Archive for the naturalism Category

Things Unseen

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, culture, faith, humanity, Inspiration, life, naturalism, nature, random, religion, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on February 18, 2010 by chouck017894

There is an unfathomable amount of creative activity swirling everywhere around us that we cannot personally perceive but which science opens to us a somewhat broader understanding.   Even so, the unknown remains vast.  We scrawny human beings still have to work around the fact that we are limited physical beings and, as an example, even those persons privileged with perfect eyesight see only vibrations between 450 trillions of red light and 750 trillions of violet light.  And those with “perfect” hearing actually hear only vibrations within the 32,000-33,000 range.  That is like hearing only one small tonal chord in the vast symphony of Creation.  Dogs, cats, and other animals—even insects—often have certain better physical senses than we embody.  So we should stop pretending that we are the undisputed masters over nature or that we are the darlings of a humanlike Creator, and face up to the reality that the how and where we fit into the universal diversity of “existence” is extremely limited. 

With only our personal aware consciousness to appraise universal consciousness from this dense matter perspective, the bulk of Creation’s dynamism cannot be perceived.  There are whole dimensions of creative action that exist beyond our limited awareness.  It was noted in The Celestial Scriptures that it is with our physical senses that each of us stays constantly in touch with the truth of the universe, although the illusion of our matter-being tends to cause us to respond to it inappropriately (selfishly) rather than respond with responsible coexistence. 

Through science research we know that transitional levels of energy exist.  Atoms were once thought to be the ultimate building blocks of all energy forms.  But after exhaustive research there was found to be even more minuscule energy levels that are apparently activated from the quantum level—a level, it was found, that is influenced by how it is observed.  What this seems to suggest is that an awareness we term consciousness is present even in quantum causation.  But that all-encompassing creative consciousness should never be thought of as a humanlike being complete with humanlike feelings, prejudices and weaknesses as the practice of religious escapism commonly chooses to picture it. 

Electric force is one of the fundamental forces of Nature, but only recently have researchers identified a physical phenomenon of electric force that they refer to as electromagnetic rotation.  With this new awareness of this phenomenon there is presented to mankind a means of better understanding how the smallest building blocks in nature interact to form gases, liquids and solids that make up the material world we know.  An interesting feature of electrostatic rotation is that when it is induced without the occurrence of friction the result is the initiation of spin.  And it is spin that is used in quantum mechanics to explain phenomena at the nuclear, atomic, and molecular domains.  This could lead to a deeper understanding of the fundamental properties of matter, which, unfortunately, holy “revealed” writings have never been able to explain. 

So man’s scientific inquiry into the unseen workings of the universe is not exactly an irreverent indulgence as fundamental religionists often claim.  It is really more of a determined attempt at expanding man’s awareness which confirms humanity’s close relationship to all that is created.  Delving into Creation’s wonder-workings therefore expresses man’s will to expand spirit as opposed to religious indulgence which appeals only to each person’s ego.  Ego, we should remember, always identifies itself as centrally positioned in every situation.

Human disposition must learn that it is only when ego can look upon its intimate relationship with all things without a commitment to the temporary physical senses that one’s potential “divine” nature begins to open up.  Yes, this sounds like religious rhetoric: but the subtle difference is that the religious message is always bound up with sectarian centralism.  This awareness of our close interreltatedness with all things that are seen and unseen is the key held out by all the wise spiritual leaders and classic philosophers when they have counseled man, “Know thyself.”

Advertisements

Hiding the Family Jewels

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, culture, faith, life, naturalism, nature, random, sex, thoughts with tags , , , on November 13, 2009 by chouck017894

 He walked with a determined stride out onto the football field and the packed crowd in the stadium suddenly erupted with all kinds of reactions.  Security personnel and various staffers were rushing out to apprehend the man, but it was obvious that he had no means for destructive action.  Nonetheless, the clamor was intense, the TV cameras had all swung around to catch the scuffle on the  field, and half the crowd was on its feet.  The reason for the alarm?   He was naked.

The great hoopla over someone appearing au naturel in public brings many questions to ponder for viewers.  What were his intentions?  Was it in protest?  Was he high?  Was he overly proud?  What’s the big deal, a person is either male or female: so what!  Etc.  But there is a seldom asked question.  Why is it considered indecent exposure to be comfortable in your own skin?  Nudity is subliminally accepted as a religious prohibition, and yet scripture is not exactly clear on the motivation for hiding what you are.

One of the more peculiar perceptions in religious posturing is the assertion that the human physical body is, for some reason, offensive to the power that is credited with having designed and engineered the human physical form.  That assertion of god’s displeasure seems to be a contradiction to the opening of scriptural myth, for there it is fully accepted in Genesis that the power called god saw nothing wrong or indecent with Adam and Eve meandering naked around the Garden of Eden.  Chapter two, verse 25 clearly reports, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

Adam, with Eve’s help, is said to have acquired knowingness, which caused Adam to decide that it might be wise to cover up, so “…they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3:7)   The Lord, when he saw their sorry attire, was not exactly pleased and said, “Who told thee that thou was naked?” (3:11)  Being naked obviously was not deemed as shameful by the Lord.  If anything, the act of donning superfluous attributes was what disturbed the Lord most.   Miffed at their awkward self-awareness, the Lord then compounded their perplexity by covering the with “coats of skin” and hustling them out the exit gate. 

There is deep irony in this scriptural portrayal of blameless nakedness.  The nakedness of the Eden inhabitants represents pure innocence and complete truth, for nothing was meant to be kept hidden from view.  Apparently not even sexual inquisitiveness was held to be offensive in Paradise.  The “sin” that troubled god, therefore, rested in the attempt to deceive by concealing what is true.  It is for this reason that the naked human form has, from time out of mind, been held symbolic of absolute truth.

Western rank-and-file religions, however, have habitually regarded anyone seen when naked as being in a state of disgrace!  Noah’s son accidently seeing their father naked, for example.  Despite the fact that every life form enters life in innocent nakedness, the natural splendor of the unadorned body has been liberally painted with great dollops of false guilt.  Thus the self-proclaimed representatives of god—the preachers, priests, pastors, ministers, etc.–dress themselves in layered costumes with only their head and hands exposed in a pretense that they are the ambassadors of the Lord’s truth.  Such showy, distracting and often ostentatious paraphernalia of religious pretension would seem to be more the uniform donned for spreading aggressive deceit rather than accessories approved for the genuine messengers of god’s liberating truth.

The general understanding that there is some god-required priestly dress code is presented only in the priest-written book of Leviticus where the garments to be worn by the high priest Aaron for divine intercourse are lovingly, almost lasciviously defined.  The clue to the true meaning behind the descriptions of the god-approved dress code for his pulpit generals rest in what Aaron’s name means: the name is derived from the word harah and means to conceive.  It is from the Leviticus myth, therefore, that when filled with an arousal to perform for god, the Catholic bishops and other ecclesiastics often sport those tall, pointy, phallic-looking miters.  It’s all showmanship though.  Even so those old men do not act particularly enlightened, let alone sexy. 

  • Related posts: Dressed for Sex, Bible Style, Sept. 8, 2009; Breastplate, Sexy Biblical Garb, Sept. 09, 2009.

Sex Attraction, A Bogus “Spiritual” Dilemma

Posted in Atheist, biological traits, Christianity, culture, freethought, humanity, life, logic, medical, naturalism, random, religion, science, sex, sex taboos with tags , , , , , , , on October 19, 2009 by chouck017894

(There was enough sex-charged spam feedback on a previous post, Thoughts on Gay Marriage, to merit a few other comments.)

Chromosomes and the chemistry of the brain determine a person’s behavior and their attraction to other persons functioning on a similar wavelength, so to speak.  The effect of sex chromosomes and the chemical sex hormones do not have an undeviating manner of lining up or assembling according to one’s general anatomical features as adherents of radical religious prejudices choose to pretend.  Furthermore, anatomists know there are considerable variations in the human brain—its shape, thalamus, structure of the cerebrum, etc.—that are extremely variable and are as individual as an individual’s fingerprints.  Mental and/or sensory properties connected with brain structure may align within widely diverse ranges, and no two person will ever be exactly the same—not even “identical” twins.

The chromosomes chemically control the total development of the body, the brain and intelligence.  These do so in a wide range of ways throughout a person’s life.  Within these God-allowable differences there is left open the allowance for great diversity of life and love expressions.  Therefore, for religious or political factions to pretend that only one narrow expression of life or love is expected by “god” to be striven for by all  individuals is contrary to the manner in which the physical human organism was created.  If one believes that “intelligent design” is at work and responsible for all manifestations, then religious or political demands for one-style-only expressions of personal affection amounts to sacrilege.

Those who wax with rigid divine certainty regarding same-sex attraction would do well to remember that studies in the difference in development of body and brain have shown that the brain needs considerable amount of body to function well.  On the other hand, it has been medically authenticated that the body needs very little brain to exist.  Radical religionists seem to be out to prove this.

The physical body differences of male and female provides personal consciousness with only a representation of the interactions that take place between the chemical code in the chromosomes and the chemical process that contribute to physical body differences.  In other words, the chromosomal and chemical “design” decrees great tolerance in human physical, mental and emotional expression.  This is problematic only for those who choose to work themselves into hysterical prejudice and hatred for anyone that finds personal expression in a differnent manner from themselves.

 No, Virginia, there is no “gay gene,” but there is something that is infinitely grand: the God-allowable differences for all life expressions.

Sinning Against Democratic Principles

Posted in Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, Government, history, humanity, Inspiration, naturalism, politics, random, religion, secularism, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 27, 2009 by chouck017894

Genuine freedom for everyone, as the US Constitution proclaims, certainly is not being served by persons who seek to bring down the Founding Fathers’ ideals of governing, which wisely stressed separation of church and state.  Nor should the right of free speech be twisted into a perverse interpretation that it is a license to proselytize to captive audiences of school students as the overly vocal bloc of Christian radicals, such as the noble-sounding Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), have chosen to interpret it.  This Christian rightwing legal affiliation has trained more than nine hundred lawyers in the art of sidestepping tolerance and compassion for any who may live or believe differently than they.

 If the idea that religious fanatics can influence the US Supreme Court sounds impossible, think again.  Since 1995 the Supreme Court has been leaning more and more toward passing judgments that threaten to undermine the safeguard of separation of church and state as championed by our nations’ Founding Fathers.

It all began with the landmark case Rosenberger vs. the Regents of the University of Virginia.  The charge brought forth by the so-called Alliance Defense Fund was that secular clubs were funded through student activity fees, but the fees were not available to fund religious student groups.  This shameless jargon used by the ADF to cause the Supreme Court to deviate from the Establishment Clause* was due to the fact that the university could not by law appear to endorse any particular religion—thus the ADF howled “viewpoint discrimination”!  (*Establishment Clause: one of two “religion clauses” of the First Amendment.)

 Since the religious radicals got their foot through the door, the Catholic dominated Supreme Court has bowed to the mythology of those claiming to be “victimized Christians,” and the  court has continued to deviate from earlier and wiser precedence and has leaned toward the “reasoning” that if secular clubs were funded but not religious proselytizing groups, then discrimination was present!

The irony of the very ones who so actively and loudly promoted discrimination against diverse lifestyles standing up and claiming to be victims of discrimination would be amusing if it wasn’t such a dangerous act of hatred and psychic terrorism.  They hide behind the trumped up claim that they are “biblically compelled” to condemn various groups; homosexuals, for example.  They like to use the Bible as their permission from god to indulge themselves in orgiastic hatred and intolerance.  In regard to same-sex appeal, discrimination is stirred up by using a half sentence verse of Romans (1:27); “…And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

 First, let us note that, as it is stated, woman was regarded as nothing more than an outlet to be used for man’s sexual release.  The line in question was not a religious directive and not reallly spiritual condemnation so much as simply reflecting the social etiquette of Rome c.100 CE, the time of the book of Romans‘ composing, the authorship of which has never been satisfactorily determined.  In addition, endless translations of “holy word” have not insured accuracy of what the verse-twisters like to allege.

Diversity is highly respected in the energy-mechanism of Creation, for it is only through an unlimited spectrum of life expression that the Source is made absolute and omniscient.  To pretend otherwise, as radical religionists do, is true irreverence, for such hostile opposition to the natural diversity expressed in life in the guise of religious superiority is not reflected anywhere else in Nature or the universe.  That odious pretense of favoritism radiates chiefly around the endless parade of self-appointed mouthpieces of god.  They may build their earthly power structures and influence by fanning indulgence in bigotry, but it remains highly unlikely that the ladder to Heaven is outfitted with rungs of hatred.

 

 

 

What is Reality?

Posted in belief, biological traits, culture, environment, humanity, Inspiration, life, naturalism, Pantheism, random with tags , , , , , on August 8, 2009 by chouck017894

Reality is commonly thought of as an event, entity or person that is “actual;” i.e. something that is recognized by our consciousness as existing.  In our passage through this energy field that we think of as “now,” the bulk of what propels and sustains us goes unrecognized.  For example, the amino acids in our bodies, the building blocks of proteins so necessary for life, are also found in stardust.  During the energy process that is the focus of our identity, the true reality encompasses far more than our consciousness may register from its material form.

Science has shown us that atomic and subatomic particles are a reality, but we do not sense them in the day-to-day meaning of the word.  Microscopic life is active everywhere about us—even within us—that we do not sense as reality: we generally become aware of microscopic life only when illness is experienced as a reality.  This shows that what we might call quantum reality is functioning beyond the range of our physical senses.  To illustrate, we hear sound only in the vibratory range only between 32,000-33,000 decibels, and we see energy designations as objects that register only between 450 trillions of red light and 750 trillions of violet light.  The vast gaps that go un-seen by our energy-form are incalculable from our energy-as-matter  perspective.

In our pursuit of matter-life we, as apparent separate beings, never suspect that an excess of 300 million cells of our matter-body “die” every minute—and these are immediately replaced by the division of living cells.  The stomach linings change every five days.  A new skeleton is made every three months.  Every six months the body has regenerated a completely new liver.  Ninety-eight percent of the body’s atoms are replaced in less than a year.  Within a span of seven years every energy arrangement that defined the physical body has been totally replaced.  Even the physical organ of the brain actually changes its structure as a consequence of attention and manipulation.  (So reading this is messing with your brain structure.)

Research into energy medicine reveals that the human body emits 12-gigahertz microwave signals.  A startling finding was that these microwave signals that our bodies emit can actually be received on satellite dishes!  Moreover, the body also emits high frequency x-rays.  Remember that we are speaking of the same energy frequency that goes through dense matter objects unobstructed.  What all this means is that all biological tissue has an electrostatic charge, thus when it moves in the three-dimensional energy range (matter) it creates a measurable electromagnetic field—a personal identity.  And that energy identity radiates into what we speak of as space.

Amid all this creation energy that is continually taking place within the universe of our physical bodies, there is a constant by which we know that everything  is working as a balanced system.  That constant, much like the microwave “background” of the larger universe, is our body temperature.  This built-in thermostat maintains the inner physical climate at an average 98.6 degrees regardless of the heat or cold present in the energy environment around us.  Think of it: our temperature shows that each of us is a functioning reflection of the macrocosm and we therefore maintain our own identity within all planes of cosmic energy. 

So, despite any appearances of separateness, none of us goes unrecognized in the universe.

  • Information in this post was abridged from The Celestial Scriptures, pages 424-425.

 

Urban-Bred Christianity

Posted in Bible, Christianity, culture, enlightenment, humanity, life, meaning of life, naturalism, nature, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , on June 16, 2009 by chouck017894

Unlike Judaism and Islam in the western world, the spiritual perception that is Christianity had its inception, emphasis, message and character in the urban centers of the Roman Empire.  Economic and cultural attractions of city life, especially Rome, thus made a deep and lasting influence on the developing movement, which undoubtedly accounts for Christianity being the most unnatural religion in the world.

The faithful will, of course, protest this, but grant some charity to rational thought.  It is historic fact that for around 1500 years after the advent of what became the Christian theory of spiritual meaning, the prime and most steadfast opposition to it came from the nature  religions of the peasantry.  The practice of walling oneself into a limited artificial space to attain an illusion of oneness with the out-of-this-world Creator seemed demonstratively contrary to the Creator’s  expressions to those who were accustomed to working with nature.  Surrounded with the awesome atmosphere of nature, resplendent with untainted air, sky, clouds, stars, mountains, seas, trees, flowers and astonishing diversity of life, there was a natural sense of oneness with all these things.  There was no need for droning sermons by ego-centered practitioners of an improvable theory: in the walled-in Christian atomosphere faith became not what one felt and experienced but was only what one attempted to will into feeling.

More than any other faith system, the Christian approach to spiritual meaning has been that nature is a force that is to be dominated and any sense of oneness with all else in nature has been looked upon as causing man to in someway lose mastery.  This is one of Christian religion’s many half truths.   Nature, as enticing as it is, is not really the face of immorality even though below the aesthetic surfaces everything pursues its existence only at the expense of something else—a system of predators and prey apparently instituted by intelligent design.  And this everything-lives-at-the-expense-of-something-else playbill of nature happens to be the framework and general idea behind the entire Old Testament and which glaringly confirms that the evil and deceptions of  man far exceed the most vicious of nature’s predators.  It is this nature of  man that must be overcome and dominated by man, not the indiscriminate environment that is merely the bearing principle of matter life.

Ethics and morality are, after all, concepts of man, not nature.  This, of course, is held up in western religions–especially Christianity–as evidence of man’s superiority, and so all of man’s artificial constructs are claimed to more  closely reflect the perceived supernatural essence that is thought of as god.  This at least extends the hope of life beyond life as opposed to the nature religions that numbed the spirit with resignation that as part of nature man is held in a system that is indifferent to the concept of good and evil.

On the other hand, sealing believers away in orderly, artificial enclosures with light filtered through colored glass, stocked with altars and incense and secluded away from the open sky and earthy scents is not the best way to transend  personal nature.  Such man-created objects only gratify the apprehensive ego.  Ultimatelly the only true shrine to life is within ourselves.

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.