Archive for the Christianity Category

Making Holy Myths

Posted in belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, Mother Nature, Pagan gods, religion, sacred texts, scriptures on February 27, 2017 by chouck017894

Of all the Creation myths of ancient peoples, the opening of the book of Genesis stands in a class by itself.  Unlike all cultures Before (our) Common Era the priests of Yahweh in the 9th/8th century BCE Jerusalem  were busily indulging themselves in setting up the self-serving premise of divine discrimination.   The Creator they presented in Genesis who walked in his garden and talked to himself is thus depicted as either not omniscient (all-knowing) or as an unfeeling schemer.  For example, where is the wisdom of placing two tempting fruit trees as the focal point of this garden landscape and then forbidding two uncomprehending newly created creatures the freedom to eat of them?  It is weak story-plotting.  But it didn’t much matter to the priest authors, for the underlying purpose of the story was to channel the Hebrew people away from belief in numerous gods and goddesses to gradually (and with much difficulty) indoctrinate them with the premise of one human-like being (male of course) who created limited identities without the necessity of energy intercourse.

In more ancient time frames the civilizations such as Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria, etc.recognized and respected the interactions and inestimable universal energies and it was these unseen but interrelated and interacting primal creative forces which the ancient cultures personified as a pantiscracy of “gods”.  This was allegorized as a Utopian society in which all were equal and each had governing power.  It is an insight which is also the heartbeat of democracy.  The creative energies which interact throughout nature and all through the observable universe do often appear in opposition, hence the “gods” which personified those energy actions were often depicted in Pagan cultures as in competition or in a state of lust.  There was never any doubt among these Pagan cultures, however, that such  creative energies originated out of a  singular Source..

The Yahweh priest-authors in the 9th/8th century BCE slyly contrived the claim that the amoral all-embracing source-power of Creation had singled out only one group of people in the world  (them of course) as the sole recipients of his blessings.  To accomplish this pretext of divine discrimination and purported prejudice the wily priest editors referred  to those same primal and diverse energies which were responsible for all manifested life as having been their historical ancestors by dubbing those primal creative energies as Isaelites–the alleged descendants of Jacob/Israel.  The various gods and goddesses that were recognized by the surrounding cultures and which symbolized for them the same diverse creative primal energies, were then ridiculed as being too lacking and had not been chosen by the power that the priests named Yahweh.  But this assault on Pagan wisdom necessitated finding a means to explain the diverse energy attributes that had been represented and personified with Pagan gods and goddesses.

The priest-editors who mined and reworked ancient teachings given with constellation figures, old oral Hebrew myths and Cabal texts certainly knew that the Pagan gods represented forces of creative energy.  They knew as well that those energies, although unseen for the most part, interact throughout the universe and have an effect on all life. The clever scheme of the Yahweh priest authors of demoting the the numerous Pagan gods and goddesses was to simply give those primal forces a different designation. Consequently those diverse creative forces were reassigned from godly status by Yahweh’s priests and were hailed as angels in the service of Yahweh.  For all extent and purpose, the attributes and special duties of the spurned Pagan gods were simply transferred to angels and were envisioned as acting under the direction of a divinely indifferent power-source which they personified as Yahweh.

Other Pagan recognition of primal energies were similarly disguised.  In the earliest part of the priest-authored book of Genesis (3:20) the character of Eve is referred to as “Mother of all living,” which suggests the rank of a near-sacred being.  This title that Adam allegedly bestowed upon Eve happens to be identical to what the ancient Sumerians had bestowed upon their love goddess Aruru, for she was regarded in their culture as the creatrix of all life.  And strangely also, the authors of Genesis never mentioned an account of Eve’s death, and the reason for that is no death occurred–we know her today as Mother Nature.

Eve’s implied eminence in Genesis, even after the alleged fruit picking mistake, reflects the Pagan perception that creation of all life can take place only through a process of polar energy interactions.  This is why various neighboring cultures which the priests of Yahweh envied–such as Sumerian, Babylonian, Phenician, Hittie, Ugaritic, etc.–gave homage to goddesses as being equal in divine power as the gods.  But Eve, according to the Yahweh priest authors, was also demoted and allegedly designed by Yahweh to simply serve as Adam’s helpmeet (Gen 2:18-20).   This was a deliberate capsizing of Pagan’s correct understanding that creation of any manifestation occurred only from exchange of opposite but equal polar energies.  The premise presented by the priests of Yahweh, however, was that Yahweh-Jehovah simply muttered things into material existence, and that story feature had no parallel in any other Mediterranean or Near Eastern myths.   The advantage of this story flight of fancy  was that it placed man (especially the political minded priests) in the authoritarian position.  Unfortunately, by demoting the feminine (negative) polar aspect which is equally necessary for life production, the Genesis myth of Creation essentially rejects the scientific polarizing energy principle by which energy manifests as matter.  And western religious understanding has been plagued with confusion, controversy and misunderstanding ever since.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Faith Based Fraud in US Government

Posted in Agnostic, Atheist, belief, biblical "values", Christianity, culture, Government, politics, random, religion, Social, thoughts on November 1, 2016 by chouck017894

Special interest handouts by political office holders in the United States have become big-time  “faith” privileges over the last few decades, increasing dramatically after the Religious Right gained control of the Grand Old Party in 1996.  The fast changing legal status for churches and faith system institutions have not been shy in underhandedly trying to “liberate” religious organizations by granting them more lenient rules than is permitted to their secular counterparts.

Such deliberate disregard for the democratic principles by religious extremists holding congressional positions, such a separation of church and state, is hardly due to any spiritual morals.  This dangerous and frightening chipping away at long standing principles of democracy has occurred under pressure from extremist religious groups that have muscled their way into the political arena.  The deviously devoted never make it comprehensible as to why an “omniscient/omnipotent” God should or would have to rely upon the use of deceitful persons to achieve “his” intentions.  But the raucous, self-serving religious extremists have effectively infiltrated our Congress, the US Supreme Court , and federal and state courts, all of which have too often casually conceded to the demands that “faith” groups (Christian only) should be protected from any government impositions!  (Related blogs: Rise of Holy Agitators, September 1, 2016; Spiritual Vanity, The Sin of Fundamentalism, October 1, 2016)

This has been pushed upon the nations’s widely diverse citizenry by devious religious fanatics who paint themselves with false eminence that reflects neither the principles of true democracy nor any higher spiritual values.  These predatory religious wolves have accomplished this betrayal of democratic principles by camouflaging themselves with traditional sheep’s clothing.  Thus disguised they have methodically selected, one by one, various supporting regulations of democratic comportment by inserting into those regulations their faith system’s claims of exclusivity with the Creator.  This has purposefully disfigured and betrayed the numerous longstanding laws of equality and spiritual freedom that the “fathers” of the nation intended.  As a consequence so many democratic principles have been mauled to such an extent that the “faith” pretenders may often thumb their noses at requirements leveled upon everyone else.  As an example, their “public” buildings and organizational programs may be only slightly related to their faith system.  That bears the foul odor of theocratic ideology.

Under these contrived special-interest allowances, unethically obtained, even the day care centers that have religious affiliations were once actually exempted from licensing requirements in a number of states.  In Texas, for example, the religious day-care facilities and drug-treatment programs were once exempt from state licensing.  However, protected by their privileged status by the “faithful” serving in state government positions the abuse and disregard for patients in those facilities proved to be greater than in nonreligious facilities.  Another example: The health care system operated by the Seventh Day Adventists was actually allowed to bar nurses from joining unions.  And many states permit tax-free churches build or expand their facilities in ways that clearly violate zoning ordinances with which everyone else must comply.  Religious-front operations have routinely discriminated in choice of employees, or have expressed their piety in heartless neglect of employee misfortune.  In these faith system front operations even persons that may suddenly be stricken with some physical malady have been unceremoniously dumped, which would never be tolerated in non-religious organizations.  How these self-serving practices follow the teachings attributed to Jesus, such as “love one another“, or “do unto others as you would have done unto you” is never explained by them.  

Special privileges which have been extended by faith aggressive politicians into government to certain (Christians only) faith system organizations is not fair or just or moral in a nation that has been built upon dedication to the freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness.  And practicing bigotry and narrow mindedness as some religiously obsessed do is neither righteous nor spiritual in a Creation which is rampant with lavish diversity of life and variety of expression.  A true democratic society can function only within conditions of equality and respect for each individual within the nation.  Attempting to inject one particular man-concocted faith system into the politics of a nation which has been dedicated to freedom and liberty for its diverse people can only accomplish catastrophe for all.  Enlightenment will never be attained in an indulgence in spiritual avarice.

Rise of Holy Agitators (in USA)

Posted in Atheist, belief, biblical "values", Christianity, Fundamentalism, politics, religion, Social, theology on September 1, 2016 by chouck017894

In the early 1950’s in the USA television was a new craze.  Quick to note the craze some enterprising guys still clutching their freshly printed Bible studies diplomas sought to serve the Lord by preaching their revealed word using that promising medium.  The Lord seems to have been well pleased.  For example, by May of 1985 the evangelical marketer Pat Robertson was even being featured in a cable magazine called On Cable.  Filled with boundless self-righteousness and vanity Robertson declared that he sought to remake America into a “biblically based Nation”  .His fiery right-wing politics was characterized by him as “conservative, religious, and a biblical point of view.”  He did’t mention that the authors of those biblical views had written their point of view in the Bronze Age.  Blissfully unconcerned, Robertson latched onto their point of view and it was so slickly packaged that by 1985 his organizational effort was siphoning in more that $70 million a year from bedazzled followers.

The long-standing Constitutional ideals and values placed upon diversity, variety and plurality by the American people were regarded by Robertson as being “extreme dangers” to a secular state.  Respecting the rights of minorities was being threatened in his lofty view of how a “biblically based nation” was supposed to be run.  Robertson pontificated that children in public schools were being taught “a collective philosophy that would lead citizens away from God toward Marxism, socialism, or a communistic type of ideology.”  Oh he was talented at scaring  the be-Jesus out of the gullible.  In his humble opinion, therefore, he found it logical to denounce the Department of Education as being “unconstitutional.

Not shy about telling the nation what God wanted for it, Robertson asserted that the United States Supreme Court had departed from history and the constitution.  He reasoned and worried publicly about the “encroachment” of the judiciary.  they just didn’t seem favorable to the idea of a  theocracy.  Thus Robertson charted course to “engage” in what he termed “advocacy journalism,” and his Christian Broadcast Network news teams began spewing out reams of propagandist mini-documentaries with heavy “conservative” (read theocratic) messages.  (He must have been delighted some years later when the Supreme Court became composed with five of the nine Justices being Republican and staunch Catholics. And it was a Republican dominated Supreme Court that would later tell the nation that our redeeming leader was to be the Born Again George W. Bush.  Hallelujah!)

Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network news teams were headed by a man who was once editor of The Washington Times, which just happened at that time to be owned by the “Reverend” Sun Myung.  This strange bedfellow happened to be loaded down with questionable North Korean connections.  Not to fear.  The “born again” population, Robertson averred, was seriously under-represented in our national government.  Posing as a caring messenger, he declared, “The basic thing people do not understand is that evangelicals in America are not plotting to take away the rights of everyone else.”  (Trying to eliminate the Department  of Education would therfore simply be a god-inspired money saving move.)

Robertson worked hard at presenting himself as the modern age version of a biblical prophet.  For sure the biblical prophets had dared to mix it up with politics–which was always in regard to a very select group of people.  True to form, Robertson declared, “God is going to thrust his people (meaning fundamentalists) into positions they never dreamed they were capable of taking on.”  (George W. Bush & Company certainly did seem to fulfill that prediction.)  If the heavy tilt of religiously obsessed persons in governmental positions today is any indication, and if their corruption of true democratic principles is an example of a “biblical based nation”, can we  truthfully say that their sly take over of the Republican Party in 1996 was “fairly benign”?

Well, today, several decades later, Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network and Regent University is pulling in over $400 million a year peddling the same old far-right political propaganda and implications of heaven’s special favoritism.  But his empire is upstaged now by an old rival from the same earlier era which is now marketed as the Jerry Falwell Ministries/Liberty Counsel/Liberty University.  That deceptive use of the word “liberty” is to sabotage the US Constitutional safeguard of church-state separation–the guarantee of religious freedom (liberty) for everyone.  Peddling this anti-democratic baloney the Falwell empire today rakes in over $600 million a year.

Amazingly there are other claimers of God’s especial favors who wage war on every person’s freedom to worship as they choose–all of which rakes in multimillions a year for being staunchly un-American and pro theocratic.  Take the so-called Focus on the Family that has the gall to endorse.Right Wing political candidates; it is lucrative and nets the Dobson “family” over $92 million a year.  And there is the so-called Family Research Council (an off-shoot of Focus on the Family) that holds an annual “Value Voter Summit” and draws in over $14 million for their un-American stance.  And there is the American Family Association that is against about everything that grants civil freedoms.  The Reverend Donald Wildman who heads this “Association” boldly proclaims that separation of church and state was invented by Hitler, no less.  Duh!  For that heavenly enlightenment his anti-Constitution bias nets over $17 million.

Other grandiose named outfits include American Center of Law and Justice/Christian Advocated Serving Evangelism.  That imposing mouthful defines the purpose, which is to force–force–fundamentalist beliefs into all public schools.  Allied with the Pat Robertson empire in spirit and money-love it pulls in over $57 million a year.  Justice is again implied with the so-called Alliance Defending Freedom, but the only Council for National Policy aimed for is to allow them to axe the federal law which bars tax-exempt churches from actively intervening in partisan elections.  God, it seems favors that antidemocratic stance to the tune of over $47 million a year.

Ahh, but there are even more would-be religious oppressors out there.  It is all strictly spiritual guidance, of course.  Take the bewildering Concerned Women for America (affiliated with the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee) which indulges in heavy prejudices against the Creator’s intentionally wide-ranged diversities of life.  This anti-feminist lobby was founded by Beverly (!) and Tim LaHaye, who (in 2015) raked in over $14 million for their discriminatory activities.  Not content with that, Tim LaHaye also headed up the Council for National Policy which presumes to evaluate prospective GOP candidates.  This membership-only outfit drew only a little more than $2 million.  Still another agitator operation is Ralph Reed’s Foundation and Freedom Coalition whose primary purpose for existence is to attract more fundamentalists to vote.  Their holy reward—over $3 million per year.

Oddly, these material obsessed, self-appointed faith merchants seem to have little appreciation for what Jesus is alleged to have preached.  .For example, in Matthew 6;5 (King James version–among the many translations): “And when you pray do not be like the hypocrites for they pray standing…so that they may be seen of men.  They (in that manner) have their reward.”   And in Matthew 7:1-3 (KJ): “Judge not, that ye be judged.  For with what judgment ye judged and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.”

Perhaps those faith merchants of fundamentalism should get their greedy noses out of their elaborately constructed feeding troughs and actually follow the teachings they claim to epitomize.

 

 

From A Jewish Cult To Christianity

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, Hebrew scripture, Joshua, random, religion, scriptures on June 5, 2016 by chouck017894

In the timeframe of the expanding Roman Empire the aristocrats and literati in Roman society became more and more uneasy at the intense antagonism that flared repeatedly in the region of Palestine.  The unease of these prominent Roman citizens was not simply political concern but, for several, it also involved relationships through marriage to important families in that region.  This interrelationship provided closer perception to underlying conditions there which simmered in that occupied territory, and it was thus known that there was an active but subdued movement in Jewish culture among the Nazarene which focused on a messiah-like being called Jesus, a name derived from the legendary Joshua (Jeschu).  As uprisings steadily increased throughout Palestine the Roman aristocrats and literati sought a means to counter the Jewish conviction that they alone possessed exclusive godly guidance which their priest-written scriptures avowed.  There were some in Rome’s upper echelon who began to ponder over the possibility that the Jesus cult which was already active in Palestine could in some way provide the wedge that might be used to modify the Jewish obstinacy and thus a more cooperative conduct would be established.

Among those few privileged class Roman citizens the idea of such a wedge led to research and their findings showed that a number of attributes credited to Joshua were also shared by Pagan solar gods such as Apollo, Helios and others.  Joshua was, after all, credited with halting the sun in its course.  That alleged feat was certainly at least equal to any miracle that had been ascribed to Pagan sun gods or to Moses.  Joshua was also revered among Jews as a deliverer, a messiah–albeit a violent, murderous one–whose holocaustal conquests were claimed to have been approved and brought about by their Lord.  What would happen, the privileged Romans wondered, if a new deliverer/messiah appeared, one through whom the Lord would offer a new covenant?

A ticklish proposal of drawing upon the underground Nazarene cult’s fascination with Jesus rested in the Roman authors attempting to provide Jesus with a biological lineage.  In hope of appealing to Jewish sensibilities the Roman authors sought to provide one genealogical version in Matthew 1:1-16, written c. 70-75 CE, which traced Jesus’ decent from Abraham. This genealogy seems intent upon showing that Jesus was of royal lineage–from Abraham to David–even going so far as to refer to Jesus as “son of David” throughout the book of Matthew.  This version of biological background includes four women–a curious accounting whey you consider that in the priest-composed Hebrew Scripture the listing of lineage was always traced back only through male forebears.  Even more curious is that in the later Luke version three of those four females happened to be non-Israelite women.  Was that provision possibly calculated to open the way for gentiles to also be accepted as among God’s alleged “chosen”?

The genealogy as offered in Luke 3:23-38, written c. 84-90 CE, made the attempt to trace Jesus’ biological background even further to Adam!  Luke’s genealogy introduced a different tack by using Jewish textual traditions such as incorporating numerological exercises to present the family tree of Jesus.  This led to various speculations over time.  According to some old Greek manuscripts there was thus declared to have been 11×7 generations from Adam to Abraham. Other Greek manuscripts, however, as well as the Catholic Vulgate and the Syrian Peshito, assert there were 76 generations between Adam to Abraham, while other Latin genealogies list on 72.  Regardless of the quibbling over how many generations between all the impossible-to-trace biblical characters, the purpose of the claims  was to show that Jesus was not only the fulfillment of the history of Israel but to illustrate that Jesus was also the savior of the (Roman) world.  The fly in the ointment, we might say, is that such genealogical lines are utterly pointless if Jesus was, as claimed, born of a Jewish virgin name Mary who was unsuspectingly impregnated by divine spirit.

But why assert a miraculous “virgin birth” claim at all?  Not so coincidentally many ancient Pagan cultures had myths of their major god impregnating a virgin who bore him a demigod son.  The Greek god Zeus and  Roman god Jupiter, among others, were said to have impregnated other women.  All such virgin birth myths had originated out of extremely ancient teachings regarding causation and creation–in lessons using stars of various constellations as illustrations.  Those lessons taught the scientific principle which is now known–that primal energies–virginal conditions–involve and evolve to manifest as matter.

The focus of the Roman authors of Gospel remained upon Jewish examples, partly because the very first Gospel book which had been written, Mark, c.50-55 CE, had referred to a “prophecy” from the Jew’s revered book of Isaiah.  The Roman author of Mark happened to slyly misquote Isaiah 7:14 as “Behold, the Virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.”  Why did the Jewish prophet say Emmanuel if he meant Jesus? The name Jesus is derived from Joshua, and a prophet worth his salt would know that.  The actual priest-written book of Isaiah simply stated, “…a young woman with child…” and implying the event described was to occur in the timeframe of Isaiah.  So the text that Mark borrowed did not exactly verify that Isaiah prophesied a coming messiah named Jesus.

Thus around 70 CE the Roman author of the Gospel book of Matthew (now listed canonically as the first Gospel) labored very hard to update both the earlier book of Mark as well as his own first edition of Matthew.  And the author indulged himself as well in some holy slight of hand, and Lo! –today those blind with belief still believe that Jesus was the mortal son of god who was born to a virgin Jewish girl.

“St” Paul’s Curious Book of Romans

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, history, random, religion, secularism, theology on April 18, 2016 by chouck017894

“Saint” Paul is credited with formulating the language and systematizing of doctrines of Christian theology.  His epistles are claimed to have been written to congregations of the outlying churches he is said to have founded, and these communications dealt with theology, church procedures and discipline.  The uncertain time of his birth, given as “about 3 BCE”, and the alleged time of his death in the coliseum in Rome in 68 CE do not seem to fit snugly within that particular timeframe of all writings attributed to him–especially the book of Romans.

The New Testament book of Romans has an aura of a slightly later period–most likely c. 98-100 CE. But Paul, remember, is said to have died in 68 CE.  The Jesus cult that existed in that later 98-100 timeframe was then being vigorously directed toward regimented practice, and was being cunningly implemented among the poor, slaves, soldiers and misfits.  In the later historic events Marcus Ulpius Trajanus (Trajan) became emperor in 98, and the Jews in Palestine were once again rebelling against the Empire.  The content of the book of Romans does not fit in comfortably with known historic events of c. 60+ CE, but Paul from Corinth is nonetheless credited with the work which was put in place as the sixth text in theoretical chronological order of the Epistles.  The book of Romans is the longest of the “letters” supposedly written by Paul, and is the only one in which no companion or co-author is mentioned.  From this particular text Paul is credited with having formulated the language, doctrinal system and theology which then became the game plan for the Jesus cult after 100 CE.

The promotional line regarding this Christian organizer, doctrinaire and missionary is that Paul, a Jew from Tarsus, was on his way to Damascus in Syria to track down Jews who had abandoned Judaism and turned to the Jesus cult.  On his journey he is depicted as having experienced a remarkable phenomenon–a blinding light vision of the crucified Jesus.  The incident so traumatized him that he became a passionate servant.  This encounter, which had no verifying witnesses, has an eerie similarity to Moses getting God’s message from a burning bush.

The book of Romans is described as being in seven parts, exclusive of the introduction.  The tenor of the first parts is the crafty establishment of intimidation with the theme put forth that the whole world (meaning the Roman world) stands guilty before the Creator God.  Everything which then follows is like a concentrated sales pitch for the faith system that was being completely restructured in that 100 CE timeframe and which spells out the terms for the offer which amounts to little more than a contract for salvation insuranceT

The book of Romans, like the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, seems jarringly out of place with the general flow of the story line.  Indeed, many who read the NT find themselves wondering about contradiction in Romans in regard to what Jesus is depicted as teaching in the earlier Gospel texts (Mark and Matthew).  Whether this epistle was written in c. 60 or 100 CE, the writer claims that he had never visited the Christian community in Rome although he had long desired to do so.  From chapter one, verse 18 onward, Paul deliberately stirs up fear and, quite unlike the peaceful Jesus of earliest books who he allegedly honored, Paul launches into comments on the “wrath of God”!   The pattern is thereby set in place for passing judgement upon God’s intended diversity of life and Paul then fondles his ego with self-righteousness.  Even stranger, the assertions made in Romans actually contradict much of what is included in other letters attributed to him, such as in Corinthians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Colossians and Ephesians.  Chapter nine, for example, denies free will.  Chapter ten distorts the claim of salvation.  Chapter thirteen actually justifies rulers, even the wicked ones, as being divinely infallible, and as serving as “ministers of God.”   There is an un-Gospel flavor to the book of Romans which carries an audacious power-based inflection that is more in character with Roman Empire ideology.

Remembering the Jewish insurgency during the 98-100 CE timeframe, there is sly warning behind the author’s alleged holy assertions in chapter thirteen of Romans, as mentioned.  Here is what is said:  “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be ordained by God.  2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves  damnation.  3)  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.  Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  4)  For he (implying any ruler, king, etc.) is the minister of God to thee for good.  But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not a sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Keep in mind the Jewish problem to Rome in 98-100 timeframe when reading the rest of this Pauline propaganda.  5) “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  6) For this cause pay ye tribute also; for they (the rulers) are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to who tribute is due; custom to who custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

At this point in this empirical-political spiel, anxiety is then craftily directed to the Ten Commandments as though those directives accented the claims just made for honoring the political top dog.  By these verses, which proclaim that “all rulers are ordained by God,” the hellish action of such “rulers” as Attila, Hitler, Anytolya Kamanni, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. can be excused as “ministers of God.”

Strangely, as noted here, the book of Romans presents strong contradictions to the earlier teachings that Jesus was portrayed as teaching, and the book of Romans account is not exactly in “perfect flow and harmony” with other Gospels as it is accepted by naive believers.  For example, condemnation and practiced hatreds was not a message in the earliest Mark-Matthew books of the Christian movement.

Christians of today should give pause to remember that it is an absolute certainty that “St” Paul could never have read what we know as the canonical Gospels.  However, if Paul was indeed a real person, Saul/Paul of Tarsus would likely have been familiar with the Gnostic texts from which the general ideas conveyed in the Gospels originated.  Pagan and Gnostic influences color the whole of Paul’s literary works.  And the “letters” credited to Paul are more properly defined as preachments of the newly manufactured doctrine than defined as actual correspondence.

As with the attraction of the ancient mystery schools which flourished in the earlier and general timeframe of Paul, Paul did not preach of a physical Jesus as being Christ: rather the point of the Pauline approach was in regard to the attainment of Christhood, meaning the deified consciousness which must evolve within each individual.  As Christianity is widely accepted and practiced today, however, such personal attainment is made nearly impossible to achieve.  The inference which lingers in what has become traditional Christian practice is that one’s consciousness can achieve deified status only through delegated representatives (priests, preachers, pastors, ministers, etc).  Rightfully, the purpose of any faith system should be to guide seekers in developing principled qualities throughout each person’s life.  However, that noble goal is not achievable when faith systems are persistently used as discriminatory indulgences for material power plays.  Finding “sin” in everyone else but finding little in yourself makes for easy fertilizer to use in a hierarchical faith system, but it only nourishes such things as ignorance, poverty, egocentric disdain for life diversities, unremitting warfare, etc. etc.  Such is not the avowed “narrow path” into higher consciousness.

 

 

 

 

 

Born Again, A Holy Brainteaser

Posted in belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, random, religion, scriptures, theology, thoughts on April 1, 2016 by chouck017894

Anything that stunts or hampers the evolutionary process which we speak of as “life” has to be cast off (religiously promoted as “sacrificed”), otherwise our awareness of self (consciousness) cannot advance into its intended evolutionary potential.  This is the true meaning behind the Gospel verse saying that you must be “born again” (John 3:3).  It is important to note that Jesus, the personification of the Life Principle, is portrayed as allegedly saying this to a bit-part character named Nicodemus–a character who appears only twice in Christian myth.  He is defined, for some strange reason , as “…a ruler of the Jews.”  It should be noted that names in scriptural myths usually hold subtle meaning for those in the know.

The  name Nicodemus, as an example, is a cunning devise that passes along hidden meaning only to those who have been initiated into sacred language technique, for it is fashioned upon the Latin words nechos and demos, which is to say, matter and demon (densest energy action). Thus in this story line Nicodemus actually represents the potential of Creation energy which passes over into defined material form.  When life becomes defined in the energy involvement as a dense matter form it is the beginning of the qualification process which results in transmogrification (changed into a more evolved energy form).  This was a feature in the Pagan mystery school teachings which was refashioned and summed up in Jesus allegedly saying, “No on can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again.”  The manner of being “born again” was explained to Nicodemus (verse 3) “…Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”  What is referred to here is the “spirit” that moved upon the “waters” of Creation in Genesis 1:2.

Then later, after Jesus is crucified, it is Nicodemus who allegedly assists in the entombment of Jesus (John 19:19).  This verse says, “And there came also Nicodemus, which first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.” It is important to note that Nicodemus is referred to as which, not who.  This subtly confirms that what is being referred to is not about some human being, but a personification of an aspect of Creation energy which assisted in the bringing life forth out of void conditions (night).  This is sacred language technique used to alter prehistory lessons that had taught of primal energy involvement (Life Principle) that develops as matter-form with consciousness.  The technique that was used in the John account was fashioned upon those ancient teachings concerning Creation processes and the wording actually admits this by referring to Nicodemus as “…the man that came to him (Jesus) in the night the first time.”  There is no explanation ever given regarding the “first time,” only the vague inference that it concerned the initial appearance when Nicodemus is said to have allegedly approached Jesus “in the night” (John 3:1-2).  Read that line again: Nicodemus is the man that came; not the man who came.  The word “that” suggests an undefined thing or action, but the word “who” would be the proper designation if the verse had designated an actual living person.  This is, again, sacred language technique being  used to disguise Creation forces as a being, but secret knowledge is conveyed through the inanimate terms of “which” and “that” as reference.

Chapter 19 of John then closes with two verse (41-42) that is expressed like an afterthought: “Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never a man yet laid.  There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews preparation day”…(referring to Passover–Creation energy passing over into dense matter).  This “garden” referred to, “…wherein was never man yet laid”  is one and the same as the Garden of Eden in the Creation story.  Therefore the sepulcher “wherein was never man yet laid: was drawn directly upon ancient lessons regarding the archetype Earth where life is to arise as explained in prehistory cosmology lessons: so the “tomb” referred to is an allegory and has absolutely nothing to do with some actual sepulcher in Judea.

Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are depicted as coming to the sepulcher together, and strangely they brought medicinal potions, not potions commonly used in that timeframe for preparation of a body for burial. Spices and ointments, myrrh and aloes according to John 19:39, which infer that Jesus was not dead but in a state of energy alteration.  He was indeed to be resurrected, but not as it has come to be interpreted.  Revitalized we could say today.  Remember, no time was wasted in taking down the seemingly lifeless body of Jesus, and it is made clear that they hurried to place him in a new tomb.  And too, the two Marys, mother of James and Mary Magdalene, also brought similar medicinal provisions when they went to the tomb immediately after the end of the Sabbath.  And what about the location setting–the curious location of the crucifixion allegedly taking place immediately adjacent to the privately owned garden where a brand new tomb awaited?  That was peculiarly convenient for such a public execution.  Ignored is that customarily persons crucified were rarely allowed to be taken down to be interred, for enemies of Roman governing were allowed no such honor.

There is still another angle to this plot line which links it to the book of Genesis, the book of beginnings: consider the two Gospel characters named Joseph in peripheral roles. It should b remembered that the name Joseph in Hebrew means “he shall add”–like a builder.  Joseph in Genesis is the eleventh son of the patriarch Jacob/Israel, and it is he who supposedly moved his whole family to Egypt where his descendants remained and multiplied until Moses led the Israelites toward the Promised Land (energy as matter).  In Gospel we thus have the widowed Joseph who became the husband of Mary, the surrogate father of Jesus, and he was allegedly a carpenter–one who builds or adds to.  And finally there is also Joseph of Arimathea, a rich Jew who is depicted as coming “secretly” in the night (as had Nicodemus also) to the sepulcher to take away the body of Jesus (for reconstruction).  As bit players neither of these Josephs have any speaking roles.  This later Joseph appears in the story only to bury Jesus, mimicking how Joseph in Genesis buried his father Jacob (50:7-13). From this divine storyline the Catholic Church put forth the claim that Joseph of Arimathea (the rich Jew) later became the founder of Christianity in Britain and founded the monastery at Glastonbury.  And he, of course, is regarded as a “saint.”

And that, as they say, is the holy truth.  .

 

Soul Searching

Posted in belief, Christianity, faith, Hebrew scripture, life, prehistory, random, religion, scriptures, thoughts with tags , , , , on January 12, 2015 by chouck017894

In the presumptuous practice which is honored as theology, there is repeated discussion regarding “soul”–that part of each person’s being which is said to be immortal and separable from the matter body at the occurrence of physical death. This is regarded in religious theory to be man’s spiritual relationship with the creative power which is commonly personified as “God.” The theological concept of soul, unfortunately, provides little in the way of any instructive or satisfying means for contemplating this elusive part of our being.

The word “soul” is nonetheless used freely in theological speculations, and yet when seekers press for specifics as to what constitutes one’s soul answers remain vague. Generally the explanation avers that soul is the spiritual nature of an individual in relationship to God. What constitutes “spirit,” unfortunately, also remains inadequately defined, which gives theological speculators freehand to manipulate the mystified. By the typically vague theological proposition the soul/spirit is erroneously assumed to retain identical senses of happiness or misery, which conveniently allows the God merchants to guide their “flocks” through exercises of threat-and-promise tactics (damned or saved). In that version of what constitutes the soul, that elusive part of one’s being sounds suspiciously like one’s ego.

Primitive cultures, as well as classical Egyptian and Greek cultures, envisaged the soul as being comparable to some especially refined or ethereal substance such as breath or as ether. To the Egyptians that which we refer to as soul was known a Ba, and they considered Ba to be the essence of a person which has eternal existence after death. In their theory the Ba was closely associated with the Ka, i.e. each person’s double (energy pattern). Together with the Ab, the heart, these were regarded as the three most important elements in the physical and perceptive life of humans. Not understood by them was the organ of the brain, by which personal associations are determined in life. Thus the Ab was more highly valued than the brain, for it was thought that expressions of desire, courage, lust, wisdom, disposition, etc. were expressed by the heart.

To the ancient Hebrews the soul seems to have been vaguely identified with the creative principle of life which is embodied in living creatures, and this interpretation is honored throughout most of the Hebrew scriptures. Seeking to ease the vagueness of what constitutes the soul it was theorized as being the principle or vehicle of life of each individual, human or animal. So the”soul” was hypothesized as a substance, quality or efficient consciousness in general. In Hebrew Scriptures “spirit” was thus linked with, but considered distinctive from the soul. In this theory spirit was reworked as the principal feature of one’ higher–or divine–capacities and activities.

Christian thought regarding the spiritual nature of the human soul was shaped largely by “saint” Augustine (353-430 CE) who theorized soul existence as much from Greek philosophy as from any religious enlightenment. The theory he advanced as to what constitutes the soul was that it was of a simple, immaterial and mystical quality which is present within one’s being. It is this indistinct and unfocused concept of soul which has remained in scholastic Christian philosophy into present times. We have Augustine to thank also for doctrines concerning sin, divine grace, divine sovereignty, and predestination which have held an important place in the Roman Catholic and Protestant theology.

The concept of “soul” in theological speculation still hinges on the fact that the theory helps numb the fear of death. There is an inevitable catch in this speculative theological practice, however, which is the premise that a price is expected for saving what is professed to be the immortal soul, and that price is that seekers must follow a particular man-concocted faith system. The inevitable question is inescapable–just what is that immortal part to saved from? Theological sales propaganda has the audacity to claim that the soul must be saved from the fiery pits of hell and the eternal suffering which is allegedly doled out by an omniscient, loving Creator for a soul having goofed up in one brief fling at mortal life!

As is often the case in the speculative exercises practiced as religion, there is an intuitive recognition of some creative energy process, but that spark of intuition routinely flounders upon the experience of our temporary matter form. Fortunately, if man is not constrained with some self-imposed unyielding cult-code of belief he can learn to evolve into his higher potential. However, organized faith systems have the bad habit of teaching everyone to pass judgment upon everything and everyone who do not follow their restrictive, self-serving counseling. Hatred is thus continually spawned from such a discriminatory practice. That behavioral “guidance” springs from a deliberate refusal to acknowledge that diversity and variety is the second major law of Creation. But faulty religious instruction does not necessarily mean that the part of our being which is referred to as “soul” is only theological wishful thinking.

There is indeed the non-material criterion within everything which is made manifest as matter-life, and that fact of creative power which is present within all life is neatly summed up in Albert Einstein’s formula E=mc2. That simple formula is verification that any matter-form is actually an energy composite. And all forms of energy have the inherent nature of transformation, so in fact it does not cease to exist. Every energy-matter form radiates with an identifying energy frequency which becomes identifiable by reason of its interaction with the creative patterns in which it is a part. Thus an energy frequency, which is called “soul,” can be said to correspond to the energy frequency by which the identity of anything is maintained within the creative activity of infinity. In other words, Soul, like consciousness, is the continuing awareness of self.

And since personal identity is distinguishable only through its interactions with the creative forces around it, every incident in a person’s material experience actually does impose consequences upon that identity. At each dimension of a soul’s creative involvement and evolution every action which it imposes continues to have a reaction. That is not godly retribution; it is just the basic principle of energy in motion–or the minor law of energy in action–what goes around comes around.