Archive for DNA/RNA

“Born in Sin”

Posted in Atheism, Atheist, Christianity, history, life, random, religion with tags , , , , , , on July 10, 2009 by chouck017894

From the depths of antiquity the great no escape clause dreamed up by pretenders of religious knowledge has been that all life is “born in sin.”  The selling of “sin” has been a major part of Christian doctrine, with sexual magnetism cast as an especial reason for heaven’s rejection of one’s personal expression.

In life forms, including the human species, there are amoral elements encoded and blended in DNA and RNA that establish the physical sensory patterns.  These senses are not the evil or accursed condition of “inherited sin” that western religions have chosen to portray them.  The sensate nature imprinted in life forms is simply a part of the physical attributes by which material-energy conditions are confronted, experienced and qualified by individual awareness.

Life is energized out of amoral properties and is therefore guiltless when an energy-form identity is taken on, which means that life forms cannot be “born in sin.”  This is not to say that life cannot be born into conditions considered sinful.  There is irony in this, for a higher percentage of sinful conditions are most often directly linked to the intimidating interpretations that are inflicted from man-conceived and self-serving religious practices, not to the amoral elements encoded in the pattern of one’s biological nature.

Christianity owes its concepts of “born in sin” or “inherited sin” from the befuddled “saint” Augustine (354-430), who just happened to have converted to the Christian movement from the Gnostic sect Manicheanism that taught the concept of “original sin.”  Gnosticism regarded all things of the flesh as sinful, which is why they denied that god’s son and savior of man would have come in the flesh.  As all converts to any faith system tend to be, Augustine was adamant in his analysis of what constituted holy truth and fervently promoted the idea that man’s salvation from being born in sin could be achieved only through the grace of god.  This stance meant that free will could not be a factor in one’s salvation–a doctrinal arrangement that positioned the church as the only authority through which one could recieve god’s forgiveness and pardon. 

Augustine’s driving ambition to impose his interpretation upon the Christian corporate-style setup did not go unquestioned.  To a British monk named Pelagius (353-420?-430?), the idea that one was tainted with sin from birth did not match the declared efficacious grace of the maker.  It was a sane understanding that sin is not an infirmity of nature.  Pelagius taught that each person was born with free will, and asserted that man’s will is capable of spiritual good with divine aid being unnecessary.  Pelagius taught that every child is born in a state of innocence and that every person’s perseverance in virtue depends upon themselves.  This understanding, however, allowed the church too little power over each person’s life and thus threatened to cut into their potential material profits.

And so “saint” Augustine attempted vigorously to have Pelagius condemned by the church, but was for awhile unsuccessful.  This only added to Augustine’s divine detestation and he called upon political connections to persecute Pelagius—for god’s sake, of course.  Thus at several synods held between 412 and 418 Augustine managed to have Pelagius condemned and finally banished from Rome.  In 431, after Pelagius had died and could no longer defend himself, the Council of Ephesus confirmed the condemnation of  Pelagius.  With the chains of sin then firmly attached to man’s means of birth the church claimed itself to be the only means of a person being absolved of sin.

What’s in a Name?

Posted in Atheist, Bible, biological traits, Christianity, culture, enlightenment, freethought, humanism, humanity, life, logic, meaning of life, nontheism, random, religion, Uncategorized with tags , , , , on April 26, 2009 by chouck017894

A curious event is presented in the book of Genesis (chapter two) where–after the heavens and the earth were finished–the Lord God brought “every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air” to Adam to see what he, Adam, would name them. This little story element contains an enormous amount of coded information that for generations seems to have escaped detection by even the most professional Bible thumpers.

For one thing, the storyline incident indirectly reveals that the tale is fashioned on information handed down from some older, more scientific teachings on the creative process by which energy is transformed into matter-form. The “Lord God” of the Genesis account personifies the source or the quantum conditions out of which dimensions of energy are radiated. Adam personifies the Life Principle–which is to say, the element of energy activity that is infused with sensitivity–or that which may otherwise be identified with consciousness. It is this primary stage of energy variation radiating from Source (personified as “Lord God”) that units of energy attract into definable patterns (proto-matter-forms), and these are what Adam, personification of the Life Principle, “names.”

Translated into modern understanding, the “name” of the life-form is determined by the DNA and RNA, and we, as energy forms, carry the sensitivity (consciousness) to perceive and interact with other fields of limited energy. As noted in the book The Celestial Scriptures: Keys to the Suppressed Wisdom of the Ancients (page 334), “To know the name of a thing means that there is recognition of diverse combinations of energy involvement that have been utilized as individual fields of energy.” And this illustrates the subtle truth of creation: that there are no “names”–or limitations–in Source; there  is simply the potential for everything. As energy-substances involve with purpose (defining as form) they are baptized in the “waters” of creation (amniotic fluids) and given a “name.” And the “name” identifies the form of limitation that has been imposed upon that unit of creative energy.

Also from The Celestial Scriptures: “Unfortunately, the power of a name has been widely misunderstood as being the means of invoking magical powers for personal benefit, which is the implication in the alleged advice of Jesus to ‘…ask in my name, I will do it.’ (John 14:14) The Life Principle (personified as Jesus) will indeed give forth all the energies necessary for personal expression, but the name by which it is addressed or appealed to will also determine the delivery limits that the name invokes.”

Each of us has been DNA/RNA “named,” and as an energy-entity we are each capable of expanding above our limitations–but that is not going to be accomplished by calling upon a “name” that was defined by its own material limitation.