Archive for the sex Category

« Older Entries

Holy Machismo!

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

The three major religions (and their many faith system schisms) of western cultures were all structured by male authors upon a not too subtle animosity toward the active bearing principle (regarded as passive/feminine) which functions within Creation’s source.  This juvenile attitude is inexcusable since that energy-production principle is critically essential for continuing expansion.  It is also rather cowardly rhetoric for male “shepherds of the faith” to apply the “put the blame on woman” argument in an attempt to absolve themselves from all the error and sin in the world.  Such rationale and finger pointing fails to camouflage the fact that it is the man-is-superior propaganda of man-written sacred texts which has accounted for the bulk of mankind’s wars and atrocities.  Certainly feminine curiosity or womanly wiles or motherly patience have not inflicted such continuing despair and grief upon the world scene as has the fraudulent male-is-superior depictions of holiness.

The holy books of the three major western faith systems–the Torah, New Testament and Quran–inelegantly place the alleged curse of “man’s fall” and “original sin” upon the slender shoulders of the feminine sex with the astonishing alibi of a  talking serpent!  Well, imbibing too much holy wine can certainly inspire guys to invent excuses.  Despite the necessary bearing-forth principle within Creation’s source being characteristically defined as negative by the male authors, that bearing forth aspect was deemed to be feminine and was an affront to priestly pretense of their positive spirituality.  Nonetheless, that womanly strength still manages to somehow keep life’s foundation functioning with some semblance of stability.

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

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

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

What the formulated sacred language style reveals to us is that the sacred texts such as in Exodus utilize a lot of adolescent sexual role playing to explain gentic purity–i.e. reproduction after its own species.  If life was originally a condition of hermaphroditism–i.e. two polar aspects in one energy form (Adam) as the opening of “holy word” claims–then each division of that singular form had to keep some characteristics from each energy pole (positive/negative) within each separate parts if creative purpose was to be actively maintained within those parts.  This means, as a consequence, that no man is ever one hundred percent male, and no woman is ever one hundred percent female.  For example, men still retain nipples, and women possess a clitoris, which is erectile tissue.  That’s just the outer odds and ends of physical personification; there are even more energy-exchange features within every physical form.  Indeed, hormone treatments can alter one’s physical structure.

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

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

*related post: Sex in Sacred Disguise, March 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment »

The Creator’s Demand For Diversity

Posted in belief, biological traits, culture, environment, faith, history, humanity, life, lifestyle, nature, random, science, sex, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , on February 1, 2015 by chouck017894

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

This admittedly crude appraisal of human egotism and arrogance (and its intimate attendant, greed) was spurred by a mid-2014 report concerning the dilemma of some ordinary fish. Seems that man’s self-interest had seeped into various streams and rivers (in the Susquehanna, Delaware and Ohio river basins of the US), which resulted in turning some fish species into what was delicately termed “intersex” fish. Gasp! Some of those damned male fish were found to actually be carrying eggs! Well, let’s not start pounding the pulpits just yet. Something very basic is shown here, something which illustrates that everything which exists in Creation is composed of interchangeable polar elements and thus nothing is ever exclusively representative of one energy pole or its opposite.

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

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

Furthermore, anatomist research shows that there are naturally considerable variations in the human brain–its shape, thalamus, structure of the cerebrum, etc.–which are extremely variable and are as individual as fingerprints. This means that mental and/or sensory properties connected with brain structure may freely align within vastly different ranges, and thus no two persons will ever be exactly the same–including identical twins. So, as far as religious approval of racial or sexual expression goes, one feature was never intended to define all. To the horror of religious extremists, that almighty Creation power which is diverse and variable in shaping life forms (dare we say democratic), and which is personified as “God,” did not use a cookie cutter technique to fashion every person’s racial, physical or category in life. Instead of trying to understand that variety and diversity are the underpinnings of all Creation, they choose instead to spew endless reams of hatred from their pulpits. Stated in biblical terms, their egotism and ignorance “runneth over.”

Religious fanatics should awaken to the fact that there is an intentional alterable holy code used in the production of all life–the code of the hormonal-chromosomal-chemical “design” which decrees great necessity for diversity and variety in human physical, mental and emotional expression. This seems to be problematic only for those who choose to work themselves into melodramatic clamoring over anyone who is perceived to be too different from themselves due to their taught ego-gratifying beliefs. Certainly the endless assortments of life forms which may be observed around us shows clearly that the Creative Principle (God) holds absolutely no grudge or spite over “his” handiwork which is diverse and varied.

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

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

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 »

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 »

Abortion and Personhood

Posted in belief, Bible, culture, faith, random, religion, sex, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , on April 7, 2013 by chouck017894

Read the Holy Bible word by word from front to back and you will never once come upon the word abortion.  No such situation is ever advanced as a “sin,” and considering the many denunciations labored over, that omission concerning abortion is bewildering if it is true that standing sentinel over sensible allowance of life production is a sin.  So where do the overconfident “true believers” get all their divine memos?

When the sin seekers choose to ignore what the Bible does not say, but instead listen to some faith system hawker who cunningly incites naive followers to commit acts of protest, the seekers indulge themselves in judgment passing which holds no genuine spiritual benefit.  The instigator of such rallies may possibly think that he or she is defending a holy principle, in which case he or she has not really read the Bible which, nonetheless, they often hold aloft like some battle flag.  The spiritual benefit that the provokers really achieve from these demonstrations is ego stimulation, a kind of ego masturbation.  To accomplish gratification they use as stimulants a few cherry picked verses that can be fashioned to slip-slide around their desire.

One of these spiritual lubricants used by the self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” is often lifted out of The Ten Commandments; the sixth one which says, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”  That commandment is not at all specific, however.  If that commandment is taken as an all-inclusive directive it would mean that we should not even squash a mosquito.  The intent of that sixth commandment is that we are to revere the moral rights which are active within all conscious life.  Considering that the “pro-lifers” murder doctors at women’s clinics, their stance is beyond hypocrisy.  Nothing in the Bible equates a developing fetus as a cognizant human being.  That is actually made clear in Exodus 21:22-25 where it is judged that even if a man should accidently kill a pregnant woman while in a conflict with another man, he is held to be guilty of murder.  If, however, that pregnant woman is caused to miscarry–i.e. the fetus is killed–it is not considered, according  to Exodus, to be a case of murder.  Just as an acorn is not an oak tree, a fetus–a seedling or potential person–was not declared by God’s secretary-priests to be a comprehending entity which is equipped for directing authority over life. 

Quick!  Find another stimulant!  Eager hands grasp at Psalms 139:13-16, allegedly the poetic work of David, which avows that God formed him in his mother’s womb.  The claim is made that the Lord used some especial means to create a male who was preordained to be King of Israel.  That was openly declared to be a special case carried out by God who apparently had nothing better to do in the universe, and so took up dabbling in the politics of Israel.  Clearly that birthing method is not applicable to your average conception routine.  In today’s terms, Dave was hot wired to play the lead role in a manufactured history.  Oddly, most of his story in the books of Samuel pivots on his adulterous romp with Bathsheba and his arrangement to have her husband killed.  Oh my, that wasn’t very pro-life of that glorious king.

Hey, there’s gotta be something in Bible tales for antiabortionists to use that seem almost rational.  Ah, here it is; good old Jeremiah!  It is clear here; it says that God knew him before he was  even conceived in the womb.  You mean even before the sperm and egg linked up?  Jeremiah 1:5 declares that God told Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”  And that must mean also that each and every one of us is preordained and sanctified to be a prophet!  So how come so few of us know what is destined to happen around us?  Oh, I remember: Jeremiah was pre-formulated to fulfill a designated purpose because God was once again dabbling in Israel politics.  Even so, somehow that must indicate that God is right in there at the very instant of every conception and that He regards that undefined squirming mass that he is supervising to already be a full-term self-aware person, right?  A rational person does not have to possess prophetic capabilities to know that God is not in every vagina at the very instant of conception.  That claim is directly opposite to the Genesis command (1:24-25) that each life form is endowed so it may multiply “after its own kind.”  Nowhere in the Bible is it ever claimed that God was going to be present to supervise over every act of “multiplication.”

Leaving the Creator’s alleged political obsession over 8th century BCE Israel politics to be checked only occasionally in the rearview mirror, let us focus on some vital clues concerning personhood that the Creator provides.  Consider the brain.  The  organ of the brain does not begin to develop as a unit of definable energy substance until after the third week of conception.  This initial unit of energy-substance is referred to in medical terminology as the neural plate, a discernable formation of around 125,000 cells from which the physical form is to develop (evolve).  From this initial period of evolutionary development through the remaining months of gestation new neutrons then begin to appear at the rate of 250,000 per minute!  As awesome as this is, it does not mean that God is right there overseeing every gene placement.  It is simply energy-substance interacting within an energy field (the human body) which is the process by which every energy-matter form assumes visible manifestation. 

At birth each human does happen to be in possession of all his or her nerve cells.  Technically, however, the newborn baby can be said to be a mindless organism, for the cerebral cortex–the portion of the brain-matter which holds the seat of higher intellect–scarcely functions.  The newborn’s actions are almost totally dictated by the lower brain stem, a portion of the brain which humans share in common with all primate animals and reptiles.

In the first days of separate existence outside the mother’s body, the situation changes very rapidly with the cerebral cortex then bursting forth with growth.  The first few months of independent survival is the most crucial period of brain development for every human being.  The intense network of interconnecting nerve fibers swiftly develops so that by the age of one year the infant’s brain has reached around fifty percent of its adult weight.  Even so the infant cannot be said to be self-aware in a mindful sense.  The entity does not yet have any consciousness of “I”; that self-awareness emerges around the age of three.  The accelerated growth of the cerebral cortex reduces around this developmental time, and the brain then gradually acquires around ninety percent of its adult weight by the age of six years.

The first six years in general serve as the crucible where the child’s basic values and ethics are set into a pattern, and their interest, abilities and talents develop which shape their personhood and sets the direction of social behavior.  Brain development, the structure that establishes personhood, reaches its average adult weight of about three pound around the time of puberty, when physical growth begins to taper off.

The brain of every individual is assembled from a narrow spectrum of genetic material provided by the parents.  The interaction that will develop as a physical body is itself composed of only about one hundred thousand genes.  This sounds like an enormous quantity, but is a relatively small amount considering that it is from this modest quantity of genes that the brain, the nucleus of personhood, produces in excess of one hundred trillion-trillion nerve cells.  And each of these nerve cells may in turn form as many as ten thousand connections with its neighbor cells!  All this is done “after its own kind” as commanded in Genesis.  The physical brain is established with polar fields: the front portion is active with a “negative” charge, the back of the brain is active with a “positive” charge.  In other words, every living entity is a charged energy pack, and that allowance of creative power is free to progressively define itself in limited expressions of personhood, all of which are valid before the Absolute.

So the broad aspect alluded to in the book of Exodus 21:22-25 regarding the accidental termination of fetal development was correctly understood as NOT the killing of personhood.  And the alleged especial circumstances claimed for a few starring biblical characters who were said to be “chosen” for some special story line purpose clearly cannot be said to be applicable to circumstances of every conception.

150 Comments »

God, Sex, and DNA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 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 »

« Older Entries