Archive for January, 2014

Evil That Men Do

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, nature, religion, scriptures, theology with tags , , , , , , on January 23, 2014 by chouck017894

In all the scriptural texts of the western world, a devout seeker will find no judgment that directly addresses, clarifies or answers the problem of what really constitutes evil. Perhaps that should not be so surprising since genuine history has shown that religionists of every variety have very often made use of evil methods to foster their particular faith system. Today, for example, we see reprehensible behavior being put into practice in the U.S. where religious extremists labor fanatically to undermine all the long-standing noble principles of democracy and seek to tear down the firewall of church-state separation.

Those who hold the Bible aloft as their standard for “values” while attempting to tear down those principles of democracy are especially fond of the bloody tales of the Old Testament. God allegedly did a lot of verbalizing according to the early part of the Old Testament, and his active participation is implied in the accounts of land wars. But how often is it ever claimed that God proclaimed himself to be just? The nearest thing that a seeker may find in either the Old or New Testaments on the question of what supposedly constitutes evil is in the book of Job. And that holy tale happens to be a plagiarized version lifted from Babylonian literature, which the Yahweh priest copiers doctored with the assertion that Yahweh/God is always benevolent and always makes things right.

There is subtle juggling in the scriptural evaluation of what constitutes evil, such as is presented in Job–a blurred distinction of what constitutes evil and what happens to be simply an encounter with misfortune. Properly, evil should be understood as a purposeful and/or intentional impairment imposed by a person or group of persons upon other persons, or upon other living creatures. Evil is a malevolent action that is deliberately taken against others. Unfortunately, this is the “value” that fundamentalists choose to interpret as being advocated in the “good book” stories.

For an answer to the problem of evil, the common clerical explanation as inspired by scriptural tales is that evil arises from man having been given free will choice. This is more hollow than holy, for such an explanation conveniently allows a faith system the promotional scheme to sell their anti-sin safeguards. This is possible simply because the free will excuse allows the blame for any negative experience to be placed solidly on the victim by judging the victim as having done something wrong “in God’s eyes” to deserve it! That is the premise that is attempted in the biblical version of Job.

Elsewhere in holy scripture, in 1 Samuel 18:10 it states, “…and an evil spirit from God came upon Saul…” This blunt admission in”holy word” of God’s negative aspect has bewildered countless biblical scholars and clergy. They mistakenly proclaim that their personification of creative energies as God is good only. But the negative principles which are an intricate part of creative energy cannot be denied: positive/negative interactions of energy are necessary for anything to be created. That recognition of positive/negative energy interaction is also referred to in Isaiah 45:7 where God (the personification of creative energy) is quoted as saying, “I form the light, and create darkness: I am the Lord of all these things.” In the much older pre-history lessons upon which such biblical tales as these were structured it was explained that a blend of polar energies (positive/negative) are responsible for any definable manifestation. That ancient (and advanced) knowledge pops up in only in these two scriptural tales.

So the encounters with terrible misfortune that people experience, such a debilitating diseases or natural disasters are not the result of the victim’s having done something deliberately evil in the sight of a discriminatory god. Those tribulations are traceable to biological malfunction or to the exchanges of creative energies known as Nature. Electrical storms, for example, vary in intensity from gentle rains to roaring hurricanes; they are natural energy interactions, not direct acts of a disapproving God. Ditto for other natural energy exchanges such as generated earthquakes, etc.

Out of the crafted holy interpretation a double standard is utilized in the self-serving assessment of evil, for nowhere else in the animal kingdom has any creature of nature been branded as acting with plotted evil intent. Not even the carnivores. In scriptural narrative it is only man who is branded as capable of perpetuating evil, which is interesting since man is claimed to be made in the image of God. But this is then excused by claiming that man’s acts of evil are influenced by some opponent of God’s goodness i.e. Devil, Satan, etc. But giving God credit only for all that is good and pretending that this personification of creative energy has no part in the negative aspects that accompanies life is nothing more than selective blindness.

That convenient premise of God-is-good-only certainly does not provide a satisfactory explanation of what actually characterizes evil. The predator/victim relationship which exists throughout all the rest of nature makes the hypothesis of a benevolent God questionable. If that God-permissible predatory activity is representative of what some call intelligent design it means that man’s concept of evil exists only in how man chooses to perceive negative experiences; it does not define what the creative force (personified as God) would regard as evil. This conveniently leaves the field wide open for evil actions to be used in the marketing of religion and politics. We can see the result of that prominently displayed in theocratic governments.

And in choosing to hypothesize a benevolent-only God, we have been tricked into meeting our fears of victimization by labeling nearly any negative experience as evil. Around this fear of victimization the established organized faith systems have constructed an elaborate scaffolding of self-serving “values”, which are painted as different shades of morality. Then, as these faith systems point to their man-erected scaffolding, the claim is made by them that their patched together supporting mechanism proves the existence of a moral God (who favors them, of course).

Unfortunately for man, these self-serving faith systems have not guided mankind into enlightenment or toward our higher potential. All that they have blessed mankind with has been centuries of senseless conflicts over which faith practice is spiritually superior. Thus in purposefully ignoring the “evil spirit from God”, or the all-inclusiveness which is briefly alluded to in 1 Samuel and Isaiah, these faith system fanatics continuously skate alarmingly close to being evil practitioners themselves. As Shakespeare noted, “The evil that men do lives after them.”

Age of Pisces and Appearance of Jesus

Posted in Astronomy, Atheist, belief, Christianity, faith, religion, science, scriptures, theology with tags , , , , , on January 16, 2014 by chouck017894

All of mankind’s faith systems happen to have been fashioned by drawing upon Earth’s astrophysical backdrop. Indeed there are prehistory and ancient monument structures such as Sumerian-Babylonian ziggurats, Stonehenge, the pyramids of Egypt and other innumerable detailed sites which openly attest to their having been aligned with astronomical phases. For those who could not understand the intricacies involved in the studies of astronomy’s mechanics, a bridge of understanding was attempted by painting the heavenly exhibition with a polish of myths. Ancient cycles of heavenly display were even recorded, such as the Age of Virgo (13,020-10,860 BCE), the Age of Leo (10,860-8,700 BCE), the Age of Cancer (8,700-6540 BCE), etc.

Our Age of Pisces can be dated as having begun c.60 BCE. Zodiacal “Ages” span 2,160 years, so the much touted “Age of Aquarius” is now on Earth’s doorstep and will enter for an extended visit by modern calculation c. 2100. Early in the Age of Pisces, as social and cultural systems were shifting gears, it was a timeframe of roaming “prophets,” mystics, diviners, messiahs, and teachers of spiritual mysteries. In the regularity which could be witnessed in heaven and nature’s movements the concept of divine law had long been accepted by humankind. Interpreting that divine law for human conduct had opened the opportunity for manipulative men to establish themselves as having been called upon by a higher force to guide followers in heaven-approved disciplines. Not surprisingly not all those who claimed for themselves the mantle of heavenly messenger interpreted what they saw in the same way.

Early into the passage of Earth into this Age of Pisces timeframe, around 30 BCE, there flourished a Jewish rabbi and teacher named Hillel (to 09 BCE). Hillel was the first Jewish scholar to systematize the interpretation of scriptural law, becoming a leading authority on law. An interesting fact to be considered is that Hillel was born in Babylonia and migrated to Jerusalem when he was forty years old. Thus he brought with him the more moderate spiritual influence that had fashioned that culture. In that general timeframe the greater part of Palestine (districts of Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, etc.) were administered by Herod and his successors.

In 30 BCE Hillel was elected president of the Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jews. It should be noted that Herod had captured Jerusalem earlier in 37 BCE, and upon taking power had forty-five members of the Sanhedrin executed. This severely weakened the hardline influence of the Jewish supreme council. In this calamitus situation Hillel founded the school of Scriptural interpretation which expounded a liberal view of Mosaic Law. There was, however, another school which was ruled over by an eminent doctor of the Jewish law named Shammai who was rigidly insistent upon a harsh, merciless interpretation of the Priest-composed “Mosaic” laws. This, of course, made for complications. Shammai happened to be vice-president of the Sanhedrin (the supreme council) under Hillel. The conflict between the two schools of interpretation of Mosaic Law was to endure for nearly one hundred years after Hillel died. It is certain that any member of the Herod family in Jerusalem and the aristocrats and literati in Rome were also well aware of this conflict of law interpretation within the Jewish faith system. Also, Hillel would have taught at the Temple in Jerusalem in the period just prior to the time in which the character of Jesus would supposedly have been a boy. Thus there are allegations that Hillel had been a great influence upon young Jesus. This seems understandable, for many of the sayings that are attributed to Jesus are startlingly similar to those recorded of Hillel.

The Gospel story of Jesus thus just happens to characterize the anxieties of the timeframe in which the Roman army occupied the Palestine region. Jewish resistance to the language, laws and Roman way of life is understandable, but their spiritual elitism and reliance on hymns and prayer to Yahweh to defeat the battle-hardened Roman soldiers led to the eventual destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian in 70 CE. Even through many defeats, the Jews continued to believe that they, as God’s “chosen ones,” were spiritually superior to everyone. To explain why the “chosen ones” had not been spared all the indignities of suppression, the great anthem of suffering, as payment for God’s divine love, was hammered into place, which allowed them a sense of false dignity in the face of heavenly indifference.

The Romans, despite their obsession to rule over all people, sought more to absorb differing cultures into a broad “family” rather than destroy all individuality. In fact there were even temples to the gods of other cultures within the heart of Rome. Indeed, the Persian cult of Mithraism was favored by Roman emperors because Mithras was the god of victory and served as a contributory discipline for political ends. The intellects of Rome understood that variety and diversity make for healthy economic and academic circulation. So it is not so surprising that a Jew name Jesus, a name derived from Joshua the alleged Jewish dispenser of holocaustic warfare, became the subject of Roman interest around 55-60 CE, during the reign of Nero, with the appearance of the book entitled Mark. It is alleged that John Mark, a Hellenist, wrote this “Gospel” while visiting in Rome, and it is asserted to have been based on the teachings of Peter. There remains the peculiarity, however, that a text known as Ur Markus, which dealt with ancient occult cosmology, had been in circulation among the Roman literati from at least 34 CE. Whoever set out upon a literary counter-movement to the Jewish writings had to have access to Judaic and prehistory literary examples. Equally important, they also had to have the social standing and financial means to have the works copied and distributed. The construction of Jesus as Christ would evolve from the initial Mark text and continue well into the third century. Unlike his murderous namesake, however, the Gospel Jesus was promoted as the Prince of Peace. What the additions to the Jesus storyline reflects is the sporadic rebelliousness and the spiritual narcissism of the Jews in that timeframe of history.

As noted, Jesus was introduced to the Roman public in the book of Mark around 55-60: a second revised version appeared c.70. In this earliest evangelical work there is nothing which suggests that the author was personally acquainted with Jesus. It is obvious also that the author lacked familiarity with the geography of the region. So why is the book revered as “Gospel”? Because it had been penned with the intention of attracting people (principally the Jews) into a more compassionate form of belief. Unfortunately the successive Roman authors of supportive books laced their texts with beaming idioms that were common in propaganda of their timeframe, which further disguised the ancient astrophysical content that had first inspired the author of Mark.

Imprecise Personhood Identities

Posted in Atheist, Bible, humanity, meaning of life, random, religion, scriptures, thoughts with tags , , , , , , on January 1, 2014 by chouck017894

Does God make mistakes? Such a suggestion of godly goofs will give religious fanatics heart palpitations, facial twitches and even incite some of them to pious rage. However, their eruptive energy would be better spent in seeking to understand the energy processes by which the creative Source functions and whereby every entity enters this energy dimension with matter identity. Every material entity takes form only by drawing upon its energy potential after conception, and this occurs in a gradual increase and interaction of primal energy. The initial energy involvement (conception) activates to become an involving and evolving accumulation of energies which amasses as an identifiable but transitory energy-form. Habitually ignored by religious fanatics in assessing the God approved “miracle” of life is the creation principle which may be assessed as the second law of Creation, which is the commandment for variety and diversity in all matter-life manifestations. This second law of Creation assures the continuation of the first Law of Creation, which is unlimited abundance of creative energy.

In the development of human life there is an obvious abundance and diversity of life-form examples. A consequence of that commandment for variety and diversity is that each manifested entity can assess any other life patterns around itself only from a temporarily imposed limited perspective. The negative aspect of imposing limitation upon a life form is the inclination for each life form to then pass judgment upon life’s variety and broad diversity by using the self as measurement for judgment–a challenging situation that faith merchants love to utilize to stoke devotional fire to their man-conceived faith systems. Even though the life force is demonstratively widely diverse and variable in its outpouring there are, nonetheless, endless similarities in all life forms, which demonstrates that no two entities are ever created using some assembly line of strict uniformity. Variety and diversity make for the avid rule in Creation. This unprejudiced, unbiased creative energy therefore sort-of-kind-of discredits all faith system’s claim of having godly favoritism.

And this brings us to that complex energy involvement which determines human life identity–personhood. What about all the many not-so-error-free births that occur every day? As just one small example of an ill-defined identity, consider the estimated 17,000 infants born worldwide each year with disfiguring cleft lips, the deformed upper lip that will make it impossible for them to speak or eat properly. In many deprived, less developed regions such children are scorned and ostracized, and destined to endure life (if they are allowed to live at all) an existence of isolation and heartbreak. Fortunately this little defect of their (Godly?) formation can be corrected by surgery in advanced societies. But, as noted, this is just one very small example of the thousands of potential persons who are brought into the world each year with some disfigurement or deformity or organ imperfection; this suggests that every potential life is not exactly a blessed (God-coordinated) event. Is a loving omniscient Creator-being really that haphazard or uncaring in his production of life?

Even in the more medically advanced countries today many infants are born each year with physical defects or medical conditions which, at birth or some future time, can lead to the entity’s misery. Medical studies indicate that there are more than 4000 different known defects, which include minor,major and acute. Statistically this averages out as one in every thirty-three newborns may have some birth defect. In the United States of America, for example, over 150,000 babies with structural or metabolic or functional birth defects are born every year! This tallies up to an estimated four-million-plus under the age of 18 who are categorized as disabled children resulting from some defect that is present at birth. (This may perhaps account for the over-abundance of self-serving politicians and pulpit-pounders.) The list of possible congenital defects is distressing–a fact that does not support the belief that some omniscient God actually wills such insensitive torture upon his favorite creatures–creatures which he allegedly made in his own (energy) image.

Most significant in regard to our connection to that energy image which we are taught to personify as “God” is the organ of the brain, which is responsible for the interpretation of sensory impulses, and the coordination and exercise of thought, emotions and memory. These brain connections are the essentials that unfold (evolve) to define potentiality of personhood. As noted in The Celestial Scriptures, “One of the most remarkable things in embryo growth is that the nerve network by which the organism is to function and sense its matter identity does not develop as part of the (embryonic) growth process. The nerve network pattern already exists within the energy field of the embryo and simply expands as the physical form grows! It is as though the individualized electro-dynamic energy field is superimposed over a network system that is to retain communications with cosmic consciousness. Until this nerve network fully expands into the body’s communication circuitry the biochemical balance remains too low for full emanation of (self-) aware consciousness. At the embryonic stage the nerve network is involved only with the foundation of the species pattern. The electro-dynamic field then involves as cellular matter, and the nerve network becomes an operative system of the “coming one” only when cellular matter attains a functioning energy balance…”

At birth the bulk of the neurons necessary for the brain to actually function are present: however, the brain mass continues to grow, and by the age of two it has amassed to about eighty percent of adult size. Indeed, the human brain continues most of its development through the first twenty years of life. And it is that remarkable soft, gray mass of nerve tissue that serves much like an electrical generator which controls both the conscious and unconscious, and which is also the seat of sensations, skills and intelligence. The electrical nature of the brain was first measured in 1924 by Hans Berger, a Swiss researcher, who invented the EEG machine. Furthermore, the physical body is also an electrical structure which virtually hums under the conductorship of the brain. However, this physical-electrical sensitivity also happens to be receptive to the oscillating electromagnetic forces of the telluric currents within our planet; plus that sensitivity is also vulnerable to the magnetosphere, and to cosmic influences such as the Sun! In other words, everything we speak of as Creation is closely interrelated.

Isn’t mankind, the creatures presumed (by humans) to be closest to God’s image, not expected to use that godlike resemblance to creative wisdom to oversee and direct the quality production of personal offspring? The reproduction rights were not just granted arbitrarily to man by some Creator so that his alleged favored creatures might produce haphazardly. If fetal (prototypal) entities posed any imbalance or dangers to the wellbeing of an established consciousness, then one’s personal connecton to Creation energies was expected to be used to take “dominion” of those creative energies for prevention of far-reaching circumstances. That “dominion” granted to man over lower life forms–and fetal life is only potential self-conscious life–is stated in the book of Genesis. Primal energies, once activated, expand through attraction and repulsion. That means that any reflex actions in fetal forms which are in the process of energy constructions are not yet due to any self-awareness (consciousness), but are simply due to energy interactions which are on the increase (evolving) toward a defined matter form.

So it is basically positive-negative energy interaction within the creative Source (personified as “God”) which sparked an electromagnetic involvement that involved into the energy prototypes of you and me. But it is only when the evolving energy-matter form attains the consciousness of “I AM” that it enters upon its responsibility of advancing in wisdom. Indeed, in Exodus, chapter 3, verse 14, God is quoted as saying, “…I AM hath sent me unto you.” And it is only when that new-born energy-being attains the consciousness of “I” that it can say, “I Am That Which I Will To Be.”