Archive for creation

« Older Entries

Faith vs Reality

Posted in belief, enlightenment, faith, life, logic, random, religion, secularism, theology, thoughts with tags , , on February 1, 2016 by chouck017894

Reality–the everyday problems which are experienced in this dimension of limited energy which we call life–is not being well served when believers are assured that Creation’s laws can be set aside if only you believe in a certain belief system manner. The universe would implode into nothingness if exceptions were allowed for a certain chosen or saved few to bypass Creation’s laws.  Scientific truth is being ignored when such egocentric beliefs are being marketed as ego stimulants, for the higher truth is that every identity within Creation stands accountable for itself.  The creative laws responsible for the universe cannot be sidestepped or patched over by man-invented rites and ritual or ceremony.  The Heaven and Paradise so fervently yearned for by faith system seekers can never be gained by practicing disrespect for the diversity and variety of other life forms or life styles which share this temporary passage through this limited energy field we speak of as matter.

Faith, the kind that does not rest on logic or open to acceptance of studies of powers invisible to us, is pretty much an inherited thing passed down from the parents and/or society, and it habitually lumbers under the mantle of some faith system which has evolved while its promoters have unethically pursued worldly ambitions.  Unfortunately their drive is to prove to the world that some man-contrived institutionalized faith system is the only way that a person can storm the Creator’s Heaven: That only signals that the bottom line for that promoted faith system rests entirely in this world, not in any higher realm.

Pretending that cosmic powers aid only some particular man-made faith system in extending control over this material world’s tribulations is tragically misleading.  Why would an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity whom they claim to represent be directly dependent upon militant actions of mere man to fulfill that all-powerful deity’s wishes?  That illogical assertion is not consistent with the all-inclusive capabilities claimed for that imagined deity.  The escape propaganda used to get around this theological flaw is the claim that such strong arm devotional indulgences are necessary to “test” the believers’ devotion.  That really answers nothing, for why would an omniscient (all knowing) being ever find it necessary to “test” anything that he/she/it had created?  The only reason for such a hot air claim rests in the ego-driven greed of the “spiritual shepherds: for exercising authority, not to provide any genuine spiritual enlightenment for seekers.

The three highly organized major faith systems of the western world’s cultures–faith systems which are all fragmented by schisms–have each been structured by priest or prophet authors upon a not too subtle prejudice against the bearing principle (considered feminine) that is within the Source which is necessary for life multiplication.  This self-serving and cowardly propaganda has been set in place to “put the blame on woman” in an attempt to absolve the engendering principle within Source (considered male) from all the error and sin in the world.  This propaganda that the creative action which is necessary for bearing forth of matter form is somehow the cause of man’s woes is glaringly antagonistic with the man-is-superior assertion that the male authors penned. It is “holy” guidance such as this of godly approval of inequity that has contributed heavily to mankind’s seemingly endless wars and atrocities.

If the Omniscient power, personified and characterized as a male deity, finds that he/she/it must “test” his/her/its creations for worthiness that divine inclination for questioning any created object or event should be fully acceptable as a human characteristic if we are, as claimed, made in his image.  It is peculiar, therefore, that man-fashioned faith systems tend to abhor questions–especially so in regard to any question concerning their claims of divine authority.  To seriously question the powers-that-be of that faith system can make for some disquieting  conclusions.  One logical conclusion is that only con artists write religious rituals and rites and ceremonies.  That is provable because no one else like you or I really need such crafted public theatrical indulgences to experience personal connection to the all-embracing power in which we exist.  Rites and  ritual and ceremony serve the spiritual pretenders, however, as a means of exercising authority through inflicting a kind of intellectual tyranny which asserts that they and they alone represent what can only be imagined as some Divine Avenger.  That implied avenger conjures up what can only be called superstition which is fleshed out with liberal doses of the supernatural.  This is the intentional crucifixion of rationality nailed upon duplicity.  In that methodology reason is intentionally dishonored for the benefit of theologies.

Despite their implied intimacy with the Creator, true spiritual instruction remains mysteriously nebulous within the tons of man-authored texts which dare to pretend to teach spiritual qualification.  With these texts seekers are taught to reject the varieties and diversities of life expressions, to dismiss any differing way of expressing spiritual consciousness, and to install within themselves a devotion to man-crafted prejudices, bigotry, hatreds, and their religious inspired massacres and wars.  The unifying power that underlies the entire universe and its diversity is totally ignored for the self-imposed illusion fashioned by EGO for imagined exclusiveness with the Creator of that diversity.

 

 

Leave a comment »

Number Games in Holy Texts

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, Hebrew scripture, prehistory, random, religion, scriptures, theology with tags , , , , , , , , on November 13, 2014 by chouck017894

In scriptural tales, when numbers were included in the texts, they invariably relayed hidden meaning to those trained in the art of sacred language. In ancient cultures, long before the rise of Judaism among the Hebrew tribes, numbers were considered to carry mystical significance. Virtually ignored by believers today is the fact that precise calculations were vital for many ancient observations and constructions which required several steps of computation which had to include and combine spherical geometry and trigonometry. As obvious as this should seem, the common opinion of the ancients has been that they understood only fundamental mathematics. Any fascination of mathematical exercise in prehistory cultures is thought to hold little implication. The number of persons such as is claimed within each of the Israelite tribes, however, do hold hidden significance for those trained in sacred language technique. Consider some other examples.

The number six, as in the six days of Creation, was regarded in ancient cultures as a balanced number, a “perfect” number, for 6 was seen as representative of Creation’s bearing principle–or the feminine aspect within Creation activity. Influenced by prehistory Creation lessons which had been given using various constellation illustrations, 6 was regarded as the first feminine number, for it represents the energy involvement out of Source which will “go forth and multiply.” In zodiac depictions we should note that the astrological sign Virgo is the sixth from Aries and tradition says Aries represents the head; also note that Virgo is the only female illustration in major zodiac signs. In the Genesis myth we are told that all Creation was whipped up in just six days. The number six was thus considered by the 8th century BCE priest-authors in Jerusalem as the number of God. And the sixth day of Creation was held as especial because man, considered as God’s highest achievement, was created on the sixth day. (The number 6, some have noted, holds the outline of a fetus in gestation.) Not so coincidently in Christian lore Jesus has credited to him as his sixth miracle his own transfiguration. This just happens to correspond to the sixth plane of energy involvement in prehistory Creation lessons which were in regard to primal energies moving into development as matter.

Interestingly, the ancient regard for the number six was eventually explained by the Greek philosopher-mathematician Pythagoras (c.582?-500 BCE). The number six was the first number among several that the followers of Pythagoras were taught as expressing the perfection upon which all that exists is anchored. It was their belief that numbers express the true nature of things. A number was regarded as “perfect” if it is equal to the sum of its proper divisors. A proper divisor is a number which divides another number exactly, and the number six, for example, equals 1+2+3. Other numbers regarded as “perfect” are 28, 496, 8128, and 33440336.

Augustine, the Christian saint, expounded upon the mathematical endowment of the number six (never mentioning Pythagoras) saying, “Six is the number perfect in itself, and not because God created all things in six days: rather the inverse is true; God created all things in six days because this number is perfect. And it would remain perfect even if the work of six days did not exist.”

Another number from prehistory Creation accounts is the number four (4). In prehistory Creation lessons the fourth stage involvement of primal elements concerned creative energy as it flowed toward manifestation as defined matter. In scriptural versions this fourth elemental energy involvement was commonly disguised with a zero added. Examples: 40 days of rain in the Noah account, the 40 years of wandering in the Moses epic, and in each case they attained their destiny after passing through four elementary energy developmental stages. This is also the coded meaning in the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead after Lazarus had “…lain in the grave four days already” (John 11). It is not accidental that there are four canonized Gospels either, each providing developmental phases of the Life Principle, personified as Jesus, who represents the universality of all life. Nor is it accidental that the supposed authors of those Gospels are symbolized with the four deliberately jumbled divisional signs from the zodiac. Matthew is signified with the Ox (Taurus), Mark is symbolized with the Lion (Leo), Luke is represents with Man (Aquarius), and John is represented with the eagle, which in Jewish astrology symbolized Scorpio. And in Christian accounts there are the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (Revelations 6:1-8), which were deliberately jumbled by color descriptions to disguise the symbolism borrowed from prehistory lessons on Creation’s elementary involvement.

In Genesis 32:14, where the dishonesty of Jacob is celebrated, other numbers convey disguised meaning. Jacob is portrayed as indulging in a schemed peace-making deal with his brother Esau from whom he had earlier stolen the “birthright” blessing of their father. As a peace-offering Jacob is portrayed as giving Esau “…two hundred she-goats and twenty-two he-goats” as a token of his good will. That number 220 happens to be the first among particular numbers which were regarded by Pythagoras to be charged with “friendly” vibrations. The reason for this respect was that certain numbers, such as 220 and 284, are each equal to the sum of the proper divisors of the other. [The proper divisors of 220 are: 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 20, 44, 55, and 110. These are numbers which divide evenly into a number, including 1, but excluding the number itself.]

We today tend to forget that many ancient cultures were highly sophisticated and were well acquainted with mathematics, medicinal, scientific, geometric, astronomical and psychological principles. The principle known in mathematics as pi is commonly thought to be of rather recent understanding. But it is interesting to note that ancient Babylonian and Egyptian mathematicians were quite familiar with the fact that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is a constant, or what we know as pi. And they understood also that pi is no ordinary constant, for its precise value can never be known, and thus the constant holds the special status of being transcendental. This is so because not only is it a decimal that does not repeat, but neither does it terminate.

The prehistory mathematicians were well aware also of other numbers which shared the baffling properties of pi. As an example, the ratio of the diagonal to the side of a square is also a decimal that neither repeats nor ends. And a diagonal line drawn through a square results in two right triangles whose hypotenuse is the diagonal with the sides of the square which act as the sides of the two triangles. Such a diagonal division of space within a square which is symbolized in this manner is therefore mathematically equivalent to the division of light from darkness in Genesis 1:4, the division of waters from waters in Genesis 1:6, and even the provisional division as male and female in Genesis 1:27. And the ratio of two intergers[1] is calculated by a decimal which neither repeats itself nor ends, and it is this “irrational number” which can be said to be representative of God in the seemingly irrational scriptural storytelling. [1 An integer is any number or a set of positive whole numbers, such as 1, 2, 3 and zero.] Major “prophets”–Elijah for example–are portrayed as parting waters, and multiplying life essentials (bread, fish, oil, etc.), each in a one-time-only creation deal. This represents the division of energy for positive/negative exchange which makes for multiplication of creative energies.

Persons who are prone to regard biblical tales as having been written by or dictated by God become a bit upset when the authors of holy word seem to get tripped up by principles of mathematics. The account of the resplendent temple allegedly erected by King Solomon (1 Kings 7:23), for example, falls a wee bit short in the calculations of the “molten sea”–a huge circular tank which is said to have held water for religious ceremonies. That holy holding pool is described as being “…ten cubits from one brim to the other…and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.” This would mean that the value of pi is casually rounded off as three–somewhat at odds with the true value of 3.14159+. The contention presented in this tale thus exposes the fraudulent claim that direct divine wisdom was being relayed to seekers, for it is impossible to make a circle which has a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of an even thirty.

Not surprisingly the obsession of using numbers as an indication of divine purpose was carried over by the Roman Empire authors of the New Testament as another technique aimed to attract Jewish converts. It is not exactly coincidence therefore that Jesus is depicted as having been crucified on the 6th day of the week. And there is the miracle of Jesus multiplying five loaves of bread and two fishes (Pisces) to feed followers (Matthew 14:19), which, we should remember, occurred after he had improved upon the miracle of parting waters by walking upon them. Speaking of fish consider, in the book of John 21:11 (written c. 105-106 CE), the number of fish allegedly caught by disciples at the Sea of Tiberius (better known as the Sea of Galilee) was 153. This happening is depicted as having taken place after Jesus had shown himself for the third time after his crucifixion. The peculiar number 153 in this professed happening is another which happens to be mathematically special. It is known as a triangular (three-sided) number, for it is equal to the sum of the integers from 1 to 17. In other words, if a triangle was a diagram with figures of fish, and the triangle measured 17x17x17, it would contain exactly 153 same-sized fish. Nothing miraculous here, nothing supernatural–just a mathematical exercise used in storytelling to imply their faith systems’ divine power over natural forces. From such as this we are indebted to “revealed” sacred truth.

3 Comments »

Claims of Exclusive Prayer Power

Posted in Atheist, belief, culture, enlightenment, faith, life, random, religion, Social, theology with tags , , , , , , , on September 1, 2014 by chouck017894

The devout followers of any man-invented faith system are too often arrogantly self-possessed–so sure that they alone possess the only communication link to some aloof and prejudiced Creator-God. This assessment has been triggered by a passing conversation in which such a faith system devotee declared, “If you are an atheist then obviously you can’t pray.” Sadly, such a declaration as to who can or cannot link with Creation’s power indicates that what these man-invented faith systems peddle as exclusive privilege is not “holy” truth.

No man-contrived faith system can honestly claim to have a monopoly on the connective liberty that each and every person has to align with cosmic consciousness–that personal approach which is commonly spoken of as prayer. This erroneous concept that there is only one select collection of people who can “pray” with an exclusive access to higher power stems from the mistake of personifying the energy Source of Creation as a humanlike being who is wracked with petty prejudices and empty hatreds. The awesome sustaining energy of Creation is demonstratively not a discriminatory power: this is openly declared in the mind-boggling variety and diversity which is active throughout the functioning, living universe around us.

As noted in the limited edition book, The Celestial Scriptures (page 434): “Properly understood, prayer is the adjustment of (the individual’s) aware consciousness in which there is opened a sense of personal relationship with universal forces. In most cases this requires only the quieting of rapid-fire thoughts, a not so easy endeavor in a world that has become so intent upon a fast paced pursuit of material things.”

Scientific research has documented that there exists within each person seven levels of consciousness. This discovery is something of a startling echo of prehistory teachings in regard to Creation processes, for it was then taught that energy involved through seven dimensions of involvement to manifest as matter. These developmental planes of energy were referred to in the ancient lessons as involution. This creative principle is even a known mathematical concept which is expressed as “the multiplying of a quantity by itself for a specified number of times, thus raising it to a specific power.” Thus even scientific research and mathematical theory provide strong evidence that the aware-consciousness of every individual has the divine right to draw upon the unlimited power of the creative Infinite Presence to define themselves. Attempting to bring the seven levels of consciousness into accord with that creative energy is what the corporate styled faith systems commonly refer to as prayer. In knowing the progressive stages of Creation power it is proven that “prayer” is not exclusive to any faith system: indeed, everyone, at whatever level, has the divine right of access. Aligning the seven levels of consciousness active within each of us as a harmonic energy field and that energy then follows the same Creation sequence of application to produce the sought after energy configuration. This is the “law of amassing” (Creation) through harmony–or responsible coexistence–which is the universal generating factor and which provides the “answers.”

Admittedly, this is not exactly as easy as it sounds, primarily because our self-aware consciousness is temporarily anchored in this transitory energy-matter form. The main necessity of aligning the seven levels of consciousness as a harmonic field is dependent upon not seeking to exercise rigid command over them. That is tricky. For example, any hint of negative intent, such as greed, anger, envy, revenge, etc., which colors one’s attempted alignment will automatically distort the outcome. In other words, any attempted alignment for the purpose of indulging personal ego can result only in short-circuiting the connection into creative potentiality. This is a Creation principle, and it is not something that highly organized ego-pampering faith systems will or can offer to seekers for the simple reason that all these faith systems have been built upon and maintained by imposing self-serving dogmatism upon seekers for the purpose of exercising worldly influence. So it is they, not some other man-invented faith system or atheists, who do not understand the actual technicalities of “prayer.” Man-invented faith systems intentionally place themselves between seekers and Cosmic Consciousness, which short-circuits personal power, for no one can pray effectively if the Patriarchal Principles of Creation are not acknowledged and drawn upon. Those Patriarchal Principles of Creation are not a monopoly product.

What man-invented faith systems religiously ignore is the scientifically proven reality that every energy-defined thing is surrounded with an energy field of force. Biological fields, for example, are actually detectable in the air that surrounds every living organism—from the largest creatures on this planet to the most infinitesimal cells. You and I and every animate and inanimate identity radiates an electrodynamic field about our physical forms which can be detected and measured with a voltmeter. This non-physical radiance is not usually perceptible to human sight, but is measurable with special instruments. That subtle energy may possibly be the matrix or template or blueprint which defines all energy-as-matter forms. And these defining energy fields, each secure upon their matrix, can then freely interact in subtle and revitalizing exchange which we perceive as the momentum of time and space. Thus each of us is, allegorically speaking, much like a little mirror which reflects the vast power of the living universe back into itself. We humans are more complex than any other life forms known to us on this tiny planet, and despite many shared energy building blocks which amalgamated as the energy which defines us, our matter-self remains presided over by consciousness of self in which the quality of conscience is ordained to evolve.

As energy-matter beings endowed with self-aware consciousness which evolves within us as conscience (seat of moral quality), we thus stand somewhat midpoint between the most massive definable objects in the universe and the most infinitesimal. All this speaks of the continual interaction of countless and diverse forms of energy. Indeed, a multidimensional configuration of energy may conceivably exist which continually and instantaneously encompasses the entire universe. What this means is that which we perceive as time and space is only our temporary subjective awareness, so our physical perception is not necessarily a factual exercise of comprehension! Our conception of past or future, for example, may very well coexist as only one aspect within an eternal present. And because every definable energy-entity draws upon that unlimited power of Infinite Presence to define itself, each of us hold the divine right of access which faith systems market as “prayer.” Everyone has that personal connection with universal power or we would not be self-aware. This means that no man-invented faith system can truthfully claim exclusive access into Creation’s power.

3 Comments »

Questioning Scriptural Creation Account

Posted in Atheist, Bible, faith, Hebrew scripture, random, religion, scriptures with tags , , , , on April 1, 2014 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say “Let there be…” such and such, and then such and such appeared. Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever He envisioned just magically came together in its manifested form. No trials, no errors, just zap. Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity in just seven “days.” Or so the Creationists avow. However, they never bother themselves to clarify which of the two Creation versions they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give somewhat differing specifics! And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence. Is this imaginative account given in Genesis of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in school science classes as creationists clamor?

And what about reproduction? In order for all of God’s varied and diverse material forms which He had manifested by speaking to himself to be regenerated and maintained, God did have to put in place some type of regeneration routine. And that renewal system for each and every thing that He had created by word of mouth required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation. Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that reproduction diagram today as DNA. Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental (evolutionary) processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Cultures that preceded the “revealed” word of God by thousands of years, and therefore not privileged to biblical enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance as to how everything became created. It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the “revealed” facts of Creation. At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the people concerning the facts of his acts of Creation. And that tiny percent just happened to be in the habit of agitating everyone around Jerusalem. Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what had gone into his creative process, like the chemical compounds and such, God did not bother himself to explain. Consequently, how He transformed energy into our little planet with its varied and diverse life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be utilized for their own ends. Perhaps we should question the Genesis version of Creation against some known facts.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet. But that, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation. Scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago. Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in exisitence on primal Earth–an incredibly short time in Creation terms. To science a few hundred million years after Earth’s violent formation and simple life forms were already appearing seems a case of too much too soon. Ah, but all that was just one “day” in the Genesis account.

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

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

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide more authoritative information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on Earth, however. According to the deciphered Sumerian texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source: from a huge planet which made at least two passes through this developing solar system. The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid, or other space object, and the roving planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name Marduk. The Sumerians also referred to that rogue planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.” This information later became reworked and the basis for personifying the Babylonian god Marduk, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth. (Marduk was the source for the name Merodach in the Bible.) Could that possibly be the god that the post-Sumerian Genesis story refers to as commanding the activation of all life?

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

12 Comments »

Creation ala Genesis

Posted in Bible, biological traits, environment, faith, Hebrew scripture, life, prehistory, random, religion with tags , , , , , on January 27, 2013 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say, “Let there be…” this or that, and then this or that just popped into existence.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever “he” envisioned just magically came together in its manifested form.  No trials, no errors, just zap.  Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity as well in just six twenty-four hour “days.” No wonder God had to rest on the seventh day: or so the Creationists avow.  However, the authors never bothered themselves to clarify which of the two Creation version they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give some slightly differing specifics!  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence.  Is this imaginative account of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in school science classes as creationists clamor?

However, in order for all of God’s varied and diverse forms which he had made manifest by talking to himself to be regenerated and maintained, God did have to put in place some system of renewal.  And that renewal system for each and every thing that he had created did require a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation. Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that as DNA.  Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Cultures that preceded by thousands of years the word of God as “revealed” in eighth century BCE Jerusalem apparently were not privileged to biblical enlightenment, and had to grope about in ignorance of how everything came into existence.  It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later timeframe to explain the facts of Creation.  At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the population about the facts of his acts of Creation.  And that tiny percent happened to be in the habit of agitating everyone around Jerusalem.  Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what went into his creative process, like chemical compounds and such, were left unexplained.  Consequently, how he transformed energy into our little planet with its varied and diverse life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be mined and manipulated for their own ends.  Perhaps we should question the Bible style version of Creation against some known facts.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet.  But that, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation. Scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago.  Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in existence on the infant Earth—a remarkably short time in Creation terms.  To science a few hundred million years after Earth’s formation to have simple life forms appear seems a case of too much too soon.  Ah, but all that was just one “day” in the Genesis account.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were present on Earth well over three billion years ago—and these simple life forms had, as science has found, molecules of biological origin, it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than from a combination of inert gases and chemicals that were then predominant on the infant planet.  Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium.  If biological life originated in such an abundant chemical composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more plentiful elements would figure in the composition of any life forms that would originate in the primal stew (biblical “dust”), if not prominently then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet.  Of course they are not needed in the Genesis account.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless that rare element plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all Earth’s biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggest that a variety of genetic codes would have developed.  But that did not happen either.  Instead, all life forms on planet Earth developed from a single genetic code.  All life forms share a single genetic composition.  To religionists, of course, this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as proof of God’s commandment.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on early Earth, however.  According to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge rogue planet that made at least two passes through this developing solar system.  The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid or other space object, and the roving  planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name of Marduk.  The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.”  This information later became reworked and the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk, known in the Bible as Merodach, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth.  Could that possibly be the god that the post-Sumerian Genesis story refers to as commanding the activation of life?

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

3 Comments »

Questioning Bible-Style Creation

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, freethought, Hebrew scripture, humanity, logic, prehistory, random, religion, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , on May 10, 2011 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say, “Let there be…” such and such, then such and such appeared.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or blueprint, all the varied components of whatever he envisioned just magically came together in manifested form.  No trials, no errors; just zap.  Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity in just seven “days.”  Or so say the Creationists.  However, they never bother themselves to  clarify which version of Creation they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give differing accounts!  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God came into existence.  Is this supernatural version of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in any school?

However, in order for all of God’s forms which he had manifested to be regenerated and maintained, a systematic routine had to be put in place.  And that regenerating system for each and every thing that he had created required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation.  Scientific sleuthing managed to discover a vital part of that blueprint, and we know that as DNA.  Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

 Cultures that preceded the “revealed” word of God by thousands of years, and therefore were not privileged to divine enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance of how everything became created.  It was up to the priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the facts of Creation.  At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the people about the facts of his acts of Creation.  And that tiny percent happened to be agitating everyone around Jerusalem.  Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what went into his creative process, like chemical compounds and such, were left unexplained.  Consequently, how he transformed energy into our  little planet with varied life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be used for their own ends.  Maybe we should question the Bible-style version of Creation.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated here.  Science says that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago.  Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in existence on Earth—a short time in Creation terms.  To science it seems to be a case of too much too soon.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were present well over three billion years ago—and these simplest life forms had, as science has shown, molecules of biological origin—it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than a combination of inert gases and chemicals that then exited on the infant planet.

Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium.  If biological life originated in such a composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more abundant elements would figure in any life forms that developed in the primal stew—if not prominently, then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role in the biochemical structure of the life forms that developed and thrive on this planet.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless it plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet in a simmering primeval stew, as once thought, logic suggests that a variety of genetic codes would have developed.  But that did not happen either.  Instead, all life forms on Earth developed from a single genetic code.  All life forms on Earth share a single genetic composition.  To religionists, of course, this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as the work of God.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on Earth, however.  According  to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge planet that made at least two passes through this developing solar system.  The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid, or other space object, and the roving planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name Marduk.  The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.”  This information later became reworked as the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk, known in the Bible as Merodach, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth.  Could this possibly be the same god  that the post-Sumerian Genesis story relates commanded the activation of all life?

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

Leave a comment »

The Theory of God

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, culture, faith, freethought, humanity, life, logic, random, religion, secularism, thoughts with tags , , , on May 25, 2010 by chouck017894

For many millennia apprehensive seekers have theorized the existence of God as an intellectual being and credited him with the creation of everything.  From the most primitive of times it has been routine for the god-theorists to exploit that hypothesis as the certification of their executive status.  In that capacity the self-blessed executives exercised religious/political authority over the docile, less imaginative multitude.  However, as humankind has evolved through the last couple of centuries with the technological ability to uncover the basic principles at work as Creation, there still has been no confirmation of an omniscient being having initiated it all.  It should not be considered disrespectful for humankind to use its evolved intellect to seek a definitive testimonial as to the theorized existence of a Supreme Being who is claimed to play the central role in the creation and operation of the universe, and in the continuance of human lives.  A theory, no matter how ego-gratifying, is something that lacks verification. 

Consider: a theory is the systematic organization of things observed and which seem applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances; especially a system of assumptions regarding principles and rules of procedure that have been devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a given set of phenomenon.  A hypothesis is an assertion that is subject to verification or proof; a proposition accepted as a basis of reasoning; a premise from which a conclusion is drawn; a conjecture that accounts for a set of beliefs that are yet to be undisputedly proven.

Through many millennia the more reality-based seekers have studied the heavens (astronomy), the physical attributes of animate creatures (biology), the soil levels of Earth (geology), and even the interaction between energy and matter (physics) seeking evidence, regardless how meager, that a Creator-being exists.  Not only have these labors failed to find clues that might support such a theory, but their attention to details has openly confirmed that the energy manifestation which is spoken of as Creation was not a process that occurred by some predetermined design.  Indeed, their research demonstrates that the universe and everything in it trundles along as a self-amassed energy involvement. 

Genuine wisdom suggests that humanity would be much more morally advanced by embracing rationality rather than ego-gratifying pretense of exclusiveness with some unproven supernatural being that is at the heart of religious posturing.  Near-divine potential could be accomplished throughout the human adventure by simply recognizing that tolerance extended to the extensive diversity of energy manifestations would diminish the bulk of mankind’s painful conflicts.  The secret for experiencing such a secular heavenly state is to simply abandon the religion-taught habit of searching for personal meaning an a faraway external supernatural entity and direct attention properly to finding your internal connection with the universe.

5 Comments »

Puritan Contamination of America

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Christianity, faith, history, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , on April 22, 2010 by chouck017894

During the reign of James the First, King of Great Britain from 1603 to 1625, the spirit of Puritanism had invaded English society and the Parliament, reaching a brief triumph in the person of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658).  The first permanent English-Puritan colonists in America founded Jamestown in Virginia in 1607.  When these “Pilgrim Fathers” began to colonize New England, the native Americans—the Indians—were originally open-hearted and kind.  In every case, with the exception of William Penn (1682), after the Christian colonists had established their god-focused colony they had turned upon their benefactors and protectors, and without any attempt at moral behavior had robbed and murdered the Indians. 

In this timeframe, the founder and Head Chief of the Powhatan Confederacy of Virginia had at first sought friendly interaction with the whites.  Chief Powhatan was astonished and then embittered by the treachery, deceit and thievery indulged in by the Puritan crowd.  Chief Powhatan’s daughter, Pocahontas (1595-1617), is alleged to have saved the life of the colony leader Captain John Smith in 1607.  The Captain was supposedly held captive by the Indians and was to be slain, but Pocahontas risked her own life to stop it.  At least that was the romantic tale related in a letter to future Queen Elizabeth in 1616.

By myth and tradition, however, the year 1620 is regarded in the United States as when the “Pilgrims” first set foot in the Americas.  Although the ship Mayflower did indeed reach the bleak shore of what is today Massachusetts in 1620, the Pilgrims were at that location due to bad weather and poor navigation.  Their intended destination had been Jamestown and “The Old Dominion” of Virginia, 500 miles to the south which had been established in 1607.  And tradition has it that the Puritans brought by the Mayflower were fleeing religious persecution in England, but the bulk of them had lived for eleven years in Holland where they were not persecuted.  The real reason for the Puritans to strike out  for the New World was to bring aid and support to the Puritan element in Virginia, for the Puritan deputy governor, Samuel Argall, had been deposed by the Episcopalians in 1619—a great set-back for the Whig/Puritan cause.  But the newly arrived “pilgrims” chose to end their travel traumas and instead establish a new colony in Massachusetts on the tenets of harsh intolerance for any belief other than their own. 

In the course of the next twenty years thousands of Puritans settled in what is now Massachusetts.  The situation in England changed, however, and in 1640 emigration by Puritans to America came to a standstill.  The Puritans that had come to the New World considered themselves to be members of the Church of England, and they held no desire to separate.  The Pilgrims that preceded them in the new land in 1607 were already separate from English communion and were independent in their church government.  The influence of the earlier Pilgrims, aided by the Puritans’ sense of being cut off from their home country, led to the Puritans grudging adoption of the Congregational or Independent form of church government.  But the strictness, bigotry, intolerance toward other forms of worship, and the Puritan “blue laws” were to cast their long kinky shadow of Puritanism even into the 21st century.

One example (out of  many that could be cited) of Christian-Puritan piety among the New England settlers is the disgraceful carnage known as the Cos Cob Massacre that occurred December 24, 1641.  The New England settlers had been kindly received by the Cos Cob Indians at Stamford and vicinity (Connecticut).  The Indians had taught the settlers how to make a living from the sea and from the forest.  But when the number of settlers had grown and they attained sufficient firearms, they displayed their Christian understanding of love by creeping out on Christmas Eve to the Indian village of Petudquapen.  In the spirit of Christ they built a huge fire at each of the  village gates and then shot down every man, woman and child that sought to escape.  Every inhabitant of the village perished—400 “savage” souls.

The Puritans who remained in England disliked the useless, misleading and unscriptural forms and ceremonies—especially when those forms and ceremonies were obligatory for all and the observance of them enforced by civil authority.  This, they felt, hampered their faith.  But Elizabeth I was queen, and she leaned toward more colorful tastes and disliked the simplicity and bareness of Puritanism.  The suggestion of puritanical modification of the Prayer Book and ceremonies in the church led to Elizabeth’s first Parliament passing, the Act of Uniformity(1662).  In that Act it was declared unlawful for any form of public worship but the Prayer Book, and acknowledged the Queen as supreme governor of the realm in spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs.  The situation grew steadily harsher for the Puritans, reaching such a state of severity under Charles I (1625-1649) that the Puritans and Separatists again set sail for America.

To the Puritans the idea of religious tolerance was an utterly devilish concept.  Once they reached the American shore that devotion to intolerance could and was made more rigid than permitted in Europe.  Among the first to feel Puritan prejudice were the Baptists.  Indeed, Roger Williams had to flee from them c. 1636 into the wilderness region that became Rhode Island.  His comment on Puritan persecution of Protestants and Papists are on record with open reference to the blood of so many thousands of victims.  On record too is the account of four Quakers being hanged by Puritans for having differing religious beliefs. 

The Puritan movement, like the Roman Catholic Church, embraced a drastically literal interpretation of the priest-written Genesis version of Creation.  The Puritan movement embraced such interpretation influenced mainly by the English Puritan poet John Milton’s epic work Paradise Lost, composed from 1658 to 1665 and published in 1667.  As noted in Time Frames and Taboo Data: So influential was this poetic epic that Milton’s elaborate rendition of Creation was termed the “Miltonic  hypothesis” by Thomas Henry Huxley.  Theologians swarmed upon what they termed Milton’s “natural” interpretation, and special criticism of an allegorical interpretation was taken up as a fad-craze of Christian thought.  Like most fads, literal interpretation of Bible accounts would crumble before scientific research and the rationality presented by Charles Robert Darwin in the 19th century.

8 Comments »

Early Challengers to Creation Myths

Posted in Atheist, belief, humanity, life, nature, random, religion, science, thoughts with tags , , , , on March 8, 2010 by chouck017894

During the early 1800s the long-held notions of humankind being a special creation began to be seriously questioned by the general public.  Openly questioned were such things as why there were so many different species of plants and animals, how had they originated, and why would God indulge in such extravagant diversity?   The public interest was as though such questions had never occurred to anyone before.  The theory of evolution was alien to the public, and the priestly explanation was that nature was an orderly and elegantly harmonious system that functioned under divine law.  Even naturalists of the time explained that all species were purposefully adapted to the places for which God had destined them—a weak variation of God’s ambassadors who had always claimed that everything was due to divine intervention.  But they neglected to explain why, if a species was “perfectly adapted,” had God found it necessary at times to intervene and cancel some species.

One of the great landmarks in mankind’s exploration of the living world was the discovery that all things—plant or animal—were composed of cells.  In 1838 Mathias Jacob Schleiden, a German botanist, described how all plants were composed of cells.  At nearly the same time a German anatomist, Theodor Schwann, found that cells were the basis of all animal tissue.  The truth of cell composition being the basis for all life was set firmly into place in 1864 by the French scientist Louis Pasteur.  His experiments demonstrated conclusively that every cell—even the smallest bacteria—is the product of other cells.  The secret of life was shown to be the creative power that is held in the infinitely tiny, self-replicating, self-sustaining biochemical energy of the cell. 

While scientists were discovering the cell to be the basic unit of all life, it was a naturalist who advanced the theoretical conclusion that the cell was the origin of all life as well.  That was Charles Robert Darwin who advanced the theory of evolution by natural selection in his book The Origin of Species in 1859.  Needless to say, there was much uproar, especially among the devout, for the theory was an apparent contradiction of the supernatural explanation offered in holy scripture.

The Aristotelian concept that nothing ever really changes was embedded so deeply in man’s taught religious view of life that the evolution theory was deemed blasphemous.  Nonetheless, such men as biologist\scholar Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) and German scientist Ernest Haechel (1834-1919) were strong champions of organic evolution.  Biblical creationists found themselves disorganized and numbed into near silence as men such as these contributed their theories to textbooks which would inspire and instruct new scientists who would throw open the doors to remarkable discoveries in the twentieth century.

In the 1900s  new discoveries in astronomy stimulated people’s rethinking about the evolution of life.  The atmosphere of the planets Saturn and Jupiter, it was discovered, had no oxygen, but was composed of methane and ammonia.  This got astronomers, naturalists, philosophers and others to wondering if Earth had once been similar to those planets before the advent of life.

In the 1920s two independent researchers published papers on how organic compounds could have arisen out of such conditions.  One was a Russian biochemist, A. I. Oparin, and the other was J. B. S. Haldane, a British biologist.  Both had reached the same conclusion independently that organic compounds could have been created by vast amounts of energy generated by the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation upon such an atmosphere. They pointed out that another active principle in activating life would have been the tremendous electrical storms that repeatedly charged the atmosphere over millions of years and the compound would become charged with self-replicating properties.  The supernatural explanations so long offered by religious myths began to crumble under provable demonstrations of cause and effect.

And yet even in the closing days of the twentieth century so rich in technological wonders the stubbornly “faithful” remained convinced that it was all due to Intelligent Design and some being saying “Let there be….”

1 Comment »

Creation’s Law of Diversity

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, history, politics, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on February 13, 2010 by chouck017894

Diversity in human nature is not something that austerely organized religions or stubborn party-line politics have ever seriously accepted as being the intentional course of action in Creation.  The demand by them is for rigid boundaries even though the universe plainly displays an infinite range of inventive configurations.  The false claim of those highly methodized faith and political systems is that there is only one process by which a person may fit into the broad scheme of Creation’s diversity, and that method just happens to be their man-invented set of guidelines.

Rigid religious indulgence reduces the essence spoken of as spirit to something that amounts to identity politics, and this flies in the face of a profusion of identities that are grandly displayed throughout the universe.  Whatever the creative force may be, it has never been a power that indulges in hard-edged religious, political, social or gender  identities.  The truth is that the perceived steadfastness in any person’s identity is a transitory illusion of the circumstances of interaction which each identity encounters.  With eyes that see only exteriors, and counseled by man-conceived faiths or political practices, the masses have been led into an obtuse habit of pretending that the creative power is somehow disturbed by minor distinctions such as racial, ethnic, religious, political, sexual and such.  That refusal to admit that intended diversity is what propels Creation is the hallmark of fundamentalism.  Even for those who are skeptical of the fundamentalists’ narrow approach on how they think others must live their lives, the independent thinkers still tend to buckle under to peer pressure or to the media for identity clues and fail to remember that peers and the media benefit from the arbitrary identity boundaries they impose.  In such an atmosphere a person may then be guardedly accepted as marginally different. 

Concentrating on minor differences as though there is no interconnection to all that is perceived as reality as religious and political indulgence commonly imply only insures needless self-inflicted turmoil.  The Bible, for instance, held as the standard of moral and ethical conduct, gives frequent examples in contemptuously labeling differences, and this automatically establishes and energizes abrasive power relationships.   This is but a grudging rejection of the creative power in which all things are interconnected.  The funny thing is that the labels they use to identify others tend to shift over time, and identities get reconstructed—re-diversified—but the interrelationship remains.  A good example of this is how women, thanks to male-written scriptural tales, have had to endure centuries of being dispossessed as second class beings.  This type of anti-diversity nonsense is most glaringly apparent today in some  Muslim-oriented cultures.  And in ignoring the fact that the creative power does not indulge in hard-edged social, religious, political or gender identities, we have been jockeyed into the concept that the law of diversity at work in Creation can be overruled by man’s bigotry.

If rightly understood, the natural multiplicity found throughout every aspect of Creation opens the means of developing working, productive alliances.  The comprehension that there are no strict polarities at work in Creation would open the truly progressive way to advance into humankind’s higher potential.  Creation’s diversity is the means of generating universal power, not an extravagance to be disassembled and repressed.

Leave a comment »

« Older Entries