Archive for the meaning of life Category

Religion, Nature and Sex

Posted in Atheist, Bible, biological traits, Christianity, culture, freethought, humanity, life, meaning of life, naturalism, random, religion, sex taboos with tags , , , , , , , on June 4, 2009 by chouck017894

The three organized religions of the western world—Judaism, Christianity, Islam—have been cultivated upon a strong sense of man’s superiority to nature, provoking in that ego-centered illusion the attitude that in nature’s diversity dwells the contamination of evil.  Western organized religions are not exactly philosphies of life: they are philosphies of otherworldly speculations.  To pass judgment upon nature from such an arid obsession is to assure failure across all human relationships, for such judgment is an assault upon the pulse of nature within each of us which reflects the spontaneity that is creation.

This negative approach to understanding the energy-activity in which we have our existence has resulted in millennia of needless emotional turmoil to strongly and negatively color the most intense and dramatic way that human relationships can be expressed: sex.   Thus, in our western cultures where humans are taught to feel isolated from nature, the diabolical result is that individuals will react in squeamishness at sexual attraction or even to devoted relationships.  Christianity with its anti-sex “saints” such as Augustine and Jerome fanning unnatural guilt about passion and attraction have not served as the shepherds of inner peace and contentment.  The natural result of pretending to be above or apart from nature is that the organic spontaneity of sexual attraction gets enthroned as forbidden treasure.

When the interacting energies that manifest as nature are assessed as inferior or contaminated with evil, our biological selves react by hoarding attraction and passion in a corner of consciousness to churn there with mental turmoil spoken of as sex on the brain.  This negative religious approach to nature and sexual attraction has never allowed a philosphy of life to be integrated with the belief in creative intelligence.  Instead of recognizing sexual attraction as a means of spiritual exchange between persons, western religions have installed a formula of prohibitions that reject such attraction as “animal.”  Nonetheless, the human physical being is a mammal, a manimal if you will, that has been taught by negative religious interpretations to think that personal ego reflects universal favor.

An example of grudging toleration that western religions extend to sexual attraction is shown in 1 Corinthians 7, where the implication is that marriage is solely for the purpose of avoiding the greater “sin” of being sexually attracted to more than one.  The  preferred conduct for  man, according to verse 1, says, “…It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”  The unlikelihood of that gets summed up in verse 9 as “…if they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.”  By that statement it would seem that marriage is not exactly a holy sacrament but a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card.

There is, conversely, in verse 7 of chapter 7 of Corinthians, also a sly nod to nature’s diverse expressons that are present and active within man.  There it is ackknoledged, “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”

Strangely, the gay community has neglected to utilize this statement of one’s “proper gift” as defense when the homophobes spout select biblical verses to justify their bigotry.

 

Holy Prejudices

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, Bible, Christianity, culture, enlightenment, humanism, humanity, life, meaning of life, naturalism, random, religion, sex taboos, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on May 23, 2009 by chouck017894

Equality, democratic principles or respect for life’s diversities are not exactly the hallmarks of any rigidly organized religion.  Indeed, the indulgence in numerous prejudices is deemed in fundamentalist “faiths” as the way of winning favor with the creator that was responsible for those countless diversities!  Certainly the expected “Heaven” or “Paradise” envisioned by these arrogant institutions is that any divine reward awaits only conscripts: a holy reward that will consist of singing endless praises to an indifferent overseer.  In other words, never-ending tyranny is regarded by fundamentalists as the blessed estate.  Such is the vanity of religious certainty. 

Fanning prejudice and spouting hatreds are the big moneymakers for fundamentalist and evangelical type religions.  For instance, calling some life diversity “ungodly,” such as homsexuality, is not a provable assertion for it is constantly disproved throughout nature, and nature happens to be the bearing system of the Creative Principle: that is to say, indiscriminate nature is the fulfilling program of the very power which organized religions like to personify as a highly prejudiced “God.”

Seeking “god’s” approval or disapproval of something is always determined in evangelical/fundamentalist systems by some man-written exercise that is used by their corporate structured business machine (religious application) to manipulate as much of the population as they can intimidate.  The alleged secondary position of women in the scheme of life is another typical religious absurdity.

Paul is depicted in Titus 2:5 as admonishing women “…to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.”   The book  of Titus was penned c. 103-105, and it is Roman social demeanor that is being promoted, for the author was Roman schooled and therfore not giving testament of Jesus’ teachings or of god’s judgment.  Nonetheless, from this pretense of alleged heavenly commandment women are still being routinely put down as subservient to men.  The Saddleback megachurch in Lake  Forest, California, for example, is a big promoter of wifely submission.  If in doubt check the church website.  You will find the book of Ephesians (re-edited c. 100-105) quoted:  “So you wives must willing obey your husbands in everything, just as the Church obeys Christ.”  Degrading women as mere  subjects of their husbands does not balance with the earlier tales of Jesus’ teachings even though Jewish tradition also regarded women as inferior to men.  So are these churches really obeying Christ?

There is nothing more obstinate than those whose egos have been inflated with fantasies of godly favoritism.

What’s in a Name?

Posted in Atheist, Bible, biological traits, Christianity, culture, enlightenment, freethought, humanism, humanity, life, logic, meaning of life, nontheism, random, religion, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on April 26, 2009 by chouck017894

A curious event is presented in the book of Genesis (chapter two) where–after the heavens and the earth were finished–the Lord God brought “every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air” to Adam to see what he, Adam, would name them. This little story element contains an enormous amount of coded information that for generations seems to have escaped detection by even the most professional Bible thumpers.

For one thing, the storyline incident indirectly reveals that the tale is fashioned on information handed down from some older, more scientific teachings on the creative process by which energy is transformed into matter-form. The “Lord God” of the Genesis account personifies the source or the quantum conditions out of which dimensions of energy are radiated. Adam personifies the Life Principle–which is to say, the element of energy activity that is infused with sensitivity–or that which may otherwise be identified with consciousness. It is this primary stage of energy variation radiating from Source (personified as “Lord God”) that units of energy attract into definable patterns (proto-matter-forms), and these are what Adam, personification of the Life Principle, “names.”

Translated into modern understanding, the “name” of the life-form is determined by the DNA and RNA, and we, as energy forms, carry the sensitivity (consciousness) to perceive and interact with other fields of limited energy. As noted in the book The Celestial Scriptures: Keys to the Suppressed Wisdom of the Ancients (page 334), “To know the name of a thing means that there is recognition of diverse combinations of energy involvement that have been utilized as individual fields of energy.” And this illustrates the subtle truth of creation: that there are no “names”–or limitations–in Source; there  is simply the potential for everything. As energy-substances involve with purpose (defining as form) they are baptized in the “waters” of creation (amniotic fluids) and given a “name.” And the “name” identifies the form of limitation that has been imposed upon that unit of creative energy.

Also from The Celestial Scriptures: “Unfortunately, the power of a name has been widely misunderstood as being the means of invoking magical powers for personal benefit, which is the implication in the alleged advice of Jesus to ‘…ask in my name, I will do it.’ (John 14:14) The Life Principle (personified as Jesus) will indeed give forth all the energies necessary for personal expression, but the name by which it is addressed or appealed to will also determine the delivery limits that the name invokes.”

Each of us has been DNA/RNA “named,” and as an energy-entity we are each capable of expanding above our limitations–but that is not going to be accomplished by calling upon a “name” that was defined by its own material limitation.