Archive for the nature 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.


Evil That Men Do

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, nature, religion, scriptures, theology with tags , , , , , , on January 23, 2014 by chouck017894

In all the scriptural texts of the western world, a devout seeker will find no judgment that directly addresses, clarifies or answers the problem of what really constitutes evil. Perhaps that should not be so surprising since genuine history has shown that religionists of every variety have very often made use of evil methods to foster their particular faith system. Today, for example, we see reprehensible behavior being put into practice in the U.S. where religious extremists labor fanatically to undermine all the long-standing noble principles of democracy and seek to tear down the firewall of church-state separation.

Those who hold the Bible aloft as their standard for “values” while attempting to tear down those principles of democracy are especially fond of the bloody tales of the Old Testament. God allegedly did a lot of verbalizing according to the early part of the Old Testament, and his active participation is implied in the accounts of land wars. But how often is it ever claimed that God proclaimed himself to be just? The nearest thing that a seeker may find in either the Old or New Testaments on the question of what supposedly constitutes evil is in the book of Job. And that holy tale happens to be a plagiarized version lifted from Babylonian literature, which the Yahweh priest copiers doctored with the assertion that Yahweh/God is always benevolent and always makes things right.

There is subtle juggling in the scriptural evaluation of what constitutes evil, such as is presented in Job–a blurred distinction of what constitutes evil and what happens to be simply an encounter with misfortune. Properly, evil should be understood as a purposeful and/or intentional impairment imposed by a person or group of persons upon other persons, or upon other living creatures. Evil is a malevolent action that is deliberately taken against others. Unfortunately, this is the “value” that fundamentalists choose to interpret as being advocated in the “good book” stories.

For an answer to the problem of evil, the common clerical explanation as inspired by scriptural tales is that evil arises from man having been given free will choice. This is more hollow than holy, for such an explanation conveniently allows a faith system the promotional scheme to sell their anti-sin safeguards. This is possible simply because the free will excuse allows the blame for any negative experience to be placed solidly on the victim by judging the victim as having done something wrong “in God’s eyes” to deserve it! That is the premise that is attempted in the biblical version of Job.

Elsewhere in holy scripture, in 1 Samuel 18:10 it states, “…and an evil spirit from God came upon Saul…” This blunt admission in”holy word” of God’s negative aspect has bewildered countless biblical scholars and clergy. They mistakenly proclaim that their personification of creative energies as God is good only. But the negative principles which are an intricate part of creative energy cannot be denied: positive/negative interactions of energy are necessary for anything to be created. That recognition of positive/negative energy interaction is also referred to in Isaiah 45:7 where God (the personification of creative energy) is quoted as saying, “I form the light, and create darkness: I am the Lord of all these things.” In the much older pre-history lessons upon which such biblical tales as these were structured it was explained that a blend of polar energies (positive/negative) are responsible for any definable manifestation. That ancient (and advanced) knowledge pops up in only in these two scriptural tales.

So the encounters with terrible misfortune that people experience, such a debilitating diseases or natural disasters are not the result of the victim’s having done something deliberately evil in the sight of a discriminatory god. Those tribulations are traceable to biological malfunction or to the exchanges of creative energies known as Nature. Electrical storms, for example, vary in intensity from gentle rains to roaring hurricanes; they are natural energy interactions, not direct acts of a disapproving God. Ditto for other natural energy exchanges such as generated earthquakes, etc.

Out of the crafted holy interpretation a double standard is utilized in the self-serving assessment of evil, for nowhere else in the animal kingdom has any creature of nature been branded as acting with plotted evil intent. Not even the carnivores. In scriptural narrative it is only man who is branded as capable of perpetuating evil, which is interesting since man is claimed to be made in the image of God. But this is then excused by claiming that man’s acts of evil are influenced by some opponent of God’s goodness i.e. Devil, Satan, etc. But giving God credit only for all that is good and pretending that this personification of creative energy has no part in the negative aspects that accompanies life is nothing more than selective blindness.

That convenient premise of God-is-good-only certainly does not provide a satisfactory explanation of what actually characterizes evil. The predator/victim relationship which exists throughout all the rest of nature makes the hypothesis of a benevolent God questionable. If that God-permissible predatory activity is representative of what some call intelligent design it means that man’s concept of evil exists only in how man chooses to perceive negative experiences; it does not define what the creative force (personified as God) would regard as evil. This conveniently leaves the field wide open for evil actions to be used in the marketing of religion and politics. We can see the result of that prominently displayed in theocratic governments.

And in choosing to hypothesize a benevolent-only God, we have been tricked into meeting our fears of victimization by labeling nearly any negative experience as evil. Around this fear of victimization the established organized faith systems have constructed an elaborate scaffolding of self-serving “values”, which are painted as different shades of morality. Then, as these faith systems point to their man-erected scaffolding, the claim is made by them that their patched together supporting mechanism proves the existence of a moral God (who favors them, of course).

Unfortunately for man, these self-serving faith systems have not guided mankind into enlightenment or toward our higher potential. All that they have blessed mankind with has been centuries of senseless conflicts over which faith practice is spiritually superior. Thus in purposefully ignoring the “evil spirit from God”, or the all-inclusiveness which is briefly alluded to in 1 Samuel and Isaiah, these faith system fanatics continuously skate alarmingly close to being evil practitioners themselves. As Shakespeare noted, “The evil that men do lives after them.”

Forbidden Tree of Eden

Posted in Atheist, Bible, faith, Hebrew scripture, logic, nature, religion, scriptures with tags , , , , , , on November 1, 2013 by chouck017894

According to man-written holy texts the creation of man was the Creator’s last and highest work. Naturally, from the writers’ perspective, man was God’s favored creation—especially the authors. But this claim brought with it the uncomfortable necessity to explain the imperfect circumstances which are experienced in life. Thus, very early in Genesis the assumed male Creator explains the facts of life by instructing the vaguely defined male/female beings about diet: they must not eat of the fruit of two specific trees in the center of his landscaped garden. And so in paradisiacal Eden, so the authors contend, the requirement for enjoying that paradise was to simply submit and obey. And that tactic of control has been used by and for every cult and faith system ever devised by man.

Thus in verse 29 of the first chapter God is quoted as saying, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of the tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” It is never explained how Adam and Eve would have known what “meat” actually signified, but we must ignore such trivialities. The plotting starts to get heavier by the opening of chapter three (verses 2 and 3) where Eve is portrayed as conversing with a serpent in regard to one of those trees which God had made the focus-point of his garden. The innocent and inexperienced Eve tells the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest you die.”

Whoa, wait a minute! Eve and Adam have existed only for an extremely short time, all of which had been played out in a paradisiacal garden; how could they possibly have any concept of what the threat of death meant? That’s not important! Anyway, in verse five the serpent reassured Eve that, “…God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” It is not explained how the serpent, a lowly creature fashioned in the early “let there be” throes of Creation, already possessed such knowledge, but God’s last and supposedly highest creation was, well, kind of stupid. So why would the newly functioning brains of these favorite beings, which are essentially blank, have any aspiration to be as gods since they don’t even know what good and evil means? Their eyes shall be opened, the serpent says to entice, but Eve already sees well enough to know a good meal when she sees it. So maybe the fruit of the tempting tree in question didn’t yield any seed, as specified in verse 29 of the opening chapter, how was she supposed to tell? (Plotting, you may have noticed, was not a strong point of the Genesis authors.)

Believers are never supposed to question why it is that the “fruit” is never named or even described in the Genesis account; an avoidance which has always allowed plenty of room for speculation as to which fruit might inspire knowledge of good and evil. Almost certainly the fruit could not be from an apple tree, although that makes for easy picking and colorful storytelling. On the non-accommodating side of the apple myth, apples occasionally may serve as the incubating media for some worms, and these wriggling God-made creatures are not exactly noted for their wisdom.

Just maybe biblical lore has been hugely misinterpreted. Anyway, who is to say that the fabled tree of Eden could not have actually been a banana tree? Of course the banana is not technically a “tree,” but is considered a large herbaceous plant with a perennial root or rhizome from which the plant is perpetuated. Such details certainly would not have bothered the Genesis authors. The banana is, however, a tree-like tropical plant, and we should remember that Adam and Eve are said to have romped around the garden naked. And how could they have ignored such a plant which can, when full-grown, attain a height of ten to forty feet and is surmounted by a crown of large leaves six to ten feet long and which may be two to three feet across? And the plant’s flowers are charmingly arranged in whorl-like clusters along a central spike. All-in-all a very ornate, attractive, alluring bit of foliage.

And what tempting fruit it bears! How was Eve to know that it was not fruit that bore seed (as specified in Genesis 3:29)? For some strange reason the shape of the fruit made Eve think of Adam. The fruit, she would notice, varied in length from four to twelve inches, and from one to nearly two inches thick; just right for enjoying raw. Thus we read in verse six of the third chapter of Genesis, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat…” Of course we are not supposed to ask, if Eve was virtually as brainless as a doorknob how could she have understood the advantages of becoming wise? But the fable says that Eve was overjoyed at the new delight, and she then coaxed her mate to share the enjoyment of gobbling on the forbidden fruit. With this God-revealed holy truth the authors of Genesis not only provided the limp excuse for man’s woes but placed the female in position as the direct cause of “original sin.”

So isn’t all this compelling evidence that the banana is a better representative of forbidden fruit? First of all this species of vegetation does not exist in the wild: it cannot perpetuate itself–cannot survive without the intervention of human cultivation. Only by taking cuttings from the perennial root of a banana tree and transplanting it can a new tree be produced. Such a dead-end situation certainly is not an ordinary perpetuation condition. Maybe that means that the original couple dared to steal some roots of the forbidden tree before they were booted out of Eden.

It’s All Her Fault

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, Hebrew scripture, life, nature, random, religion, scriptures, sex, sex taboos with tags , , , , , on July 11, 2013 by chouck017894

The three faith systems of western cultures were all structured by male authors upon a not-too-subtle animosity toward the active bearing principle within Creation energies. This is a rather nonsensical attitude since that bearing principle is critical for life multiplication. It is also rather cowardly rhetoric for male “shepherds of the faith” to apply the “put the blame on woman” argument in an attempt to absolve themselves from all the error and sin in the world. Such rationale and finger-pointing fails to camouflage the fact that it is the man-is-supreme propaganda in sacred texts which has accounted for the bulk of mankind’s wars and atrocities. Certainly feminine curiosity or wiles or motherly patience have not inflicted such continuing despair and grief upon the world scene as has the male-is-supreme view of holiness.

The “holy books” of the three western faith systems—the Torah, New Testament and Quran—inelegantly place the alleged curse of man’s “fall” and “original sin” upon the slender shoulders of the feminine sex with the astonishing alibi of a talking serpent! Well, guzzling too much holy wine can certainly inspire guys to invent excuses. At any rate, the feminine pole of Creative energy–characteristically defined as negative–has been made to carry the emotional baggage of man’s loose cannon theories while women still manage to somehow keep life’s foundation functioning with some degree of stability.

These three western culture’s faith systems, all of which are rigorously “run by the book,” allow women only partial redemption for their supposed degraded position: they are intended, so say their “revealed” holy words, only to marry and bear their boastful “providers” with offspring (preferably male). It is as though these three interrelated man-superior faith systems regard the responsibilities and chores of the household and child rearing to almost compensate for the feminine genders’ responsibility for man’s “fall from grace.”

The imagined second attempt by the Creator (as in Genesis 2:21-22) at initiating human production, according to the priest-authors assertions, was declared to have involved the surgical removal of some part of Adam’s anatomy. Apparently by that phase of the Lord’s craftsmanship he had run out of creative “let there be” words to recite. What this hackneyed version of human life production reveals, unintentionally so, is that it is polar exchange which generates any and all matter-life and inanimate matter. The generative system that the Creator allegedly set up for continuance (propagation) of any life species was a built-in feature which specifies that every manifested material thing automatically carries polar opposites within themselves. There are no exceptions to this “go forth and multiply” law of Creation.

That the male authors of “holy word” were obsessed with their own genitals is clearly evident with the character of Aaron (whose name means to conceive) in the book of Exodus (chapter 28). The fascination with their physical equipment, ranked by them as being prime paraphernalia, is spelled out in that particular chapter of Exodus with the instructions for the curious sacred garments that are to be worn for generating their faith system. To assess the true meaning of all the improbable tales remember that euphuisms are employed repeatedly throughout all scriptural texts. Holy garments that are to be worn by the self-appointed priests included a breastplate, ephod, two onyx stones and pouches of gold: so is it coincidence that the word “sacred,” derived from the Hebrew word sacre, happens to mean phallus? (Details are given in Sex in Sacred Disguise, March 2009 post.) In that “garment” metaphor of what God’s representatives are to wear, the feminine aspect is something that is entered into or put on, like “golden rings.” We will leave any metaphoric explanation to your analysis as to what “holy oil” actually represents in this “holy” account.

What this sacred language style reveals to us is that the sacred texts of the western cultures do not intelligently consider the Creator’s law of genetic purity, but prefer instead to idolize sexual role-playing. If human life was originally a condition of hermaphrodism–i.e. two polar aspects in one energy form, as holy word asserts–then the division of that singular form had to keep some aspect from each energy pole within both separated parts if creative purpose was to be active within the separated parts. This means, as a consequence, that no man is ever one hundred percent male, and no woman is ever one hundred percent female. For example, men still retain nipples, and women possess a clitoris which is erectile tissue. That’s just the outer odds and ends of physical personifications; there are more inside.

Because sacred texts do not deal honestly with sexual polarity the practice became established for fussing over all kinds of sexual misunderstandings, and these are grossly and needlessly exhibited in social problems to this day. The genderless Life Principle (personified as God), as reflected in Nature itself, cares nothing about sexual chastity: its only concern is genentic purity, meaning that the only limitation that the Life Principle (God) placed upon sexual relationships was in regard to propagation, which declared that each life species must create only after its own kind. Sacred texts which refuse to honestly admit the inherent variations of sexual polarity prefer to labor over the creation aspects of sexual activity (and used for priestly exploitation use), but adamantly deny the equally inherent re-creational aspect of sexual expression.

The Life Principle delights in producing many diverse forms of life expressions, and in the priest composed scriptural tales this variety and diversity of Creation activity is personified as the numerous Levites, the successors of Aaron. It is, therefore, ironic and hypocritical to make use of such scriptural characters and the alleged situations in which they were presented for condemnation of sexual attraction, for such characters as Aaron and the Levites, etc., are metaphors for sexual (generative) energy! If doubtful, just remember the exotic details of the “garments” that these characters were required to wear when ministering in the “holy place.” To keep holy mystery alive the breastplate, ephod, onyx stones and pouches of gold are kept concealed from public view under glitzy attire. Such modesty aside, the next time you see some pompous Bishop strutting around in his elaborate costume and balancing that phallic-styled miter upon his head, try not to snicker. Just remember, these guys are still avoiding truth and responsibility.

Another New Year

Posted in belief, faith, Inspiration, nature, Pantheism, random, religion with tags , , , , , on December 1, 2012 by chouck017894

Each year the Sun reestablishes its apparent northward movement on the 25th of December, marking the position at which light begins to increase in the northern hemisphere.  This phenomenon is much grander in scope and more awesome in infinite power than is any imagined virgin birth of a demigod or some oil lamp in a temple allegedly burning on limited oil for eight days.  The interaction of planet Earth and the Sun is in every way a much truer covenant extended to all life by the creative universal power than are the ego-gratifying stories of special favor extended by god only to some select assemblage of people.

For our ancient ancestors—those much maligned Pagans—who felt a more intimate connection with nature and the observable heavens than is acknowledged today, there was no egotistical need to disguise the natural occurrences such as the solstice and equinox periods as being some mythic miracle performed only for a favored few.

For seven days following the end of the Winter Solstice (Dec. 25), which was honored by the Pagans as “Mother Night,” the beginning of increasing light was reason for celebration and the exchange of gifts among family and friends to acknowledge the approach of production and abundance.  And in this period, in recognition of the true miracle of the Sun’s support of life, the customary salutation upon parting with loved ones or friends was the blessing, “May your light increase.”

After seven days of celebration from Earth’s apparent emergence from the long nights, the routine chores of life were taken up anew, and a new cycle was calculated from the end of that seven-day celebration period.  Thus the time of the New Year observance that is today recognized across much of the world has its foundation in Pagan recognition of the scientific principles that are active throughout the universe and demonstrated in the Earth/Sun relationship.

The awe-inspiring universe was perceived by Pagan cultures to be a living thing–a vast unified consciousness.  When the Pagans looked out into the universe they identified something at work that was much grander in scope than do the constraining faith systems of today which choose to imagine some humanlike personification presiding over and directing that all-embracing power.  The Pagans felt an intimacy with that enfolding universal power which the practice of ecclesiasticism can never experience.  The spiritual attunement of the ancient Pagans with the surrounding universe confirmed for them the interrelatedness of all things.  They would judge as weirdly unrealistic the religious interpretations postulated by self-serving faith systems today that Creation’s power is separate, distant and aloof from everything that is made manifest.

Humankind’s invented hierarchical faith systems always have an unfortunate tendency to leave their followers with vague, uneasy feelings of being unfulfilled, which inevitably erodes their spirit with unrecognized resentment.  By ignoring Nature and the universe, and focusing exclusively upon itself, these faith systems have become systems in which one must will themselves to believe rather than feel one’s unity with it all.  Intricately structured faith systems such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not faiths that can be assessed as arising from natural expressions of consciousness.  They are, unfortunately, faith systems that encourage a denial of compassion for all things and beings that coexist with them in spite of their faith system’s self-set boundaries.  The reason behind their negative approach to Creation’s wealth of diversity is that allowing oneself to be open to feel compassion for all life is curtly dismissed by male-dominated faith systems as a feminine aspect and is therefore unworthy to be cultivated.  In other words, such faith systems are formulated to gratify their egos through carefully crafted hypocrisy.

It is unlikely that each individual’s higher potential was fashioned by a Creator to simply act as some separate organ of some religious social structure.  Dedicating oneself to what is only a man-conceived faith system reduces followers to little more than hive workers and breeders who, through indoctrination processing and mental conditioning, would find emotional survival virtually impossible if separated from the body of their faith system.  Followers of such systems are made blind to the beautiful transcendent unity that is made possible in the acceptance of all diverse people.  The binding element in that acceptance is the yearning of human spirit for enlightenment, and that is not achieved through some self-imposed alienation from everything else.

Despite mankind’s struggles with such bouts of self-inflicted delusions, the heavens still bear witness to the flow of Creation.  We need only to remove the blinders that have been placed over our eyes by those who make a habit of taking advantage of our blindness.  Lured away from adoring the unity of all things, which is openly expressed and demonstrated in the universe, we have been “guided” to seek spiritual enlightenment by huddling together in echoing “sanctified” enclosures.  There, the devout are given role models of heroes and saints and saviors and kings who would never have accepted being herded into such self-demeaning behavior as self-dedicated faith systems teach.

But the universe continues to fuse it all together by patiently extending allowance for wide-ranging diversity.  If mankind wishes to pretend that it is the sum-total of universal wisdom, the universe can afford to be patient.  Meanwhile the interaction of Earth and the Sun annually extends and reaffirms the covenant to all life, and that power is not restricted by time or mankind’s self-imposed limited beliefs.  As another New Year unfolds, that covenant is renewed.

May your light increase.

God, Sex, and DNA

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, nature, random, religion, sex, Social with tags , , , , , on October 1, 2012 by chouck017894

Thanks to “saints” such as Jerome and Augustine, the Christian world has been schooled to regard the natural attraction and mechanics of sex as being somehow an affront to the power that created and sustains all the diversity which it approved as “Creation.”  The magnetism that stirs the urges for intimate relationship with another person is, admittedly, a power that often confounds us, but that mystification of attraction is not a sign of “sinfulness.”  The fact that such magnetic attraction to others is experienced by us at all is strong testimony that everyone and everything is somehow interrelated, and demonstrates that it is natural for units of similar energies to attract, intermingle and invigorate each other.

All forms of life, in one way or another, experience the magnetic attraction called sex, which insures a perpetual display of energy diversity that glorifies the universe.  That is an awesome truth that fuels infinity.  And that truth can be traced back into the miniscule and infinite energy components out of which we become manifest as definable beings—an involvement of energy-substance activity that science has designated as DNA.  And that awesome creative power, contrary to some self-serving religious assertions, could never disown or reject any expression of itself.

DNA, Deoxyribonucleic acid, is the chief constituent of chromosomes; it can replicate itself, and is responsible for transmitting genetic information, in the form of genes, from parents to their offspring.  This is the famed double helix, the “ladder of life.”  It consists of two long chains of linked nucleotides (various organic compounds consisting of a nucleoside combined with phosphoric acid), which are connected to each other by hydrogen bonds between the bases adenine and thymine or between cytosine and guanine.  (Sorry for this bit of technological stuff.)  The chromosomes are organized in 23 pairs—which make up the famed “ladder of life”—that mysterious “ladder” supposedly seen by Jacob in Genesis 28:12–before his name-change to Israel (where he attained physical life).  Out of these 23 pair of chromosomes only one pair of X and Y—one chromosome from the mother and one from the father—determine the diverse and variable sexual features of the entity.  The other 22 pair are known as autonomies, meaning that they are not sex determinants.

Amazingly, the complexity and specialness of each human being is determined by only around 30,000 genes, which is an astonishingly small number to be responsible for the escalation and intricacy that results in all the variety to be found in human life.  A haploid (cell) refers to a single cell which has the number of chromosomes present in the usual germ cell, and this is equal to only one half the number in what is known as a somatic cell—or in a manner of speaking, only one half of a rung on that “ladder of life.”  Soma, in biology, designates the body of an organism (cell) which is present but is not actually part of the germ cells.  Thus a gene is a hereditary unit located on a chromosome, which determines a specific function or characteristic in an organism.  A complete set of chromosomes is known as genome.

Male and female development is dependent upon the different determinants or segments or genes that are distributed along the X and Y chromosomes.  Each and every individual has thus been created with different combinations of these factors which affect their body structure, brain activity and behavior patterns, and this includes how physical stimulants arouse a person.  This fact of life-inception clearly attests that the Creative Source does not indulge in or demand cookie-cutter sameness within a species.  Thus the holy truth is that the chromosomes assemble in this manner to insure a wide diversity of physical characteristics for species benefit—and this includes differences in sexual preferences.

The X and Y chromosome—X for female, and Y for male—demonstrate how the chemical process results in character traits and attractions that are of psychological and social interest.  For example, all males with an excess of either X or Y chromosomes are likely to be predisposed to produce an increased amount of male hormones which often tend to become expressed with a tendency toward aggressiveness and a lower threshold for committing violence in comparison with the so-called “normal” male population.  Perhaps the religious extremists and obstructionist politicians in our society could possibly be accounted for by having an extra Y chromosomal composition.

For the XYY males it seems that tendencies toward violence generally begins early; around the age of 13 instead of surfacing around 18 years.  The XYY males generally issue out of a fairly “normal” sample of the population, but nonetheless the XYY male often feels at odds with the “normal” environment.”

The religiously obsessed commonly choose to ignore this resourceful means by which life’s fluid “design” become active for providing the energy source for manifestation of a life form.  Instead, the priest-written “good book” encourages the idea that human propagation is the sole purpose of physical closeness.  The priest-authors who dared to presume Yahweh’s “laws” (probably driven by their own XYY chromosomes) sought to encourage the non-stop reproduction of their followers because heavy breeding activity insured the increase of followers.  This priest-issued sexual license also assured their authoritative influence in the face of the differently oriented societies around them.  Therefore, it was the scheming priests, not the Creative Principle (personified by them as God) who decreed that any sexual activity that did not contribute to the growth of their cult was a “sin.”  The fourth book of priest-written Hebrew scripture tales is entitled Numbers, and that objective is always what all religious and political would-be leaders want—a steady increase in the number of followers and supporters.  Thus the widespread encouragement of nonstop breeding by such power-hungry men has today blessed this little planet with an excess of eight billion persons!

Thus it was claimed by the priest-authors of “holy word” that the Lord (creative law personified) abhorred and condemned any unproductive sexual activity such as masturbation, coitus interruptus, fellatio, celibacy, homosexuality, and by extension any use of pregnancy preventive aids and abortion.  This feigned godly abhorrence of unproductive sex was/is, to be blunt, economically and politically profitable for their religio-political power base as well as being eugenic.

But if procreation was supposedly God’s sole intent for instituting sexual attraction in the human species, would he/she/it not have also established physical safeguards to assure that?  It would have been easy enough for god to have incorporated in the human species, as in most other mammals, sexual activity that is regulated by estrus cycles.  That is the mammalian feature where the regularly recurring periods of ovulation and sexual excitement in female mammals become ready to bear offspring.  Obviously, if the estrus cycle in the human species was altered by god’s sanction, the role of sexual attraction was intentionally liberated and broadened in mankind in the probable expectation that the value of love would be achieved among humans.  Instead, man’s organized and self-serving religions and politics have chosen to pursue the mindless premise that the propagation of ever more humans is a sacred duty!  With the human population of this little planet today swarming with more than eight billion persons, such indulgence in runaway breeding is demonstratively irrational and irresponsible.

  • Related posts: Sex Attraction, A Bogus “Spiritual” Dilemma, Oct. 2009;  Creation’s Law of Diversity, Feb. 2010; God Didn’t Mention Chromosomes, May 2010.

Ancient Moon/Brain Analogy

Posted in Atheist, belief, freethought, history, nature, Pantheism, prehistory, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , on November 9, 2011 by chouck017894

Often noted in these web postings is the fact that the science of astronomy in the ancient past played a central role in presenting spiritual teachings.  For example, in prehistory cultures the Moon, or Luna, served as a fitting symbol for the enlightened mind.  Their reasoning was astonishingly insightful and testified to a committed study of Earth’s celestial companion as well as a keen observation of the workings of the human brain.  The Moon was understood by our “primitive” ancestors as symbolically embodying the negative principle by which man receives mental discernment, for neither the Moon nor man’s brain shed their own light, but only reflect what they borrow from a higher source.

The Moon was regarded as the material symbol of the receptive principle which is at work throughout Creation, and which enfold the attributes of mental discernment.  In conjunction with this, the Earth itself was, for obvious reasons, the common symbol for the human species.  The Moon/Earth relationship presented an active illustration of how man absorbs the light of wisdom.  In that distant timeframe it was known and taught that the Earth revolved about the Sun, and from this scientific knowledge of the electric relationship of these two spheres the electromagnetic activity centered in the brain could be demonstrated.

The prehistory sages observed in the phases of the Moon a repeating review of the creative powers that are eternally at work.  The cyclic enactment of the “dark of the moon,” or when the Moon passes into the shadow of the Earth, for example, was seen to symbolize life issuing out of the void.  The new moon phase, of course, is not new; it is simply an illusion caused by a dense matter object (Earth) moving in its cyclic pattern and temporarily blocking the light that the Moon reflects from the source.

Earth in its rotation about the Sun will periodically turn from that source of light, and consequently bring upon portions of itself periods of non-illumination.  This seemed to the prehistory sages to act as an illustration of humankind’s repeated lapses of attention in regard to respecting the sustaining power of Cosmic Intelligence.  In ignoring our relationship with the rest of Creation, humankind obliges itself to depend upon the reflected light which intellect offers, just as the Moon reflects the light offered by the Sun.  This analogy is itself remarkable wisdom when we consider that without the light of the Sun to give purpose to the Moon’s presence (visibility), the Moon would be virtually invisible to our sight.

Like the Earth in its turning, half of a person’s human nature receives illumination while the other half rests in apparent darkness (non-awareness of self).  Even so, the resting mind continues to retain and maintain its identity within the cosmic panorama, and the enlightened mind perceives itself as rising again—like the new Moon—above the horizon of self-awareness to dispel the dark.

To those prehistory sages every phenomenon of the Moon’s appearance, just as every feature of Nature, held symbolic expression.  The first quarter of the Moon was seen by them as having issued from its conjunction with the fecundating principle of life.  Luna was therefore seen as typifying the gestation attributes of Nature, the first quarter of the Moon’s increasing light representing to them first growth—and the issuance of higher wisdom.

It is for this reason that the crescent new Moon was often used on the robes of Pagan-age wizards, priests and priestesses.  This is the reason also why it is regarded as the symbol of the goddess honored by Witch-Nature covens.  And this accounts, too, why the crescent new Moon came to be held as the attribute of Christianity’s Virgin Mary.  Certainly the New Testament texts offer no reason to associate Mary with the Moon.  That association was brought into Roman Catholic thought during the Middle Ages.  The waxing Moon had stood as a symbol of the young maiden from the most ancient times from a belief that the waxing phase of the Moon was connected to a maiden’s menstruation period.  In Pagan interpretation the three phases of the Moon—waxing, full, and waning—served as the receiving representative of intellect, thus it was regarded as a feminine aspect.  These three phases were consequently presented as maiden, mother, and crone.  Christian myth makers chose to ignore the “crone” part, of course.

The Moon, as a passive receiver, was adopted in ancient times as a goddess figure, and the three aspects became a trinity mystery.   In various ancient cults this triple aspect came to represent the “Great Mother,” and in this capacity was often referred to as the “White Goddess.”  This triple aspect is adored by many in Witchcraft.  This is the background upon which the Virgin Mary came to be associated with the waxing Moon.

Knowledge once known to the most ancient known culture, the Sumerians, became fragmented long ago.  Somehow those prehistory scientists knew that the Moon held no atmosphere.  And they regarded the Moon to be a separate and independent member of the solar family, not some satellite of Earth.  The folklore that grew around that ancient knowledge stated that when energies were forming as our solar systems’ planets, an invading planet-sized object interacted with this planet’s unstable material.  That “battle” thus accounted for a smaller portion breaking away from the unstable mass which would become Earth.  That chunk that broke away then lost its primal atmosphere and radioactive elements, causing it to shrink in size.  Drained of its elements, and thrown from the orbital pattern established by the forming planet Earth, it became the companion of Earth, sharing its orbital neighborhood.

Abridged from The Shiny Herd.