith systems which, as a result, has “blessed” man with century after century of experiencing senseless animosity toward others, which happens to be convenient for the faith systems’ promoters, for it keeps spirit from attaining its higher potential.

Personifying the creative power of the Source as having humanlike characteristics (such as anger, jealousy, prejudices, etc.) is a favorite indulgence of man’s egocentered faith systems.  Such a means of trying to understand the workings of the observable universe and man’s limited place within it is an ineffective attempt at comprehension, for it is not particularly logical.

Manufactured religions (and similarly structured political factions) prosper mainly through the practice of dividing humankind into artificial categories that are defined by employing conveniently moveable boundaries such as race, ethnic grouping, lifestyles, sex, nationality, faith practices, etc.  Nothing in these temporary material appearances actually makes any perceivable differences for claiming that others are spiritually inferior or less than what was intended by the Omniscient creative force.  The wide variety of life’s expression do not stand as a legitimate cause to claim a license from god for attempting to impose some man-conceived faith system upon others.

All that any man-invented faith system has to offer to their pondering seekers is a con-man’s IOU that is to be paid back by god—not by the priests—to the faithful after some distant “judgment day.”  Believers are taught that they need only to practice man-invented rites and rituals in the here-and-now—and contribute to the faith system’s operational fund—and you are given a halo-edged IOU for a future slice of heaven.

In the methodology of corporate styled faith systems, reason and logic are expelled for the benefit of theologies.  Thus what these faith systems offer are not eternal verities.  Instead, they teach divisional practices that encourage indulgence in prejudice, bigotry, religious-inspired massacres and wars.  The unifying power that constantly sustains and maintains everything that we perceive as the universe is totally ignored for the faith system’s self-serving illusion of exclusivity.

Supplying each person’s “spirit” with inner harmony is much talked about in these regimented faith systems, but the means of inspiring true spiritual harmony with the diversity that is perceived as life is seldom practiced in these material-minded faith systems.  Keeping the “flock’s” attention on differences, sometimes absurdly small differences, rather than focus on  the wonder of the interrelatedness of all things is to use our personal connection to that creative power in a negative manner, which only generates needless turmoil and grief.

No material-focused faith system of man’s invention is ever going to embrace the soul-liberating truth of spiritual equality.  The reason for encouraging that cultivated remoteness is that any man-conceived faith system is intentionally geared to revolved upon each devotee’s ego, which the advocates of the faith system purposely misinterprets as one’s “spirit.”

When “faith” is made into a religious regime, it has degraded itself by using a false flag to pursue worldly advantages for the faith system itself.  Thus every organize religion, by deliberately thrusting itself between its sincere seekers and the omniscient creative power, makes itself incapable of instructing individuals on how to approach and be infused by that creative power.  Every faith system promotes itself as the object of attention: they do not instruct how every person may personally draw upon that higher creative power for spiritual advancement, and this only benefits the faith system’s desire for secular power.

As noted in the blog Faith, Facts and Frustration, April 2011, it is the living universe that inspires mankind’s faith systems as well as mankind’s sciences with wonderment and reverence.  Whatever man may deduce from his perception of Creation, the truth remains that there can be no definable center of infinity.  Planet Earth certainly is not at the center of infinity as once proclaimed as holy truth, and it is even more certain that no man-invented, self-serving faith system functions as infinity’s center as they like to imply.

All the potentiality and  instincts which each of us embody have been thousands and even millions of years in the making, and that genetic heritage, that resilience out of which we each have evolved resulted only from the interacting and cooperative energies that we call Creation.  Man’s self-serving faith systems refuse to acknowledge that a cooperative involvement is the fundamental pattern for establishing the real substance of anything.  The seemingly unrelated energy structures that we move among during this life experience are due to those cooperative energies, and man’s self-focused faith systems purposely refuse to acknowledge the creative truth that our spiritual potential will be achieved only through cooperation with each other.

Any organized faith system (religion) in the world today was founded upon desires to exercise power in pursuit of material greed.  Every one of the major faith systems which are continually feuding with each other today has a carefully hidden history of lies, bloodshed, corruption, dishonesty, cruelty, forgery, destruction of recorded knowledge, etc., while hypocritically pretending to be a shelter of truth, peace and enlightenment.  Isn’t it time for man to move out of those caves of deception into his higher potential?

Advertisements

Gospel Discrepancies

Posted in belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, religion with tags , , , on July 15, 2012 by chouck017894

Four texts written in Roman Empire times were chosen (at the Council of Rome 382, the Synod of Hippo 393, and two synods of Carthage 397 and 419) as being the founding documents of what was to develop as the Christian faith system.  All four texts, now referred to as “Gospels,” allegedly related some singular author’s perspective of events said to have occurred during the life and the three years of ministry of a man called Jesus.  The selection of only four gospels out of many writings available on Jesus’ life, ministry and death that were considered to be worthy of canonization was the idea that had been championed by “Saint” Irenaeus of Lyons c. 185.  He was the Christian prelate and Father of the Greek Church 170-190.  Typical of the spiritually narrowminded, Irenaeus denounced any sect which used some isolated “gospel” of their sect leader’s choice rather than what Irenaeus considered to be more authoritative.

Why did Irenaeus believe that there had to be only four gospels?  His divine logic was “…it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four” to serve as the four “Pillars of the Church.”  To rationalize this he offered the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds.  Inspiration for four gospels may also have come from the book Ezekiel 1:10 in which four faces are seen by the prophet: “…the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; the four also had the face of the eagle” (on the left). Doubtlessly Irenaeus drew upon Revelation also (4:6-7), where it describes god’s throne as adorned with the same four faces.   [What these faces really alluded to will be explained with each brief notation on the alleged gospel author.]

Christianity places high traditional value on the four canonical gospels, contending that these four, selected from many others that were once available, are the accounts which are allegedly favored by god, which therefore makes them central to its faith system.  Once the bickering “fathers” finally selected which of the writings best suited their authoritative purpose (at least 92 years after Irenaeus), they were then canonized as “gospel,” and these texts have been obstinately proclaimed ever since to be “accurate and authoritative” in representing Jesus’ biography..

Mark:  Despite their canonical order, the book of “Saint” Mark is traditionally placed as the second Gospel, but it was actually the first written account to appear publicly, the initial version dating c 55-60, during Nero’s reign, but re-edited c 70-75 CE.  Curiously, there are some features of the book of Mark that seem to be sidestepped.  The first peculiarity is the seeming lack of familiarity with the Judean history, customs, traditions and geography.  Mark most certainly was not an eye-witness, and the time-setting is not at all specific.  Nonetheless, the setting for his gospel had to have been conceived as taking place some time during the reign of Tiberius Caesar (14-37 CE).  This pioneer gospel opens with an alleged prophecy which the author, “Mark,” pretends came from the Jewish scripture book of Isaiah.  In actuality it draws upon verses from Exodus and Malachi as well as Isaiah.  The author apparently used a Greek translation of Isaiah, which would account for the assertion that Jesus would come from Nazareth, a town that did not exist even in the first century of our common calendar.  This confusion possibly issued out of the Greek translation of Isaiah which declared the messiah shall be a “nazorean,” which actually meant a “branch” from the house of David.  The writer simply mistook reference to a family tree as being a town from which the messiah would come.  From Exodus the writer drew upon the saga of Israelites being led out of the wilderness, and mixed in elements from Isaiah and Malachi concerning the fall of Babylon.  These features gave the appearance of a prophecy that a messenger was to come and prepare the way for the coming messiah.  This laid down the groundwork for the character of John the Baptist.

“Saint” Mark is traditionally represented with a lion, which from prehistory times represented the zodiacal sign of Leo, one of the four ancient cardinal divisions of the zodiac.  In the prehistory lessons once taught with constellation Leo, the subject concerned how creative energy initiates the process of manifestation as matter.

Matthew:  The book of Matthew, written c. 75-85, was canonically placed in first position, possibly because it was the most Jewish in tone of the four accounts.  His name was given in the earlier written book of Mark 3:18, listed there as one of the original disciples, but Matthew is noted in the later written gospels and in Acts as simply one of Jesus’ followers.  In the period when the Gospel of Matthew was composed an atmosphere of religious and social tension had grown within the Roman Empire.  The church that Matthew allegedly founded in Antioch (Matthew 9:9 and 10:3) hints that this Matthew was most likely a second generation Christian with Jewish background, not one of the original disciples.  This may account for confusion by later evangelists who mentioned Matthew as a tax collector, a character known elsewhere in Gospel as Levi.

“Saint” Matthew is traditionally represented with the figure of a man, which from prehistory times represented the zodiacal sign of Aquarius (where the man is pouring out water), one of the four ancient cardinal divisions of the zodiac.  In the prehistory lessons once taught with constellation Aquarius, the subject concerned how Source activity (creative energies) initiates the amassing of energy toward consciousness.

Luke:  This gospel author is declared to have been an inhabitant of Antioch and was a companion of Paul, a tradition which is untenable.  Presented canonically as the third Gospel in Christian tradition it is presented as “according to Luke,” and it is sometimes spoken of as “the first volume” of a two-part work, the other being the book of Acts, allegedly by the same author. There is a problem with that contention for it is difficult to reconcile the letters of Paul regarding accounts of travel (9:51 and 19:27) with the accounts as referred to in Luke.  Despite these differences the assertion is that both texts are nonetheless by the same author is held to be “substantially correct.”

The Prolog of Luke indicates that the author relied on the earlier literary sources (Mark and Matthew) of the budding Christian sect.  By the later timeframe of this author (84-90), however, the text was intended for a predominately gentile community, not Jewish converts as was the earlier purpose.  The theological tenor is notably more advanced than in Mark and Matthew—clearly it was not written in that earlier timeframe.

“Saint” Luke is traditionally represented with the figure of an ox, which from prehistory times represented the zodiacal sign of Taurus (the Bull), one of the four ancient cardinal divisions of the zodiac.  In the prehistory lessons once taught with constellation Taurus, the subject concerned creative energy and how the four inseparable elementary principles within creative energy becomes active and initiates development toward mental sensitivity.

John:  The gospel of “Saint” John was the last to be written (c. 105-106; some scholars say as late as 150), but in terms of relating Jesus to the creative power which is personified as “God,” John’s presentation seems, theologically speaking, to have been an attempt to replace the earlier cult narratives.  Compare the opening line of John, part of the theological Prolog of his gospel, with the first line of Genesis, and it suggests that it was hoped that this presentation would restructure the earlier Christian cult party line.  Thus the book begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”  By the time the 51 verses of the first chapter concludes, Jesus has been declared to be the “Word, Son of God, Christ, King of Israel, and Son of Man.”  And the first chapter concludes “…you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending (as on Jacob’s ladder) upon the Son of Man”—i.e. upon the personification of the Life Principle which originates out of Source.

Again it should be noted that the gospel of John, like the Gospel According to Matthew and Gospel According to Luke, also admits that this text is  “Gospel According to John.”  In other words, it is not an eye-witness account of any of the alleged events.  The text was the last one composed (c. 105-106) and placed last in the Gospel lineup; the intention of its canonical placement may possibly be due to its somewhat less judgmental interpretation of what constitutes “sin.”  The Gospel of John also differs dramatically from the other three “saints” in that his perception is, shall we say, more universal in understanding man’s relationship with the power that is personified as “God.”   “Sin” in John’s gospel is seen to stem more from lack of spiritual development than from ethical circumstances—which is to say, sin is due to one’s loss in recognizing the interrelationship of all things to each other.  This is interpreted in his gospel as alienation from God.  The author of John may have possessed access to the more ancient cosmic/astronomical lessons, which would suggest that the crucifixion of Jesus is not to be thought of as a sacrificial offering to God for man’s sins, but that it represents the glorification of the Life Principle nailed to its transformational purpose.  This meaning  can be said to be summed up in John’s gospel where the personification of the Life Principle (Jesus) allegedly said, “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)

“Saint” John is traditionally represented with an eagle, which in Jewish astronomical recognition represented the zodiacal sign of Scorpius, one of the four cardinal divisions of the zodiac.  In prehistory lessons once taught with constellation Scorpius, the subject matter concerned the animal kingdom and how it is to advance into its higher potential.

Claims of Godly Favoritism

Posted in Atheist, belief, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , on July 11, 2012 by chouck017894

It was not until around 300 BCE, in the Hellenistic period, that foreign observers began to write extensively about the laws, traditions and customs of the Jewish people.  The Greek skeptic, historian and philosopher Hecataeus of Abdra (4th century BCE) recorded observations of Jewish life in his work Peri Hyperboreon.  Hecataeus pondered with some wonderment the Jewish traditions which then lavished their priests with highest prestige, and he pondered on the many peculiar Laws of Deuteronomy which prevailed over Jewish social legislation.  Indeed, since those laws and claims of godly favoritism had been “discovered” in the Temple walls in the timeframe of King Josiah (640-608 BCE), the kingship had become a relic.  By this 300 BCE timeframe the governing of the people had been absorbed by priests.

Jews, Hecataeus noted, were more fanatically devoted to their singular God than was practiced in most Pagan cultures which Hecataeus had encountered.  That difference was due principally to the Pagans feeling closer personal affiliation to nature in which they recognized the interlocking creative energies at work within nature.  The Pagans respected those universal energy aspects as being godlike in their own right.  Consequently Pagan cultures were more accepting and respectful of other peoples’ personal beliefs.  The Jews, on the other hand, long dominated by priest-formulated “laws” attributed to Moses, had been conditioned from the time of King Josiah, and so shared the belief in a concocted history of exclusiveness that starred Moses as their savior and Abraham as their God-blessed progenitor.

The priest-written scriptural “history” asserted that from the time of Moses a whole string of Israelite ancestors could be claimed, all of whom had allegedly spoken directly with God.  The “history” presented in Exodus, for example, and the asserted entitlement of the Promised Land provided the elements for a shared identity among the people in a psychological manner that the mythologies of other cultures could not.  Thus conditioned for generations, the Jews shared the alleged law codes of Moses—a whole battery of laws (613), which, strangely, had not been found until the time of King Josiah, some 700 years after the time of Moses.  (See related post A Priest’s Convenient Discovery, December 2011.)  The unity of the Judean people was anchored upon the priests’ imaginative holy accounts and the allusion of their faith systems’ historic past.

The priests of Yahweh were accomplished story tellers, and borrowed their plotlines from astronomy-cosmology lessons that were ancient even then, using  them as the inspiration for constructing their Israelite history.  Mesopotamian and Persian religious epics, for example, had also used the same ancient cosmic knowledge to account for their gods, but those accounts had never been presented in a manner that seemed to be linked to a certain people s’ national history.  Neither did those epics of the Mesopotamian/Persian cultures particularly inspire principles of ethical responsibility.  The Greek myths of deities and their epics of heroes, for instance, were presented in metaphorical style, and were meant only to inspire by example, not as decrees from some holy authority.

After the conquest of the Near East region c. 332 BCE by Alexander the Great, which gave rise to the Hellenistic period, there was a gradual and steady increase of awareness and recognition of the Jewish cult among the Mediterranean cultures.  By the time of the second century BCE there had evolved a questioning spirit among the Judean people themselves, which resulted from their association with Syrian and Greek cultures afer Antiochus the Great (242 to 187 BCE) of Syria acquired possession of all Palestine and Coele-Syria in 198 BCE.  (In the second century BCE this name was applied to lands extending south and southwest to Egypt and Arabia Deserta.)

By 168 BCE there was mounting dissatisfaction among the Jews over the excesses indulged in by Antiochus IV, son of Antiochus the Great, and it eventually led to outright Jewish revolt led by the Maccabees under Mattathias, a priest.  His third son, Judas, fanning religious fervor, led the revolt and in rapid succession defeated four Syrian generals, and in 165 BCE Judas “purified” the Temple which had been taken over by the Syrians.  Judas then re-consecrated the Temple, and this is still celebrated by Jews in the festival of Hanukkah, meaning “dedication” (to light).

The priest-composed Talmudic myth flavors the rededication of the Temple with the “miracle” where only one cruse of oil, blessed by the high priest of course, supposedly caused the small available quantity to burn for the entire eight days of the festivities.  In all the world it was/is asserted that only this structure and the Jewish people were allegedly held in highest esteem by the Creator.  The date of the Temple rededication began on the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the third month of the Jewish calendar,  which happens to roughly correspond to the month of December in the Gregorian calendar.  Ignored in the priestly assertion of a special miracle is any connection to the gradual seasonal increase of light that each year begins after the Winter Solstice, December 21.  It is simply coincidence, of course, that the ancient Pagans had always honored the seasonal increase of light at this same time of year, celebrating it with their Vigil of Light.

Yahweh was a most psychotically jealous god, according to the alleged sermon of Moses, which the high priest Hilkiah had supposedly “discovered” in the  Temple wall being reconstructed in the 7th century BCE.  That little sermon-jewel is now incorporated in Deuteronomy 7: 5-6, saying, “For you are a people consecrated to Yahweh your Elohim; it is you that Yahweh our Elohim has chosen to be his very own people out of all the people of the earth.”

Sure.

Trinity and Beyond

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , on July 1, 2012 by chouck017894

Where did the idea of a “holy trinity” come from?  You will not find it mentioned anywhere in holy scriptures.  There are, however, a number of great eternal truths and teachings from antiquity in regard to three energy aspects within the Source-power of creation.  Such principles of primal energy involvement antedate any and all faith systems of man’s invention.  Understood by the surprisingly advanced ancients was that all things in Creation are generated out of an aggregation of primal energy which they symbolized as water.

That same initiative energy involvement is also called “waters” or “seas” in the Genesis account of Creation, but unfortunately that text failed to understand the three coequal principles active as Source.  And the “holy book” method of presentation does not exactly stimulate an understanding.  For example, Genesis 1:19 says, “And God said, Let the water under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let dry land appear: and it was so.”  Taking this literally it is easily assumed to mean when the material Earth came into existence from nothing.  In more ancient understanding, that which came to be referred to as “dry land” actually concerned involvement of primal energies as a prototype, not a fully developed material thing.

The “seas” and “waters” of the Genesis account (indeed in most holy tales) refer to pre-physical conditions (as does the word “wilderness”), i.e. to the initial energy involvements that gather as prototype energy forms.  In other words, these are not yet cosmic forms, but could be termed the idea around which energy will combine as an energy structure.  That is why in Genesis 2:4-5 there is an attempt to clarify chapter one confusion by stating, “…the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the  field before it grew.”

Non-manifested energy power (principle # 1) carries within it the polar activity (#2), which carries endless potential (#3).  These three principles are indeed one Source, and the one creative power is indeed three components; these comprise the true trinity out of which Creation occurs.  In ancient teachings this initial stage was commonly spoken of as chaos and it was thought of as the seed-ground of the cosmos, so it did not carry quite the meaning that is commonly applied to the word chaos today.  From this more ancient understanding of Creation the opening of Genesis also speaks of chaos and “the deep,” acknowledging that no perceivable order could be discerned.

Through the long historic march of religious interpretations, the turbulent three-in-one Source powers were usually shown as descending through a line-succession of three “gods,” which personified those three coequal primary principles.  That explains the reason why each preceding god in the Pagan lineup was always characterized as more violent than the succeeding one.  The major difference in Pagan belief systems was that these three “gods” were not credited as the actual cause of Creation energies, but rose as the directive principles within and over those energies.  Pagan gods such as the Babylonian Marduk (the Merodach in biblical version); the Egyptian Ammon; the Greek Zeus; the Roman Jupiter to mention a few, all carry the identical theme as ruling gods who were cast as third in succession  and presided over the establishment of life conditions.  In other words, primal energies had to be qualified before they could be made manifest with temporary density.  Pagans, therefore, reflected more scientific understanding of primordial/elementary conditions than do religious theologies of today.  And this is why the wise Pagans never begged or expected special divine intervention from their gods.

Most all the stories in western cultures’ “holy scriptures” were inspired by such wisdom known to these prehistory ancestors, but much of that wisdom had become fragmented and misinterpreted after various calamities suffered by planet Earth.  In addition, men seeking status and power used and suppressed the knowledge that survived.  In ancient teachings on Creation and the progressive stages of energy involvement by which Creation manifests in diverse forms, the three coequal principles (or Trinity) had been understood to then involve further as the Quaternary—where energy begins to transform with density.  This too is disguised in “holy word,” and is personified with the “fall” of Adam and Eve—where they are pictured as compelled to leave the all-providing “garden” and venture into their pre-physical archetypes.

Nowhere in original Holy Bible texts was the word “Trinity” every used, nor was there expressed any comprehension of the ancient teachings on cosmology which explained the three interactive generative principles active as Creation.  Any understanding of the three-in-one as it evolved from Pagan understanding to Christian doctrine probably stems from Christianity’s rival Mithraism, the religion of the Persians that was well established in Rome before the advent of the early Christian cult.  That rival faith system had a Trinity, and in the effort to win over converts it seemed pertinent for the struggling cult to also claim such heavenly connection.  By the time that the Christian “fathers” got around to including a concept of the Trinity in church approval, however, any true knowledge of Causation and energy involvement responsible for Creation—upon which the image of three-in-one was based—was long-lost.

But that three-in-one imagery still carried mystical vibes that were made suitable for inclusion in Matthew 3:16 by implying that the persons of the Holy Trinity were manifested together. This was imaginatively accounted for by saying, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the waters: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him…”  And by the time of the revision of Matthew (c. 80-84), the three-in-one principles of Creation were reduced to persons of the “Holy Trinity,” where in Matthew 28:19 it says, “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

The Trinity concept in Christian use seems to have then evolved as a protective measure against charges by opponents of the cult that Christianity was simply the worship of three gods (as in Pliny, Epistles 96.7).  The concept of three coequal participants in the godhead that evolved in much later creedal formulation is vague at best in the restrictions of the canon.  It was not until 325 CE that the longstanding dispute over the “nature” of Jesus became so intense among church organizers that the Roman Emperor Constantine convoked the Council at Nicaea to settle the rift.  The theories and doctrine of Paul were finally voted upon, not divinely revealed, as being the “official” understanding, which was then summarized as the Nicene Creed, which defined Jesus as “consubstantial with the Father.”  In presentation of the Trinity, or three personalities, the general Christian position is now of one god subsisting in three persons and one substance.

The first NT allusion to a Tripartite formula of godhead appeared indirectly in 2 Corinthians 13:13 (edited c. 100-105), where the self-proclaimed apostle of Jesus, Paul, wishes “…the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit” would be with the citizens of Corinth.  The Trinity aspect was sort of implied in the later gospel of John 10:30, which suggests equality of Jesus with God, with Jesus allegedly saying, “I and the Father are one.”  Clearly the book of (“saint”) John (written c 105-106) drew upon the Genesis Creation episode, for it mimics the opening line by saying, “In the beginning was the Word (implying Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The prehistory understanding of the three-in-one principles, not persons, active within the Source was that it creates through serial transmutation.  The creative “trinity” progresses in a series of reactions into the Quaternary, as mentioned before, at which point the extreme primal conditions are left behind as the involving units of energy modify in density.  At each dimension of energy modification more of the unrefined rudiments are discarded so that the remaining complex energies may activate as centers of awareness; i.e. personal awareness.  To the consternation of those who take man-conceived holy word literally, this means that Creation was/is essentially an evolutionary process.

Western man’s ability for abstract thought apparently atrophied millennia ago.  That loss of ability to consider things or situations apart from the specifics that we think of as “reality” has pretty much left a high percentage of the faithful shackled in literalism.  And therein lies the many problems for understanding much of man’s holy word literature.