Archive for the religion Category

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.

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.

 

 

 

Black Holes of Religous Practices

Posted in Atheist, belief, biblical "values", black holes, environment, faith, Fundamentalism, religion, thoughts on September 17, 2016 by chouck017894

Around 2007 theoretical physicists discovered that gravitational waves were connected to black holes, those massive deep throat, light-swallowing areas which are scattered throughout the universe.  The “holes,” the theory goes, are the result of cores of massive stars that have imploded and collapsed in upon themselves.  The immense gravity at the core of these space objects, the theory suggests, siphon into them all the existing energy-as-matter that happens to be unlucky enough to have lolled around the former massive star.  Strangely, that hole of collapsing energy and the vast gravitational field which results may present a relatively calm appearance to the region that we see surrounding it.  Indeed, any random fluctuations against the gravitational core may be barely registered from our perspective.  And it is this deceptive tranquil appearance that can be compared to man-invented religions.

Consider: In a very real sense human contrived faith systems can be said to imitate the same process that is theorized in astrophysics as black hole activity.  The core around which human consciousness may become ill-fatedly propelled is but the canonized speculations which have collapsed in upon themselves to become active as the identity crushing whirl of religious fundamentalism.  The gravitational pull of these imploding belief cores upon human consciousness then becomes so relentless and so crushingly magnetic that the mass, spin and other essentials necessary for life-sustaining rationalism are obliterated.  Muslim jihads of today are a prime example.  Any random fluctuations of rationality that might survive in the fringe of spiritual implosion then become barely perceptible.

The greatest error in all man-made organized religions is the allegiance given by them to an interpretation of warring opposites.  Building spiritual understanding by using that as its foundation guarantees only the life experiences of physical, emotional and spiritual un-fulfillment and senseless conflicts.  The reason for this is that by adoring one polar energy point of Creation’s generative force while berating the other necessary polar aspect as evil is to practice spiritual schizophrenia.  The whole imagined god/devil, heaven/hell, chosen/rejected, saved/lost, etc. is rendered meaningless simply because neither interactive pole can possibly create without the other generative pole to project effects.  All of man’s by-the-book faith systems exploit the emotions of love/hate but fail to realize that these are not true opposites, for those emotions arise from the same energy center but are projected differently much like light passing through a prism.  The only thing truly opposite to either love or hate would be indifference.  By personifying the generative polar fields within the creative Source as two individual human-like beings, as faith systems habitually do, the practice that is thus erroneously sanctified is the denial of One Absolute Source.

The concept that is promoted by theological musings is that a rivalry exists within the primordial conditions of Source, with one generative polar aspect personified as “God” and the other necessary polar aspect personified as the “devil” or “Satan.”  To do so is to misunderstand Creation’s singularity.  By this alleged “revealed” wisdom the scheming human authors declared these interactive dual components of Creation’s power were separate, incompatible and not connected in creative purpose.  By such counseling man-invented faith systems then led the masses not into enlightenment but deeper into the illusion of Creation’s energies as matter–the very condition the faith systems rail against.  When this was accepted by human imagination to be holy truth, these symbols then became adopted for use in Satanism, magic, witchcraft and similar rebellious rites by those who instinctively distrusted the tyranny of man-invented faith systems.  But their attempt to seek higher power by reversing religious rites and rituals inadvertently implied the credibility of those symbols, rites and tenets that the faith systems honored.

Man-made faith systems have, through their doctrines of either/or, lost sight of how Creation creates and thus carelessly muddied the purpose of life to benefit their corporate style faith system.  Their claims of monotheism thus rest precariously upon a theology of dualism.  In these faith systems everything is portrayed and defined as good or evil,  light or dark, saved or lost, angelic or devil-like.  But Creation does not create anything as some purposeless lump with no flexibility; all energy-forms are necessarily a blend of both polar charges. As contrary as this may seem, this makes for unity through contrast, for there can be no light without dark, no up without down, no front without back, for example.  Each energy illusion (matter form) is but a transitory aspect of Creation’s unity.  This means that the Source out of which all Creation expresses itself cannot be some good only “God” that is rhapsodized in man-fashioned faith systems, for darkness or negative events which they term evil cannot have issued from a different Source.  Therefore to pray to this amoral (meaning neither moral or immoral) turbulent seat of Creation as some benevolent deity-being is but a practice of frustration, for Creation’s turbulent potentiality is not the evolutionary pinnacle of wisdom.

Oddly, these same self-serving faith systems tell us not to be deceived by material appearances, yet they are all busy gathering unto themselves as much material baggage and power advantages as possible.  And inexplicably the feminine gender (through which life becomes manifest) is evaluated by male dominated faith systems as not being worthy to represent their imagined macho God.  How do these men then account for the feminine aspects that are submerged with their own physical being?  Science has revealed that each person carries within their physical being the hormones of the opposite sex.  Therefore no man can ever be 100% male, and no woman can be 100% female.  And since this is true how can these man-contrived faith systems teach that “God abhors” same gender attraction?

With man-contrived faith systems devoted mainly to pretense and theatrics as guidance, the lure of human adherents to the faith amounts to little more than that faith system’s fiscal assets.  In this manner the “sheep” are kept benumbed and focused on materiality.  Feeling righteous with such holy guidance is it any wonder that the devotees feel no sin in mercilessly plundering and despoiling planet Earth for their material pleasures?  The faithful fail to see that they drift in the currents around a black hole.

 

Rise of Holy Agitators (in USA)

Posted in Atheist, belief, biblical "values", Christianity, Fundamentalism, politics, religion, Social, theology on September 1, 2016 by chouck017894

In the early 1950’s in the USA television was a new craze.  Quick to note the craze some enterprising guys still clutching their freshly printed Bible studies diplomas sought to serve the Lord by preaching their revealed word using that promising medium.  The Lord seems to have been well pleased.  For example, by May of 1985 the evangelical marketer Pat Robertson was even being featured in a cable magazine called On Cable.  Filled with boundless self-righteousness and vanity Robertson declared that he sought to remake America into a “biblically based Nation”  .His fiery right-wing politics was characterized by him as “conservative, religious, and a biblical point of view.”  He did’t mention that the authors of those biblical views had written their point of view in the Bronze Age.  Blissfully unconcerned, Robertson latched onto their point of view and it was so slickly packaged that by 1985 his organizational effort was siphoning in more that $70 million a year from bedazzled followers.

The long-standing Constitutional ideals and values placed upon diversity, variety and plurality by the American people were regarded by Robertson as being “extreme dangers” to a secular state.  Respecting the rights of minorities was being threatened in his lofty view of how a “biblically based nation” was supposed to be run.  Robertson pontificated that children in public schools were being taught “a collective philosophy that would lead citizens away from God toward Marxism, socialism, or a communistic type of ideology.”  Oh he was talented at scaring  the be-Jesus out of the gullible.  In his humble opinion, therefore, he found it logical to denounce the Department of Education as being “unconstitutional.

Not shy about telling the nation what God wanted for it, Robertson asserted that the United States Supreme Court had departed from history and the constitution.  He reasoned and worried publicly about the “encroachment” of the judiciary.  they just didn’t seem favorable to the idea of a  theocracy.  Thus Robertson charted course to “engage” in what he termed “advocacy journalism,” and his Christian Broadcast Network news teams began spewing out reams of propagandist mini-documentaries with heavy “conservative” (read theocratic) messages.  (He must have been delighted some years later when the Supreme Court became composed with five of the nine Justices being Republican and staunch Catholics. And it was a Republican dominated Supreme Court that would later tell the nation that our redeeming leader was to be the Born Again George W. Bush.  Hallelujah!)

Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network news teams were headed by a man who was once editor of The Washington Times, which just happened at that time to be owned by the “Reverend” Sun Myung.  This strange bedfellow happened to be loaded down with questionable North Korean connections.  Not to fear.  The “born again” population, Robertson averred, was seriously under-represented in our national government.  Posing as a caring messenger, he declared, “The basic thing people do not understand is that evangelicals in America are not plotting to take away the rights of everyone else.”  (Trying to eliminate the Department  of Education would therfore simply be a god-inspired money saving move.)

Robertson worked hard at presenting himself as the modern age version of a biblical prophet.  For sure the biblical prophets had dared to mix it up with politics–which was always in regard to a very select group of people.  True to form, Robertson declared, “God is going to thrust his people (meaning fundamentalists) into positions they never dreamed they were capable of taking on.”  (George W. Bush & Company certainly did seem to fulfill that prediction.)  If the heavy tilt of religiously obsessed persons in governmental positions today is any indication, and if their corruption of true democratic principles is an example of a “biblical based nation”, can we  truthfully say that their sly take over of the Republican Party in 1996 was “fairly benign”?

Well, today, several decades later, Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network and Regent University is pulling in over $400 million a year peddling the same old far-right political propaganda and implications of heaven’s special favoritism.  But his empire is upstaged now by an old rival from the same earlier era which is now marketed as the Jerry Falwell Ministries/Liberty Counsel/Liberty University.  That deceptive use of the word “liberty” is to sabotage the US Constitutional safeguard of church-state separation–the guarantee of religious freedom (liberty) for everyone.  Peddling this anti-democratic baloney the Falwell empire today rakes in over $600 million a year.

Amazingly there are other claimers of God’s especial favors who wage war on every person’s freedom to worship as they choose–all of which rakes in multimillions a year for being staunchly un-American and pro theocratic.  Take the so-called Focus on the Family that has the gall to endorse.Right Wing political candidates; it is lucrative and nets the Dobson “family” over $92 million a year.  And there is the so-called Family Research Council (an off-shoot of Focus on the Family) that holds an annual “Value Voter Summit” and draws in over $14 million for their un-American stance.  And there is the American Family Association that is against about everything that grants civil freedoms.  The Reverend Donald Wildman who heads this “Association” boldly proclaims that separation of church and state was invented by Hitler, no less.  Duh!  For that heavenly enlightenment his anti-Constitution bias nets over $17 million.

Other grandiose named outfits include American Center of Law and Justice/Christian Advocated Serving Evangelism.  That imposing mouthful defines the purpose, which is to force–force–fundamentalist beliefs into all public schools.  Allied with the Pat Robertson empire in spirit and money-love it pulls in over $57 million a year.  Justice is again implied with the so-called Alliance Defending Freedom, but the only Council for National Policy aimed for is to allow them to axe the federal law which bars tax-exempt churches from actively intervening in partisan elections.  God, it seems favors that antidemocratic stance to the tune of over $47 million a year.

Ahh, but there are even more would-be religious oppressors out there.  It is all strictly spiritual guidance, of course.  Take the bewildering Concerned Women for America (affiliated with the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee) which indulges in heavy prejudices against the Creator’s intentionally wide-ranged diversities of life.  This anti-feminist lobby was founded by Beverly (!) and Tim LaHaye, who (in 2015) raked in over $14 million for their discriminatory activities.  Not content with that, Tim LaHaye also headed up the Council for National Policy which presumes to evaluate prospective GOP candidates.  This membership-only outfit drew only a little more than $2 million.  Still another agitator operation is Ralph Reed’s Foundation and Freedom Coalition whose primary purpose for existence is to attract more fundamentalists to vote.  Their holy reward—over $3 million per year.

Oddly, these material obsessed, self-appointed faith merchants seem to have little appreciation for what Jesus is alleged to have preached.  .For example, in Matthew 6;5 (King James version–among the many translations): “And when you pray do not be like the hypocrites for they pray standing…so that they may be seen of men.  They (in that manner) have their reward.”   And in Matthew 7:1-3 (KJ): “Judge not, that ye be judged.  For with what judgment ye judged and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.”

Perhaps those faith merchants of fundamentalism should get their greedy noses out of their elaborately constructed feeding troughs and actually follow the teachings they claim to epitomize.

 

 

Creation Truths vs. Religious Myths

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, days of Creation, faith, Hebrew scripture, logic, prehistory, religion, scriptures, theology on August 13, 2016 by chouck017894

The principal theme of literature that is distributed as sacred writ throughout the world is commonly in regard to the origin and interactions of energies which we perceive as the universe.  In the study of “holy” myths there is commonly a distinction made between Creation myths (elemental cosmology) and myths of origins, which focus more on the later evolved features within Creation such as animals, humans, social orders, etc.

Study of the origin of anything is properly only a continuation of Creation’s activity which marks the progress of the original creative energy outpouring.  And this continuation of Creation activity accounts for the progressive arrangement of scriptural myth presentations.  The mythic style is useful for instructing minds which are not fully capable of grasping the theoretical complexity and multidimensional characteristics which we speak of as Creation.  The technique of myth-telling and the use of sacred language was originally the attempt to bridge the abyss of comprehension by personifying creative energy dimensions and their involvement as being characteristics of god, demigods, heroes, and/or divinely favored mortal beings.

The tragedy of this means of instruction is that the original scientific understanding behind the stories easily became sidetracked and the accounts then became accepted as authentic reporting.  Even more dangerous for those whom the myths were invented to aid them comprehend primal energy actions, the stories were restructured as having been actual historic ancestors.  Once the bogus “history” technique for teaching became the standard our role within Creation became trapped in the dark theological maze that has no off-ramp by which one could return to rationality.

Creationists, those Bible-thumping fanatics incapable of abstract thought who insist that Creation took place literally in six 24 hour Earth-time days, remain oblivious to  pertinent clues provided within the tale itself.  The clues reveal that the Genesis version of Creation was based upon an older and broader understanding of the true involution/evolutionary development of primal energies-into-matter.  There is a telling peculiarity in the writing style of the Genesis account of Creation which is consistently disregarded by Creationist fanatics concerning the measurement method of those “days” of Creation.  It is perhaps too subtle for those incapable of abstract thought.  By verse 5 of the first chapter of Genesis, immediately after God created light, the account declares: “And God called the (initial) radiance Day, and the darkness (primal energy conditions) Night.  And the evening and the  morning were the first Day.”  Interestingly Day is emphasized by a capital D, and Night is similarly stressed with a capital N, and the emphasis is for a reason.

In man’s standard time measurement practice, a solar-centered day is not reasonably calculated or defined as being “the evening and the morning.”  Nonetheless, the “holy word” extremists happily ignore the fact that in the priest written sacred account Earth was not even conjured up until verse 10; so the first “Day” obviously is not supposed to be calculated from how our puny little planet would measure time.  This is the complex reckoning by which each “Day” of Creation is erroneously interpreted in scriptural terms, however.  Creation of the “firmament” is the subject in verse 6 (the second Day) and is accentuated by the division of “waters” within which. scientifically speaking, creative energies involve with specific frequencies.  Then in verse 8 the “firmament” itself was allegedly labeled “Heaven” by God.  With the establishment of the “firmament,” verse 8 sums it up, and again “…the evening and the morning were the second Day.”  The account is worded in this manner in an anxious attempt to convey to non-technical minds the understanding that everything that was/is made manifest out of a void (primordial or virginal) condition.

Creation’s primal energy dimensions of what we may here term quantum activity are not involvements of Creations’s energies that can be assessed in terms of solar-reckoned days. This period of Creation activity, defined in scriptures as “Days,” is often circumvented by literal minded faith merchants by referring to the immeasurable time of Creation activity as “days of the Lord.”  That elusive attempt to sidestep explanation of the immense progressive phases of Creation’s energy involvements and expansion into defined forms necessitated the familiar day/night sequence they personally experience.  Thus the Days of Creation–or each primordial energy dimension of involvement (or involution)–which progresses out of a virginal void–was  conveyed in allegorical style and presented as “holy word.”

But what did the priest-authors mean in verse 8 by a “firmament” being established?  The Hebrew word which is translated as “firmament” is rakia, which actually means a vast expanse–or what we think of as space.  The word “firmament” is traceable back to the Latin word firmare, which happened to mean something that supported or strengthened something (from Latin firmus, “firm”).  And thus was holy word rendered into a stew pot of mismatched ingredients.

The priest authors of “holy word” were intent upon obtaining and maintaining their control over the tribal setup (Hebrew) and in order to this they had to mask what they did not know. Thus did they assert that a strangely human-like God labored six days over Creation.  This has served western cultures as “holy revelation” for around three thousand years, during which many bright youngsters have innocently asked, “But where did God come from?” The common response to that childish rationality has been, “We must never question God.”  Unfortunately, by adulthood too many formerly bright kids have been thoroughly brainwashed and their inclinations to question such things are directed to the No-No list.  And the trusting believers now committed to the literal presentation of “holy word” are understandably traumatized when their taught assumptions are challenged by archaeological research that uncovers evidence of a totally different picture of true history.

 

 

Belief in Godly Favoritism

Posted in Abraham, Atheist, belief, Bible, Easter, faith, Passover, religion, scriptures, theology, Zodiac on August 1, 2016 by chouck017894

The Jewish festival of Passover and the Christian observance of Easter occur in the same general timeframe each year following the vernal equinox.  Neither of these self-focused faith systems extend any recognition to the obvious seasonal transition that dominates  the Northern Hemisphere of our planet in its orbital movement.  Instead, each faith system has fashioned self-serving myths to present the illusion that they hold exclusive position with the Creator-God.

For Judaism, the seasonal changes are disguised and celebrated for eight days, allegedly in honor of the Israelites escape from Egypt. In encyclopedic and most reference material the explanation of Passover will say the festival commemorates the escape of the Jews from Egypt under the leadership of Moses.  In the timeframe in which the Moses saga is traditionally placed, c. 1576 BCE, Judaism as a ritualistic faith system certainly did not yet exist; indeed, Jews as followers of a ritualistic faith system are not even referred to in scriptural tales until 2 Kings (12:26).  Interestingly, that first mention of a Jew is not even favorable (the implied insolence).  Nonetheless, in typical revisionist fashion it has become common practice to use the words Israelite, Hebrew and Jew as meaning the same thing, which is intentionally and tragically misleading.

Originally the priest-authors writing the alleged “history” of their nomadic forebears cast them as “Israelites,” implying the descendants of an alleged historical patriarch named Jacob who, for no clearly defined reason, had his named changed to Israel by God.  This, however, is a heavily mythologized version anchored in ancient teachings once illustrated with imagined figures outlined upon different constellations.  Jacob characterizes the Life Principle within which self-aware consciousness becomes activated as a matter-life form out of primal energies.  Hence the name change.  Therefore, the use of the word Israelite is always in reference to the primal energies out of which life is made manifest.  As such the story character of Jacob/Israel actually represents the “forebear” of all self-aware life forms, not just some “chosen” group of faith system believers.

In older reference books the habit of lumping Israelite, Hebrew and Jew as one-and-the-same allowed for the implication that Hebrews appeared more or less out of nowhere.  In actuality they seem to have emerged out of the polytheistic Semite people who probably originated in the northeastern regions, and who became widely scattered due to their searches for grazing lands for their herds and flocks.  And Judaism, as such, arose as a splinter sect among those polytheistic tribes people, and the fact is that one of the tribal gods, Yahweh, whose division settled around Jerusalem, was never the sole god of all the Hebrew people–a fact that is now disregarded.

Even before the priests of Yahweh, in Jerusalem c. 9th-8th century BCE, set the time for observance of Passover, the ancient Egyptians and Persians (to name a few) had celebrated the same equinox period with a sacred feast.  This was prepared prior to the occurrence of the full moon at the spring equinox.  In Egypt, on the 14th day of that moon phase, the nation joyfully celebrated the Dominion of the Ram, the sign of Aries.  This same general time of the full moon in Aries associated with the Vernal Equinox is now celebrated in Jewish adaptation as Passover (and in Christian lore as Easter–so-named after a Pagan goddess of Spring).  Aries became symbolized as the “Pascal Lamb” that is slain and eaten in recognition of the mythical Passover story.

From the ancient lessons once given with constellation Aries, there arose the sacred interpretation of the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” and this became personified as Jesus in the Christian faith system.  It is from this dimension of creative primal energy involvement that energy-as-life is “redeemed” through transition of this dimension of energy to be, in effect, “resurrected” (evolved) as a more refined energy form.  Jesus thus personifies the Life Principle that is within all matter forms, and he is thus acknowledged as Angus Dei, Latin meaning Lamb of God.

The worldwide use in prehistoric times of the Ram/Lamb as a symbol of sacrifice comes directly from ancient lessons once given with what we now refer to as the zodiac, which actually taught scientific principles of creative energies being readied to begin manifestation into matter life (the real reason for Jacob’s name change).  This understanding was widely understood in more ancient times, and even into late BCE times in a few areas.  Certainly Confucius (about 551-479 BCE), who spoke of this Ram/Lamb sacrifice was not thinking of an alleged ram sent to any foreign person named Jacob as a sacrifice substitute for his son Isaac.  Nor could he have been referring to some future sacrifice of a Jew named Jesus in Roman Empire times.  Confucius’ assertions came from understanding the ancient lessons with constellation Aries which taught scientific principles of where creative primal energies are bound into a prototyptic form which commits it to its manifestation as an energy-matter life form.

 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

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