Archive for the biological traits Category

Holy Machismo!

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, faith, random, religion, scriptures, sex, theology on May 1, 2016 by chouck017894

The three major religions (and their many faith system schisms) of western cultures were all structured by male authors upon a not too subtle animosity toward the active bearing principle (regarded as passive/feminine) which functions within Creation’s source.  This juvenile attitude is inexcusable since that energy-production principle is critically essential for continuing expansion.  It is also rather cowardly rhetoric for male “shepherds of the faith” to apply the “put the blame on woman” argument in an attempt to absolve themselves from all the error and sin in the world.  Such rationale and finger pointing fails to camouflage the fact that it is the man-is-superior propaganda of man-written sacred texts which has accounted for the bulk of mankind’s wars and atrocities.  Certainly feminine curiosity or womanly wiles or motherly patience have not inflicted such continuing despair and grief upon the world scene as has the fraudulent male-is-superior depictions of holiness.

The holy books of the three major western faith systems–the Torah, New Testament and Quran–inelegantly place the alleged curse of “man’s fall” and “original sin” upon the slender shoulders of the feminine sex with the astonishing alibi of a  talking serpent!  Well, imbibing too much holy wine can certainly inspire guys to invent excuses.  Despite the necessary bearing-forth principle within Creation’s source being characteristically defined as negative by the male authors, that bearing forth aspect was deemed to be feminine and was an affront to priestly pretense of their positive spirituality.  Nonetheless, that womanly strength still manages to somehow keep life’s foundation functioning with some semblance of stability.

The three faith systems of western cultures, all of which are rigorously “run-by-the-book,” grudgingly allow women only partial redemption for their alleged lesser position: women are intended, so say the man-written “revealed” holy word, only to marry and bear their boastful providers with offspring (preferably male).  In this way these three interrelated man-superior faith systems assign the responsibilities and chores of domestic life and child rearing as almost compensating for the feminine genders’ (Eve’s) responsibility of man’s alleged “fall from grace.”

In the priest composed Torah account of Creation, Genesis 2 gives a slightly different account than is in Genesis 1.  In the second version (as in Genesis 2:21-22) the Creator’s concern for Adam’s loneliness seems to have necessitated the surgical removal of some part of Adam’s anatomy to initiate a means of human reproduction.  Apparently by that phase of the Creator’s craftsmanship the Creator had run out of creative “let there be” words to recite.  What this hackneyed version of human life production reveals, unintentionally so, is that it is polar (positive/negative energies) exchanges which account for the manifestation of any and all matter-life and inanimate matter.  The generative systems that the alleged male Creator supposedly set in place for the continuance (propagation) of any life species was a built-in feature which specifies only that every manifested material thing automatically carries both those generating polar opposites within themselves.  There are no exceptions to this “go forth and multiply” law of Creation.

That the male authors of “holy texts” were obsessed with their own genitals is clearly evident with the character of Aaron (whose name just happens to mean “to conceive”) in the book of Exodus (chapter 28).  The fascination with their physical generative equipment ranked by the priest authors as their prime paraphernalia, is spelled out in that particular chapter of Exodus.  There the instructions for the curious “sacred garments” which are to be worn for generating their faith system are suggestive, to say the least.  To assess the true meaning of all the peculiarities in holy tales remember that euphemisms are employed repeatedly throughout all scriptural texts.  In Exodus, for example, the “holy” garments that are to be worn by the high priest included such paraphernalia as the ephod, two onyx stones, a pouch of gold, and a breastplate.  There is a side note to be considered here, and that is that the word “sacred” is itself derived from the Hebrew word sacre, which refers to the phallus.  In the “garment” metaphor used in Exodus as to what God’s representatives are to wear, the feminine aspect is something which is entered into or put on, as “golden rings.”  We will leave to your analysis any metaphoric explanation as to what “holy oil” alluded to in this “holy” account.

What the formulated sacred language style reveals to us is that the sacred texts such as in Exodus utilize a lot of adolescent sexual role playing to explain gentic purity–i.e. reproduction after its own species.  If life was originally a condition of hermaphroditism–i.e. two polar aspects in one energy form (Adam) as the opening of “holy word” claims–then each division of that singular form had to keep some characteristics from each energy pole (positive/negative) within each separate parts if creative purpose was to be actively maintained within those parts.  This means, as a consequence, that no man is ever one hundred percent male, and no woman is ever one hundred percent female.  For example, men still retain nipples, and women possess a clitoris, which is erectile tissue.  That’s just the outer odds and ends of physical personification; there are even more energy-exchange features within every physical form.  Indeed, hormone treatments can alter one’s physical structure.

Because sacred texts do not deal honestly with sexual polarity the practice became established for passing judgments over various kinds of sexual magnetism, and these are grossly and needlessly exhibited in social problems to this day.  The genderless Life Principle (commonly personified as a male God), as demonstrated in Nature itself, cares nothing about sexual chastity: its only concern is genetic purity, meaning that the only limitation that the Life Principle (God) placed upon sexual relationships was only in regard to species consistency.  In other words, each species must create only after its own kind.  Sacred texts refuse to honestly admit that there are allowable variations of sexual polarity and exchange.  The scheming male authors preferred instead to labor over the reproduction aspects of sexual activity–to insure the steady increase of followers.  Willfully ignored and adamantly denied are the equally inherent and important revitalizing and emotional characteristics of sexual expression.  This pretty much assures that the genuine abiding principle of magnetism known as love will be kept focused in the reproduction perspective to insure a continuous supply of seekers.

The Life Principle (called God) gave considerable attention to producing many diverse forms of life expression, and in the priest composed scriptural tales this variety and diversity of Creation activity and diversity of Creation activity is personified as the numerous Levites, the successors of Aaron.  It is, therefore, ironic and a tad hypocritical to make use of such scriptural characters and the alleged situation in which they are presented as a means of launching condemnation of any non-productive sexual activity.  Such characters as Aaron and the Levites, etc. are sacred language metaphors for the revitalizing  (generative) energies of Creation.  If doubtful, just remember the exotic details of the garments that the high priest (Aaron) was supposedly instructed to wear when ministering “in the holy place” (Exodus 28:6).  Listed are the ephod, two onyx stones, a pouch of gold, breastplate, golden rings, and holy oil, all of which refer to the physical means of life creation and revitalization.  Some apologists have suggested that the word “ephod” was derived from the Akkadian word epattu (plural epadatu), which referred to some type of expensive garment.  In the third century BCE modification of holy word, the Septuagint, an attempt was made to whitewash the original sexual inference by altering ephod to suggest a shoulder strap of a tunic; in this way the ephod could be linked with the breastplate of judgment (which happen to act as a pouch containing the Urim and Thummin), Exodus 28:30.  Thus did holy world evolve through a series of deviations and disguises.  Beneath the whitewash of sacred language, however, the titillating flavor remains.  So, the next time you see some pompous Bishop strutting around in his elaborate costumes and balancing that phallic-imaged miter upon his head, try not to snicker.

*related post: Sex in Sacred Disguise, March 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Creator’s Demand For Diversity

Posted in belief, biological traits, culture, environment, faith, history, humanity, life, lifestyle, nature, random, science, sex, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , on February 1, 2015 by chouck017894

Man is such an egotistical creature that he believes that he can ignore Nature’s subtle warnings. Perhaps that is because our revered ego-driven, man written “holy books” happen to assure us that the human species was given dominion over all life forms on this little planet. Unfortunately, those ego-driven priest authors happened to also believe that this little planet, which they perceived to be flat, was the center of the universe. Well, that’s not exactly an in-depth assessment, and human ego is pretty much a whore.

This admittedly crude appraisal of human egotism and arrogance (and its intimate attendant, greed) was spurred by a mid-2014 report concerning the dilemma of some ordinary fish. Seems that man’s self-interest had seeped into various streams and rivers (in the Susquehanna, Delaware and Ohio river basins of the US), which resulted in turning some fish species into what was delicately termed “intersex” fish. Gasp! Some of those damned male fish were found to actually be carrying eggs! Well, let’s not start pounding the pulpits just yet. Something very basic is shown here, something which illustrates that everything which exists in Creation is composed of interchangeable polar elements and thus nothing is ever exclusively representative of one energy pole or its opposite.

As for the dilemma of the river fish population referred to, their altered sexual identity reflects the natural interchangeable aspects within the energy pool of all life. The home waters of the fish happen to have been blessed with hormones, but hormone-mimicking chemicals compounded by man’s arrogance and greed contributed to the identity crisis of the fish. The waste waters that man dumped into the streams carried estrogenic chemicals used in agriculture and released in animal wastes, and the internal organs of the fish which regulate the release of hormones were being redirected.

Those ancient and much revered priest myth-makers apparently were never informed by God about hormones or chromosomes or DNA, nor was it revealed to them how the chemistry of the brain actually determines a person’s physical-mental-sexual makeup. Unfortunately even today, two to three thousand years after “revealed word” was set down as sacredly unchallengeable, the blindly faithful ascribe to principles drafted by those crafty men and completely ignore what modern science research has revealed. For example, research shows that the effects of sex chromosomes and chemical sex hormones do not have an undeviating manner of lining up in strict accordance to one narrow and specific anatomical structure as hateful religious prejudices love to pretend.

Furthermore, anatomist research shows that there are naturally considerable variations in the human brain–its shape, thalamus, structure of the cerebrum, etc.–which are extremely variable and are as individual as fingerprints. This means that mental and/or sensory properties connected with brain structure may freely align within vastly different ranges, and thus no two persons will ever be exactly the same–including identical twins. So, as far as religious approval of racial or sexual expression goes, one feature was never intended to define all. To the horror of religious extremists, that almighty Creation power which is diverse and variable in shaping life forms (dare we say democratic), and which is personified as “God,” did not use a cookie cutter technique to fashion every person’s racial, physical or category in life. Instead of trying to understand that variety and diversity are the underpinnings of all Creation, they choose instead to spew endless reams of hatred from their pulpits. Stated in biblical terms, their egotism and ignorance “runneth over.”

Religious fanatics should awaken to the fact that there is an intentional alterable holy code used in the production of all life–the code of the hormonal-chromosomal-chemical “design” which decrees great necessity for diversity and variety in human physical, mental and emotional expression. This seems to be problematic only for those who choose to work themselves into melodramatic clamoring over anyone who is perceived to be too different from themselves due to their taught ego-gratifying beliefs. Certainly the endless assortments of life forms which may be observed around us shows clearly that the Creative Principle (God) holds absolutely no grudge or spite over “his” handiwork which is diverse and varied.

within these God-allowable differences there is purposely left open the allowance–the tolerance–for all expressions of life and love. The far-reaching hormone and chromosome chemicals control the total development of the body, brain and intelligence. And these continue to do so in a wide range of ways throughout the duration of each person’s lifetime. Therefore, for political and/or religious factions to pretend that some humanlike Creator expects only one narrow expression of life or love to be striven for by every individual is not true spiritual understanding, and it is not moral instruction. In fact, such an unyielding stance against life’s intended diversity and variety with Creation amounts to outright sacrilege.

Perhaps, considering the thousands of different man-invented faith systems (over 4000 have been documented), it would do well to remember what research science has also revealed through intense study. The brain contributes only two percent of a person’s body weight, but it needs and uses twenty percent of the body’s energy. But as religious fanatics and political extremists consistently prove, very little brain is needed for a body to function and bring distress upon everyone around them.

It’s All Her Fault

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, Hebrew scripture, life, nature, random, religion, scriptures, sex, sex taboos with tags , , , , , on July 11, 2013 by chouck017894

The three faith systems of western cultures were all structured by male authors upon a not-too-subtle animosity toward the active bearing principle within Creation energies. This is a rather nonsensical attitude since that bearing principle is critical for life multiplication. It is also rather cowardly rhetoric for male “shepherds of the faith” to apply the “put the blame on woman” argument in an attempt to absolve themselves from all the error and sin in the world. Such rationale and finger-pointing fails to camouflage the fact that it is the man-is-supreme propaganda in sacred texts which has accounted for the bulk of mankind’s wars and atrocities. Certainly feminine curiosity or wiles or motherly patience have not inflicted such continuing despair and grief upon the world scene as has the male-is-supreme view of holiness.

The “holy books” of the three western faith systems—the Torah, New Testament and Quran—inelegantly place the alleged curse of man’s “fall” and “original sin” upon the slender shoulders of the feminine sex with the astonishing alibi of a talking serpent! Well, guzzling too much holy wine can certainly inspire guys to invent excuses. At any rate, the feminine pole of Creative energy–characteristically defined as negative–has been made to carry the emotional baggage of man’s loose cannon theories while women still manage to somehow keep life’s foundation functioning with some degree of stability.

These three western culture’s faith systems, all of which are rigorously “run by the book,” allow women only partial redemption for their supposed degraded position: they are intended, so say their “revealed” holy words, only to marry and bear their boastful “providers” with offspring (preferably male). It is as though these three interrelated man-superior faith systems regard the responsibilities and chores of the household and child rearing to almost compensate for the feminine genders’ responsibility for man’s “fall from grace.”

The imagined second attempt by the Creator (as in Genesis 2:21-22) at initiating human production, according to the priest-authors assertions, was declared to have involved the surgical removal of some part of Adam’s anatomy. Apparently by that phase of the Lord’s craftsmanship he had run out of creative “let there be” words to recite. What this hackneyed version of human life production reveals, unintentionally so, is that it is polar exchange which generates any and all matter-life and inanimate matter. The generative system that the Creator allegedly set up for continuance (propagation) of any life species was a built-in feature which specifies that every manifested material thing automatically carries polar opposites within themselves. There are no exceptions to this “go forth and multiply” law of Creation.

That the male authors of “holy word” were obsessed with their own genitals is clearly evident with the character of Aaron (whose name means to conceive) in the book of Exodus (chapter 28). The fascination with their physical equipment, ranked by them as being prime paraphernalia, is spelled out in that particular chapter of Exodus with the instructions for the curious sacred garments that are to be worn for generating their faith system. To assess the true meaning of all the improbable tales remember that euphuisms are employed repeatedly throughout all scriptural texts. Holy garments that are to be worn by the self-appointed priests included a breastplate, ephod, two onyx stones and pouches of gold: so is it coincidence that the word “sacred,” derived from the Hebrew word sacre, happens to mean phallus? (Details are given in Sex in Sacred Disguise, March 2009 post.) In that “garment” metaphor of what God’s representatives are to wear, the feminine aspect is something that is entered into or put on, like “golden rings.” We will leave any metaphoric explanation to your analysis as to what “holy oil” actually represents in this “holy” account.

What this sacred language style reveals to us is that the sacred texts of the western cultures do not intelligently consider the Creator’s law of genetic purity, but prefer instead to idolize sexual role-playing. If human life was originally a condition of hermaphrodism–i.e. two polar aspects in one energy form, as holy word asserts–then the division of that singular form had to keep some aspect from each energy pole within both separated parts if creative purpose was to be active within the separated parts. This means, as a consequence, that no man is ever one hundred percent male, and no woman is ever one hundred percent female. For example, men still retain nipples, and women possess a clitoris which is erectile tissue. That’s just the outer odds and ends of physical personifications; there are more inside.

Because sacred texts do not deal honestly with sexual polarity the practice became established for fussing over all kinds of sexual misunderstandings, and these are grossly and needlessly exhibited in social problems to this day. The genderless Life Principle (personified as God), as reflected in Nature itself, cares nothing about sexual chastity: its only concern is genentic purity, meaning that the only limitation that the Life Principle (God) placed upon sexual relationships was in regard to propagation, which declared that each life species must create only after its own kind. Sacred texts which refuse to honestly admit the inherent variations of sexual polarity prefer to labor over the creation aspects of sexual activity (and used for priestly exploitation use), but adamantly deny the equally inherent re-creational aspect of sexual expression.

The Life Principle delights in producing many diverse forms of life expressions, and in the priest composed scriptural tales this variety and diversity of Creation activity is personified as the numerous Levites, the successors of Aaron. It is, therefore, ironic and hypocritical to make use of such scriptural characters and the alleged situations in which they were presented for condemnation of sexual attraction, for such characters as Aaron and the Levites, etc., are metaphors for sexual (generative) energy! If doubtful, just remember the exotic details of the “garments” that these characters were required to wear when ministering in the “holy place.” To keep holy mystery alive the breastplate, ephod, onyx stones and pouches of gold are kept concealed from public view under glitzy attire. Such modesty aside, the next time you see some pompous Bishop strutting around in his elaborate costume and balancing that phallic-styled miter upon his head, try not to snicker. Just remember, these guys are still avoiding truth and responsibility.

Creation ala Genesis

Posted in Bible, biological traits, environment, faith, Hebrew scripture, life, prehistory, random, religion with tags , , , , , on January 27, 2013 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say, “Let there be…” this or that, and then this or that just popped into existence.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever “he” envisioned just magically came together in its manifested form.  No trials, no errors, just zap.  Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity as well in just six twenty-four hour “days.” No wonder God had to rest on the seventh day: or so the Creationists avow.  However, the authors never bothered themselves to clarify which of the two Creation version they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give some slightly differing specifics!  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence.  Is this imaginative account of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in school science classes as creationists clamor?

However, in order for all of God’s varied and diverse forms which he had made manifest by talking to himself to be regenerated and maintained, God did have to put in place some system of renewal.  And that renewal system for each and every thing that he had created did require a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation. Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that as DNA.  Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Cultures that preceded by thousands of years the word of God as “revealed” in eighth century BCE Jerusalem apparently were not privileged to biblical enlightenment, and had to grope about in ignorance of how everything came into existence.  It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later timeframe to explain the facts of Creation.  At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the population about the facts of his acts of Creation.  And that tiny percent happened to be in the habit of agitating everyone around Jerusalem.  Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what went into his creative process, like chemical compounds and such, were left unexplained.  Consequently, how he transformed energy into our little planet with its varied and diverse life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be mined and manipulated for their own ends.  Perhaps we should question the Bible style version of Creation against some known facts.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet.  But that, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation. Scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago.  Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in existence on the infant Earth—a remarkably short time in Creation terms.  To science a few hundred million years after Earth’s formation to have simple life forms appear seems a case of too much too soon.  Ah, but all that was just one “day” in the Genesis account.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were present on Earth well over three billion years ago—and these simple life forms had, as science has found, molecules of biological origin, it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than from a combination of inert gases and chemicals that were then predominant on the infant planet.  Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium.  If biological life originated in such an abundant chemical composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more plentiful elements would figure in the composition of any life forms that would originate in the primal stew (biblical “dust”), if not prominently then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet.  Of course they are not needed in the Genesis account.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless that rare element plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all Earth’s biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggest that a variety of genetic codes would have developed.  But that did not happen either.  Instead, all life forms on planet Earth developed from a single genetic code.  All life forms share a single genetic composition.  To religionists, of course, this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as proof of God’s commandment.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on early Earth, however.  According to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge rogue planet that made at least two passes through this developing solar system.  The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid or other space object, and the roving  planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name of Marduk.  The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.”  This information later became reworked and the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk, known in the Bible as Merodach, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth.  Could that possibly be the god that the post-Sumerian Genesis story refers to as commanding the activation of life?

Oddly, in recent modern science, a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account.  A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, dared to offer the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from miniscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth.  Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical “six days” of Creation?  Or was God just playing a solo game of billiards that “day”?

Overpopulation and Nature’s Regulation

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, biological traits, culture, freethought, gay culture, humanity, life, lifestyle, nature, random, sex, sex taboos, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , on October 26, 2011 by chouck017894

Early in the priest-written book of Genesis 1:28 it is stated, “And God blessed them (a male and female couple not yet named), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over…every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”  By this instruction, sex is established as the means of re-creation (and recreation).  Few persons pause to ponder over the word “replenish,” which implies that there must have been previous similar circumstances.

In our world today, however, it is abundantly clear that man has more than adequately fulfilled that particular “replenish” guideline which the Lord allegedly demanded.  The human species has brutally subdued everything around him, and has been especially industrious in replenishing the Earth.  In fact, the world population today on this little  planet has nearly reached the seven billion mark!  In less than a century, from 1942 when the world population was a mere two billion, breeding has apparently become an obsession.  Despite the unprecedented population explosion, the looming disaster it invites is treated as a taboo subject for the news media.  That head-in-the-sand approach to rampant human “fruitfulness” could lead to ecological catastrophe for the entire world.

Once upon a time as the human species evolved, having  multiple children was valued as a resource for the parents in their declining years.  As man proceeded to assert his “dominion” over “…every living thing that moveth upon the earth,” some of the wiser ones formulated sciences and technologies that contributed toward healthier offspring and protection from diseases: this made heavy breeding unnecessary, even impractical, as a means of self-insurance.

However, leaders of most faith systems have always promoted the priest-composed instruction of subduing the Earth and stressing the replenishing of our species for the simple reason that it assured an increase in their followers.  But the alleged godly suggestion to “replenish” the Earth should never have been considered a license to indulge in extensive production of more than could be properly cared for.  The idea of “replenishing” the Earth for god was advantageous for priestly authority, and this is still utilized by faith merchants as “revealed” religious instruction.  Unfortunately dedication to this sense of limitless “replenishing” also led mankind to indulge in the assumption that to “subdue” meant that exploiting the planet was a divine  right of man, not the counsel to safeguard it.

The present world population is ecologically unsustainable for an extended period of time.  History has repeatedly shown that in periods when human population increased up to sevenfold there followed (god-sent?) disasters of unprecedented food shortages, escalating prices for essentials, etc., which were always followed by civil revolts and deadly riots—even cannibalism.  But still there are those today who willfully ignore history and loudly trumpet that god abhors the use of contraceptives, or that providing sexual information for the avoidance of disease and careless human reproduction is somehow against god’s will!  This irrationality is so pronounced even today that various national leaders have actually advocated childbirth bounties!  (Hitler, for example.)  Apparently the religiously obsessed do not think that god gave man a brain in the expectation that man would use it to assume responsibility for himself and for the world he was advised to “subdue.”

Ironically, even “lower” animals are far smarter than that.  In the wild, when territorial areas become threatened by diminishing supplies, the animals will intuitively limit their breeding.  That is god-installed rationality, which has apparently atrophied in man.  Nonetheless, Nature remains active and vigilant in providing animate life with subtle safeguards, and often Nature’s adjustments, which are indifferently provided, tend to horrify the ego-centered religionists.  Rather than allow human life to self-destruct through brainless over breeding, Nature seems on occasion to amend human DNA to avoid over breeding.  One such adjustment, it could be argued, may be the modification to same-sex attraction.  Indeed, same-sex attraction can be seen throughout all animate nature and has always been present in Nature.  To the horror of those egocentric religionists this indicates that such attraction could be a natural organic safeguard against runaway reproduction which would prove disastrous for all life on the planet.  The chromosome assembly in any species is the means to insure diversity of species characteristics, which also insures ecological balance and benefit.

The idea that same-sex attraction could possibly be a natural built-in precautionary measure taken within DNA sequence may seem farfetched at first thought, but there are some known factors to consider.  Research has shown that changes in a parent’s lifestyle or in the environment, even when only minor or temporary, which occur before or during the reproductive period can cause subtle, even visible changes in the next generation.  The increased emotional tension throughout the modern world certainly contributes to people’s lifestyles in ways that could feasibly alter human sexual magnetism.  That safeguard seems always to be present as a precautionary ingredient in the electromagnetic nature that shapes an animate life form.

Nature, the bearing principle of Creation, retains it own special safeguards.  The genes initiating a new entity are usually hidden from the enzymes by RNA interference, so that the information which the genes ordinarily contain is kept hidden from enzymes.  Subtle changes in DNA structure will occur when the RNA briefly ceases to maintain interference however, and this results in the disappearance of little chemical markers that lock the coil of DNA around  protein complexes of the gene.  The lost marker function opens access to the genes which are then made available to enzymes that can read the gene’s code and use them for protein production.  Only a minor alteration in the code therefore affect the development of the lifeforms which can allow for a rather rapid response to biological and/or environmental conditions when necessary.  If there is any “sin” in variations of sexual magnetism, it is in failing to honor Creation’s laws of diversity.

It has been noted in a previous post (Homosexuality and the Bible, December 2010) that there are only about six or seven brief inferences on same-sex attraction that can be cherry picked out of the entire collection of priest-written “holy word” as implying “sinfulness.”  In comparison there are well over three hundred disapproving verses on heterosexual indulgences to be found.  This suggests that to evaluate a degree of sin quality to someone’s inborn sexual nature is not a particularly rational motive to indulge in prejudice as a devotional practice to honor the Creator.

Mixing Religion with Medicine

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, Christianity, culture, faith, life, medical, random, religion, science, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , on March 17, 2011 by chouck017894

Corporation take over of medical care under the guise of religious insight is becoming a serious threat to democratic principles in the United States today.  The diabolical move by religious denominations to take over hospitals and health care facilities is not undertaken in the noble spirit of love or intellectual understanding of biological truths.  It  is all about materiality and a lust for control.  That these facilities receive generous public subsidies is simply coincidental, of course.  When life threatening situations arise there should never be injected into those threatening problems some religious supposition to further contaminate the situation.  Case in point: those hospital mergers in which Catholic standards, which prioritize unsupported theological doctrines, are made to supersede medical knowledge and the true welfare of patients. 

The ethical question of imposing strict religious dogmatic interpretations on medical situations remains firmly ensconced behind the facade of spiritual posturing, which ignores all laws of physical development.  As an extreme example, ignorance of biological processes instituted by the males who devised Catholic dogma reached the holy conclusion that surgical performance of abortion was forbidden by god.  It did not matter to god’s henchmen if pregnancy had been induced by rape or incest!  And the bishops declared that god didn’t like  individuals taking precautions during sex either, so contraceptives or any precautionary form of birth control was deemed unacceptable.  Not content with these inanities, the self-appointed representatives of  god then issued “ethical directives” regarding end-of-life issues which too often overrule the “living wills” and advanced directives of the terminally ill persons themselves. 

By imposing these things the Catholic hierarchy has never advanced much from the god-inspired “medical” advice given by such revered “saints” as Gregory of Tours (538-594).  His saintly view was that the practice of medicine was a godless science, for any medical attempts to heal interfered with the will of god.  This “saint” conveniently ignored that Jesus is alleged to have healed many medical conditions.  Thus “saint” Gregory dared to condemn as heretic anyone who sought a  physician’s advice.  Healing the sick, he declared, belonged to the realm of faith.  He therefore felt worthy to dispense prescriptions such as a pinch of dust from the Shrine of St. Martin as a cure for dysentery; or, as a cure for the inflammation of the tongue, he recommended that the infected should lick the rails at the shrine of a saint

This same mockery of spirit prevails in too many health care facilities supervised by religious orders—those governed by Roman Catholic directives in particular, which are anchored in doctrine-based rules imposed by a conference of non-medical bishops.  And those doctrines came  down through a hierarchy of other non-medical men at councils that date back from the first sitting of the Council of Nicaea in Bithynia in 325.  Even as late as 1973-74 the US Catholic bishops actually decreed that a woman did not have the right to choose what was to grow within her own body!  Their church-serving judgment was directly contrary to the religious premise that everyone possesses free will choice.  As always, the main objective of the haughty bishops was, first and foremost, to give themselves authority to run other people’s lives in the guise of supernatural guidance.

That the religious panels that tyrannize health care  facilities are wretchedly indifferent about biological issues is an understatement, and that is glaringly obvious in their judgments of when conscious awareness of self enters the development of human identity.  These allegedly celibate men (unnatural in itself) dare to pretend judgment of when a “soul” (ego?) is injected into the elementary stage of an energy formation.  A fertilized egg is nothing more than the cleavage of a cell.  To say that god is personally present in the uterine tract to inject a  soul at the moment when ejaculated sperm penetrates an egg is more obscene than it is divine knowledge.

With all the subversive attacks by Religious Right extremists on democratic principles in the United States today, 2011, and the accompanying recession, an alarming number of hospitals are considering merging with larger systems.  Far too often these merged facilities are run through publicly subsidized religious systems.  Thus what are supposed to be medical services, in this manner, operate more profitably than average hospitals, and they now account for around eighteen percent of the nation’s hospital beds.

But when the dogma of some faith system gets pumped into health technology when a person is at their most susceptible condition, the person’s best interests are callously made secondary to church interests.  Jesus must be so proud.