Archive for Genesis

Pre-History: Abridged From Scripture

Posted in Atheist, Bible, faith, Hebrew scripture, history, prehistory, random, religion, scriptures with tags , , , , , , , on March 11, 2014 by chouck017894

Far back in planet Earth’s existence there were no reporters to address and chronicle the developmental events that would contribute to the rise of humankind. To answer that oversight the Creator eventually attempted to correct that situation by “revealing” to a few select men a brief crafted version of his productive activity. Strangely, this did not occur until He found a band of fixated men in a tiny outpost called Jerusalem in the timeframe we now list as c. 8th century BCE. Relying on mere mortal men to explain the complication of his “days” of Creation may not have been the Creator’s best decision.

As a result of relying upon man’s comprehension there is a great deal of hatred, both openly and by implication, expressed throughout the western worlds’ three “holy books.” For example, it is said that even God himself got all riled up and fumed with indignation and hatred very early in the account given in Genesis, a series of stories all of which pivot on the theme of Creation. Supposedly the Omniscient One (all-knowing) was so neurotic over the trespassing by two innocent naked persons upon an alluring tree he had placed in the center of his garden landscape that it caused him to rant curses at a serpent, a curious woman and a bewildered man. Barely controlling his indignation, God tossed the clueless couple out of his garden on their fig leaf covered butts and slammed the garden gate behind them.

The man and woman managed to survive in the unfamiliar, rough terrain, however, and since they were still pretty much innocent about how things worked, they wound up with two sons. By this time the Omniscient One had apparently invented some semblance of anger management, and giving into his own curiosity stepped out of his garden to observe the rejected family. That little episode did not exactly work out too well either because God expected the two offspring of the original pair to shower him with material offerings. When the two boys finally gathered from their meager supplies to offer them to God, God had the audacity to show favoritism to only one! When that favoritism resulted in jealousy and the favored boy was killed by his brother, the Omniscient One once again chose to expel the culprit rather than to patiently teach him the principles of moral responsibility. And oddly, God did not bother himself to restore the favored boy back to life, which is strange when all he had to do was say, “let there be life.” Anyway the killer, Cain, was deprived by God of the privilege to till the ground, so the dispossessed boy took off to establish a city in the land of Nod, and there he proceeded to build and populate the whole region in only two generations! Strangely, it is never explained where he found the necessary females. This population explosion is never adequately explained; perhaps because everyone was too interested in cohabitation.

Meanwhile, Adam and Eve also contributed to population statistics. Indeed, the “begetting” that followed seemed unstoppable. Apparently in dejection, God had gone back to his secluded landscaped garden and cogitated for a while, and when he eventually ventured outside again to see what was going on he was stunned. The world outside was inundated with so many people, and they all seemed so obnoxious. Again his anger erupted, and he determined he would drown the whole perverted mess—all the living creatures and vegetation, and men, women, children, all. He would flush them all down the drain.

But damned if a glitch didn’t screw up the Omniscient One’s deluge plan! Some guy named Noah got word of the Creator’s hateful scheme and the guy dared to build himself a cargo ship to preserve himself, his family and every animal, amphibian and insect species with the vital necessities for life. When the Deluge gushed in Noah dutifully recorded in the ship’s log on a daily basis, and this wound up being salvaged and is available in abbreviated for in Genesis. Planet Earth was inudated just as God had planned, soaked to at least fifteen cubits of water above the highest mountains, according to Noah’s log. Apparently Noah spent a lot of time leaning over the ship’s railing, ostensibly taking depth-soundings when he wasn’t busy feeding the parental stock of all life; at least the depth of the flood waters got recorded. Noah’s rescue accomplishments did not exactly result in personal glory, however. He wound up being castrated by one of his family members as he lay unconscious and naked after having imbibed too much green wine that he had made from the grapevines he had planted immediately after touching dry land. Strangely, that emasculation episode was not so painstakingly reported. All that is recorded is that “…Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.” Actually he blamed the wrong kid, but the “seed” of Noah and his sons were grudgingly blessed by God and “…of them was the whole earth (to be) overspread.” (Genesis 9:24)

For awhile, evidently, God again just let things coast along, hoping perhaps that the devious people who had so vigorously reproduced might starve of do themselves in. But once again, possibly from nagging curiosity, God decided to step out of his garden and survey the damage. To his amazement he found that the whole earth was of a lone language, and of one speech, and the people had clustered in the land of Shinar (Sumer) [Genesis 11:6]. Even more exasperating to him, the people were constructing a tower with which they could peer over his garden wall and spy upon his privacy! Such impudence! In sudden hateful anger the Creator-God confounded the people’s language so they could not understand each other. That, he grumbled, should teach them to be more cooperative and improve their behavior. And to further emphasize his displeasure ‘…did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” But scattering them hither and thither did nothing to stop all the begetting.

After taking another break from supervising the descendants of the original couple, God once again gathered nerve enough to look in upon the situation outside his garden. By this time you would think that he would have few high expectations. He found only agitation due to the incomplete obedience to his vaguely explained wishes. Throttling his hateful anger, God randomly selected a subject whom he could groom to act as his diplomatic go-between. To lure the selected subject into service, God even promised the man, named Abram, that he would “make thee a great nation,” and to even curse anyone who might curse his chosen spokesman. But the guy Abram was not wildly enthusiastic about much of the Lord’s plan except sowing his seed.

Anyway, mankind’s history is purportedly assessed from Abram who had been designated as the Omniscient One’s seed bearer. Being young and horny, Abram left home looking for a wife, and in the process wound up wasting at least fourteen years before marrying the woman Sari whom he had vowed to possess. But Abram had not been idle, exactly: he had a child or two on the sly. Because Sari was easy on the eye, Abram convinced her to play along in a scheme to swindle the Pharaoh of Egypt out of a fortune in domestic animals and servants. Understandably indignant, the Pharaoh, much like the Creator would do, then ordered them all to depart his land. So Abram and Sari and Abram’s nephew, Lot, and all the newly gained wealth journeyed back to Abram’s earlier location.

Along the way Abram’s nephew, Lot, took up residence in a strange little village named Sodom. Well, that choice didn’t pan out too well either. The Lord supposedly hated the selective intimacy of the residents and so, being omniscient but divinely prejudiced and dour, marked the place for destruction. Being a relative of God’s chosen spokesman, Abram’s nephew was ordered to flee the place, a command which wound up being the direct cause of an incest episode with Lot and his two daughters. All in all, the whole incident did not make the Lord joyful.

Everything from then on, we are divinely assured, is accurate history. Abram had his name changed by God who bestowed the alias Abraham upon him; and Sari, the Lord said, should go by the name Sarah. Thus, having followed God’s command, Abraham allegedly became the progenitor and founder of the Hebrew people. Glory was thus rescued from earlier chaotic circumstances and Abraham, having fulfilled his usefulness, expired at the age of 175. And to this day his descendant still attempt, as demanded in Genesis 22:17, “…to become as numerous as the sand upon the seashore.”

44 Comments »

Priest-Style History

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, culture, faith, history, humanity, life, politics, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 25, 2010 by chouck017894

After the little kingdom of Israel fell to Assyria, c. 722 BCE, the more rugged central hill country of Judah south of Israel experienced an influx of refugees and the modest village of Jerusalem burst forth in sudden expansion c. 720-718 BCE.  Until this time Jerusalem had covered no more than ten-and-a-half acres, but it quickly expanded outward from its narrow ridge site to engulf the entire western hill and envelop one hundred and fifty acres with closely packed residences, workshops, businesses and public buildings.

In this timeframe Jerusalem was not yet regarded as a “holy city”—except, perhaps, by the priests of Yahweh who had long dreamed of making their temple in Jerusalem the center of political spirituality.  The common understanding has long been nourished that Jerusalem and the region around it was always devoted to belief in one god and one god only.  In truth there was a widespread diversity of worship practices throughout Judah, and there was a widespread mixing of other gods with that of Yahweh in the Jerusalem Temple.  Archaeology finds have shown conclusively that the claimed golden age of tribal and Davidic fidelity to Yahweh was not a historic reality.  Indeed, cults of various gods and goddesses were prevalent throughout Judah.  So diverse were the customs of the people that some of them regarded the Ugaritic mother-goddess Asherah as the consort of YHWH.  This, of course, was deemed blasphemous by the priests of Yahweh.

Scriptural accounts of coexisting kingdoms of Israel and Judah (as noted in the previous post Scriptures’ Contrived History, June 16) is priestly fabrication, for Judah developed extensively only after Israel’s fall to Assyria.  The priest account of defensive forts said to have been erected by Solomon’s son Rehoboam were actually erected 200 years later than the implied c. 931-914 BCE date as II Chronicles 11:5-12 would have us believe.  The same is true of the palaces and gates that Solomon is claimed to have commissioned.

The political minded priests in Jerusalem recognized that they had to blend the popular Creation myths known in Israel with their own myths if they were to lure the refugees into becoming part of the “chosen people” of Yahweh.  Thus chapters one and two of Genesis present noticeable differences in Creation sequences, as well as the different versions that Adam and Eve allegedly played in the Creator’s scheme of  things.  The two accounts are mismatched enough that Bible scholars refer to them as the “J” and “E” versions.  The “J” version was written by priests in Judah whose God was addressed as Yahweh: the version that was known in Israel is referred to as the “E” account because the authors of that tale referred to the Creator as Elohim.

It should be noted that the “J” version of Genesis does not exactly make it clear as to whether or not Yahweh was the sole creator of heaven and earth and Man.  In trying to bond the two accounts the authors of the revision suddenly have God muse aloud, “Let us create man in our image…” (Genesis 1:26).  But in the second chapter it says, “God (again singular) formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life…” (Genesis 2:7).  The political reason for this description of man being fashioned from dust was to block any idea that man might share some divine attributes of the Creator as other cultures believed.  The “J” authors were determined to bind the act of Creation to ordinary time, which allowed themselves the liberty to compose a “history” in which those who believed in Yahweh could be presented with the status of having been “chosen.”  And with the characters of Moses and Abram/Abraham there was set in place the means by which they could claim the special destiny of owning the land of Canaan. 

For the fundamentalists who assert that every word in scriptures is to be taken as God-sent, it might be wise to note that the uncertainty that is revealed in the two patched together Creation myths is reason to pause for reassessment.  That the scriptures were written with political intent, not spiritual enlightenment, is only faintly disguised somewhat later (in II Kings) with the priestly assessment of Manasseh who came to the throne of Judah at age 12, c. 692 BCE, after his father, Hezekiah, revolted against Assyria and was defeated (even though priests assured him that God approved his policy of religious purification).  It was up the Manasseh to pick up the pieces and try to restore Judah to an operational kingdom.  His subjects were primarily country folks and few of them had ever embraced Yahweh as the one-and-only God that the priests demanded.  As a result, religious pluralism returned.  The priest authors in Jerusalem were a spiteful group, and in their writings expressed only denunciatory outrage at Manasseh for letting this happen.  True to the revisionist style of history making, we find Manasseh being presented by the priest authors as the most sinful monarch that the kingdom Judah ever had (II Kings 21: 1-18).

Archaeological evidence reveals that Manasseh was nothing of the sort.  Under Manasseh the kingdom of Judah was revived and prospered.  For the sake of the kingdom and the people Manasseh became a vassal of Assyria—and went on to reign for fifty-five years—the longest, most prosperous and most peaceful reign of any Israelite or Judean king.  The population grew and the nation flourished under his policies.  But the priests continued to fume with jealousy over the blessings enjoyed under his rule—all of which occurred without the benefit of priestly intercession with Yahweh. 

Fundamentalists, take note:  The settlements and cities that were established during Manasseh’s reign survived and thrived after his death.  Indeed, it was only after the priests had again finagled themselves into political influence that Judah fell c. 587 BCE.

1 Comment »

Ancient Source of Holy Trinity Concept

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, humanity, nature, prehistory, random, religion, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , on March 20, 2010 by chouck017894

The concept of three-in-one, or triune involvement, is a feature in all religions in some manner.  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 the “trinity” in holy mystery.  Modern science helps us understand the genius that was present in prehistory cultures that knew what truly constitutes the three-in-one.  In ancient teachings the three-in-one aspects as the Source of all things actually concerned what modern physics calls 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, they make 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 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 ever-circling of energy within itself out which is projected the kaleidoscopic colorings that we see as the complexity of the universe.

Actively involving out 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 aspect  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 that was used in the claims of “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, these three are one.”  As we have seen, the three-in-one is indeed recorded through the universe, and indeed the three creative principles do bear witness in the projected energy that defines Earth, and thus confirms that they agree in one. 

However, the NT account does not exactly confirm the reality of the story characters.

 

2 Comments »

Making Holy Myths

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, humanity, life, prehistory, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , on March 16, 2010 by chouck017894

Of all the creation myths of ancient peoples, the opening chapter of the book of Genesis stands in a class by itself.  Unlike all cultures Before our Common Era the priests of Yahweh in Jerusalem were busily indulging themselves in setting up the premise of divine discrimination.  The Creator they presented in Genesis, who walked in his garden and talked to himself, is thus depicted as either not omniscient (all-knowing) or as a heartless schemer.  For example, where is the wisdom of placing two tempting trees as the focal point of the garden and then forbidding two uncomprehending creatures the freedom to eat of them?  It is weak story plotting.  But it didn’t much matter, for the underlying purpose was to channel the Hebrew  people away from belief in numerous gods and goddesses to slowly, and with some difficulty, indoctrinate them with the premise of one being that created limited identities without the necessity of energy intercourse.

In this prehistory period the civilizations such as Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Greece, etc., recognized and respected the interactions of incalculable universal energies, and it was these unseen interrelated and interacting primal creative forces that the ancient cultures personified as a pantisocracy of “gods.”  The energies that interact throughout nature and the observable universe do often appear to be in opposition, hence the “gods” were often depicted in Pagan cultures as in competition or in a state of lust.  There was never any doubt among those Pagan cultures, however, that such creative energies originated out of a singular cause.

What the Yahweh priests contrived was the claim that the indifferent source-power of Creation had singled out one group of people (them, of course) as the sole recipients of his blessings.  To accomplish this pretext of divine discrimination the wily priest-editors referred to the same  primal and diverse energies responsible for all manifested life as their historical ancestors and dubbed those primal creative energies as Israelites.  The “gods” that were recognized by the surrounding cultures and which symbolized the same diverse creative energies were then purposely ridiculed as too lacking to have been chosen by the source power which the author-priests referred to as Yahweh.  But this counter assault on Pagan wisdom necessitated finding a means to explain the diverse energy-attributes that were presented and personified with the Pagan gods.

The priest-editors of reworked Hebrew myths certainly knew what the Pagan gods symbolized: they knew that there are energy interactions all through the universe that, although unseen for the most part, do have an effect on life forces.  The way out for demoting the Pagan gods was simply to give those forces a different designation, so the diverse forces were reassigned by the priests of Yahweh from acknowledgment as Pagan “gods” to Yahweh’s servants which were hailed as “angels.”  For all extent and purpose, the attributes and special duties of the Pagan gods were simply transferred to a regiment of “angels.”  The angels, of course, were envisioned as acting under the direction of an amoral source-power personified as Yahweh-God.  We must note that amoral does not mean immoral: it means that any judgmental inclination or personality features are not present. 

The Demotion of Eve.      In the earliest part of Genesis the character of Eve is referred to as “Mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20), which suggests the rank of a near-sacred being.  This title that Adam allegedly bestowed upon Eve, “Mother of all living,” is identical to what the Sumerians had bestowed upon the love goddess Aruru, for she was regarded in their culture as the creatrix of life.  Eve’s implied eminence in Genesis, even after making a fruit-picking mistake, reflects the Pagan understanding that creation of all life can take place only through a process of polar energy interaction.  This is why various neighboring cultures that the Yahweh priests so envied, such as Sumerian, Phoenician, Hittie, Ugaritic, etc., gave homage to goddesses as being equal in divine power with the gods.  But Eve, according to the Yahweh priests, was demoted and declared to have been designed by Yahweh-Jehovah simply to serve as Adam’s helpmeet.  This was the deliberate capsizing of Pagan understanding, and it had no parallel in any other early Mediterranean or Middle Eastern myths.  The advantage of this slight-of-hand was that it placed man (especially the political minded priests) in the authoritative position.  Unfortunately, by demoting the feminine polar aspect necessary for life production, the Genesis myth of Creation insanely rejects the fundamental polar energy principle necessary for Creation.  And western religious understanding of the basic principle of creation and the fruition (evolution) of life manifestation has been plagued with controversy and  misunderstanding ever since.

Leave a comment »

The DNA Lottery

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, culture, history, humanity, Inspiration, life, meaning of life, prehistory, random, religion, science, thoughts, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 15, 2009 by chouck017894

The key to all aspects of life and death are programmed in DNA.

Secrets of DNA were actually known to academic men in ancient cultures such as Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, the Indus Valley, etc.  This may seem to be an exaggerated claim, but the proof of that scientific knowledge happens to be recorded in many art representations of those ancient cultures.  That knowledge is even presented, although in a less persuasive version, in the Old Testament.

The most telling art alluding to DNA from those more ancient cultures—older than the priest-authors of “scriptures”—was  of the Mesopotamian region—Sumer/Babylonia.  The secrets of genetics and biomedicine are fully depicted in many wall sculpture and bas-reliefs—the images of entwined serpents—an emblem used to this day for the arts of medicine and healing.

In ancient Egypt, too, entwined serpents symbolized life, and the “god” associated with that symbol was known as PTAH, the developer.  That the scientific principle of DNA was known in ancient Egypt is artfully presented in the myth of the half brothers Seth and Osiris.  Seth was the unscrupulous one, and sought the domain ruled over by his brother Osiris.  Seth made two attempts to dispose of Osiris, the second time by seizing  Osiris, murdering him and cutting his body into fourteen parts, which he scattered across the world.  Osiris’  grieving wife, Isis, managed to recover all parts of her husband’s body except for his phallus.  With the help of the god Thoth, the Divine Scribe, they managed to extract “the essence” from Osiris’ body from which Isis impregnated herself and eventually gave birth to the god, Horus.  It is the first known recorded case of artificial insemination!

In biblical myth the reference to life’s DNA connection is in the presentation of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.  A fertilizing gamete of a male (spermatozoon) is a long nucleated cell with a thin, mobile tail; which is to say it is serpentine in appearance, and is why in the Genesis myth it is the Serpent that awakens life-awareness in Eve. 

Later in the Genesis myth, the rivalry expressed in the Egyptian Seth/Osiris myth is echoed in the myth of Cain murdering Abel.  The later priest-authors dedicated to Yahweh, however, were a little fuzzy on the scientific particulars expressed in the Egyptian tale, and interpreted it as an underlying rivalry between agriculture and animal breeding.

The sacred Serpent of the pre-Jewish Hebrews was Nehushtan or Ne-esthan from the Hebrew root NHSH, which meant, “to decipher”or to make out the meaning.  Again the serpent was a reference to the life-awakening power symbolized with the squiggling fertilizing gamete.  Thus in the book of Numbers this is the meaning behind the story of Moses making—at God’s command—the Brazen Serpent that was to be placed upon a pole (Numbers 21:9).  The symbolism got lightly brushed with superstition by saying that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he would behold the serpent of brass, he lived.  

The point of mentioning these few examples is to show that the understanding of the Serpent figure as symbolizing the creative impulsion was worldwide in ancient times.  The accusation extended in the Judeo-Christian faith that the Serpent represents evil was therefore far from universal.  It demonstrates that in the competing divisions of religious politics it is common practice to use the competition’s emblems as representing evil.  Thus in Judeo-Christian myth the creative wisdom represented with the serpent became inverted.

  • See also related posts: Dressed for Sex, Bible Style, Sept. 08;  Breastplate, Sexy Biblical Garb, Sept. 09;  The Stringy Coil of Life, July 01;  Inner Relationship of All Things, July 27; Natural Equality, August 21. 

3 Comments »

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.

Leave a comment »

Time-Warps, Planets & Creationism

Posted in Astronomy, Atheist, Bible, history, humanity, logic, prehistory, religion, science with tags , , , , , , , , on July 9, 2009 by chouck017894

Creationists, using priest-written texts of “revealed” knowledge, choose to think that creation began only a few thousand years ago.  However, under that format they are hard-pressed to explain how so many remarkable advancements of man could have been crammed into such a meager time slot.  In the Mesopotamian region in the time frame of the Creationists’ “beginning,” for example, the human species was startlingly advanced.  Somehow in in this period of time the newly created humans were already building cities with multistoried buildings, complex street systems, market places, schools, banking systems, and a sophisticated judicial system! They were also making use of weights and measures, dabbled in international commerce, made use of ships that sailed to and from wharves in well-tended harbors, and who used wheeled chariots as a common means of transport.  This is the land mentioned as the “land of Shin’ar” in biblical stories.  Of course a concept of evolution is out of the question for them: God would neither want nor need to labor over refining any basic idea of something.  Instead, everything is believed to have been installed as perfect from the start.  That way he would never again have to be bothered with it all.  On the other hand, if change seemed desirable to him, he could always clean it up using a flash flood technique.

By Creationist’s calculation the creation of the universe and its supposed central focus, Earth, is vaguely placed as somewhere around 4500 BCE at most.  The funny thing is that their calculation could have a modicum of merit.  Their calculations are based on the Hebrew version of creation drawn from other cultures’ myths, and that version became the condensed and simplified account that opens the book of Genesis in the Pentateuch.  Events on Earth were chaotic back in that general period of mythmaking, with many great cities and civilizations rising and falling as the nomadic Hebrew tribes sought a land of refuge.  Even the heavens seemed to be in turmoil.  This may account why the first year of the Jewish calendar is placed in the year 3760 BCE—around the late Neolithic period in the Canaan region (4500 BCE)—when some measure of stability was taken up by the Hebrews in some methodical manner.  By this period farming collectives were being established across the Middle and Near East, with an intermingling of “racial” types becoming acceptable.  Nomadic herders who  followed their livestock found that cultivating crops allowed them to settle in one region. 

For a little over two thousand years between c. 3600 to c. 1500 BCE there was a puzzling flurry of megalithbuilding that extended in a wide arc around the coasts of Europe.  If creation occurred only a couple thousand years before that, this is amazing creative ability for the creature man.  It is estimated that over 50,000 such megaliths were built, the most famous among them is known to us as Stonehenge (then in its first stage).  Only something urgent would have inspired such wide-scale constructions that ranged from Malta, Spain and Portugal to Sweden and the Shetland Islands, etc.  And that urgency had to do with a frightening disorder in the observable heavens.  From Egypt to the Indus Valley, from China to South and Central America, detailed layouts and monumental labor went into the careful construction of structures dedicated to the study of the heaven’s movements.  Placid skies do not motivate such commitment.

Then, generations later, c. 3114 BCE, the Mayans tell of the beginning of a new cycle of time which is precisely dated as having begun in a long darkness that occurred on 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, which corresponds to the 13th of August 3114 BCE.  And on the opposite side of the planet the earliest so-called “omen tablets” written on Sumerian/Babylonian tablets also date from this eventful date.

For some reason the celestial body we know as the planet Venus gained a major holy role throughout many widely distant cultures in this time.  Oddly, today’s religions, sciences and even historians avoid investigation of how our disturbed planetary neighbors may have contributed to mankind’s place in the scheme of things.

See related posting, 2012 Doomsday, March 13, 2009.

Leave a comment »

Biblical Mathematics

Posted in Atheist, Bible, Christianity, culture, history, prehistory, random, religion, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on May 20, 2009 by chouck017894

When numbers are used in biblical tales, especially when the number is not a neat round number such as 100 or 1000, they invariably relay hidden meaning to those trained in the art of sacred language. In ancient times long before the rise of Judaism among the Hebrew tribes, numbers were considered to carry mystical significance. That perplexity of mathematical exercise simply became another of the borrowed Babylonian traditions that were incorporated into “holy” writings. More often than not the numbers presented in the stories hold no genuine historical significance.

In the Genesis myth, Creation is accounted for as having occurred in six days. The first number that the Pythagoreans (c.500 BCE) regarded as expressing perfection was the number 6. A number was regarded as “perfect” if it is equal to the sum of its proper divisors: the number 6, for example, equals 1+2+3. Thus the number 6 was regarded as the number of God in Judaism. And later Augustine, regarded a Christian “saint,” expounded upon this mathematical endowment saying, “Six is a 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.”

The next “perfect” number is 28, and is equal to 1+2+4+7+14. It is recognized that both these “perfect” numbers are mirrored in the structural energies of the universe and its operational movements! The Moon, for example, orbits planet Earth in approximately 28 days.

Also in the book of Genesis 32:14 another number pops up. Jacob is portrayed as giving his twin brother E’sau, from whom he had stolen the “birthright” blessing of their father, “two hundred she-goats and twenty he-goats” as a token of his good will. (There are other numbers included with this “goodwill” gesture, such as 30 milk camels and their colts, 40 kine and 10 bulls, and 20 she-asses and 10 foals—all of which carry occult meaning to the initiated.) The number 220, mentioned with the goats, happens to be the first among particular numbers regarded by Pythagorean as charged with “friendly” vibartions. The reason for this assertion is 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, 22, 44, 55, and 110. These are numbers that divide evenly into a number, including 1, but excluding the number itself. As another example, the proper divisors of 284 are 1, 2, 4, 71, and 142, which sum to 220. These were seen as being “friendly” because, like a friend, they act as the number’s alter ego.

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 that we refer to today as pi. They understood as well that pi was no ordinary constant, for its precise value can never be known and so holds the special status of being transcendental. This is so because it is a decimal that does not repeat or terminate. The ancient mathematicians were also well aware of other numbers that shared the baffling properties of pi. As an example, the ratios of the diagonal to the side of a square is also a decimal that neither repeats nor ends. A diagonal line drawn through a square results in two right triangles whose hypotenuse is the diagonal with the sides of the square also acting as the sides of the triangles. This division of space symbolized in this way is therefore mathematically equivalent to the division of light from darkness as told in Genesis 1:4, the division of waters from waters in Genesis 1:27, and even the apparent divsion as male and female in Genesis. The ratio of two intergers is calculated by a decimal that neither repeats nor ends, and it is this “irrational number” that can be said to be representative of the “God” in scriptural storytelling.

Persons who are prone to regard biblical tales as having been written by God and therefore unerring become very upset when the author seems to get tripped up by principles of common mathematics. The account of the resplendent temple allegely erected by Solomon in 1 Kings 7:23 stumbles over the calculations given for the “molten sea”—a huge circular tank that held water for religious ceremonies.  This 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 implies that the value of pi is 3—which is glaringly at odds with the true value of 3.14159+.  The contention presented in this tale that direct divine wisdom presented the information is thus exposed as a fraudulent claim. 

CMH

Leave a comment »

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.

Leave a comment »

Divine Mysteries

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on February 28, 2009 by chouck017894

Since the unknown stretches ahead for everyone, and at one time or another everyone has had moments of anxiety about what lies ahead, a fascination of the mysterious is a natural and functioning part of human life. Thus human nature tends to become captivated by puzzles and things that mystify–which may partially suggest why so many generations have been captivated and enthralled with the world’s so-called “holy books.”

 
Unanswered mysteries abound in all holy literature, and vagueness often serves to exert a mesmerizing control over an unquestioning audience. In addition, when tales are told from an omnipotent viewspoint the reader is given a sense of being elevated–of being privileged to some insider knowledge. Fairytales are an excellent example of such writing techniques.

 
As an example, mystery is introduced in the first few lines of the Holy Bible. Indeed, by verse three (which is really the fourth actual line) of the opening book of Genesis there is presented a holy mystery that is never answered anywhere in any subsequent accounts. The enduring mystery is initiated with the words, “…and God said…” this or that.

 
Unquestioning believers hold that creation really began when God verbalized the words “let there be light,” and of course first light appeared! Apparently the light was made from some portion of nothing. Scientifically speaking, an aura of light would indeed be the first phenominon to emerge out of an involving field of energy.

 
All sacred mystery tales are constructed upon this writing technique. In the example of the opening of the Bible account of “beginning,” the question arises, if darkness was upon the face of the deep and everything was without form and void–meaning nothing had been created–then just who could have been around to hear, let alone write down what God is said to have said?

 
But Sacred language accounts for light and dark by avoiding explanations, saying that the ways of God are mysterious and beyond mortal comprehension. With this introductory scene we understand that nothing else had yet been created. Even so it is written that God then said, “Let there be a firmament” from which he could then divide waters from waters, and this accounted for God’s second “day” of creation labor.
Strangely, since nothing else had been created there was still no secretary or recorder on duty to take down his verbalized orders, so the mystery still remains. Nonetheless, we are told that God continued to verbalize for another four days before finally getting around to creating any creature that might have the capacity to record what he is said to have said.

Leave a comment »