Archive for the humanism Category

Sanctity of Marriage

Posted in Atheist, humanism, humanist, random, religion with tags , , , , on June 1, 2012 by chouck017894

Undefined threats to the “sanctity” of marriage have become obsessive propaganda material among some ego-driven religionists in the twenty-first century USA.  Since the “holy scriptures” that these judgmental believers cling to says little-or-nothing about such alleged god-approved contracts, where does that self-serving opinion come from?  Where did they arrive at the claim that a contract of marriage somehow bestows a higher degree of spiritual value that is extended only between breeders?  Could that possibly be because it is a manufactured prejudice circulated by organized faith systems for their own purpose?

In the eighth century BCE, marriage outside the cult system dedicated to Yahweh, as expressed in the Deuteronomic view, was hostile—due to the typical cult fear that it could lead to the abandonment of faith (Deuteronomy 7:1–6).  This fear is also prominent in 1 Kings 11:8 and in 16:31-32.  These books were composed in the same general timeframe as Deuteronomy, and probably by the same priestly authors.  Postexilic accounts such as Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 10:28 and 13:23-28, again took up the position that marrying outside the faith really was about the unspoken fear that it would threaten priestly authority, hardly a spiritual endorsement for commitment to a domestic partnership.

To the aggravation of Christian hawkers today who love to proclaim the “sacred” place of marriage and family in god’s judgment, the New Testament actually offers no definite or comprehensive ideas concerning marriage.  The closest the NT comes to a discussion on marriage is in 1 Corinthians, chapter 7 (written by a Roman Empire author c. 94-100 CE), where the greatest thing that the self-appointed “apostle” Paul has to say (not Jesus) is that marriage is an answer to sexual immorality; but Paul thought celibacy was better.  The problem with this assessment is that two thousand years ago, Paul, who was not married, used that assessment in support of the storyline that Jesus’ second coming was imminent, thus in god’s final judgment the sexual conduct in marriage would be regarded as somehow less immoral than other consenting sex acts.  Later writing attributed to Paul, and which some call the “household codes,” imitate the more conventional Roman approach on marriage in that timeframe—such as the subordinate standing of the woman in the partnership.

The priestly impression of what marriage symbolized in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament is that a marriage commitment is a reflection of the relationship between god and his people.  The marriage vows were therefore meant to publicly express the emotional-spiritual union between the participants, thus the biblical “prophets” used marriage commitment to express the higher commitment between god and his people.  As an example, that curious imagery that was utilized in the end-times book of Revelation 21:2, where it speaks of “…a new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”  Then in verse 9 it speaks of “…the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”  Etc., etc.

Marriage was not particularly thought of as being a “holy” event in one’s personal life until the timeframe of the early Middle Ages.  In those feudal societies marriage commitments were looked upon as simply a contract for breeding purposes, and agreement was solidified by paying for a license or legal permit that was issued in the villages, towns or cities where a couple swore not vows of love but reproductive obligations.  When the Catholic Church awoke to the money-making potential of such contracts, the promotional scheme of “holy wedlock” was contrived so that “what god hath joined together (read church controlled), let no man put asunder.”  The feudal legal contract, which was more a breeders commitment and could be easily terminated if children were not to a sire’s liking, then got tossed into the cauldron of religious ceremonial magic.  It all became “holy” once some god-representative presided over the agreement and he mumbled a few man-conceived magic rites over the glassy-eyed couple and presto! they were zapped into a god-approved union ever after.

The mutterings of some faith system’s representative over a couple’s expectations does not, unfortunately, assure or insure a “holy” union, as millions of couples will testify.  The fraud of “holy wedlock” incorporates ceremony to mark their agreement, and that does provide an emotional way to make public their commitment to each other.  But the magical incantations of some faith system’s representative are superfluous to those who are sincerely committed to one another, and those priestly theatrics become utterly meaningless to those who grow disenchanted with each other.  Bluntly stated, religious ceremony giving alleged heavenly blessing to physical pairing amounts to a strategy of control for a faith system’s use based on faulty misinterpretation of the natural world.  Religious marriage ceremonies constitute only a revenue pursuit for faith systems and they bestow nothing tangible or enduring to the parties of the contract.

That which is truly “holy” in any devotional commitment is generated by the couples’ desire to commit to each other, and holiness does not  arise out of some exterior element claiming to have exclusive “holy” influence.  The true secret of “holy wedlock” is found in being emotionally and instinctively involved (it’s called love) to confront life together for mutually desired ends.

Addendum:   Christian myth has it that Jesus’ first miracle was whipped up for a marriage that allegedly occurred “…the third day (and) there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there” (John, chapter two).  No explanation is ever given from what event the “third day” was reckoned, and theologians have often stressed-out over this.  It refers to the third day of Creation, however, and is a coded reference to the “spirit” in Genesis 1:2 that moved upon the waters and turned energy into matter (Genesis 1:9-13).  Therefore Mary, the mother (personification of the virginal void out of which Creation is made manifest), had to be there, and thus she complained about the lack of wine (waters of life).  Well, Jesus, the Life Principle, called for six water pots to be filled with water for the one-time-only event.  Why six water pots?  Because they represent the six days (phases) of Creation development ala Genesis.  Jesus then conjured up about sixty gallons of wine for the alleged wedding party.

Interestingly, when Jesus was asked to perform the water/wine miracle at the wedding, he initially responded to Mary, “Who is my mother and who are my brethren?”  And he also tossed out a statement that has always made theologians squirm.  “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”  That is an uncomfortable bit of holy word for family values.  What is disregarded is that this is myth, and it has nothing to do with any human mother and son: it is cosmological action presented in mythic dress and used as “history” just as it was in Genesis.  Jesus’ seemingly harsh response to Mary therefore pointedly indicates that no physical manifestations (i.e. mother, brothers, etc.) can be an all-inclusive representative of the Life Principle that is active throughout all Creation.

When Hatred Mocks Piety and Democracy

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, Government, history, humanism, humanity, politics, random, religion, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , on March 4, 2011 by chouck017894

…with the U.S. Supreme Court’s blessing.

On the third of March 2006 a 20-year-old Marine Lance Corporal, recently deployed to Iraq, was killed when the Humvee he was traveling in overturned.  This dedicated young man had volunteered for service in the spirit that democracy best serves the needs of most people.  But the idealistic youth died tragically only to become another  victim of persons who, as the soldier’s funeral was being conducted, spewed out hatred and dared to blaspheme that their deplorable conduct was in honor of God!

The perpetrators of this shameful conduct are some  of the very people that Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder USMC had volunteered to protect so they could have the human rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom of religious belief.  And how did seven intrusive religious fanatics from Westboro, Kansas show their appreciation for the servicemen who place themselves in harm’s way to protect them?  By picketing near as they could to the funeral services while shouting hatred and swinging signs that said such things as: — Thank God for dead soldiers; Pray for more dead soldiers; Destruction is imminent (implying it is for America); God’s view (with a freak-face looking through a gun-site); God blew up the soldier; God hates the US; and God hates fags; etc.

This insanity is what the notorious “reverend” Fred Waldron Phelps, who presides over a cult group of extremists who call themselves the Westboro Baptist Church, traveled 1100 miles so he could exploit his perverted theology of what is unholy.  The “reverend’s” blessed insight is that American soldiers will continue to die as long as the USA is a democracy that tolerates Jews, Catholics, and those abominable gays (Phelps prefers the term “fags”).

Albert Snyder, the bereaved father of Matthew, would later bring a lawsuit against this offensive and hateful cult on June 5th, 2006, rightfully charging the Westboro Church with defamation, invasion of privacy, and the intentional infliction of emotional damages.  No money value was actually demanded, only that Phelps should pay Snyder’s court costs and  pay some cost in punitive damages.  In 2007 a jury awarded Snyder compensatory damages, but a year later a federal judge reduced the punitive amount!  And then the fickle justice system handed out by an appeals court in bible-belt Richmond, Virginia actually ruled that Snyder was to pay Phelps’ legal costs!

Albert Snyder was determined to fight the hateful cult in memory of his son, and had his lawyers petition the U.S. Supreme Court.  Uh-oh—the very court system that happens to be overstocked with Republican backed Catholic justices, and the group that gave corporations the same equal rights of single citizens—which then ruled 8 to 1 on March 03, 2011 that it was all okay for the Baptist hate-mongers to indulge themselves in raucous demonstrations during the sorrowful time of a serviceman’s funeral! 

How did the Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, whitewash this ruling?  Roberts laid out the incontestable opinion of the court saying the court protects “…even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”  Say what?  Public debate is not a situation that decent persons indulge in where a family is laying to rest a loved one.  What justice or evenhandedness is administered in saying that “public issues” are an excuse to invade the personal sorrows of others?  What type of spirituality or ethics or morality is that?  So the 8 to 1 opinion as guided and delivered by Roberts said the “…protection (granted in the First Amendment) cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing (at the funeral) of Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder of Finksburg, Md., who was killed in a non-combat vehicle accident in Iraq, March 3, 2006, Lance Cpl. Snyder’s funeral was picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, which believes military deaths are the work of a wrathful god.”

And trying to sound so righteously philosophical, Roberts shoveled it on a little deeper, saying, “Speech is powerful.  It can stir people to action, move them to tears of  both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here–inflict great (unnecessary) pain.  On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

Thus did compassion, ethics, moral comportment and common decency get a good kick in the ass.

The Phelps clan, of  course, was overjoyed that god favored their brand of hatred.  But from their apparent volatile mental state, they probably will soon become resentful that the Catholic dominate Supreme Court was such a helpful partner in their hate ministry.

Homosexuality and the Bible

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, gay culture, history, humanism, humanity, life, random, religion, sex, sex taboos, thoughts with tags , , , , , on December 12, 2010 by chouck017894

(After reading of an alarming rise in suicides among gay youths badgered by religious ignorance.  Add to this the stupidity of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in military service, as well as the insane attempt to insert legal sanction to murder homosexuals in Uganda.)

One of the things that those who are gorged with holy hatred continually indulge in is to take verses out of context from Bible stories to express disapproval of some circumstance of life that does not measure up to some cultivated judgment they use to gratify their egos.  The alleged “sin” of same-sex attraction is one of their orgiastic fantasies.  To inflame themselves in this pious pornographic flight of the imagined immorality they will, of course, drag out their dog-eared Bible and expound heatedly over three or four favorite inferences.  Totally ignored by the gay-bashers is that there are well over 300 disapproving verses to be found on heterosexual indulgences in comparison.  This raises the issue, which of these “sinners” should we be concentrating on? 

The first example is generally taken from chapter 18 of Genesis, which tells of when the omniscient god was depicted as impatient to obliterate Sodom and Gomorrah.  In that tale we read that two angels who had shape-shifted into human male form are asked by the men of the village of Sodom  to  come out of Lot’s house so the men of the village might know them.  The phrase to “know them” has been deliberately twisted into a sexual connotation, such as the scriptural phrase so-and-so knew his wife.  This twisted concept is seemingly supported in chapter 19:8 for Lot, the story goes, then offered his two virgin daughters to them so the girls might clarify why privacy was necessary for the two visitors, for they bore vital information that concerned only the immediate family.  Remember, the early books of the Bible were not collected into written form until around the seventh century BCE, and sexual interpretation of “to know” can be traced back to a Jewish Midrash designed to inject reprehensible imagery into an otherwise  humdrum address.  That inference was not in the older Hebrew telling.  But invoking a forbidden suggestive image was more attention-grabbing for those who wanted to wrap themselves in an illusion of righteousness.  Careful there: another implication can be drawn from the story—one that alarms the self-righteous fundamentalists—and that implication is that if men are to be rescued from same-sex familiarity, God endorses the giving of virgin daughters for men’s sexual use as a gang-bang distraction technique.

Quickly skipping away from such an unnoticed Genesis inference, those determined upon holy hatred then dive into the book of Leviticus, one of the most hateful and discriminatory compositions ever passed off as “holy writ.”  In the sickness of spirit indulged in that book, which was mandated by priests to priests, it is asserted that it is a sin to eat pork, for example, or to eat water creatures without fins or scales; and leprosy was to be regarded as “unclean,” and that such a skin condition is caused by sin; parents could slay unruly children; and there are presented 28 ways approved to kill victims for any conduct that the priest-author alleged that God found reprehensible.  One has to wonder how the priest-author was privy to all the many “abominations” to which the Lord allegedly expressed aversion.  Surely it couldn’t be priest invented “abomination” because no offspring would be produced for the priests to brainwash?

As for God’s supposed disapproval of same-sex involvement, it is expressed in only one short verse in chapter 18 of the hate filled Leviticus.  The nine words of verse 22 says only, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind…”  If this is such an “abomination” to the Lord, isn’t it peculiar that this commandment expressed in Leviticus was not set forth in the Ten Commandments that were allegedly handed down to Moses?  Or did the omniscient one not foresee such probabilities that could arise from splitting a hermaphrodite into two sexes?  (Genesis 1:27, or especially Genesis 2:21-23)

Finding only such skimpy ammunition for practicing hateful judgment in the Old Testament the fundamentalists will swoop upon the New Testament in their cherry-picking endeavor, landing upon 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is alleged to have been written by the self-proclaimed apostle Paul.  Among the sins that allegedly keep one from attaining membership in Heaven’s country club, there is listed in two verses: 9) “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Vague condemnation, indeed, if “effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind” are to be made to define what constitutes the “sin” of same-sex attraction!  Those characteristics and every other one in Paul’s list can be used to define nearly all fundamentalists.  Most are fornicators; worshiping the man-composed Bible amounts to idolatry; divorced person remarrying are adulterers (according to Luke 16:18); thievery includes using other people’s tax money for private religious indulgence; covetousness includes wanting to impose their demands upon other people’s lives; drinking heavily is far from rare among fundamentalists; reviling others (such as gays) is a religious addict’s standard practice; and extortion or seeking to obtain their way under duress is always the stock-in-trade practice of the religious right.

In desperation the fundamentalists will fall back and cherry-pick the book of Romans, plucking out chapter 1, verses 26 and especially 27 for attack purposes.   Ignored is the fact that the lines carry no authority when compared with the early teachings attributed to Jesus’ ministry.  As with 1 Corinthians, the book of Romans is attributed to the self-appointed apostle Paul.  Again the list covers an abundance of “sins” that seem to apply more to the fundamentalists themselves than does the single vague verse they use to vilify homosexuals.  Indeed, from verse 21 to the last verse, 32, the fundamentalists stand guilty of all the far darker sins.  To them the  first verse of chapter two which follows seems especially applicable: “Therefor thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:  for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

To that truth let us add,  Amen.

Related posts:

  •   Sex Attraction, A Bogus Spiritual Dilemma, Oct. 2009
  •   Victimizing Gays is to Mock Jesus, Oct. 2009
  • * God Didn’t Mention Chromosomes, May 2010 *

Spiritual Rigor Mortis

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, culture, faith, freethought, history, humanism, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , on November 19, 2010 by chouck017894

The general consensus among man-fashioned faith systems is that the creative power that is to be ceremoniously appealed to is an omnipotent and omniscient (all-powerful and all-knowing) being.  This raises a nagging question: Why should mortal persons be encouraged to whip themselves into a neurotic conviction that there is only one way—their man-concocted way, of course—to seek higher attunement with that omnipotent and omniscient intelligence?  And why would an all-powerful and all-knowing being feel any need to rely upon a theatrical marathon led by pompous and outlandishly costumed charlatans to accomplish his divine intention?

Something in each faith system’s My-Way-Only approach to attracting universal attention simply does not add up; especially considering that this little planet is swamped with a minimum of 4,200 religions, faith groups, schism denominations, independent churches, tribal beliefs, cultural traditions, congregations, etc.  (These statistics were calculated by aherents.com/)  And every one of them is convinced that they alone possess exclusive access to an afterlife paradise or bliss or something resembling a spiritual country club that defies depiction.

These eternally unanswered challenges should send up caution signals to any rational mind.  We should always question any faith system that seeks to forcibly impose their man-invented brand of religious theatrics upon the masses in the name of that all-embracing creative power that demonstratively expresses creative will in endlessly diverse ways.  The diversity that is found throughout all that is seen as life signals to us the universal truth that one’s connection to that Source may also be achieved in endlessly diverse personal ways—not  just through some unyielding, uncompromising dogma.  It is when something is dead that it becomes stiff, cold, inflexible, and unfeeling; i.e. unspiritual.

Rigor mortis is defined as the progressive stiffening of muscular tissues after death, which is due to chemical changes in the physical body.  And this fact of life illustrates the standard by which we may estimate the life-and-spiritual value in our self-awareness which allows each individual to interact with that sustaining creative power.  The creative force  responsible for all creation grants the privilege of diversity throughout all creation.  When faith is made to shrivel into a rigid, unbending, adamant, pitiless practice (fundamentalism), there is no way that such a dead approach could possibly reflect the all-embracing omnipotent and omniscient will in which all diverse things are sustained.  Such self-centered insolence is not a living spiritual practice, for it is purposely directed to achieve only material-tyrannical objectives. 

The fundamentalists habitually string their beliefs upon a few narrowly selected verses of “holy word,” but ignore that the bulk of those stories which they cannibalize for examples on how to stroke God’s ego were primarily concerned about political struggles that were palmed off by the human writers of those self-serving tales as being divine disclosure.  Thus psychologically conditioned, the insecurity that fundamentalists feel in their belief system drives them to seek legal trickery to enforce their distorted values upon the multitude.  Cultivating hatreds and inciting disorder against all those who do not share their inflexible “faith” amounts to nothing more than an indoctrination practice in which followers are conditioned to act as dedicated assassins of spiritual equality.  That is not an honorable way to serve the hallowed source of life; that is personal spirit in the throes of rigor mortis.  There is advice to be found in the New Testament book of Matthew 8:22 that may be directed to those poor souls who have allowed themselves to stiffen into such spiritual rigidity: there it says, “…let the dead bury the dead.”

Thoughts on Evangelical Proselytism

Posted in Astronomy, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, history, humanism, humanity, life, random, religion, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on October 1, 2009 by chouck017894

The word evangelical was derived from the Greek eu, meaning “good,” and angelos, meaning “messenger.”  The early Christian cult movement that developed in Rome thus assimilated the Greek-flavored euangelos to mean one who is sent out to bring good news.  The characters associated with the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were awarded that distinction by the corporate-minded organizers of the “faith” cult in 382 as evangelists, the messengers of “Gospel,” or the bearers of good news.  Until that time a considerable number of literary works had been used in various outlying cult groups, so for the sake of uniformity the Council of Rome accepted only these four named books as coming closest to Paul’s theory and doctrines to be followed in Peter’s church.  All other literary works were then rejected as not sufficiently supportive of the plotted church corporation structure.

The term “evangelist” was used in the late books of the New Testament–Ephesians 4:11, written c. 94-100; Acts 21:8, written c. 84-90; and 2 Timothy, written c. 103-105.  The term was used in these books to designate those auxiliary workers in the Christian cult movement who traveled to distant places to announce the “Gospels” orally to thus prepare the way for future extensive missionary forays in order to establish churches.

As presented in the Christian movement prior to the fourth century Council of Rome manipulation, evangelical pertained to or was based upon only the earliest literature and properly focused upon the spirit of the teachings attributed to Jesus, not upon the manner or alleged “salvation” reason for his death.  Unfortunately, as the cult moved to take on worldly power, the teachings became secondary as the hierarchical system became gradually imposed upon the followers and the doctrine was hammered out for catholic (wide-ranging) control.

 Around the fourth century the term evangelistary (from Greek evangelistarion) became employed meaning the lectionary or service book containing the church-approved “Gospel” passages assigned to be read at Mass on each day of the liturgical year.  Such service-book manuscripts dating from the sixth century have been valuable in textural criticism of the Bible.

Curiosity hovers over the evangelists’ emblematic figures used to represent the alleged writers of the four accepted “Gospels,” which are claimed to have been derived from the “prophetic” visions of Ezekiel and which were utilized in the Apocalypse of “St” John.  After much shuffling of Gospel story elements, the church “fathers” revealed that Matthew was to be represented with a human head because he started his book’s narrative with the genealogy of Jesus.  Mark was to be represented with the emblem of the lion, for Mark had begun his Gospel account with the mission of John the Baptist, and the lion was the dominant inhabitant of the desert.  The  book of Luke began with the story of the priest Zachary, and so it was deemed appropriate that Luke should be represented with the sacrificial ox.  And finally, “St” John, who began his text with the words, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God…” was given the attribute of an eagle, for eagles were widely accepted as symbolic of the higher God in Heaven.

All this required a great deal of reshuffling of more ancient presentations in order to thus emblemize the saintly wordsmiths, for the emblems were actually “borrowed” from figures used from time out of mind to define the four quarters of the charted heavens.  Cult frenzy, in  thus decreeing the emblem for Matthew to be Man, had appropriated the emblem from the constellation Aquarius.  Mark became symbolized with the figure of the lion, which, not so coincidently, everyone knows to be the symbol for the constellation Leo.  Luke is passed off as being represented by the ox, a subtle disguise of Taurus the Bull constellation.  And “St” John was given the representation of the eagle, which in Hebrew astronomy charts represented the constellation Scorpius.

Today in the United States much dispute has grown over hard-pressure (radical) evangelical faith groups seeking to forcefully impose their version of religious doctrine into government policies.  Perhaps they would better serve themselves and Heaven if they would take time out to study how the teacher’s words became so perverted with materialism.

Dilemma in Divine Word

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, enlightenment, faith, freethought, humanism, humanity, Inspiration, logic, meaning of life, random, religion, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on September 1, 2009 by chouck017894

In the opening myth of “Beginning” (Genesis), the duality factor (polar interaction) within a source that is necessary for any generative action to take place is accounted for several times with God dividing numerous energy components to accomplish his acts of Creation.  Thus the waters are divided, the firmament divided, and finally the chipping away of part of Adam’s anatomical form to account for the generative ability that can occur between humans.  The fact that is only obliquely presented in the “holy” Creation myth is that any operative force or definable thing can be made manifest only as an energy form that occurs between the exchange points (i.e. polar activity) of one source.  In the simplistic scriptural presentation of generative action a vital part of truth gets lost—such as the fact that division does not mean that they cease to be connected.  There is always and ever will be a positive/negative unity present in/around any definable manifestation.

The opening account of Creation given in the Holy Bible, regrettably, opens with a misleading premise, and from that premise the errors of interpretation have conned untold generations into the web of politicized “faith” systems.  The problem that has arisen from the so-called “revealed” explanations of the polar division and its interaction is that the resultant spiritual instruction has caused seekers to concentrate on superficial differences so they fail to understand that all things in Creation remain eternally interrelated as energy factors.  This failure of religious interpretation only makes for an atmosphere of smug ignorance (organized “faith”), where the smallest diversities are pointed to as inferior or even “an abomination” in god’s sight.  The true abomination is the practice of hoarding such ignorance as spiritual truth, for ignorance of life’s interrelatedness breeds hatred and hatred breeds violence, and we wind up with a world which is savaged with constant bloody conflicts. 

The directive power of creative energy which is the basis for all living matter-forms is activated within primal energies from polar components.  And the eternal intertwining of creative polar energies is microscopically represented in biological life with what biochemistry calls the double helix.  The double helix structure of the DNA molecule consists of two connected spiral polynucleotide chains coiled around the same axis.  The sequence of bases in the DNA molecules provides the genetic information of each living structure.

Beneath what are only surface differences, life is structured from and dedicated to interrelationship, and that is most remarkably shown in the ladder of  life that we know as DNA.  Human ignorance and bogus spirituality have blinded people to the fact that the DNA of every living person is 99.9 percent the same.  It doesn’t matter if one is tall or short, fat or thin, white, black, yellow or red, male or female, or genius or slow witted, all persons are composed of the same DNA.  That means that genetically speaking, every human on Earth is astonishingly close to being your identical twin.

In truth it can can be said, “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord (law).  And there are diversities of operations, but it is of the same  power which worketh all in all.  But the manifestation of spirit is given to every man…” 1 Corinthians 12:4-7

Thus it is that to dishonor any human life is to dishonor yourself.

Humans’ Place in Nature

Posted in culture, ecology, history, humanism, humanity, life, logic, nature, Pantheism, random, religion, science with tags , , , , on July 25, 2009 by chouck017894

Nature, the bearing principle of what we think of as material reality, has become strangely alien to western thought, and that mutant insensitivity has increased across the world—a situation due partly to religion and partly to science, the two answer-seeking indulgences which often rear up as opposing qualities.

Western religions have, by and large, pursued the notion that the creature man is meant to have dominion over nature and that humans are called upon by some divine overseer of the universe to control that life-sustaining organism we speak of as nature.  Science, drawn more to exploring how things work and evolve,  does so not in a drive to dominate nature but to (ideally) learn how to cooperate with nature and utilize the powers from which we became manifest as conscious life forms.

The western religious assertion that we must take control(dominion) over the wisdom that functions as nature and which produced our physical being is a rather infantile stance considering that as a complex species of nature we humans too often fail in even understanding or controlling ourselves.  We should take into consideration that western religious philosophy which professes to know so much about the nature of a supreme being remains curiously vague about the nature of man’s relationship to creative forces.  That vagueness attests to weak theology, and that lack of insight has infected humankind with a sense of estrangement from his natural being and his natural environment.

Science, which may be described as theoretical naturalism, customarily professes faithfulness to an indulgence in  rational consciousness which, unfortunately, is almost as indefinable as the mystical soul.  Both science and religion can only theorize from a state of limitation because the studies of both use humankind in nature as the object that is studied as representative of the subject.  And because such a technique focuses on external manifestations it means that neither of those theoretical approaches can act as a subjective observer.

Through such theoretical  exercises of science and religion we continue to feel that we are estranged in some way from the inner workings that function as nature.  Nevertheless, everything that is active as conscious life and all events active as nature are mutually interdependent.  Man cannot rightfully be understood as an object that stands apart from the subject nature.  Such a sense of estrangement from nature then encourages the self-destructive exploitation of the resources of the planet that have led humankind into the present day environmental predicament.

Like it or not, humankind has a total  involvement with nature.  Ultimately inhumanity toward nature is to deny humankind a future that holds any higher potential.