Archive for creation

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.


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….”

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.

Basis of Holy Trinity Concept

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, culture, enlightenment, history, prehistory, random, religion, science, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on October 3, 2009 by chouck017894

The concept of a trinity or triune involvement responsible for Creation is a feature in all religions in some way.  The religions that have evolved through the millennia have clouded and lost the more ancient understanding of the creation process as they were once taught and which became presented and personified as a “trinity” in a holy mystery.  Modern science helps us understand the genius in prehistory cultures that recognized what truly constitutes the three-in-one within the creative Source.   Those three aspects of holy mystery are recognized today in physics and are called the three families of elementary particles.

The basic particles of all matter as defined in atomic chemistry are electrons, protons, and neutrons.  These constitute the three-in-one that serve as the nucleus that activates as elementary substance.  The electron is the smallest unit charge of negative electricity.  Together with the proton and neutron, it makes up one of the fundamental particles of which all matter is composed.  In the simplest nucleus, that of the hydrogen atom of mass 1, the nucleus consists of a single proton which has a positive charge of electricity that is equal in magnitude to that of an electron.  The neutron, the third part of the nucleus, is an uncharged particle.  These three particles must be present together to activate into elementary substance, the basis of all matter: allegorically “one god subsisting in three persons and one substance.”   Thus in Christian rearrangement this accounts for the “three persons” where Jesus allegedly commanded his disciples to go out and baptize “in the name of the father and of the son and  of the holy spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)

Molecules, those minute particles that move about as a singular whole, were once thought to be the fundamental particles—or building blocks of matter.  It was eventually determined, however, that molecules were made up of atoms.  Looking further into atoms, science then discovered that the atoms were nuclei with electrons around them.  From this discovery the understanding arose that nuclei were composed of neutrons and protons.  But even these were discovered not to be the smallest elementary particles, but that neutrons and protons were themselves built out of quarks.

The quark of  physics is a miniscule set of fermions having an electrical charge, and this is thought to be the fundamental particle of the universe.  The word “particle,” unfortunately, tends to be interpreted as a singular thing with quantity.  But a fundamental particle is more representative of what may be termed a trace point of eternal energy involvement.  This is not something that can be regarded as “god” or a divine being, although it is the ever-circling of energy within itself out of which is projected the kaleidoscopic colorings that we see as the complexity of the universe.

Actively involving out of and with quarks, the neutrons and protons arise much like polar energies.  These, in turn, involve and transform as nuclei with electrons around it.  These elementary particles are not yet what could be considered defined form, but only a unity of primal energy with the potential of forming into energy-substance.  All three aspects within the primordial conditions gather as potential form that is capable of emanating as a force, and this is then capable of exerting itself with four distinct properties of involvement necessary for material manifestation—allegorized in Genesis as four rivers out of Eden.  The unlimited potentiality held within the elementary particle was represented as three eternal, interacting, and inseparable aspects that ejaculate as energies of Creation.  This is ancient knowledge upon which claims were made for “revealed” information in sacred texts.  In the New Testament, for example, the unverifiable character of John is alleged to have said, “…there are three that bear record in heaven, and these three are one.  And there are three that bear witness in earth, and these three agree in one.”  As we have seen, the three-in-one is indeed recorded throughout the universe, and indeed the three creative principles do bear witness in the projected energy that defines Earth, and thus confirms they agree in one.

  • Information is abridged from The Celestial Scriptures: Keys to the Suppressed Wisdom of the Ancients.

Dilemma in Divine Word

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, enlightenment, faith, freethought, humanism, humanity, Inspiration, logic, meaning of life, random, religion, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on September 1, 2009 by chouck017894

In the opening myth of “Beginning” (Genesis), the duality factor (polar interaction) within a source that is necessary for any generative action to take place is accounted for several times with God dividing numerous energy components to accomplish his acts of Creation.  Thus the waters are divided, the firmament divided, and finally the chipping away of part of Adam’s anatomical form to account for the generative ability that can occur between humans.  The fact that is only obliquely presented in the “holy” Creation myth is that any operative force or definable thing can be made manifest only as an energy form that occurs between the exchange points (i.e. polar activity) of one source.  In the simplistic scriptural presentation of generative action a vital part of truth gets lost—such as the fact that division does not mean that they cease to be connected.  There is always and ever will be a positive/negative unity present in/around any definable manifestation.

The opening account of Creation given in the Holy Bible, regrettably, opens with a misleading premise, and from that premise the errors of interpretation have conned untold generations into the web of politicized “faith” systems.  The problem that has arisen from the so-called “revealed” explanations of the polar division and its interaction is that the resultant spiritual instruction has caused seekers to concentrate on superficial differences so they fail to understand that all things in Creation remain eternally interrelated as energy factors.  This failure of religious interpretation only makes for an atmosphere of smug ignorance (organized “faith”), where the smallest diversities are pointed to as inferior or even “an abomination” in god’s sight.  The true abomination is the practice of hoarding such ignorance as spiritual truth, for ignorance of life’s interrelatedness breeds hatred and hatred breeds violence, and we wind up with a world which is savaged with constant bloody conflicts. 

The directive power of creative energy which is the basis for all living matter-forms is activated within primal energies from polar components.  And the eternal intertwining of creative polar energies is microscopically represented in biological life with what biochemistry calls the double helix.  The double helix structure of the DNA molecule consists of two connected spiral polynucleotide chains coiled around the same axis.  The sequence of bases in the DNA molecules provides the genetic information of each living structure.

Beneath what are only surface differences, life is structured from and dedicated to interrelationship, and that is most remarkably shown in the ladder of  life that we know as DNA.  Human ignorance and bogus spirituality have blinded people to the fact that the DNA of every living person is 99.9 percent the same.  It doesn’t matter if one is tall or short, fat or thin, white, black, yellow or red, male or female, or genius or slow witted, all persons are composed of the same DNA.  That means that genetically speaking, every human on Earth is astonishingly close to being your identical twin.

In truth it can can be said, “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord (law).  And there are diversities of operations, but it is of the same  power which worketh all in all.  But the manifestation of spirit is given to every man…” 1 Corinthians 12:4-7

Thus it is that to dishonor any human life is to dishonor yourself.

Inner Relationship of All Things

Posted in Atheist, belief, culture, environment, nature, Pantheism, random, religion with tags , , , , on July 27, 2009 by chouck017894

The ancient world, much more than the modern world, recognized the intimate connection that all life has to what we speak of as Nature, and they respected that connection as the direct and active part of Creation’s life-sustaining principle.  In the modern world shaped upon priest-written scriptural concepts of an imagined right of  dominion by man over Nature, this truth has been virtually discarded and the result has been the brutal rape of Nature and the disturbed planetary environment.

Our religions, at least in the western world, certainly have never taught respect for a fundamental law of  “god’s” Creation, which is that organism and environment always define each other.  If we remove the blinders imposed by the faith merchants, we can witness that fundamental law of Creation everywhere in the universe.  A galaxy, for example, cannot exist without the environment of its enclosing field of energy.  Likewise, human culture exists and flourishes in the environment of Earth only because Earth evolved an energy-network of mutually interdependent organisms—which may be symbolized with mineral  ores and plant life.  This truth happens to be the reason why early scriptural myth gives such value to “gold, bdellium, and the onyx stone” as having been in Eden even before “man” was created (Genesis 2:11-12).  Certainly it is absurd to regard these minerals in an economic meaning if there was no one around to covet them, so they were clearly used as examples of the value of the “lower” mineral kingdom to the maintenance of life.

Material based religious practices,  particularly in western organized religions, have never taught reverence for the elemental aspects (which could be said as used by god) that create and sustain life.  Instead they choose to foster the illusion that human consciousness and intelligence is unique not only in Nature but in the universe as a whole.  Such religious interpretation is designed only to gratify human ego, for it ignores the truth that intelligence as a life organism becomes intelligible only in relation to its environment.  Remove the life forms and the environment from each other and both become meaningless.  What this attests to is that intelligent perception exists only because it is part of an intelligent environment—for an intelligent fraction cannot arise out of an unintelligent whole.

Then there is the plant kingdom which, even though inanimate in its energy form, embodies and contains energies of material life just as does the more advanced biological life.  Western religions do not teach that lowly plant life illustrates an existing inner relationship that is ever-present in all things.  The plant kingdom itself exists because it is an extension—an outbudding—of an energy dimension that is even more elemental–the afore-mentioned mineral domain.  Vegetation is the innocent life that is, allegorically speaking, martyred by and for biological life.  This was recognized and honored in the maligned Pagan observances held at the time of the vernal equinox—the same general time that became adapted as Passover and Easter.

Reverence for the elemental foundation of life as demonstrated by Nature has thus been stricken from god-the-creator-religions that fail to acknowledge that intellectual life can develop and evolve only when infinite energy combinations are incorporated.  This means, by extension, that in the overall creative environment nothing is ever called upon to “justify” its existence.  This truth is not exactly a feature of Creation that material minded religious manipulators want people to know.   Instead they choose to focus upon surface differences, such as diverse physical forms or colorings or emotional drives that various life forms may possess.  The mental environment that is thus established and accepted as spiritual understanding is subsequently rendered sorely deficient in the quality of compassion, the very factor that elevates the emanations of consciousness into wisdom.

Time and Nothingness

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, logic, prehistory, random, religion with tags , , , , , , , , on July 25, 2009 by chouck017894

Many people in what we regard to be prehistory were knowledgeable of the atomic structure of the universe.  Symbols of atomic energy have been found the world over dating from what we regard as prehistory.  Also there are passages from the Vedas, for example, the most ancient sacred writings of Hinduism, that allude to beings with such understanding.  And in cultures such as the Celts, Gauls, Mayans, and others there were what we might term “initiates” who demonstrated their comprehension of atomic structure.

As late as the fifth century before our Common Era (CE), the Greek philosopher Leucippus spoke of the atom and the “corpuscular universe.”  So too did the fourth century BCE Greek philosopher Democritus, whose name is associated with the  first exposition of the atomic theory of matter according to which all matter is composed of single, indivisible atoms.  His theory was that the atoms, the space within which they move, and their motions within that space, are eternal.  This would mean that there is no point at which it can be said to have served as a “beginning.”

Both religion and science pursue the theory that if the fundamental “law” of the universe can be discerned, and the initial condition of the universe could be discovered, then all purpose for Creation would be known to man.  What is steadfastly ignored is the fact that neither time nor space function as a principle of  Creation: they are effects, and the fundamental “law” and initial condition they seek is to be found in the eternal now.  Because the potentiality for everything has always existed within the primal energies we think of as Source, and which religion insists upon personifying as “God,” it is only the  fundamental energy particle active as Source that could ever authoritatively announced “I Am.”

In other words, Creation’s energies could never have evolved ex nihilo, out of nothing. Energy can exist without manifesting as form, but energy cannot be generated out of a state of non-existence.  As Stephen Hawking has proposed, much to the dismay of cosmologists and religionists, there really could never have been a point “t=O” to mark a “beginning.” 

A “Big Bang” does not explain the beginning  of Creation: the only thing that theory can be said to demonstrate is that energy is creative.  Energy has to be active in some capacity if anything like a “big bang”  could be initiated; it simply could not explode unless there was activity present to fuel it.  Religionists, of course, will say that it was “god” who stirred up the whole mess.  But any pre-schooler has common sense enough to ask, “Then who created god?”

We are faced with the reality that is always up to each individual pattern of energy as to where it wants to begin to measure the timely circle experienced as Creation.  To define Creation in terms of a time when everything “began” is an attempt to impose limitation upon that which is without limits.  That has left science in the awkward position of never having been able to explain what it is that we experience as time.  Indeed, science and religion simply accept that time just emerged ex nihilo, out of nothing.  That idea got kicked in the head when Albert Einstein introduced to the world the theory of relativity.  The paradoxes of special relativity was that time can be measured at a different rate by two clocks in different situations.  A clock moving in outer space, as compared to a stationary one on Earth, will measure involvement with Creation  forces differently.  That little discovery changed forever man’s concept that time was something constant, unalterable, and observed identically everywhere in the universe.  The indistinct qualifications of what constitutes “time” therefore casts serious doubts on any timescale that religionists claim from “revealed wisdom,” and even clouds the timescale that cosmologists theorize in an attempt to deduce the exact “time” of the imagined “big bang.”

Maybe we should rethink our concept of time.  Age-old concepts of  “time” did not regard time as a linear measure as we have been conditioned to regard it, but thought of it as a broadly arked, ever-shifting energy flow in which we each reflect our relationship with quantum activity.