Archive for the random Category

« Older Entries

Ambush of Spirit

Posted in Abraham, belief, Bible, Creation's democratic flexibility, ethics and morality, faith, random, religion, religious hatreds, sacred texts on April 1, 2017 by chouck017894

All scriptural “revealed” texts of man’s contrivance have a considerable amount of hatred ingrained throughout their scores of pages.  Early on even God is portrayed as bubbling with a degree of hatred at Adam and Eve for having been lured by the tempting trees which God had deliberately placed as the focus of his garden.  God chose to interpret the epitome of his creative handiwork as being disrespectful.  so he drove them away from the only home they had ever known after heaping a heavy load of guilt upon them.  The catch 22 to this original sin plot line is thus cunningly established early-on, which allowed the priest class a cautionary choke-hold on all subsequent generations of seekers.

All man-concocted faith systems have the tendency to pay tribute to themselves by routinely focusing on the differences and the dissimilar features and characteristics which give life its radiant and diverse range of Creation’s representation.  The creative, energetic, sustaining force in which life is expressed is too often imagined in “sacred” accounts to be mainly concerned with the dilemmas of only one narrow selection of human species in one small region on planet Earth, and which just happens to represent their particular man-invented faith system.  Such a narrow understanding of life’s intended diversity and spirit’s significance in relation to the rest of the universe has resulted in much carefully cultivated hatreds setting the stage for persistent and needless conflicts.

Reason and knowledge are seriously repressed when ego-serving faith systems labor to impose preconceptions of any kind to hover over people’s interactions with others.  In man-structured faith systems, for example, seekers are indoctrinated and continuously conditioned with claims that it is only through their particular dreamed up rites and rituals that seekers may ever attain the favoritism of that Source-power  which is personified as a human-like “God.”  But the universe and Nature do not happen to reflect that severely restrictive faith system’s disposition, for the Life Principle active within that Source-power continually formulates and makes manifest a broad diversity and variety of life.

Promoting the idea of godly hatred toward any manifested life expression by that creative Source is the greatest act of blasphemy that can be indulged in by any organized faith system.  An organized, highly structured hierarchical faith system inflicts orderliness, methodology, regulations, systematic posturing, inflexible rules, and narrow interpretations, most of which pretty much fly in the face of universal tolerance for variety and diversity within life experience.   But all these man-contrived faith systems take advantage of the fact that even their life-limiting posturing is tolerated in the democratic flexibility of Creation.

When the all-embracing creative Life Principle is imagined to be in man’s image, there is left scant room for any believer to ever attain their intended higher potential.  Since all man-concocted faith systems have long histories of indulging in each and every one of the alleged god-hated indulgences, the followers should remember that a spiritually wise man questions every extreme of passion.  After all, the creative Life Principle installed a brain in humankind with the expectation that humankind would learn and practice rationality for establishing his own relationship with that creative power.  It is alarming therefore that our personal connection to the Life Principle is so often negatively approached in the many man written “holy” books.  For example, as is in (OT) Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezra, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes hatred is barely disguised.  And hatred is expressed in (NT) Matthew, Luke, Ephesians, Romans, Titus, 1 John, Hebrews and Revelations.  And in the Quran there are well over one hundred verses of outright murderous hatred is encouraged.

Godly hatreds are cataloged as in Proverbs 6:16; “…six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination to him.”  The things that are subsequently listed by the priest-author certainly cannot be assessed as moral or ethical conduct, and so the list of God’s imagined hatreds are actually extreme negative social interaction practices.  Thus it is asserted by the authors that the Creator turns livid over: 1) a proud look; 2) a lying tongue; 3) hands that shed innocent blood; 4) a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations; 5) a false witness that speaketh lies; and 7) he that soweth discord among brethren.”  (*It was from this list that Pope Gregory 1, “the great”: [590-604] elaborated upon the “seven deadly sins,” which a lower priest had commented upon years before Gregory but who received no credit.)    All this carries a so-what attitude in Ecclesiastes 3 where divine insight is pretended by musing that everything has its appointed time, and thus lists “a time time to kill (3), and a time to hate “(8).

In the New Testament, Luke 14:26, even Jesus supposedly encourages hatred saying, “If anyone come to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple.”  That is rather disturbing validation that what was recorded in those avowed “revealed” tales is not divine disclosure which was relayed as coming from an omniscient being to a few privileged priest-scribes.  The words that were put into Jesus’ mouth by those power obsessed interpreters who had not witnessed the alleged incident is, however, the very principle which is routinely utilized in every cult style exploitation to keep seekers in   subjugation.

And in the Quran there are, as noted, well over 100 verses which irresponsiblly summon Muslims to indulge in violent hatred and outright murder of any diverse way of honoring the Life Principle.  Mohammad’s frequent “message” is the contention that everyone is an enemy of his spiritual tribe.  For example, in the Quran 8:65 it is averred, “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight.”  No Muslim dares ask why, if Allah knows all, sees all and created all, he should have to relay his maintenance directives through a caravan merchant when he, Allah, could directly instill in every brain whatever he desired.  The overused excuse is that Allah uses a prophet or messenger as a means to test seekers.  This is the same empty “test” that God allegedly imposed upon Abraham by God’s alleged instruction to Abraham to sacrifice his own son Isaac as a test of devotion.  But an omniscient god (all knowing) would have absolutely no reason to “test” anyone.

For the most part the three dominant faith systems of western cultures fail to understand that genuine enlightenment value is attained only from the tolerance for diversity and variety which the Creator intentionally instilled in all life’s expressions. That failing rests within all man-concocted faith systems which function under the corrupt premise of submit and obey all the faith system’s manipulative, self-serving stipulations.  Their self-serving regulations are little more than disguised threats of brute force (by the Creator of diversity), not by true spiritual enlightenment, and it is brute force that is promoted and encouraged above the principles of harmony.

To the credit of humankind, however, that which is assessed as “spirit” within man is nonetheless sluggishly evolving among the broader masses.  The allegations that the Life Principle, personified as a human-like God or Allah, would hold hatred toward any of the diverse and varied manifestations of life which “he” intentionally created are slowly evaporating under the pursuit of true enlightenment.  Unfortunately it is Bronze Age tribal-style hatreds and cultured distrust of the Creator’s intended diversity which still flavor so much of all man-written “holy” texts and continue to negatively pollute “spirit” like malignant cancer cells.

 

 

 

Leave a comment »

Corporate Style Faith Systems

Posted in Atheist, belief, ego and belief, ethics and morality, monotheism, random, religion, thoughts on January 1, 2017 by chouck017894

Any man-fashioned faith system is basically designed as a power structure: it is not unfaulteringly assembled for the benefit of mass spiritual enlightenment but designed to assert the faith system’s authority.  Like any commercial endeavor the service that is offered is gauged by customer demand, and commercial demand is stirred by advertising.  In the faith business the product is basically a manufactured illusion: the merchandise offered is emotional assurance that a higher power looks after them–but that power supposedly functions only if the subscribers submit, obey and partake of all the rites, rituals and ceremonies that the self-appointed authorities have set in place for business use.  Consequently those formalized procedures are cleverly fashioned to appeal to the ego of the seekers, not purposefully crafted to empower everyone’s personal connection (called “spirit”) to Creation’s Source.

Principles of righteous conduct are comparatively self evident to any balanced mind:  seek understanding, control avarice, value individuality, honor love, demonstrate compassion, respect all life’s diversities, recognize that all things are interrelated, etc.  For the most part the three  networks of corporate styled “faith” systems of today’s western cultures choose to market the principles of “belief” by claiming to possess direct favoritism of a compassionate Creator-God.  The general work  ethic of these three sister  faith systems, however, is to force their formalized concepts of God-Creator upon everyone else, which results only in constant conflicts.  Thus for each of these corporate styled faith systems, their calls to devotion happen to exploit identical  un-righteous principles that happen to resist Creation’s intended diversities.  Achieving “dominion” over life’s diversity is the subliminal message buried within every man-written “sacred” text, and that faith system obsession is often the excuse for fundamentalists to annihilate whatever they fail to understand.  That strategy is commonly exhibited in attempting to obstruct knowledge, curtail science, stifle natural desires, limit consideration for others, belittle intimate pleasures—in short, restructure everyone to a robotic religionist.

What is the architectural foundation for this?  It is  the concept of monotheism, a doctrine that there is only one Creator-God, who is characterized as male, of course.  That concept permits erecting a business machine under the assertion that the all-embracing, all-inclusive power which created and sustains everything then unexplainably censored himself to play favorites with segments of the human species.  This is a tactic which is then buttressed by utilizing man’s fear of death which further allows the charlatans to peddle their faith system’s insurance policy which is averred to offer seekers a glorious afterlife in a cloud-lined country club atmosphere–but only if they follow the rules.

The three self-serving monotheistic faith systems of western cultures could never survive as controlling powers if the peace and brotherly love to which they give much lip service was faithfully practiced.  Instead the self-appointed representatives of Heaven incite the egos of seekers with false notions of exclusive access to the all-inclusive Creator.  Peace and brotherly love happen to make for a limited meal ticket if such tolerance was actually allowed to be demonstrated by followers, for that would allow seekers to truly embark upon achieving personal alignment with universal powers.  Such true freedom of spirit would deprive the self-proclaimed god-ambassadors of their public image as individuals who assert to have been heavenly approved for godly service.  Each of these three corporate styled faith systems claim to teach love, tolerance and peace, but curiously after nearly three thousand years of these sugary claims the world has not yet witnessed any proof of such divine conduct on their part.  Instead, all three of these by-the-book religions  systems have to resort to whitewashing and disguising their bloody histories of violence, practiced prejudices, deceits, contrived theatrical ceremonies, and similar excesses of shameless spiritual pretentiousness.  With these pretentions each of these faith systems have shamelessly taught seekers to hate the intended diversities of life expressions.

When some faith system then attains some political clout it inevitably slides into the sensuous “sins” of brutal power management which they legitimatize by quoting cherry-picked verses from their own priest crafted holy books.  For example, does not the Hebrew Bible attest that God urged the Israelites, his “chosen people”, to slaughter the inhabitants of Canaan to attain the “Promised Land”–as reportedly executed by Joshua?  And for the promoters of Gospel, was not Europe brought into Gods’s favor by use of torture and fiery destruction of life during the Inquisition by self-proclaimed representatives of the Prince of Peace?  And does not the Quran avow that Allah (the merciful) sent hordes of angels to slay opponents of Mohammad’s possession of Mecca?  Such is the deceptive propaganda preached by all “holy word” aficionados.  The justification given for such acts of brutal domination is always in the name of a prejudiced holy spirit.  Nowhere in such faiths is the truth ever acknowledged that each and every thing is manifested through and from one Source, and that each and all things are therefore interrelated and stand equal before that creative Power.  There is, of course, no ego manipulation in teaching that, and thus there is little material profit in admitting the truth of impartiality before that Creative Source.

It has been noted elsewhere in these postings that regional conditions shaped and colored the spiritual teachings which were worked into the political governance of tribal styled stability.  Thus today, to the Jews and Muslims, God is still promoted as something like a bellicose tribal leader, and to those “others” who are not of his implied favored people the Creative Principle supposedly decreed “cut them off.”  For example, Psalms 118:10 (among many interpretations) “…all nations surrounded me; in the name of the Lord I will surely cut them off…”  In Christian faith, which was conceived and nourished in the militant Roman Empire, God is viewed more as a commander-in-chief, with priests, bishops, ministers, preachers, etc. placed in charge like combat commanders over the lower ranks.

How glaringly different are the by-the-book dogmatism practiced in the western culture’s faith systems today when compared to the much belittled way the Pagans approached spiritual understanding. Pagan understanding was that spiritual things are highly personal and meant to be experienced by each person individually.  The reason why Pagans did not actively solicit others to join their particular sect was the belief that the impulse for spiritual enlightenment must originate within the person himself.  It was not viewed as a commercial subject.  The Pagans knew that the first place of any person’s spiritual preparation had to arise within one’s own heart.  Spiritual preparation, they understood, was not something acquired through exterior pressures.  To the Pagan, regardless of which small sect he or she might be drawn to, it was always accepted that those in any superior position were like elder brethren who, just like the postulant, were sharing in a similar search for divine enlightenment.

Today such spiritual freedom has been placed upon the altars of corporate styled faith systems which reflect more spiritual greed than any dedication to true spiritual enlightenment.  Modern day corporate structured faith systems seek only to impose dogmatism which reduces one’s inner spiritual yearning to hostage status that is held for ransom.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment »

Faith Based Fraud in US Government

Posted in Agnostic, Atheist, belief, biblical "values", Christianity, culture, Government, politics, random, religion, Social, thoughts on November 1, 2016 by chouck017894

Special interest handouts by political office holders in the United States have become big-time  “faith” privileges over the last few decades, increasing dramatically after the Religious Right gained control of the Grand Old Party in 1996.  The fast changing legal status for churches and faith system institutions have not been shy in underhandedly trying to “liberate” religious organizations by granting them more lenient rules than is permitted to their secular counterparts.

Such deliberate disregard for the democratic principles by religious extremists holding congressional positions, such a separation of church and state, is hardly due to any spiritual morals.  This dangerous and frightening chipping away at long standing principles of democracy has occurred under pressure from extremist religious groups that have muscled their way into the political arena.  The deviously devoted never make it comprehensible as to why an “omniscient/omnipotent” God should or would have to rely upon the use of deceitful persons to achieve “his” intentions.  But the raucous, self-serving religious extremists have effectively infiltrated our Congress, the US Supreme Court , and federal and state courts, all of which have too often casually conceded to the demands that “faith” groups (Christian only) should be protected from any government impositions!  (Related blogs: Rise of Holy Agitators, September 1, 2016; Spiritual Vanity, The Sin of Fundamentalism, October 1, 2016)

This has been pushed upon the nations’s widely diverse citizenry by devious religious fanatics who paint themselves with false eminence that reflects neither the principles of true democracy nor any higher spiritual values.  These predatory religious wolves have accomplished this betrayal of democratic principles by camouflaging themselves with traditional sheep’s clothing.  Thus disguised they have methodically selected, one by one, various supporting regulations of democratic comportment by inserting into those regulations their faith system’s claims of exclusivity with the Creator.  This has purposefully disfigured and betrayed the numerous longstanding laws of equality and spiritual freedom that the “fathers” of the nation intended.  As a consequence so many democratic principles have been mauled to such an extent that the “faith” pretenders may often thumb their noses at requirements leveled upon everyone else.  As an example, their “public” buildings and organizational programs may be only slightly related to their faith system.  That bears the foul odor of theocratic ideology.

Under these contrived special-interest allowances, unethically obtained, even the day care centers that have religious affiliations were once actually exempted from licensing requirements in a number of states.  In Texas, for example, the religious day-care facilities and drug-treatment programs were once exempt from state licensing.  However, protected by their privileged status by the “faithful” serving in state government positions the abuse and disregard for patients in those facilities proved to be greater than in nonreligious facilities.  Another example: The health care system operated by the Seventh Day Adventists was actually allowed to bar nurses from joining unions.  And many states permit tax-free churches build or expand their facilities in ways that clearly violate zoning ordinances with which everyone else must comply.  Religious-front operations have routinely discriminated in choice of employees, or have expressed their piety in heartless neglect of employee misfortune.  In these faith system front operations even persons that may suddenly be stricken with some physical malady have been unceremoniously dumped, which would never be tolerated in non-religious organizations.  How these self-serving practices follow the teachings attributed to Jesus, such as “love one another“, or “do unto others as you would have done unto you” is never explained by them.  

Special privileges which have been extended by faith aggressive politicians into government to certain (Christians only) faith system organizations is not fair or just or moral in a nation that has been built upon dedication to the freedom of choice and the pursuit of happiness.  And practicing bigotry and narrow mindedness as some religiously obsessed do is neither righteous nor spiritual in a Creation which is rampant with lavish diversity of life and variety of expression.  A true democratic society can function only within conditions of equality and respect for each individual within the nation.  Attempting to inject one particular man-concocted faith system into the politics of a nation which has been dedicated to freedom and liberty for its diverse people can only accomplish catastrophe for all.  Enlightenment will never be attained in an indulgence in spiritual avarice.

Leave a comment »

Questioning Bible Style Creation

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, Bible, days of Creation, faith, Hebrew scripture, life, prehistory, random, scriptures, theology on October 16, 2016 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say “Let there be…” this or that and then this and that appeared.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever he commanded magically appeared.  No trials, no errors, just zap.  Although Earth seems to be God’s center of focus, not only was Earth thus conjured up but all of infinity was set in place in only seven “days.”  However, the authors of “revealed wisdom” never bothered themselves to clarify which of the two  differing Creation specifics  (Genesis l and/or 2) are to be considered most proper.  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence.  This is what some Bible fanatics (in the USA) insist must be taught in our schools!

In order for all of God’s varied and diverse forms which were thus allegedly brought forth by God talking to himself, some form of regeneration also had to be put in place for the continuation of manifesting such diverse and varied handiwork.  That renewal system of each and everything created by word of mouth required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation.  Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that reproduction diagram as DNA.  Life, whether micro or macro, each follows specific developmental (evolutionary) processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Social cultures that preceded the “revealed  word” of God by thousands of years, and therefore not privileged to biblical enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance of how everything became created.  It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the revealed facts of Creation.  In that later timeframe the entire population of the world, which has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, the Creator was apparently interested only in enlightening a tiny percent of those humans in regard to his acts of Creation; and those “chosen” ones just happened to live around Jerusalem.  Oddly, God chose not to bother himself with any specifics, such as what went into his creative process—things like the chemical compounds and such which he utilized for manifesting everything and which continues the re-creation process. Again the authors and devotees of those revealed words counsel us not to question God ways.

Still, we can’t help but wonder.  Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet, as “revealed word” implies.  But that fact of our planet’s  chemical makeup, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation.  However, scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago.  Within only a few hundred million years the simple life forms were already in existence on Earth–an incredibly short time in Creation terms.  To science a few hundred million years after Earths‘s formation and simple life forms were already appearing ? It seems a case of too much too soon.  Ahh, but all that was just one “Day” in the Genesis account.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were indeed present well over three billion years ago, and these simplest life forms had, as science has shown, molecules of biological origin, some dimension of Creation seems to be overlooked.  Life on this planet seems to have arisen and developed from some source other than a combination of inert gases and chemicals that were then predominant on the infant planet. Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium.  If biological life originated in such an abundant chemical composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more plentiful elements (like nickel and chromium) would figure in the composition of any life forms that developed in that primeval stew (the “dust” in biblical vernacular)–if not prominently, then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatsoever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet.  Of course, they are not needed in the Genesis account.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the Chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless that rare element plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggests that a variety of genetic codes would have resulted.  But that did not happen either.  Instead, all life forms on Earth developed from a single genetic code–and all life forms on Earth share this single genetic composition.  To those who idolize the biblical tales this genetic singularity can be easily brushed aside as proof of God’s verbal commands as related in Genesis.

Long before the authors of sacred writ were around, some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts provided more authoritative information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on primal Earth.  According to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge planet that made at least two passes through our developing solar system.  The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid or other space object, and that roving planet was defined with the name Marduk.  The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.”  This information later became reworked by the succeeding Babylonians, and was the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk. This god is known in the Bible as Merodach (Jeremiah 50:1-2), who was credited by the Babylonians with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth.  Could that possibly be the inspiration for the god that the post-Sumerian story tellers in 8th century BCE Jerusalem referred to in Genesis as commanding the activation of all life?

Oddly, in recent modern science a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account.  A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, dared to offer the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from minuscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth.  Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical six “days” of Creation?  Or was God simply playing a solo game of billiards those “days”?

 

 

 

 

s

Leave a comment »

Spiritual Vanity, the Sin of Fundamentalism

Posted in Atheist, belief, culture, faith, Fundamentalism, humanity, random, religion, theology, thoughts on October 1, 2016 by chouck017894

It must be a terrible burden for fundamentalists of any faith system to confront all the diversity and variety and multiplicity in this life—a lavishness which typifies the radiance that is Creation.  The “conservative” outlook of hard-nosed fundamentalists obliges them to advise the Creator that “he” made a vulgar blunder by having indulged in such a prolific assortment of potentials.

One characteristic of a religious fundamentalist is that they seem to always wax with hatred toward a hell of a lot of life’s manifestations.  However, it is that astonishing diversity, variety and multiplicity that assures the awesome radiance that we refer to as Creation.  Another characteristic of the “fundies” is their unending attempts to impose their manufactured belief system upon anyone they can.  This vanity of spirit is indulged in despite the fact that genuine spiritual enlightenment always proves itself as authentic by an enfolding sense of inner serenity and compassion that is experienced.  Such an inner warmth is rendered impossible when cultivated hatreds for all the intentional differences that sustain Creation are encouraged.  And yet, like any other man-contrived faith system, the fundies claim that it is only through their hard-line approach alone that anyone can attain the Creator’s favoritism.

Reason and knowledge are seriously constrained when any faith system representative labors to advance  preconceptions of any sort to hover over seekers interactions with others.  In tightly structured faith systems, for example, seekers are routinely indoctrinated and continuously conditioned with claims that it is only through their particular man-made faith system that anyone can ever attain the favoritism of the Creative Principle which they like to personify as “God.”  But, curiously, the universe and nature do not happen to reflect that narrowly restrictive disposition toward the diversity and multiplicity of life which the Creative Principle formulated, made manifest and steadfastly maintains.

The creative and unifying force which is commonly personified as “God” is too often imagined in scriptural texts to be mainly concerned with the dilemma of only one certain representation of human species in one small region on planet Earth.  Ignored in such “holy” tales is the fact that those characters just happened to be from the author’s locale and also happened to be subscribed to his faith system.  That narrow understanding of life and spiritual significance in relation to the rest of the world population has resulted only in a setup for persistent and unnecessary conflicts.

Such old locally focused writings which are honored as “revealed word” leave us with fundamental questions.  Such as: When a person feels they must indulge in devilish scheming to impose their faith upon others can that really be assessed as one’s “higher calling?”   Why would an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) Creator find this to be the only way of making “his” intentions known among men?   In a universe that has been created with such lavish diversity and multiplicity, we are left to wonder over the Where, When or Why did the Creator of that diversity and multiplicity suddenly judge himself/herself/itself to have been too liberal and/or too excessive?  And if that hypothetical self reevaluation was the case, what caused him/her/it to decide upon picking and choosing favorites out of that multiplicity and give only to those “chosen ones ones” or “saved one” the all-clear for them to indulge in what amounts to spiritual brutality?  Would it not have been easier and wiser for him/her/it to have simply have resorted to the alleged original method of Creation and simply just say, “Let there be no more variety and diversity in Creation?”  Certainly that would have erased all the virulent spiritual egotism which all man-made faith systems demonstrate.

Regimentation and/or strictly controlled adherence to man-invented rites, rituals, ceremonies, taboos, cultivated hatreds and contriving to exert authority over others is not the means into genuine spiritual enlightenment. That means, bluntly, that no man-contrived faith system can sincerely promise or officially grant a stamped passport into what they may fantasize to be a heavily regimented and snooty Heaven.  All that the  “fundies” of any faith system can conceivably offer seekers is only a lottery ticket for an all-expense paid future flight into what is actually another dimension of creative energy.  (Energy does not cease; it simply transforms.)  Few faith system seekers, it seems, ever notice the tiny print at the bottom of their frail proffered ticket stub where it is grudgingly admitted that the voyage and destination are the same for each and every matter-life form, and that no purchase or contribution is necessary to gain that award.

 

 

 

Leave a comment »

Religion and Social Ills

Posted in Atheist, belief, faith, logic, monotheism, random, religion, scriptures, theology, thoughts on July 12, 2016 by chouck017894

Mankind’s many, many faith systems are each self-advertised and promoted as the positive method that inspires people to live their lives with more respectfulness and righteousness. But are practices which are formulated to pivot upon judgmental and prejudicial behavior toward “God’s” intended diversity really the untainted “narrow path” to attain Heaven or Paradise?

When faith systems teach seekers that all human entities skate on thin ice at the edge of the black hole of “sin” the minds of the faithful are persistently maneuvered into a submerged fear-based emotional state.  Faith system merchants often lace their promotional spiels with heavy condemnation over minor differences which human entities are prone to.  The “flock” has then been “blessed” with inappropriate belief that their faith system holds some especial and exclusive favor with the all-inclusive  Creative Source.  It’s an excellent tactic for the faith merchants, but it is hell on a devout person’s rationality.  The sly inference of never quite measuring up to God’s expectations for you tends to fester in the subconscious, and that negative energy is inclined to gestate over time and give birth to little deformed demons of resentment.

Since personal consciousness rests within a god-ordained animal configuration during its limited matter life experience the natural response to all the subtle negativity packaged into faith system merchandising is a stimulation of the hypothalamus which often triggers an inbred fight or flight response.  But the crafted “religious” dictum is that you are allowed to do neither.  The internal physical/mental mechanism then must adjust something like this: The blood vessels become constricted and blood pressure rises; stomach acidity increases; and body muscles remain tense to get ready for physical confrontation.  The most immediate result of all this built-in internal defense activity is that it serves to suppress the immune system which is the body’s defense against genuine life-threatening conditions.

Western organized by-the-book faith systems prosper because they have always sermonized that there is a constant threat which allegedly exists between each persons’s soul and the possibility of oblivion.  Cultivation of fear for the unknown makes for an easy target for faith merchants to hit.  And the built-in advantage is that it also keeps the faithful suspicious of any minor but natural (God ordained) differences which individualizes each person’s interests or lifestyle.  It is a scientifically proven fact that over eighty percent of all human dysfunctions have been traced to emotional stress.  So is mankind’s higher potential really being served by such cultivation of fanaticism, suspicion and intolerance as is religiously churned out by man-invented faith systems?

Organized faith systems regularly stand guilty of emphasizing and passing judgment on what are but minor natural differences rather than counseling tolerance and inspiring understanding of God-intended diversity and variety.  These by-the-book faith systems generally give much lip service to tolerance and charity, but this is too often disproved by their typical attitude that their faith system alone–and it alone–holds some exclusive position with the Creative Source which they personify as “God.”  The inappropriate cultivation of belief that their faith system possess some exclusive expressway into  an imagined Creator’s favor generates only inappropriate expectations, both of others and of self.  The indulgence in such belief programming brushes extremely close to what may be termed true sin, for it sets believers upon a path of negative life occurrences–i.e. judgmental attitudes, feelings of guilt over natural desires, practicing conditional love, avoidance of personal responsibility, lack of forgiveness, lust for material things, and a host of other favorite themes of faith system merchants.

The concept of monotheism is actually a practice of personifying the all-inclusive Creative Source as a principled, judgmental human-like being (God).  This allows for the conducting of corporate-style business under the assertion that the powers which created and sustains everything is human-like and plays favorites with the diverse and varied energy combinations that are manifested as the human species.  This is a conman tactic which is then slyly intensified by grafting a foreboding of death and judgment into their sales pitch.  This further allows those claiming to hold the moral high ground to peddle their faith system’s insurance which promises a glorious afterlife.  Unfortunately mankind can never attain its higher potential through such ego-stroking indulgence.

Such faith system practices will never ensure that peace, tolerance and brotherly love will actually be achieved by followers of hard line faith systems.  Any acceptance and true charity for the intended diversity that is active as life would deprive those self-appointed god-ambassadors of their pretense of god-blessed authority.  Thus man-made faith systems commonly teach judgment passing, hairsplitting, self-serving rites and rituals, spiritual exclusiveness, and similar ego-stroking propaganda.  For seekers it all comes at a steep price: loss of the true access into higher alignment with universal power which is gained only through tolerance–which then flowers as enlightenment.

 

 

Leave a comment »

From A Jewish Cult To Christianity

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, Hebrew scripture, Joshua, random, religion, scriptures on June 5, 2016 by chouck017894

In the timeframe of the expanding Roman Empire the aristocrats and literati in Roman society became more and more uneasy at the intense antagonism that flared repeatedly in the region of Palestine.  The unease of these prominent Roman citizens was not simply political concern but, for several, it also involved relationships through marriage to important families in that region.  This interrelationship provided closer perception to underlying conditions there which simmered in that occupied territory, and it was thus known that there was an active but subdued movement in Jewish culture among the Nazarene which focused on a messiah-like being called Jesus, a name derived from the legendary Joshua (Jeschu).  As uprisings steadily increased throughout Palestine the Roman aristocrats and literati sought a means to counter the Jewish conviction that they alone possessed exclusive godly guidance which their priest-written scriptures avowed.  There were some in Rome’s upper echelon who began to ponder over the possibility that the Jesus cult which was already active in Palestine could in some way provide the wedge that might be used to modify the Jewish obstinacy and thus a more cooperative conduct would be established.

Among those few privileged class Roman citizens the idea of such a wedge led to research and their findings showed that a number of attributes credited to Joshua were also shared by Pagan solar gods such as Apollo, Helios and others.  Joshua was, after all, credited with halting the sun in its course.  That alleged feat was certainly at least equal to any miracle that had been ascribed to Pagan sun gods or to Moses.  Joshua was also revered among Jews as a deliverer, a messiah–albeit a violent, murderous one–whose holocaustal conquests were claimed to have been approved and brought about by their Lord.  What would happen, the privileged Romans wondered, if a new deliverer/messiah appeared, one through whom the Lord would offer a new covenant?

A ticklish proposal of drawing upon the underground Nazarene cult’s fascination with Jesus rested in the Roman authors attempting to provide Jesus with a biological lineage.  In hope of appealing to Jewish sensibilities the Roman authors sought to provide one genealogical version in Matthew 1:1-16, written c. 70-75 CE, which traced Jesus’ decent from Abraham. This genealogy seems intent upon showing that Jesus was of royal lineage–from Abraham to David–even going so far as to refer to Jesus as “son of David” throughout the book of Matthew.  This version of biological background includes four women–a curious accounting whey you consider that in the priest-composed Hebrew Scripture the listing of lineage was always traced back only through male forebears.  Even more curious is that in the later Luke version three of those four females happened to be non-Israelite women.  Was that provision possibly calculated to open the way for gentiles to also be accepted as among God’s alleged “chosen”?

The genealogy as offered in Luke 3:23-38, written c. 84-90 CE, made the attempt to trace Jesus’ biological background even further to Adam!  Luke’s genealogy introduced a different tack by using Jewish textual traditions such as incorporating numerological exercises to present the family tree of Jesus.  This led to various speculations over time.  According to some old Greek manuscripts there was thus declared to have been 11×7 generations from Adam to Abraham. Other Greek manuscripts, however, as well as the Catholic Vulgate and the Syrian Peshito, assert there were 76 generations between Adam to Abraham, while other Latin genealogies list on 72.  Regardless of the quibbling over how many generations between all the impossible-to-trace biblical characters, the purpose of the claims  was to show that Jesus was not only the fulfillment of the history of Israel but to illustrate that Jesus was also the savior of the (Roman) world.  The fly in the ointment, we might say, is that such genealogical lines are utterly pointless if Jesus was, as claimed, born of a Jewish virgin name Mary who was unsuspectingly impregnated by divine spirit.

But why assert a miraculous “virgin birth” claim at all?  Not so coincidentally many ancient Pagan cultures had myths of their major god impregnating a virgin who bore him a demigod son.  The Greek god Zeus and  Roman god Jupiter, among others, were said to have impregnated other women.  All such virgin birth myths had originated out of extremely ancient teachings regarding causation and creation–in lessons using stars of various constellations as illustrations.  Those lessons taught the scientific principle which is now known–that primal energies–virginal conditions–involve and evolve to manifest as matter.

The focus of the Roman authors of Gospel remained upon Jewish examples, partly because the very first Gospel book which had been written, Mark, c.50-55 CE, had referred to a “prophecy” from the Jew’s revered book of Isaiah.  The Roman author of Mark happened to slyly misquote Isaiah 7:14 as “Behold, the Virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.”  Why did the Jewish prophet say Emmanuel if he meant Jesus? The name Jesus is derived from Joshua, and a prophet worth his salt would know that.  The actual priest-written book of Isaiah simply stated, “…a young woman with child…” and implying the event described was to occur in the timeframe of Isaiah.  So the text that Mark borrowed did not exactly verify that Isaiah prophesied a coming messiah named Jesus.

Thus around 70 CE the Roman author of the Gospel book of Matthew (now listed canonically as the first Gospel) labored very hard to update both the earlier book of Mark as well as his own first edition of Matthew.  And the author indulged himself as well in some holy slight of hand, and Lo! –today those blind with belief still believe that Jesus was the mortal son of god who was born to a virgin Jewish girl.

Leave a comment »

A Few Biblical Crimes

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, Hebrew scripture, random, religion, scriptures, thoughts on May 13, 2016 by chouck017894

For some two to three thousand years the Bible has been advertised and promoted as being the ultimate in moral guidance for mankind.  But anyone with genuine respect for moral conduct and ethical behavior toward their fellow man often staggers away in bewilderment after reading some holy accounts.

Indeed, the opening chapters of Genesis brusquely kick things off with a highly questionable take on common ethics.  The naive couple, Adam and Eve, the last of the Creator’s handiwork, were seemingly fashioned only for fun and games.  Naked and clueless they were placed in a deceptively paradisaical setting–a setting which featured two breathtakingly beautiful fruit-bearing trees as it focal point.  Ah, but these were declared to be off limits as a food source for God’s not-too-bright last creations.  This is clearly a case of crafty entrapment, not omniscient wisdom.  But God is pictured as outraged and declared that death is to be their punishment–and not just for Adam and  Eve, but for all matter-life forms!  The first human couple had absolutely no experience as life beings, so how could they have possibly comprehended what the threat of death meant?

Ethics and compassion soon got another below-the-belt attack in the “revealed” record of Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve.  Cain was a farmer and Abel was a sheepherder. For all the bounty that God had graciously allowed them God expected both of them should bring material offerings to him in gratitude.  Abel slit a sheep’s throat and God found this to be extremely pleasing, but Cain’s gift taken from laboriously tended fields, was scorned by the Creator.  Cain, of course, smarted at this discrimination and in a jealous frenzy killed his brother.  According to the Bible there were no actual criminal laws established in Paradise, nor had there been need for such law in a family of four.  So the homicide of Abel cannot be termed murder or even manslaughter.  So the Omniscient One banished Cain from his native land and Cain was commanded not to till the ground anymore.  Apparently Cain was expected to starve himself to death.  Or perhaps that was the Omniscient One’s plan for Cain’s evolutionary success, for Cain became wonderfully successful as a builder of cities after that..  Still we can’e help but wonder–is infinite punishment for “sins” committed by a finite being’s brief life really the caliber of a Creator’s justice?

The same loose concepts of holy moral/ethical conduct is continued throughout holy word.  Aggression is highly praised in divine tales, and war crimes pass as acceptable practice–if carried out for the security of a man-invented faith system.  For example, under Moses’ generalship the Israelites are glorified for having killed off all the Midianite men, their kings and the prophet Balaam.  Joshua is portrayed as reveling in holocaustic violence in which even thousands of noncombatant women, children, and the aged were slaughtered.  Deceitful David exterminated men, women and children in various stories, even sawing victims in half or hacking them to pieces.

In a number of holy stories characters are admired for homicide.  The alleged “prophet” Elijah, for example, is glorified for killing 450 priests of Baal to “justify” Jehovah and is held as exemplary.  And there is Elisha, Elijah’s successor, who called upon God to send two bears to kill children who had dared to mock his bald head.  And there is Esther who is praised for plotting the mass murders of Persians.  And there is Jezebel who trumped up false charges against a father and his two sons so they would be slain.

Sexual misconduct, as long as it is strictly heterosexual, is routinely sniffed over. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, and his two daughters merit no chastising for acts of incest.  The maltreatment of Sarah whom Abraham loaned out to the king for material benefits is brushed over. Isaac, their son, followed dad’s example and passed his wife off to the king as his sister for favors.  Good old David, indulged in adultery and had the husband set up for assassination.  Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, too young to give legal consent, was defiled by her half-brother, prince Shechem.  How do these tales and many other similar holy tales teach anyone how they are to achieve a personal state of grace?

Strangely, impurity is a constant counterpoint played upon in holy tales, but the “impurity” is always about following some man-invented routine of pretentiousness and mannerisms as being the only method that God approves.  The impurity angle is more of a concern in Judaism and Islam, but subliminally it lingers in Christianity also.  This springs primarily from the claim that just being born–expelled from a woman’s body–renders each person impure.  It’s that old “original sin” scam.  It is never explained why, if the Creator is omniscient (all knowing), “he” could not have devised a more practical manner for multiplying new life.  Nonetheless, that little oversight allows for his self-appointed representatives to have steady employment in their self-devised theatrics.  For example, to make up for original impurity some sects insist that one’s hair must be trimmed in a strict prescribed manner, or certain foods must be avoided or prepared in a ritual way, and of course certain theatrics (man-contrived rites, rituals, ceremonies, etc.) must be performed.

Such is the enticement and lure of man-written holy books.  The emphasis is commonly placed upon following some man-devised routine as though it was magically set down in stone and perhaps delivered on some mountain top.  That, however, is not the all-inclusive nature of true spirit.  Rigidity and inflexibility happen to be the conditions of something that is dead.

 

 

Leave a comment »

Holy Machismo!

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, faith, random, religion, scriptures, sex, theology on May 1, 2016 by chouck017894

The three major religions (and their many faith system schisms) of western cultures were all structured by male authors upon a not too subtle animosity toward the active bearing principle (regarded as passive/feminine) which functions within Creation’s source.  This juvenile attitude is inexcusable since that energy-production principle is critically essential for continuing expansion.  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-superior propaganda of man-written sacred texts which has accounted for the bulk of mankind’s wars and atrocities.  Certainly feminine curiosity or womanly wiles or motherly patience have not inflicted such continuing despair and grief upon the world scene as has the fraudulent male-is-superior depictions of holiness.

The holy books of the three major 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, imbibing too much holy wine can certainly inspire guys to invent excuses.  Despite the necessary bearing-forth principle within Creation’s source being characteristically defined as negative by the male authors, that bearing forth aspect was deemed to be feminine and was an affront to priestly pretense of their positive spirituality.  Nonetheless, that womanly strength still manages to somehow keep life’s foundation functioning with some semblance of stability.

The three faith systems of western cultures, all of which are rigorously “run-by-the-book,” grudgingly allow women only partial redemption for their alleged lesser position: women are intended, so say the man-written “revealed” holy word, only to marry and bear their boastful providers with offspring (preferably male).  In this way these three interrelated man-superior faith systems assign the responsibilities and chores of domestic life and child rearing as almost compensating for the feminine genders’ (Eve’s) responsibility of man’s alleged “fall from grace.”

In the priest composed Torah account of Creation, Genesis 2 gives a slightly different account than is in Genesis 1.  In the second version (as in Genesis 2:21-22) the Creator’s concern for Adam’s loneliness seems to have necessitated the surgical removal of some part of Adam’s anatomy to initiate a means of human reproduction.  Apparently by that phase of the Creator’s craftsmanship the Creator 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 (positive/negative energies) exchanges which account for the manifestation of any and all matter-life and inanimate matter.  The generative systems that the alleged male Creator supposedly set in place for the continuance (propagation) of any life species was a built-in feature which specifies only that every manifested material thing automatically carries both those generating polar opposites within themselves.  There are no exceptions to this “go forth and multiply” law of Creation.

That the male authors of “holy texts” were obsessed with their own genitals is clearly evident with the character of Aaron (whose name just happens to mean “to conceive”) in the book of Exodus (chapter 28).  The fascination with their physical generative equipment ranked by the priest authors as their prime paraphernalia, is spelled out in that particular chapter of Exodus.  There the instructions for the curious “sacred garments” which are to be worn for generating their faith system are suggestive, to say the least.  To assess the true meaning of all the peculiarities in holy tales remember that euphemisms are employed repeatedly throughout all scriptural texts.  In Exodus, for example, the “holy” garments that are to be worn by the high priest included such paraphernalia as the ephod, two onyx stones, a pouch of gold, and a breastplate.  There is a side note to be considered here, and that is that the word “sacred” is itself derived from the Hebrew word sacre, which refers to the phallus.  In the “garment” metaphor used in Exodus as to what God’s representatives are to wear, the feminine aspect is something which is entered into or put on, as “golden rings.”  We will leave to your analysis any metaphoric explanation as to what “holy oil” alluded to in this “holy” account.

What the formulated sacred language style reveals to us is that the sacred texts such as in Exodus utilize a lot of adolescent sexual role playing to explain gentic purity–i.e. reproduction after its own species.  If life was originally a condition of hermaphroditism–i.e. two polar aspects in one energy form (Adam) as the opening of “holy word” claims–then each division of that singular form had to keep some characteristics from each energy pole (positive/negative) within each separate parts if creative purpose was to be actively maintained within those 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 personification; there are even more energy-exchange features within every physical form.  Indeed, hormone treatments can alter one’s physical structure.

Because sacred texts do not deal honestly with sexual polarity the practice became established for passing judgments over various kinds of sexual magnetism, and these are grossly and needlessly exhibited in social problems to this day.  The genderless Life Principle (commonly personified as a male God), as demonstrated in Nature itself, cares nothing about sexual chastity: its only concern is genetic purity, meaning that the only limitation that the Life Principle (God) placed upon sexual relationships was only in regard to species consistency.  In other words, each species must create only after its own kind.  Sacred texts refuse to honestly admit that there are allowable variations of sexual polarity and exchange.  The scheming male authors preferred instead to labor over the reproduction aspects of sexual activity–to insure the steady increase of followers.  Willfully ignored and adamantly denied are the equally inherent and important revitalizing and emotional characteristics of sexual expression.  This pretty much assures that the genuine abiding principle of magnetism known as love will be kept focused in the reproduction perspective to insure a continuous supply of seekers.

The Life Principle (called God) gave considerable attention to producing many diverse forms of life expression, and in the priest composed scriptural tales this variety and diversity of Creation activity and diversity of Creation activity is personified as the numerous Levites, the successors of Aaron.  It is, therefore, ironic and a tad hypocritical to make use of such scriptural characters and the alleged situation in which they are presented as a means of launching condemnation of any non-productive sexual activity.  Such characters as Aaron and the Levites, etc. are sacred language metaphors for the revitalizing  (generative) energies of Creation.  If doubtful, just remember the exotic details of the garments that the high priest (Aaron) was supposedly instructed to wear when ministering “in the holy place” (Exodus 28:6).  Listed are the ephod, two onyx stones, a pouch of gold, breastplate, golden rings, and holy oil, all of which refer to the physical means of life creation and revitalization.  Some apologists have suggested that the word “ephod” was derived from the Akkadian word epattu (plural epadatu), which referred to some type of expensive garment.  In the third century BCE modification of holy word, the Septuagint, an attempt was made to whitewash the original sexual inference by altering ephod to suggest a shoulder strap of a tunic; in this way the ephod could be linked with the breastplate of judgment (which happen to act as a pouch containing the Urim and Thummin), Exodus 28:30.  Thus did holy world evolve through a series of deviations and disguises.  Beneath the whitewash of sacred language, however, the titillating flavor remains.  So, the next time you see some pompous Bishop strutting around in his elaborate costumes and balancing that phallic-imaged miter upon his head, try not to snicker.

*related post: Sex in Sacred Disguise, March 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment »

“St” Paul’s Curious Book of Romans

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, history, random, religion, secularism, theology on April 18, 2016 by chouck017894

“Saint” Paul is credited with formulating the language and systematizing of doctrines of Christian theology.  His epistles are claimed to have been written to congregations of the outlying churches he is said to have founded, and these communications dealt with theology, church procedures and discipline.  The uncertain time of his birth, given as “about 3 BCE”, and the alleged time of his death in the coliseum in Rome in 68 CE do not seem to fit snugly within that particular timeframe of all writings attributed to him–especially the book of Romans.

The New Testament book of Romans has an aura of a slightly later period–most likely c. 98-100 CE. But Paul, remember, is said to have died in 68 CE.  The Jesus cult that existed in that later 98-100 timeframe was then being vigorously directed toward regimented practice, and was being cunningly implemented among the poor, slaves, soldiers and misfits.  In the later historic events Marcus Ulpius Trajanus (Trajan) became emperor in 98, and the Jews in Palestine were once again rebelling against the Empire.  The content of the book of Romans does not fit in comfortably with known historic events of c. 60+ CE, but Paul from Corinth is nonetheless credited with the work which was put in place as the sixth text in theoretical chronological order of the Epistles.  The book of Romans is the longest of the “letters” supposedly written by Paul, and is the only one in which no companion or co-author is mentioned.  From this particular text Paul is credited with having formulated the language, doctrinal system and theology which then became the game plan for the Jesus cult after 100 CE.

The promotional line regarding this Christian organizer, doctrinaire and missionary is that Paul, a Jew from Tarsus, was on his way to Damascus in Syria to track down Jews who had abandoned Judaism and turned to the Jesus cult.  On his journey he is depicted as having experienced a remarkable phenomenon–a blinding light vision of the crucified Jesus.  The incident so traumatized him that he became a passionate servant.  This encounter, which had no verifying witnesses, has an eerie similarity to Moses getting God’s message from a burning bush.

The book of Romans is described as being in seven parts, exclusive of the introduction.  The tenor of the first parts is the crafty establishment of intimidation with the theme put forth that the whole world (meaning the Roman world) stands guilty before the Creator God.  Everything which then follows is like a concentrated sales pitch for the faith system that was being completely restructured in that 100 CE timeframe and which spells out the terms for the offer which amounts to little more than a contract for salvation insuranceT

The book of Romans, like the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament, seems jarringly out of place with the general flow of the story line.  Indeed, many who read the NT find themselves wondering about contradiction in Romans in regard to what Jesus is depicted as teaching in the earlier Gospel texts (Mark and Matthew).  Whether this epistle was written in c. 60 or 100 CE, the writer claims that he had never visited the Christian community in Rome although he had long desired to do so.  From chapter one, verse 18 onward, Paul deliberately stirs up fear and, quite unlike the peaceful Jesus of earliest books who he allegedly honored, Paul launches into comments on the “wrath of God”!   The pattern is thereby set in place for passing judgement upon God’s intended diversity of life and Paul then fondles his ego with self-righteousness.  Even stranger, the assertions made in Romans actually contradict much of what is included in other letters attributed to him, such as in Corinthians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Colossians and Ephesians.  Chapter nine, for example, denies free will.  Chapter ten distorts the claim of salvation.  Chapter thirteen actually justifies rulers, even the wicked ones, as being divinely infallible, and as serving as “ministers of God.”   There is an un-Gospel flavor to the book of Romans which carries an audacious power-based inflection that is more in character with Roman Empire ideology.

Remembering the Jewish insurgency during the 98-100 CE timeframe, there is sly warning behind the author’s alleged holy assertions in chapter thirteen of Romans, as mentioned.  Here is what is said:  “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be ordained by God.  2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves  damnation.  3)  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.  Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  4)  For he (implying any ruler, king, etc.) is the minister of God to thee for good.  But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not a sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Keep in mind the Jewish problem to Rome in 98-100 timeframe when reading the rest of this Pauline propaganda.  5) “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.  6) For this cause pay ye tribute also; for they (the rulers) are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.  7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to who tribute is due; custom to who custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

At this point in this empirical-political spiel, anxiety is then craftily directed to the Ten Commandments as though those directives accented the claims just made for honoring the political top dog.  By these verses, which proclaim that “all rulers are ordained by God,” the hellish action of such “rulers” as Attila, Hitler, Anytolya Kamanni, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. can be excused as “ministers of God.”

Strangely, as noted here, the book of Romans presents strong contradictions to the earlier teachings that Jesus was portrayed as teaching, and the book of Romans account is not exactly in “perfect flow and harmony” with other Gospels as it is accepted by naive believers.  For example, condemnation and practiced hatreds was not a message in the earliest Mark-Matthew books of the Christian movement.

Christians of today should give pause to remember that it is an absolute certainty that “St” Paul could never have read what we know as the canonical Gospels.  However, if Paul was indeed a real person, Saul/Paul of Tarsus would likely have been familiar with the Gnostic texts from which the general ideas conveyed in the Gospels originated.  Pagan and Gnostic influences color the whole of Paul’s literary works.  And the “letters” credited to Paul are more properly defined as preachments of the newly manufactured doctrine than defined as actual correspondence.

As with the attraction of the ancient mystery schools which flourished in the earlier and general timeframe of Paul, Paul did not preach of a physical Jesus as being Christ: rather the point of the Pauline approach was in regard to the attainment of Christhood, meaning the deified consciousness which must evolve within each individual.  As Christianity is widely accepted and practiced today, however, such personal attainment is made nearly impossible to achieve.  The inference which lingers in what has become traditional Christian practice is that one’s consciousness can achieve deified status only through delegated representatives (priests, preachers, pastors, ministers, etc).  Rightfully, the purpose of any faith system should be to guide seekers in developing principled qualities throughout each person’s life.  However, that noble goal is not achievable when faith systems are persistently used as discriminatory indulgences for material power plays.  Finding “sin” in everyone else but finding little in yourself makes for easy fertilizer to use in a hierarchical faith system, but it only nourishes such things as ignorance, poverty, egocentric disdain for life diversities, unremitting warfare, etc. etc.  Such is not the avowed “narrow path” into higher consciousness.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment »

« Older Entries