Archive for the sex taboos Category

« Older Entries

A Creator’s Demand For Diversity

Posted in Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, faith, Hebrew scripture, history, politics, random, scriptures, sex, sex taboos, Social, theology, thoughts with tags , , , , , on August 9, 2014 by chouck017894

Man is such an egotistical animal that he believes that he can ignore Nature’s subtle warnings. Perhaps that is because our revered ego-driven, man-written “holy books” happen to assure us that man was given dominion over all life forms on this little planet. Unfortuanately, those ego driven priest authors happened to also believe that this little Earth, which they perceived to be flat, was the center of all Creation. Well, that ain’t exactly an in-depth assessment, and human ego is pretty much a whore.

This admittedly crude appraisal of human egotism and arrogance (and its attendant greed) was goosed by recent reports concerning the dilemma of some ordinary fish. Seem that man’s self-interest has seeped into various streams and rivers (in the Susquehanna, Delaware and Ohio river basins in the United States), which has resulted in turning some fish species into what is delicately termed intersex fish. Gasp! Some of them damn male fish were actually found to be carrying eggs! Well, let’s not start pounding the pulpit just yet. Something very basic is shown here; something which illustrates that everything which exists in Creation is composed of interchangeable polar elements and thus nothing is ever exclusively representative of one energy pole or its opposite.

As for the dilemma of the river fish population referred to, their altered sexual identity reflects the natural interchangeable aspects within the energy pool of all life. The home waters of the fish happen to have been blessed with hormones and hormone-mimicking chemicals which were compounded by man’s arrogance and greed. The waste waters that man dumps into the streams carry estrogenic chemicals (used in agriculture and released in animal wastes), and the internal organs of the fish which regulate the release of hormones are being redirected in the fish bodies.

Those ancient and much revered priest myth makers apparently were never informed by God about hormones or chromosomes or DNA, nor was it revealed to them how the chemistry of the brain actually determines a person’s physical-mental-sexual makeup. Unfortunately even today, two to three thousand years after “revealed word” was set down as sacredly unchallengeable, the blindly faithful ascribe to principles drafted by those unenlightened men and completely ignore what modern science research has truly revealed. For example, research shows that the effects of sex chromosomes and chemical sex hormones do not have an undeviating manner of lining up in accordance to one narrow general anatomical structure as the hateful religious prejudices love to pretend.

Furthermore, anatomist research shows that there are naturally considerable variations in the human brain–in its shape, thalamus, structure of the cerebrum, etc.–which are extremely variable and are as individual as fingerprints. This means that mental and/or sensory properties connected with brain structure may freely align within vastly different ranges, and thus no two persons will ever be exactly the same–including “identical” twins. So, as far as religious approval of racial or sexual expression goes, one size was never intended to fit all. To the horror of religious extremists, that almighty power which is diverse and variable in its workings (shall we say “democratic”), and which is personified as “God,” did not use a cookie cutter technique to fashion every person’s racial, physical or sexual category in life. Those old power-hungry priest-authors were obsessed with ensuring a continuing and expanding herd of followers to provide the priests’ private livelihood, so tolerance of diversity and variety was not lucrative for them. Instead of trying to understand that variety and diversity are the underpinnings of all Creation, they chose to spew endless reams of hatred from their pulpits. Stated in biblical terms, their ignorance runneth over.

Religious fanatics should awaken to the fact that there is a flexible holy code used in the production of all life–the code of the hormonal and chromosomal chemical “design” which decrees great necessity for diversity and variety in human physical, mental and emotional expression. This seems to be problematic only for those who choose to work themselves into melodramatic clamoring over anyone perceived to be too different from themselves due to their taught ego-titillating beliefs. Certainly the endless assortments of life forms which may be observed throughout the entire universe shows that the Creative Principle, commonly personified as “God” for manipulative reasons, holds no grudge or spite over “his” diverse and variable handiwork.

Within these God-allowable differences there is purposely left open the allowance–the tolerance–for all expressions of life and love. The hormone and chromosome chemicals control the total development of the body, brain and intelligence. And these continue to do so in a wide range of ways throughout the duration of each person’s lifetime. Therefore, for political and/or religious factions to pretend that “the Creator” expects only one narrow expression of life or love to be striven for by every individual is not true spiritual understanding, and it is not moral instruction. In fact, such an unyielding stance against life’s intended variety and diversity within Creation amounts to outright sacrilege.

As noted in earlier posts, sexual allusions are intertwined throughout the whole framework of Judeo-Christian scriptures to this day. Words such as sacrament, testament, and seminary, we have seen, are directly traceable to sexual implications. Despite their sly sexual allusions, the old scheming priest-authors and “prophets” who fathered these cults knew precious little regarding the holy secrets of sexual energy, and that ignorance proved to be blissful for them for it allowed them to practice all forms of intolerance in their drive to gain profits and control.

Perhaps the thousands of different man-invented faith systems (over 4000 have been recorded) would do well to remember what research science has also had revealed to researchers through intense study. The brain contributes only two percent of a person’s weight, but it needs and uses twenty percent of the body’s energy. But as religious fanatics and political extemists consistently prove, very little brain is needed for the body to function and bring distress upon everyone around them.

2 Comments »

Saving Souls With Threats of Death

Posted in Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, enlightenment, faith, gay culture, history, politics, religion, sex taboos with tags , , , , , on October 30, 2013 by chouck017894

(Thoughts after attending a screening of a documentary concerning Uganda’s parliamentary consideration of an anti-homosexual bill which would mandate executing alleged “serial offenders.”)

All faith systems promote themselves by promising to lead their followers on the only approved pathway into an eternal Paradise. However, these faith systems can offer no testimonials from the beyond by their satisfied customers, no offer extended of money back if the product is found to be defective, no proof of their high rank as official spokesmen for the King of Heaven—except by their own public image diploma mills. There is next to nothing ever acknowledged by them regarding the great variety and diversity which is the working mechanism of the universe; their ego-gratifying concepts of the Maker does not incorporate the act of inclusion of that variety and diversity which the Maker openly prefers and has always displayed.

This assessment of common faith system sins is prompted by a recently released independent documentary “God Loves Uganda” (limited showing in West Los Angeles, California). The film covers the invasion, may we say, of missionaries from the USA to the African nation of Uganda. The faith system responsible for this sin of spiritual sabotage is the Kansas City-based so-called International House of Prayer, a Pentecostal Christian conglomerate specializing in stirring up hatred in the name of holiness. The missionaries, primarily in their early twenties, are filled with youthful zeal, if not genuine spiritual enlightenment.

The purpose of sending out these young missionaries to Uganda certainly is not in the name of godly tolerance; it is the deliberate misinterpretation of the interrelationship of all life in a selfish pursuit of self-aggrandizement. It is this inappropriate ego titillation, not spiritual enlightenment, which lures the inexperienced young into the army of spiritual misfits under the false claim of being “touched by grace.”

The youthful missionaries take to the street corners (of Kampala, Uganda for example), and there, dressed in dark suits and holding an open copy of holy word, they fervently preach with brainwashed zeal for the governmental murder of persons who are god-instilled with same-sex orientation. This hateful notion that a brutal God has to correct his own alleged mistakes by calling upon the predatory side of man is totally contradictory to the loudly declared assertions that the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator-God is a just and merciful God. The insanity of smothering all morality, ethics and conscience in a vacuum of hatred is made even more frightening by the fact that the Uganda parliament is actually being influenced by this gruesome manipulative propaganda that passes as spiritual shepherding!

There is the probability in their government’s willingness to deliberate over the call for murder of gay individuals is that the politicians are most likely blinded by fear–not especially of any alleged sins of same-sex attraction, but out of concern for the spreading epidemic of HIV, which the evangelicals improperly blamed upon the activities of gay persons. That passion for hatred, drawn from Old Testament savagery such as promoted in Leviticus, provides easy scapegoats for public sacrifice. Stirred into this brew of misinformation is the fact that these same religionists who call for murder of gays had earlier promoted abstinence as the means of deflecting youthful curiosity about sex. The holy hucksters from Kansas City had pontified that abstinence was preferable to God instead of safeguarding young minds through sexual education! Obviously the religionists encouragement of abstinence had not proven to be the holy answer to the HIV epidemic among the populace.

All of this senseless turmoil of cultivated hatred which the Kansas City evangelists trust upon Uganda is made even more hideous by the fact that the demagoguery of the brainwashed missionaries pays off in huge financial rewards for the home base. And these toxic seeds that the missionaries have spread across Uganda have also paid off handsomely in their sponsored mega-churches in that nation.

When will the world learn that the self-serving hypocrites who disguise themselves under holy garb have absolutely nothing to do with genuine spiritual enlightenment?

131 Comments »

It’s All Her Fault

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 Comments »

Denying God-Ordained Diversity

Posted in culture, faith, history, humanity, lifestyle, random, religion, sex, sex taboos with tags , , , , , , on May 13, 2013 by chouck017894

No theocratic form of government in mankind’s history has ever been distinguished by its sterling humanitarian principles.  Indeed theocracies (forms of government conducted under pretext of godly installation) are always viciously self-indulgent in their spiritual decadence.  The god that is imagined in such theocratic manipulation is declared to demand harsh slave-like rigidity in social and sexual conduct: the lavish variety and range of diversity that permeates all Creation is to be disregarded.  In short, such a governing strategy is an imposed short-ciruiting of, and a depressing constriction of the Almighty’s varied and diverse creative expressions.  When man-concocted faith stytems are used to oppress the masses to the point of denying the fact that every being is not and never was intended to be identical, that “faith” is itself merely a contrivance of human ego used by scheming men to rule the masses through a faith system of practiced hatreds.

This assessment of theocratic subterfuge has been evolving with us after ongoing reports concerning the ugly prejudices whipped up by ego-centered faith systems in regard to same sex attraction.  One of the fairly recent deceits of religious hucksters was the appalling intrusion of religious whackos from the United States into Uganda who deliberately urged Ugandan leaders to invent laws–in the name of their religion–for killing gay-born persons.  Not long after that a recorded report on BBC America (September 2012) was forwarded to us which concerned the merciless killings of gays in theocratic Iran.  Same sex attraction, according to an Iranian television  spokesman, is simply a moral disorder, adding that no one is ever born with same sex inclinations.  The government  spokesman further declared that such attraction was mostly an antigovernment “indulgence!”  The third bit of information was forwarded anonymously, a DVD documentary titled A Jihad for Love, which reported on the  vicious persecution of Muslim gays.  In the entrenched theology attributed to Mohammad, such diversity of attraction is judged self-servingly to be an “indulgence,” hence it is interpreted as a defiant act against the theocratic government.  Allah, they theorize, would never allow man, his assumed highest creation in a universe of widely varied and diversely structured universe, to ever veer from a singular physical attraction.   

Mainstream news in our more democratically based western societies generally sidestep any deep attention to the ongoing savage persecution of gays which is encouraged within theocratic cultures.  This shameful avoidance of reporting on murdeous practices being carried out under the guise of godly approval is due to a mistaken interpretation of our freedom of religious expression which is protected by the US Constitution.  The alleged ponderings attributed to the seventh century “prophet” is thus extended the respect which is granted to religious practice in accordance to our democratic principles.  It is a consideration and acceptance that is never extended in a theocracy, however, and is a shining reminder of the wisdom of keeping church and state separate.

According to the Quran (attributed to Mohammad), the people of Lut (referring to Lot in the much older Genesis tale) were allegedly the first to offend God by their recognition of same sex magnetism.  Thus we read in the Quran 7:80-81, “We also sent Lut (Lot): he said to his people: Will you commit abomination such as no people in creation committed before you?  For you practice your lusts on men in preference to women: you are indeed a people transgressing beyond bound.”  This claim made by the seventh century Arab prophet, that same sex attraction did not occur in earlier times, is demonstratively and glaringly untrue.  The Abram/Lot tale is traditionally placed in the timeframe of 2123-1948 BCE, and it is only a subplot which conveniently allows sexual implications (homoeroticism and incest) to be used to stimulate attention of followers.  At variance with the Quran claim (and biblical), pictorial illustrations exist from 6000 BCE by Egyptian artists which attest to same sex attraction.  Even older evidence is shown in 7000 BCE Chinese and Indian depictions.  These ancient representations therefore disprove historically the Quran claim (or biblical implication) that no same sex relations had ever occurred before the time of Lot (Lut).

By custom Islam is also counseled by the Hadith, which is only a collection of sayings which are attributed to Mohammad.  This is curious, for in the earlier times of the Caliphs, not even those who had personally known Mohammad could claim to have written down any authentic quotes.  Nonetheless, Islamic schools of jurisprudence, influenced by those attributed sayings, have been trained to judge same sex attraction as being unnatural and unlawful, and callously recommend brutal execution.

There are also what may be termed lesser Hadith.  For instance, Abu Dawud (also known as sunnah), a collection of alleged sayings and deeds of Mohammad.  These were collected by Iman Abu Dawud around two centuries after Mohammad’s death, so of course they are indisputable.  Used as justification for punishment of death is a quote from this collection (4448): “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.”  (Apparently God does not object to a married man sodimizing his discomforted wife.)  All these lesser Hadiths insist that those who indulge in such acts are to be killed.  The only question that is raised in this pretense of godly justice is over which vicious method the declared offender is to be killed.  (As in Judaism and Christian scriptures, God habitually neglects to explain pertinent details.)

Oddly, although homosexual behavior is held in Islam to be punishable with alleged God-approved execution in this world, there are implied references to such pleasure being available in Paradise.  Not only are virgins to be provided for the martyrs who defend the cause of Allah but also that”…immortal boys will circulate among them, when you see them you will count them as scattered pearls.” (Quran 76:19)  Accented in this view of Paradise is the handsomeness, “perpetual youth” and effeminacy of the youths.

Sexual orientation of a person was not regarded as presenting any horrendous social/spiritual deficiency in numerous ancient cultures, and those close observers of nature would have be puzzled by the feigned prudery over such magnetism which can be observed throughout nature.  Even scriptural texts relate (in a cautious indirect manner) the spiritual implication of male magnetism in the tale of David and Jonathon.  In 1 Samuel, chapters 18 and 20, the commitment that these two men make to each other is not avoided, but is relayed in some detail, saying”: “Jonathan’s soul was bound with David’s, and he loved him as himself…”  In 1 Samuel 18:1-4 it is detailed: “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant…and he (Jonathan) took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his armor, his sword, his bow, and his belt.”  That commitment and devotion to each other is reaffirmed in chanpter 20:4, where they meet for the last time and “…they kissed each other and they wept together.”  In the timeframe when this was supposedly played out, a kiss between men admittedly did not automatically carry sexual meaning, so their “covenant” kiss does not exacly indicate that they were or had been sexually involved.  The strong magnetism to each other is cautiously sidestepped by saying that they loved each other “as brothers,” as equals; in other words, as Adam and Eve were supposed to be.  Brotherly love is a natural bond, but it is rarely expressed as in 1 Samuel as their souls being bound to each other.

All condemnation of same sex attraction by manmade faith systems is founded on one principle and one principle only; and that singular principle is to encourage procreation; and that encouragement is solely for the purpose of extending and multiplying followers of that man-invented faith system.  Thus these faith systems falsely aver that God (the Life Principle) condemns any sex acts which would not result in conception: acts such as masturbation, coitus interruptus, fellatio, sodomy, cunnilingus, pregnancy preventions, contraceptives, abortion and same sex attraction.  And the easiest way to lead people around by the nose is to fire up hatred within followers toward any who do not comply with priestly ambition.  The implausible threats of godly punishment too often (almost habitually) soils the mantle of sanctity. Implanting a hatred for non-breeder sex activity is effective only through a system of propagandist allusions.  In the case of same sex attraction, it is deceitfully implied that such attraction will lead to the extiction of the entire human species!  In today’s world teeming with over eight billion persons, that is a preposterous concept.  It may even be possible that same sex attraction is a God-provided means to protect any species from devastating over population.

Ultimately, the creative Life Principle which is personified as “God” continues to be an all-inclusive power, not a power which is narrowly exclusive.  That creative Life Principle did not create a broad range of life-love expressions and then collapse into divine antagonism.  Nonetheless, the manmade authoritarian faith systems continue to market their restrictive teachings as revealed to them directly from that all-enfolding Creator–a Creator who deteminedly continues to openly display a preference for variety and broadly diverse life expressions.

 

26 Comments »

Overpopulation and Nature’s Regulation

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, biological traits, culture, freethought, gay culture, humanity, life, lifestyle, nature, random, sex, sex taboos, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , on October 26, 2011 by chouck017894

Early in the priest-written book of Genesis 1:28 it is stated, “And God blessed them (a male and female couple not yet named), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over…every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”  By this instruction, sex is established as the means of re-creation (and recreation).  Few persons pause to ponder over the word “replenish,” which implies that there must have been previous similar circumstances.

In our world today, however, it is abundantly clear that man has more than adequately fulfilled that particular “replenish” guideline which the Lord allegedly demanded.  The human species has brutally subdued everything around him, and has been especially industrious in replenishing the Earth.  In fact, the world population today on this little  planet has nearly reached the seven billion mark!  In less than a century, from 1942 when the world population was a mere two billion, breeding has apparently become an obsession.  Despite the unprecedented population explosion, the looming disaster it invites is treated as a taboo subject for the news media.  That head-in-the-sand approach to rampant human “fruitfulness” could lead to ecological catastrophe for the entire world.

Once upon a time as the human species evolved, having  multiple children was valued as a resource for the parents in their declining years.  As man proceeded to assert his “dominion” over “…every living thing that moveth upon the earth,” some of the wiser ones formulated sciences and technologies that contributed toward healthier offspring and protection from diseases: this made heavy breeding unnecessary, even impractical, as a means of self-insurance.

However, leaders of most faith systems have always promoted the priest-composed instruction of subduing the Earth and stressing the replenishing of our species for the simple reason that it assured an increase in their followers.  But the alleged godly suggestion to “replenish” the Earth should never have been considered a license to indulge in extensive production of more than could be properly cared for.  The idea of “replenishing” the Earth for god was advantageous for priestly authority, and this is still utilized by faith merchants as “revealed” religious instruction.  Unfortunately dedication to this sense of limitless “replenishing” also led mankind to indulge in the assumption that to “subdue” meant that exploiting the planet was a divine  right of man, not the counsel to safeguard it.

The present world population is ecologically unsustainable for an extended period of time.  History has repeatedly shown that in periods when human population increased up to sevenfold there followed (god-sent?) disasters of unprecedented food shortages, escalating prices for essentials, etc., which were always followed by civil revolts and deadly riots—even cannibalism.  But still there are those today who willfully ignore history and loudly trumpet that god abhors the use of contraceptives, or that providing sexual information for the avoidance of disease and careless human reproduction is somehow against god’s will!  This irrationality is so pronounced even today that various national leaders have actually advocated childbirth bounties!  (Hitler, for example.)  Apparently the religiously obsessed do not think that god gave man a brain in the expectation that man would use it to assume responsibility for himself and for the world he was advised to “subdue.”

Ironically, even “lower” animals are far smarter than that.  In the wild, when territorial areas become threatened by diminishing supplies, the animals will intuitively limit their breeding.  That is god-installed rationality, which has apparently atrophied in man.  Nonetheless, Nature remains active and vigilant in providing animate life with subtle safeguards, and often Nature’s adjustments, which are indifferently provided, tend to horrify the ego-centered religionists.  Rather than allow human life to self-destruct through brainless over breeding, Nature seems on occasion to amend human DNA to avoid over breeding.  One such adjustment, it could be argued, may be the modification to same-sex attraction.  Indeed, same-sex attraction can be seen throughout all animate nature and has always been present in Nature.  To the horror of those egocentric religionists this indicates that such attraction could be a natural organic safeguard against runaway reproduction which would prove disastrous for all life on the planet.  The chromosome assembly in any species is the means to insure diversity of species characteristics, which also insures ecological balance and benefit.

The idea that same-sex attraction could possibly be a natural built-in precautionary measure taken within DNA sequence may seem farfetched at first thought, but there are some known factors to consider.  Research has shown that changes in a parent’s lifestyle or in the environment, even when only minor or temporary, which occur before or during the reproductive period can cause subtle, even visible changes in the next generation.  The increased emotional tension throughout the modern world certainly contributes to people’s lifestyles in ways that could feasibly alter human sexual magnetism.  That safeguard seems always to be present as a precautionary ingredient in the electromagnetic nature that shapes an animate life form.

Nature, the bearing principle of Creation, retains it own special safeguards.  The genes initiating a new entity are usually hidden from the enzymes by RNA interference, so that the information which the genes ordinarily contain is kept hidden from enzymes.  Subtle changes in DNA structure will occur when the RNA briefly ceases to maintain interference however, and this results in the disappearance of little chemical markers that lock the coil of DNA around  protein complexes of the gene.  The lost marker function opens access to the genes which are then made available to enzymes that can read the gene’s code and use them for protein production.  Only a minor alteration in the code therefore affect the development of the lifeforms which can allow for a rather rapid response to biological and/or environmental conditions when necessary.  If there is any “sin” in variations of sexual magnetism, it is in failing to honor Creation’s laws of diversity.

It has been noted in a previous post (Homosexuality and the Bible, December 2010) that there are only about six or seven brief inferences on same-sex attraction that can be cherry picked out of the entire collection of priest-written “holy word” as implying “sinfulness.”  In comparison there are well over three hundred disapproving verses on heterosexual indulgences to be found.  This suggests that to evaluate a degree of sin quality to someone’s inborn sexual nature is not a particularly rational motive to indulge in prejudice as a devotional practice to honor the Creator.

12 Comments »

Homosexuality and the Bible

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, gay culture, history, humanism, humanity, life, random, religion, sex, sex taboos, thoughts with tags , , , , , on December 12, 2010 by chouck017894

(After reading of an alarming rise in suicides among gay youths badgered by religious ignorance.  Add to this the stupidity of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in military service, as well as the insane attempt to insert legal sanction to murder homosexuals in Uganda.)

One of the things that those who are gorged with holy hatred continually indulge in is to take verses out of context from Bible stories to express disapproval of some circumstance of life that does not measure up to some cultivated judgment they use to gratify their egos.  The alleged “sin” of same-sex attraction is one of their orgiastic fantasies.  To inflame themselves in this pious pornographic flight of the imagined immorality they will, of course, drag out their dog-eared Bible and expound heatedly over three or four favorite inferences.  Totally ignored by the gay-bashers is that there are well over 300 disapproving verses to be found on heterosexual indulgences in comparison.  This raises the issue, which of these “sinners” should we be concentrating on? 

The first example is generally taken from chapter 18 of Genesis, which tells of when the omniscient god was depicted as impatient to obliterate Sodom and Gomorrah.  In that tale we read that two angels who had shape-shifted into human male form are asked by the men of the village of Sodom  to  come out of Lot’s house so the men of the village might know them.  The phrase to “know them” has been deliberately twisted into a sexual connotation, such as the scriptural phrase so-and-so knew his wife.  This twisted concept is seemingly supported in chapter 19:8 for Lot, the story goes, then offered his two virgin daughters to them so the girls might clarify why privacy was necessary for the two visitors, for they bore vital information that concerned only the immediate family.  Remember, the early books of the Bible were not collected into written form until around the seventh century BCE, and sexual interpretation of “to know” can be traced back to a Jewish Midrash designed to inject reprehensible imagery into an otherwise  humdrum address.  That inference was not in the older Hebrew telling.  But invoking a forbidden suggestive image was more attention-grabbing for those who wanted to wrap themselves in an illusion of righteousness.  Careful there: another implication can be drawn from the story—one that alarms the self-righteous fundamentalists—and that implication is that if men are to be rescued from same-sex familiarity, God endorses the giving of virgin daughters for men’s sexual use as a gang-bang distraction technique.

Quickly skipping away from such an unnoticed Genesis inference, those determined upon holy hatred then dive into the book of Leviticus, one of the most hateful and discriminatory compositions ever passed off as “holy writ.”  In the sickness of spirit indulged in that book, which was mandated by priests to priests, it is asserted that it is a sin to eat pork, for example, or to eat water creatures without fins or scales; and leprosy was to be regarded as “unclean,” and that such a skin condition is caused by sin; parents could slay unruly children; and there are presented 28 ways approved to kill victims for any conduct that the priest-author alleged that God found reprehensible.  One has to wonder how the priest-author was privy to all the many “abominations” to which the Lord allegedly expressed aversion.  Surely it couldn’t be priest invented “abomination” because no offspring would be produced for the priests to brainwash?

As for God’s supposed disapproval of same-sex involvement, it is expressed in only one short verse in chapter 18 of the hate filled Leviticus.  The nine words of verse 22 says only, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind…”  If this is such an “abomination” to the Lord, isn’t it peculiar that this commandment expressed in Leviticus was not set forth in the Ten Commandments that were allegedly handed down to Moses?  Or did the omniscient one not foresee such probabilities that could arise from splitting a hermaphrodite into two sexes?  (Genesis 1:27, or especially Genesis 2:21-23)

Finding only such skimpy ammunition for practicing hateful judgment in the Old Testament the fundamentalists will swoop upon the New Testament in their cherry-picking endeavor, landing upon 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is alleged to have been written by the self-proclaimed apostle Paul.  Among the sins that allegedly keep one from attaining membership in Heaven’s country club, there is listed in two verses: 9) “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Vague condemnation, indeed, if “effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind” are to be made to define what constitutes the “sin” of same-sex attraction!  Those characteristics and every other one in Paul’s list can be used to define nearly all fundamentalists.  Most are fornicators; worshiping the man-composed Bible amounts to idolatry; divorced person remarrying are adulterers (according to Luke 16:18); thievery includes using other people’s tax money for private religious indulgence; covetousness includes wanting to impose their demands upon other people’s lives; drinking heavily is far from rare among fundamentalists; reviling others (such as gays) is a religious addict’s standard practice; and extortion or seeking to obtain their way under duress is always the stock-in-trade practice of the religious right.

In desperation the fundamentalists will fall back and cherry-pick the book of Romans, plucking out chapter 1, verses 26 and especially 27 for attack purposes.   Ignored is the fact that the lines carry no authority when compared with the early teachings attributed to Jesus’ ministry.  As with 1 Corinthians, the book of Romans is attributed to the self-appointed apostle Paul.  Again the list covers an abundance of “sins” that seem to apply more to the fundamentalists themselves than does the single vague verse they use to vilify homosexuals.  Indeed, from verse 21 to the last verse, 32, the fundamentalists stand guilty of all the far darker sins.  To them the  first verse of chapter two which follows seems especially applicable: “Therefor thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:  for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

To that truth let us add,  Amen.

Related posts:

  •   Sex Attraction, A Bogus Spiritual Dilemma, Oct. 2009
  •   Victimizing Gays is to Mock Jesus, Oct. 2009
  • * God Didn’t Mention Chromosomes, May 2010 *

6 Comments »

Sin of Onan, Respecting Ethics (sort of)

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, culture, faith, freethought, life, random, religion, sex, sex taboos, thoughts with tags , , , , on October 26, 2010 by chouck017894

In the Genesis tale of Joseph, the plot is interrupted with the subplot regarding Onan, a son by Joseph’s half-brother Judah by a Canaanite woman named Shuah (Genesis 38:2).  Shuah had already borne another son by Judah, and that firstborn son was named Er; and she would bear a third son named Shelah.  This typical “begatting” was cut short in this storytelling, and by verse seven the son Er was found to be “…wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him.” 

The theory of primordial man, according to the priest authors of biblical tales, was that every woman must be made pregnant.  But when Er died from God’s alleged displeasure, he had not yet sired any offspring.  This was propagandized as an almost shameful situation.  One must alway increase the herd, so to speak, if you wish to achieve wealth and authority in the world.  Thus, since Er died without progeny, Judah charged his second-born son, Onan, with the duty of impregnating Er’s wife, Tamar, so that Onan’s seed might be raised up to represent Er. 

Like most biblical characters, ethics was not a strong point with Onan, but he did not see that impregnating his brother’s wife was a particularly wise ambition.  But Tamar was attractive, and his big brother was dead, so he did take advantage of the opportunity.  Only at the orgasmic moments Onan”…spilled his seed on the ground.”  For this alleged “sin,” Onan is alleged to have been put to death (Genesis 38:6-10).

Here we are allowed to see how interpretation by Bible fanatics can so often go absurdly astray.  Although this myth says that Onan did cohabit with Tamar, his alleged “sin” was that he simply avoided impregnating his sister-in-law.  So the priest-authors say that God killed him for this!  To compound the absurdity of the alleged “sin,” Onan’s method of avoidance of impregnating his sister-in-law, coitus interruptus, came to give  rise to the term “onanism,” and half-baked Bible enthusiasts then chose to believe the word was a synonym for masturbation.  To this day these Genesis verses are pointed to by fundamentalists as indicating heavenly condemnation of autoeroticism.

Missing the point is a fundamentalist’s habitual means of carrying on a tirade.  In the erroneous interpretation of  “onanism” as signifying masturbation, the main point of the priest-author’s tale is disregarded, for, to the distress of the fanatics, Onan’s alleged “sin” was not sexual.  Onan was punished for being deceptive: he dared to refuse to fulfill the obligation of levirate marriage, meaning impregnating his dead brother’s wife to ensure the continuation of his brother’s family line for the purpose of inheritance.  This primitive tribal mode of reasoning, levirate marriage, is also addressed in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and in Ruth 4.

The average interpreter of biblical texts does not understand that the Bible’s theme is Creation.  When recognizing this theme, the character of Onan properly personifies what may be termed the genetic principle active in life, thus he can also be said to represent the Creator.  Onan therefore refused to crossbreed, which is in agreement with the earlier Genesis command that every living thing was to bring forth after his own kind—not after his brother’s  kind.  And yet, by priest-author interpretation, “God slew him…” for following genetic purity!  The rest of chapter 38 expands upon this contorted version of the genetic process in a spicy episode of having Tamar play the harlot in order to lure her father-in-law, Judah, into misconduct and thus conceive an heir by him.  By her act, Tamar was, by tribal law, supposed to be burned alive for playing the harlot.  Of course when Judah found out that he himself was the one who had impregnated his daughter-in-law, he said that she had been more righteous than he!  The story is left to hang there, telling only that Tamar bore twins, and readers are left to wonder why those in authority are allowed to sidestep responsibility imposed upon others.  No wonder the fundamentalists and those who seek to make the Bible the model for government claim such abiding love for this book.

2 Comments »

God Didn’t Mention Chromosomes

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, gay culture, humanity, life, random, religion, science, sex, sex taboos, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on May 3, 2010 by chouck017894

Love is the alleged message of Christian  faith—but the “holy” twist that pulpit charlatans put upon that message is only if that love is breeder-friendly.  The bewilderment of why god would discriminate against any commitment of love was brought back into question by an elderly Asian man who was soliciting signatures and donations at a market entrance for the drive to reestablish California state’s earlier approval of gay marriages. 1   As a father of a son and daughter, both hetero, his prime concern was over the calloused inequality practiced in the name of spiritual truth—a sense of inequality that had been imposed upon California voters by the Utah-based Mormon church’s intrusion into other peoples’ affairs through a devious $42 million ad campaign.  Interest in other people’s sexual attraction—which is nothing more than voyeurism and autoeroticism—should not be mistaken as a launch pad into God’s good graces. 

Previous posts here, such as Sex in Sacred Disguise (March 2009), pondered over how sexual allusions are intertwined throughout the whole framework of Judeo-Christian religious literature.  Words such as sacrament, testament, and seminary, we have seen, are directly traceable to sexual implication. 2  But despite such sexual allusions, the old priests and “prophets” who fathered these cults knew precious little regarding the holy secrets that set life in motion—those active principles which approve and insure the great diversity in life expressions.  That non-revealed process of life’s means composition proved blissful for the cult founders, for it allowed them the freedom to practice all forms of sexual intolerance.

Those much revered priest-mythmakers, for example, had not been informed by God about  how chromosomes and the chemistry of the brain determine the development of a person’s physical and sexual makeup. Unfortunately, even today the blindly faithful choose to accept principles set down long ago by those unenlightened men and completely ignore what science research has revealed concerning human development.  For example, the effects of sex chromosomes and the chemical sex hormones do NOT have an undeviating  manner of lining up according to one’s general anatomical features as religious prejudices have taught us to believe. 

Furthermore, anatomists know that there are considerable variations in the human brain—its shape, thalamus, structure of the cerebrum, etc.—that are extremely variable and are as individual as one’s fingerprints.  This means that mental and/or sensory properties connected within the brain structure may align within vastly diverse ranges, and no two persons will ever be exactly the same.  Obviously individuals are not meant to be identical in their life expressions.  So, as far as religious approval of human sexual expression goes, one size does not fit all.

Within these God-allowable differences there is left open the allowance for every diverse expression of life and love.  The chromosomes are what chemically controls the total development of the body, brain and intelligence.  These do so in a vast range of ways throughout each person’s lifetime.  Therefore, for political or religious faction to pretend that the “Creator” expects only one narrow expression of life or love to be striven for by all individuals is to be appallingly self-indulgent.  Even worse, such an unyielding attitude amounts to sacrilege. 

Hard-line, ego-driven religionists refuse to even consider the holy code used in production of all  life forms—the code of chromosomal and chemical “design” that decrees that there must be great diversity in human physical, mental and emotional expression.  Only in great diversity of life can the omniscient creative power be fully served.  This seems to be problematic only for those who choose to work themselves into histrionics over the fact that all life expressions mirror the power that gives forth all life.

Perhaps the great body of self-indulgence that is religion would do well to remember what science has also shown: The brain needs considerable amount of body to function in muscular circumstances, but very little brain is necessary for the body to corrode into corruption.

  • 1  Related post: Victimizing Gays is to Mock Jesus, October 2009
  • 2  Related post: Dressed for Sex, September 2009

1 Comment »

Victimizing Gays is to Mock Jesus

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, humanity, life, logic, random, religion, sex, sex taboos, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , on October 26, 2009 by chouck017894

There are attitudes of religion, and an attitude, we should remember, is not a given truth, it is simply an affectation of cultured disposition.  This assessment was spawned by the recent news that opposition to same-sex marriage had been whipped up in the state of Maine by the very same bigots that managed to pervert equal justice in the state of California.  Behind the scenes those Christian groups claiming to hold exclusive access to Heaven’s discrimination list were, by their practiced intolerance, mocking the teachings of the one they claim as their savior.  In their self-absorbed practice they intentionally subvert the early teachings credited to Jesus in the New Testament of love one another and have canonized prejudice instead.  Jesus’ words of love and tolerance simply are not good enough for them!

There is, of course, extreme hypocrisy in their attitude.  This is most glaringly apparent in those known collectively as the Religious Right or Fundamentalists who love to pick and choose Bible verses out of context to stir up hatreds.  For some unexplainable reason they seem to believe that their sins will be  forgiven by God’s grace, but that some other persons who by circumstance of their “intelligent design” chromosomal makeup are inclined to same-sex attraction are held to be rejected by their designer.  In spite of the man-written Bible verses of God’s supposed “laws,” the chromosomal arrangement of a person cannot truthfully be said to run counter to those “laws,” nor is the resultant lifestyle of those persons merely their “choice” to live rebelliously.

Perhaps we should note that research on marriage has shown that around fifty percent of those who subscribe to the religious right happen to be divorced and have remarried.  And of that category over eighty-five percent of those who divorced have remarried.  According to the man-composed book of Luke 16:18, “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”   In other words, those using the Bible as a weapon have themselves chosen a sinful lifestyle according to that interpretation of spiritual worthiness.  So the right-wingers choose to indulge in hypocrisy to gratify their ego but demand that gays must turn from their “sinful” lifestyle.  It is much more blessed in their opinion to “go forth and multiply” and contribute to world overpopulation.

The earlier NT account of the teacher (as given in Mark and Matthew) that became restructured into corporate religionism said this: “Judge not, that you be judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” (Matthew 7:1-2)

Shouldn’t the devotees of “my way only” religionism explain just how homosexuality is a greater “sin” than the unholy adultery indulged in through divorce?  How are gays such a threat to “family values” or a menace to children?  Very few homosexuals are actually pedophiles, except maybe in the church.  Since the bulk of those who divorce remarry, the result is that over fifty percent of the children in the nation are victims of torn-apart families and endure the trauma of having to merge with strangers as “family.”  Add to this that step-parents are too often the culprits in a high percent of child abuse cases.  That is a lot of abuse, and it is not due to gays in society.

Attacking a small percentage of society to cover up their  own transgressions is an appalling way to demonstrate an alleged faith in higher wisdom.  Making war on a minority segment of society that simply loves their own does nothing constructively for society.  Slogans such as we love the sinner but hate the sin” is nothing more than empty, pompous rhetoric.  As Einstein observed, “You cannot simultaneously say you love someone and use your power against them.”  And why do the right-wingers consistently ignore the famous quote attributed to Jesus: “Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone”?  To indulge in the attempt to rationalize their own sins away while spouting hatred for other lifestyles “in god’s name,” the Right Wing and Fundamentalists choose to mock the one they claim as their savior.

It is written in Mark 12:31 that Jesus said, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.  There is no greater commandment.”  Not only are a percentage of neighbors probably homosexually inclined, but so too it is likely that one or two are in your immediate family as well.

1 Comment »

Sex Attraction, A Bogus “Spiritual” Dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Comments »

« Older Entries