Archive for the lifestyle Category

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.

Advertisements

Denying God-Ordained Diversity

Posted in culture, faith, history, humanity, lifestyle, random, religion, sex, sex taboos with tags , , , , , , on May 13, 2013 by chouck017894

No theocratic form of government in mankind’s history has ever been distinguished by its sterling humanitarian principles.  Indeed theocracies (forms of government conducted under pretext of godly installation) are always viciously self-indulgent in their spiritual decadence.  The god that is imagined in such theocratic manipulation is declared to demand harsh slave-like rigidity in social and sexual conduct: the lavish variety and range of diversity that permeates all Creation is to be disregarded.  In short, such a governing strategy is an imposed short-ciruiting of, and a depressing constriction of the Almighty’s varied and diverse creative expressions.  When man-concocted faith stytems are used to oppress the masses to the point of denying the fact that every being is not and never was intended to be identical, that “faith” is itself merely a contrivance of human ego used by scheming men to rule the masses through a faith system of practiced hatreds.

This assessment of theocratic subterfuge has been evolving with us after ongoing reports concerning the ugly prejudices whipped up by ego-centered faith systems in regard to same sex attraction.  One of the fairly recent deceits of religious hucksters was the appalling intrusion of religious whackos from the United States into Uganda who deliberately urged Ugandan leaders to invent laws–in the name of their religion–for killing gay-born persons.  Not long after that a recorded report on BBC America (September 2012) was forwarded to us which concerned the merciless killings of gays in theocratic Iran.  Same sex attraction, according to an Iranian television  spokesman, is simply a moral disorder, adding that no one is ever born with same sex inclinations.  The government  spokesman further declared that such attraction was mostly an antigovernment “indulgence!”  The third bit of information was forwarded anonymously, a DVD documentary titled A Jihad for Love, which reported on the  vicious persecution of Muslim gays.  In the entrenched theology attributed to Mohammad, such diversity of attraction is judged self-servingly to be an “indulgence,” hence it is interpreted as a defiant act against the theocratic government.  Allah, they theorize, would never allow man, his assumed highest creation in a universe of widely varied and diversely structured universe, to ever veer from a singular physical attraction.   

Mainstream news in our more democratically based western societies generally sidestep any deep attention to the ongoing savage persecution of gays which is encouraged within theocratic cultures.  This shameful avoidance of reporting on murdeous practices being carried out under the guise of godly approval is due to a mistaken interpretation of our freedom of religious expression which is protected by the US Constitution.  The alleged ponderings attributed to the seventh century “prophet” is thus extended the respect which is granted to religious practice in accordance to our democratic principles.  It is a consideration and acceptance that is never extended in a theocracy, however, and is a shining reminder of the wisdom of keeping church and state separate.

According to the Quran (attributed to Mohammad), the people of Lut (referring to Lot in the much older Genesis tale) were allegedly the first to offend God by their recognition of same sex magnetism.  Thus we read in the Quran 7:80-81, “We also sent Lut (Lot): he said to his people: Will you commit abomination such as no people in creation committed before you?  For you practice your lusts on men in preference to women: you are indeed a people transgressing beyond bound.”  This claim made by the seventh century Arab prophet, that same sex attraction did not occur in earlier times, is demonstratively and glaringly untrue.  The Abram/Lot tale is traditionally placed in the timeframe of 2123-1948 BCE, and it is only a subplot which conveniently allows sexual implications (homoeroticism and incest) to be used to stimulate attention of followers.  At variance with the Quran claim (and biblical), pictorial illustrations exist from 6000 BCE by Egyptian artists which attest to same sex attraction.  Even older evidence is shown in 7000 BCE Chinese and Indian depictions.  These ancient representations therefore disprove historically the Quran claim (or biblical implication) that no same sex relations had ever occurred before the time of Lot (Lut).

By custom Islam is also counseled by the Hadith, which is only a collection of sayings which are attributed to Mohammad.  This is curious, for in the earlier times of the Caliphs, not even those who had personally known Mohammad could claim to have written down any authentic quotes.  Nonetheless, Islamic schools of jurisprudence, influenced by those attributed sayings, have been trained to judge same sex attraction as being unnatural and unlawful, and callously recommend brutal execution.

There are also what may be termed lesser Hadith.  For instance, Abu Dawud (also known as sunnah), a collection of alleged sayings and deeds of Mohammad.  These were collected by Iman Abu Dawud around two centuries after Mohammad’s death, so of course they are indisputable.  Used as justification for punishment of death is a quote from this collection (4448): “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.”  (Apparently God does not object to a married man sodimizing his discomforted wife.)  All these lesser Hadiths insist that those who indulge in such acts are to be killed.  The only question that is raised in this pretense of godly justice is over which vicious method the declared offender is to be killed.  (As in Judaism and Christian scriptures, God habitually neglects to explain pertinent details.)

Oddly, although homosexual behavior is held in Islam to be punishable with alleged God-approved execution in this world, there are implied references to such pleasure being available in Paradise.  Not only are virgins to be provided for the martyrs who defend the cause of Allah but also that”…immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls.” (Quran 76:19)  Accented in this view of Paradise is the handsomeness, “perpetual youth” and effeminacy of the youths.

Sexual orientation of a person was not regarded as presenting any horrendous social/spiritual deficiency in numerous ancient cultures, and those close observers of nature would have be puzzled by the feigned prudery over such magnetism which can be observed throughout nature.  Even scriptural texts relate (in a cautious indirect manner) the spiritual implication of male magnetism in the tale of David and Jonathon.  In 1 Samuel, chapters 18 and 20, the commitment that these two men make to each other is not avoided, but is relayed in some detail, saying”: “Jonathan’s soul was bound with David’s, and he loved him as himself…”  In 1 Samuel 18:1-4 it is detailed: “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant…and he (Jonathan) took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his armor, his sword, his bow, and his belt.”  That commitment and devotion to each other is reaffirmed in chanpter 20:4, where they meet for the last time and “…they kissed each other and they wept together.”  In the timeframe when this was supposedly played out, a kiss between men admittedly did not automatically carry sexual meaning, so their “covenant” kiss does not exacly indicate that they were or had been sexually involved.  The strong magnetism to each other is cautiously sidestepped by saying that they loved each other “as brothers,” as equals; in other words, as Adam and Eve were supposed to be.  Brotherly love is a natural bond, but it is rarely expressed as in 1 Samuel as their souls being bound to each other.

All condemnation of same sex attraction by manmade faith systems is founded on one principle and one principle only; and that singular principle is to encourage procreation; and that encouragement is solely for the purpose of extending and multiplying followers of that man-invented faith system.  Thus these faith systems falsely aver that God (the Life Principle) condemns any sex acts which would not result in conception: acts such as masturbation, coitus interruptus, fellatio, sodomy, cunnilingus, pregnancy preventions, contraceptives, abortion and same sex attraction.  And the easiest way to lead people around by the nose is to fire up hatred within followers toward any who do not comply with priestly ambition.  The implausible threats of godly punishment too often (almost habitually) soils the mantle of sanctity. Implanting a hatred for non-breeder sex activity is effective only through a system of propagandist allusions.  In the case of same sex attraction, it is deceitfully implied that such attraction will lead to the extiction of the entire human species!  In today’s world teeming with over eight billion persons, that is a preposterous concept.  It may even be possible that same sex attraction is a God-provided means to protect any species from devastating over population.

Ultimately, the creative Life Principle which is personified as “God” continues to be an all-inclusive power, not a power which is narrowly exclusive.  That creative Life Principle did not create a broad range of life-love expressions and then collapse into divine antagonism.  Nonetheless, the manmade authoritarian faith systems continue to market their restrictive teachings as revealed to them directly from that all-enfolding Creator–a Creator who deteminedly continues to openly display a preference for variety and broadly diverse life expressions.

 

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.

Abuse of Democracy Within US Congress

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, culture, Government, history, lifestyle, politics, random, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , on July 3, 2011 by chouck017894

There are 535 members of the United States Congress, members who are responsible for establishing the nation’s laws that should guarantee equal justice for all citizens.  There have always been freeloaders among the membership, experts at double talk, addicts of pretentiousness, and those who did business under the table.  There have been untold episodes of conflicts of interest, endless self-promoting through a feeding trough called “ear marks,” childish tantrums of spite called filibusters, and even outright disregard for the nation’s Constitution.  All of this can be and has been indulged in while taking a healthy salary, government paid medical coverage, generous expense accounts, and even a pension paid to them (through tax collections) after they exit their stint of “service.”

In other words, politics, like religion, attracts people with huge ego problems and are little troubled with any heavy personal scruples.  Perhaps we should not be surprised, therefore, at these facts of Congressional members:

  • Three members have been incarcerated for assault
  • Seven members have been arrested for fraud
  • Eight have been arrested for shoplifting
  • Fourteen have been arrested on drug-related charges
  • Nineteen have been accused of writing bad checks
  • Twenty-one are current defendants in lawsuits 
  • Thirty-six have a record of spousal abuse
  • Seventy-one cannot get a credit card because of bad credit 
  • Eighty-four have been arrested for drunk driving
  • One hundred and seventeen have been involved, either directly or indirectly, in bankrupting at least two businesses
  • There are an uncounted number of adulterer–and clients of brothels
  • And there is an endless parade who continue to pretend they have superior religious guidance

The founding fathers well-knew that human nature is easily tempted.  For this reason they sought to devise safeguards so every citizen of the new nation might have a better chance in the pursuit of happiness and freedom of spirit.  Governing power was not to rest in one person’s hands as in kingdoms.  Therefore three branches of government were to act as the holy trinity of democracy: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.  For the most part, that system has well-served a broader spectrum of the people for the bulk of the nation’s history.

As religious factions have pushed more and more into the inner circles of government since 1996, however, emphasis has shifted from loyalty to a golden democracy into a furious pursuit of democratic gold for the power seekers.  In the process neither democracy nor spiritual integrity have been enhanced.  The founders of the US were altruistic, believing that serving in any of the three branches of government was an honor, not a career move.

But for well over that last decade, the thrust of those who have wormed their way into government positions from the Right have vigorously attacked the very roots of democracy.  And the carnival they have made of politics is shown in the fact that they are not interested in real solutions to national problems.  Instead, they keep public attention muddied with petty obsessions such as people’s private lives and women’s right to choose.  When their grab for power has been successful, they have always shafted democratic principles in attempts to do away with such things as worker’s rights, deny seniors the protection they paid into for years, seek to downgrade education standards, give citizens rights to corporations, steal from the  poor and give to the rich, reduce environmental enforcement, use public money for private/religious schools, and do nothing about gun shows where even terrorists can by quantities of guns without a background check!

The point of this mini review is that there is a desperate need for Congressional Reform, and that is summed up in the recently proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution which covers the following eight considerations:

1)  Term limits of twelve years only should be established, which would include one of three possible options:  A) two six-year Senate terms; B) six two-year House terms; C) one six-year Senate term and three two-year House terms.

2)  There should be neither Tenure nor Pensions for having held the honor of their office.  Every Congressman receives a salary, usually with an expense account; and they continue to get paid for that past honor of Congressional position, which dishonors the concept of true democracy.  So imbalanced is this that a member of Congress may retire with the same pay after only one term!

3)  Equally dishonoring of democratic principles is the special favor granted to themselves which frees Congress persons from participating in Social Security.  Democratic principles require that Congress participate with the America people: That means that properly all funds collected for Congressional retirement payouts should always have been placed in the Social Security system.

4)  If Congress persons want a retirement plan they may, like the rest of American citizens, purchase that security cushion on their own.

5)  Where is there an average American citizen who has the ability to give themselves a pay raise when they feel like it?  Why does Congress have the undemocratic clout to vote themselves a pay raise when they wish?  Rightfully, Congressional pay should rise only by the lower of Consumer Price Index—or by three percent as for everyone else. Representatives of the people do not represent the people when they grant themselves special privileges.

6)  Another case of granting themselves special privilege: Congress enjoys a special health care system, and they have purposely exempted themselves from the Healthcare Reform.  Properly they should participate in the same health care system as all other American citizens whom they claim to represent.  Maybe then they would cease using citizen healthcare for a political football.

7)  The legislative branch of government determines the laws of the land:  That does not mean that they are above the law.  Congress persons must comply equally by all the laws that Congress imposes upon the American people.  (For example, did you know that Congressional members are exempted from being prosecuted for sexual harassment?)

8)  All these things considered, the right thing to do for true democratic governing is to void all past and present contracts that Congressmen implemented for Congressmen, and this should be made effective October 01, 2011.  Their self-serving contracts serve only them, and are not for the betterment of the nation.

It is crucial that American citizens stand up and confront their elected officials about the undemocratic privileges they indulge in which are in direct opposition to the laws they have imposed upon the citizenry.

Soul Searching

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Christianity, life, lifestyle, random, religion, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , on June 1, 2011 by chouck017894

In the theory-practice that is theology, there is repeated discussion of “soul”—that part of each person’s being which is said to be immortal and separable from the matter body at the occurrence of death.  This is regarded in religious theory to be man’s nonphysical relationship with the creative universal power that 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 speculation 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 experienced in mortal passage, which conveniently allows the God-merchants to “guide” their “flocks” through exercises of threat and promise (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,  on the other hand, 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 as Ba, and they considered Ba to be the essence of a person that has eternal existence after death.  In their theory, the Ba was closely associated with the Ka—each person’s double (energy pattern? spirit?)—and with the Ab, the heart, these were regarded as the three principal elements in the physical and perceptive life of humans.  Not understood by them was the organ of the brain, by which personal objectives are determined in life.  Thus the Ab was more highly valued, for it was thought that the expressions of desire, courage, lust, wisdom disposition, etc. were expressed by the heart. 

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

Christian thought regarding the spiritual nature of the human soul was shaped largely by Augustine (354-430), who theorized its existence as much from Greek philosophy as from earliest Christian writings.  The theory he advanced as to what constitutes the soul was of a simple, immaterial and mystical quality present within one’s being.  It is this indistinct and unfocused view that 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 hold influence in Roman Catholic and Protestant theology. 

The concept of “soul” in theological speculation 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 holy incongruity built into this self-serving concept is the alleged and contradictory necessity of “saving” that part of one’s identity which is acknowledged to be immortal.  The inevitable question is just what is that immortal part to be saved from?  Theological 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 a spiteful Creator for a soul having goofed up on one brief fling at mortal life!

As is often the case in the speculative exercise practiced as religion, there is an intuitive recognition of some creative process, but that spark of intuition routinely flounders on the experience of temporary materiality.  Fortunately, if man is not chained to some self-imposed unyielding cult-code of belief he can learn to evolve into his higher potential.  Organized religions, however, have the bad habit of teaching everyone to pass judgment upon everything and everyone from a self-serving faith system viewpoint.  That behavior “guidance” springs from a refusal to acknowledge that diversity is a major law of Creation.  But faulty religious instruction does not necessarily mean that the part of our being that is referred to as the “soul” is simply theological wishful thinking. 

There is indeed a non-materiality within everything that 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 proof that any matter form is actually an energy composite.  And energy may transform, but 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 the identity of something is distinguishable only through its interactions with the creative activity around it, every incident in a person’s material experience actually does impose consequences upon that identity.  At every dimension of creative activity every action has a reaction.  It is not retribution, it is just the basic principle of energy and motion: what goes around, comes around.

Where is the Divine Data

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, life, lifestyle, nature, random, religion, science, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , on March 21, 2011 by chouck017894

History has shown that from the timeframe of the mid-1600s, the awakening of a scientific approach to understanding the natural world around us opened the means for humankind to advance toward his higher potential.  Science has proven itself to be the exploration of the interrelatedness of all things, and as such it is not exactly a method intended for passing moral interpretations or guidance.  And this neutral position in the study of the amoral energy interactions that involve as Creation tends to traumatize those who feel that such a systematic study is in some way an affront to some divine Creator, Maker or Designer.

Science probes the unknown and benefits humanity by collecting testable information (data).  This long proven means of understanding the nature and functioning of life around us does not attempt to extend a system of moral guidance, however.  Any moral conclusions may be presumed only by how history within the data displays a customary outcome.  Data, plural of datum, refers to information that is organized for analysis and which is used as the basis upon which researchers collectively reach definitive  decisions.  In science and in the commercial world, unlike the faith business, a proposition may stand only as long as data supports the idea.  And herein is the major difference between science and mankind’s inconclusive faith systems. 

Blind faith, on the other hand, often declares itself as being in possession of soul-saving wisdom, but that wisdom is accepted without any cross-reference as “revealed wisdom.”  For at least a couple of millennia that approach to understanding the world and the universe around us was the imposed standard by which the human species coped with Creation’s mysteries. 

Science, however, seeks to understand the principles upon which nature and the universe function.  Delving into such mysteries does not extend to those studies the means to legislate how the Creation process fulfills itself any more than religious or political beliefs legislate those universal powers.  Strange as it may seem to the dutifully devout, a sense of spirit is always present in any scientific investigation.  In seeking to ascertain how some aspect of Creation functions only magnifies the researcher’s awe, which is further confirmed in their devotion to collecting more extensive data.  That awesome Creation process is not offended when mankind seeks to behold it. 

 Religious fanatics, on the other hand, feel threatened by every fact that scientific investigation discovers and will then labor devotedly to get Bronze Age speculations (religion) inserted into science classrooms.  In place of carefully amassed data, the faithful would install their favorite ego-pleasing scriptures.  The difference between these two approaches to enlightenment is obvious: The “faithful” seek ego-comfort from what they believe in, while those moved by scientific investigation find a higher serenity in what they have come to understand of Creation.  To the religionists’ disadvantage, their books of scripture, regardless of their age, do not confirm anything as does analytical data. 

Rationality is not a fundamentalist’s strong point, thus we have an army of Creationists that seek to impose upon academic institutions their religious interpretations of how the universe and life came into existence out of nothing.  (After a few God-saids.) Their characteristic indulgence in hypocrisy is in full bloom in doing this, for they dare to insist that the biblical version of Creation be a mandatory subject in classrooms.  It is deemed by them that to teach the scientific understanding that Creation took eons of evolutionary action is unfair to their improbable beliefs.  There is glaring hypocrisy in this fundamental stance.  Pre-college studies may, perhaps, include a fifty-minute-hour of biology five days a week where the concept of evolution may be briefly touched upon; but even so the principle of evolution is not addressed as being central in biology studies—or any other classes. 

The bogus squawking of alleged “unfairness” in school classes by religious bullies means only that fundamentalists want no free will choices offered to anyone.  The “fairness” balance that they claim to seek in school curriculum means that everyone else should ignore the fact that a school day averages out to be about seven hours of different classes for a student: the remaining 16-17 hours of each day—as well as the extra days of the weekends—are open for the fundies to program their offspring as they choose.  So how could offering a brief  investigative look at all the possibilities that are visibly present in a diverse Creation be such a severe spiritual handicap to the students?

Learning the facts and amassing data on how nature and the universe function has not yet disturbed the continuing process of Creation activities.  Could that obvious divine indifference to man’s curiosity perhaps mean that the “Maker” gave mankind an evolved brain with the expectation that he would use it for something more constructive than attempted domination of each other?

Ministry Abuses

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, Government, history, life, lifestyle, politics, random, religion, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , , on February 13, 2011 by chouck017894

Religious huckstering is very profitable.  If in doubt, just ask Pat Robertson, Kenneth Copeland, Randy and Paula White, Eddie Long, Creflo Dollars, Glenn Lee Beck, Billy Graham, Robert H. Schuller, Jan and Paul Crouch, or numerous other televangelist “ministries” that each year chalk up multi-millions in tax-free cash and which they freely dip into for any personal expenditures. 

Religious activists are permitted to live outside the purview of federal tax authorities, and that guarantees the shafting of all tax payers in the name of some self-serving “faith” system.  From that sheltered position the holy schemers are free to intervene in partisan political campaigns while freely living lavish lifestyles.  This applies, for the most part, to the television “ministries” that pander to the stay-at-home armchair worshippers.  For the few persons who may actually be personally familiar with New Testament texts, however, that approach to “ministry” work does not properly reflect what Jesus is alleged to have taught. 

That these televangelists pick and choose the verses that are to be ignored is seen in their lust for money.  You never hear them quote from Mark 6:8 where Jesus sent out his disciples to preach and heal, telling them, “…take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no script, no bread, no money in their purse…”   Or the verses in 1 Timothy 6:10 where it is noted, “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith…”  It was in 1 Timothy also (chapter 3, verse 3) that cautioned those who preach were to be, “…not greedy of filthy lucre…”  And then there is Hebrews 13:5, which says, “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have…”

Among the goodies that the tax exempt loophole allows faith systems is that ministry executives may freely take “housing allowances.”  That these “housing allowances” too often pay for palatial homes, multi-million dollar condos, beach houses, etc., is indulged in while the “ministers” laugh up their sleeves at their gullible “sheep.”   It is common for such ministry set-ups to include family members and friends as “staffers,” so that they may all luxuriate under the big non-profit umbrella.

This is adequate reason for all faith systems to be required to file the same detailed annual information return that any other nonprofit organizations must file (Form 990).  Simply saying that they “work for the Lord” is not enough to avoid their obligation to the democratic government that permits them to exist.  Even Jesus, whom they mockingly claim to represent, was clear about that: “…Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s…” (Mark 11:17).  In other words, the advice of Jesus is that his representatives are to understand that proper spiritual conduct depends upon church and state being honored separately: for  although both concern man’s conduct, man’s accepted forms of earthly self-government do not prevail in heaven’s diversity and liberty. 

The antidemocratic criminality that is being indulged in in the U.S. today in the name of self-serving ministries has evolved into the corruption of government that we have witnessed since the Religious Right took over the Republican Party in 1996.  Thus today we have Republican Congressmen such as Charles Grassley of Iowa actually recommending that an independent commission—led by an evangelical agency—study church tax issues.  (That commission would be the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, a Winchester, Virginia-based agency.)  Included in Grassley’s recommendation was the proposal to repeal the ban on churches being actively involved in political campaigns!  Church-based politicking anchored in tax-exempt security is not democratic, and it also runs counter to the teachings of the man whom they claim to represent. 

There is today a renewed push by the Religious Right leaders in the U.S. to scrap the constitutional restriction on religious politicking, or at least undermine it.  The undemocratic aim of these holy conspirators is to establish a voting bloc for fundamentalists whose idea of heaven on Earth is a theocracy.

The extreme Religious Right deceitfully present themselves as “renewed in Christ,” but they seem totally unfamiliar with their savior’s teachings.  In the earliest books of Christianity (Matthew and Mark), followers are counseled to  “…seek the welfare of one’s neighbor,” and to share compassionately.  Trying  to take over a government, therefore, is not a “Christian value.”  But today in the U.S. the self-interest of the fundamentalists is on display in their grasping for political power, and they are doing it using tax-free money.  The democratic structure of the U.S. is being threatened by an internal movement that masks itself with a pretense of piety and spiritual “guidance.”

Fortunately, the founding fathers of our democratic form of government were spiritually wise and knew that genuine faith is not a predatory fixation.