Structured belief and law-enforcing systems were used and are being used to give power and thereby control to coalitions and institutions such as religion and the sciences. Are these systems, as in these religious institutions that claim divine appointment to direct and control our beliefs, values, and life choices, what they represent themselves to be? Does the right to claim divine power include the right to control civil governance? It seems that spiritual power could be seen as ultimate power which would give these institutions total power as history has supported. This is what the concern seems to be on the issue of separating church and state. However, government and politics are what these systems are really about. Often these power structures, especially in certain religions, operate very covertly, making it impossible to fully grasp the full impact of all under its control.
In all of this, religion claimed and continues to claim the Ultimate Power, that power being the Ultimate power of the God of creation. Religion claimed and claims its authority and its righteousness as God-given.Religion claims the right and the power to contain its God for its purposes. God-containment or God-possession is evident in the building of structures dedicated to worship.God-containment is focused in ritual, in the written word, in tabernacles, in sacraments and objects of worship such as in monstrances, in sacramentals, chalices, and in bread and wine. In other words, religion seeks to control its God as well as controlling all those others that are referred to as the masses, the unprivileged, the commonality, the un-chosen, all those outside the ordained Brotherhood.
What about science? What control does science have over life and death? Science has, as has religion, dared to provide answers to basic questions of existence, thereby trespassing on religion's sacred territory. In another sense, it could be viewed that religion is the precursor of science. It seems feasible then, that religion and science have the same purpose and focus but different approaches. It seems feasible then, that science and technology are also politically power-based and also aim at regulation and control. Is it possible that science also views this outside of itself as a means to personal wealth and status? If so, its no wonder that controversy arose at the noted inception of science and continues to exist
Friday, October 31, 2014
Thursday, October 30, 2014
post #167 "Power Systems"
Are we short changing ourselves? Are we allowing ourselves to be limited or boxed in? Are the fundamental questions of 'Who are we?', 'Where did we come from ?', 'Where are we going?', and 'What is our purpose?' able to be honestly and acceptably answered by religion or by science? Are these fundamental questions, as seen by science as questions based on the faith/authority system of religion, questions that challenge its powers of Reason and Intellect? Does science, consequently, need to disguise its true purpose by blurring the lines between extending life and the consequence or the payoff, while in reality, actually destroying life? Will science destroy us before it can save us? Is science disguising its true quest to save itself from failing, from failing to achieve the state of Perfection, for failing to become the God of creation?
Science exerts its rebellion against religion by imitating religion's attempts to create and control created life, by its efforts to extend mortal life indefinitely, to creating life, and ultimately to creating new life forms, thereby competing with religion's quest for power over life, not only life here, but consequently, also, and particularly, eternal life. If science accomplishes its ultimate goal of perpetual physical life then what becomes of heaven and eternity? At this point, science also defeats itself, for if life would be a constant it would no longer be necessary to create it, and science as well as religion would be out of business. Interestingly, its success at achieving its goal would also spell its death.
A close and unbiased examination of history will not fail to raise the questions to that which religion has declared as God-inspired truth. These 'truths' of religion could indeed be seen as manipulated and contrived interpretations of occurrences, persons, and events throughout history. These interpretations brought forth measures that gave rise to The Law as in commandments, rules, tenets, rites, creeds and so forth, that were needed to establish and enforce authority. The Law, in turn, also served and influenced the interpretations. The Law separated grace from sin and sin from grace. The Law not only separated, but more importantly, defined. The Law defines, and consequently, labels. Sin is presented as the opposite of grace, which is God's blessing, thus defining and separating out those whom God has chosen from those whom God condemns and casts out. One could rightly wonder whether bad or sin existed before the Law came into being. It seems doubtful
Science exerts its rebellion against religion by imitating religion's attempts to create and control created life, by its efforts to extend mortal life indefinitely, to creating life, and ultimately to creating new life forms, thereby competing with religion's quest for power over life, not only life here, but consequently, also, and particularly, eternal life. If science accomplishes its ultimate goal of perpetual physical life then what becomes of heaven and eternity? At this point, science also defeats itself, for if life would be a constant it would no longer be necessary to create it, and science as well as religion would be out of business. Interestingly, its success at achieving its goal would also spell its death.
A close and unbiased examination of history will not fail to raise the questions to that which religion has declared as God-inspired truth. These 'truths' of religion could indeed be seen as manipulated and contrived interpretations of occurrences, persons, and events throughout history. These interpretations brought forth measures that gave rise to The Law as in commandments, rules, tenets, rites, creeds and so forth, that were needed to establish and enforce authority. The Law, in turn, also served and influenced the interpretations. The Law separated grace from sin and sin from grace. The Law not only separated, but more importantly, defined. The Law defines, and consequently, labels. Sin is presented as the opposite of grace, which is God's blessing, thus defining and separating out those whom God has chosen from those whom God condemns and casts out. One could rightly wonder whether bad or sin existed before the Law came into being. It seems doubtful
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Post #166 "Knowledge"
What are the possibilities that through the enthronement of Reason as the God of Creation, technology is moving the world and possibly beyond the world to total destruction, to a universe more and more under the control of Reason and less in touch with that 'something other,' that 'something beyond', that something outside the systems of Tradition/Faith and Reason/Intellect? And are there possibly other forms of knowledge, other ways of knowing or other levels of awareness besides tradition, the senses, and reason?
What of the senses? Returning to Rene Descartes in his writing Meditations on the First Philosophy, he says that , "The senses can't be trusted either. The senses deceive. I might be dreaming or drugged, or deceived by a malicious deity. If we are being serious about this project, then the sights and smells and tastes, no matter how self-evident must be doubted. Strictly speaking, I can't even be sure of the reality of my own body." Russel Shorto in his writing Decartes' Bones," P19, says that what is at issue here is the nature of the relationship between Faith and Reason and also the relationship between the spiritual and the physical worlds. In each, according to tradition and law, the former has precedent over the latter. In our present world, the situation seems reversed. The latter has precedent over the former. Then again, the battle line between Faith and Reason have never been clear-cut.
Decartes himself was not the cool rationalist that history has portrayed him as. He held sincerely to his faith, and while he was undeniably a modern philosopher, he also had one foot in the Middle Ages. In the manner of medieval philosophers, he incorporated 'proofs' of the existence of God into his philosophy. It was necessary for him, to prove both the existence and the innate'goodness' of God, for, given the corrosiveness of Cartesian doubt, these were the only assurances we have that the natural world really exists. It seems then, that his work was grounded in theology. This then seems to assume that Creation and science, plus Decartes' own philosophy, depend on God
What of the senses? Returning to Rene Descartes in his writing Meditations on the First Philosophy, he says that , "The senses can't be trusted either. The senses deceive. I might be dreaming or drugged, or deceived by a malicious deity. If we are being serious about this project, then the sights and smells and tastes, no matter how self-evident must be doubted. Strictly speaking, I can't even be sure of the reality of my own body." Russel Shorto in his writing Decartes' Bones," P19, says that what is at issue here is the nature of the relationship between Faith and Reason and also the relationship between the spiritual and the physical worlds. In each, according to tradition and law, the former has precedent over the latter. In our present world, the situation seems reversed. The latter has precedent over the former. Then again, the battle line between Faith and Reason have never been clear-cut.
Decartes himself was not the cool rationalist that history has portrayed him as. He held sincerely to his faith, and while he was undeniably a modern philosopher, he also had one foot in the Middle Ages. In the manner of medieval philosophers, he incorporated 'proofs' of the existence of God into his philosophy. It was necessary for him, to prove both the existence and the innate'goodness' of God, for, given the corrosiveness of Cartesian doubt, these were the only assurances we have that the natural world really exists. It seems then, that his work was grounded in theology. This then seems to assume that Creation and science, plus Decartes' own philosophy, depend on God
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
post #165 "A Fragile World"
So what intrinsic values came of the two worlds under discussion: the world of Faith/Tradition and the world of the Intellect, the world of Reason? What intrinsic values came from the controversy that has raged for hundreds of years from generation to generation? One should ask to what degree, if any, the new scientific modernity succeeded in replacing traditional values with its own. What of seemingly noble values we see as having taken root in our present world? Can these traditional values be attributed to, or enhanced by, an evolving modernity? What of these values of tolerance, of peaceful co-existence, of democratic values, self-government, and individual rights, including the right to individual conscience and the right to question?
On the surface these values may be argued to exist and flourish in today's societies, but on a much deeper level of truth this seems not to be the case. It would be fair to ask if these values have ever really existed in recorded history, or more importantly, in creation. As previously noted, a serious look at all aspects of the present world situations cannot help but be alarming. On that very serious note, the world seems to be on a path of world destruction, horrifyingly, that path is a path of self-destruction.
Something has gone wrong or never was right in the first place. Is the world of science and technology, for all its condemnation of faith and tradition, on the same path it accuses religion of taking? It must have to do with life and death. It must have to do with Power. It must have to do with who is in power. It must have to do with Power and vulnerability, for power cannot exist without vulnerability and vulnerability cannot exist without Power. What of the basic questions, those elemental questions of humanity? Are these basic questions of humanity questions affected by Power and vulnerability? Have these questions been openly and honestly addressed by science? Has science addressed these basic questions that rightfully should result from the centuries of the quest for power over life and death?
On the surface these values may be argued to exist and flourish in today's societies, but on a much deeper level of truth this seems not to be the case. It would be fair to ask if these values have ever really existed in recorded history, or more importantly, in creation. As previously noted, a serious look at all aspects of the present world situations cannot help but be alarming. On that very serious note, the world seems to be on a path of world destruction, horrifyingly, that path is a path of self-destruction.
Something has gone wrong or never was right in the first place. Is the world of science and technology, for all its condemnation of faith and tradition, on the same path it accuses religion of taking? It must have to do with life and death. It must have to do with Power. It must have to do with who is in power. It must have to do with Power and vulnerability, for power cannot exist without vulnerability and vulnerability cannot exist without Power. What of the basic questions, those elemental questions of humanity? Are these basic questions of humanity questions affected by Power and vulnerability? Have these questions been openly and honestly addressed by science? Has science addressed these basic questions that rightfully should result from the centuries of the quest for power over life and death?
Monday, October 27, 2014
Post #164 "The Search for Reality IV"
Anything less for science than conquering death is a loss of attaining the goal of Perfection. And a loss of Perfection creates death. The perpetual theme running through creation seems to be that 'we must try again and again' until we reach our goal of Perfection. We feel that the attainment of Perfection is our destiny and so we heavily invest in science and technology. If we think we have problems now, just try to deal with this one---what would the world be like when there is no death; when nothing dies? Would it be heaven, or would it be hell? Where lies that state of Perfection? What qualities can we give to defining and creating our God to come up to our expectations? What God are we creating? And is that God we have crated just like us?
So it seems that science, as well as,religion, can be held responsible for the terrifying and uncertain state of the world we live in...the world we have created. Science can be held responsible through its technologies, for creating a world that is threatening destruction to its own existence. Is this the path to Perfection or is this the path to death? Where doe the quest for Perfection take us, to life or to death? Confronted by this observation, what then, is the underlying reason for science's challenge to religion? What is at the root of the issue?
What could those original challengers of the sixteenth century Age of Enlightenment have against the system of religion? Did the traditions of religion tread on the public or the personal values of an emerging New Age? Did those proponents of the New Age have problems with accepting wars that were based on values that were not one's own newly emerging values? Were there problems with accepting the divisions and prejudices of a system whose divisions and prejudices were not one's own? Were there problems with freedom, especially where one felt controlled, even though one would not hesitate to employ one's own wars or form one's own divisions and prejudices or control and regulate someone else if it served one's own purpose? Were there problems with a new system that tossed the controllers and the controlled into an upside-down and backward and forward controversy? Or was there a problem with who controlled life and death? Was there a problem with who claimed to be the God of creation? What of Perfection? Did each age have its own definition of Perfection-thereby each age having its own definition of God?
So it seems that science, as well as,religion, can be held responsible for the terrifying and uncertain state of the world we live in...the world we have created. Science can be held responsible through its technologies, for creating a world that is threatening destruction to its own existence. Is this the path to Perfection or is this the path to death? Where doe the quest for Perfection take us, to life or to death? Confronted by this observation, what then, is the underlying reason for science's challenge to religion? What is at the root of the issue?
What could those original challengers of the sixteenth century Age of Enlightenment have against the system of religion? Did the traditions of religion tread on the public or the personal values of an emerging New Age? Did those proponents of the New Age have problems with accepting wars that were based on values that were not one's own newly emerging values? Were there problems with accepting the divisions and prejudices of a system whose divisions and prejudices were not one's own? Were there problems with freedom, especially where one felt controlled, even though one would not hesitate to employ one's own wars or form one's own divisions and prejudices or control and regulate someone else if it served one's own purpose? Were there problems with a new system that tossed the controllers and the controlled into an upside-down and backward and forward controversy? Or was there a problem with who controlled life and death? Was there a problem with who claimed to be the God of creation? What of Perfection? Did each age have its own definition of Perfection-thereby each age having its own definition of God?
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Post #163 "The Search for Reality III"
What of Perfection? Does the word 'Perfection' allow for that which does not last, that which runs its cycle and then dies? Of course, anything in creation, which is everything we know, soon becomes old and outdated. Out-datedness is when the state of perfection fails, when the state of Perfection becomes elusive, when the action of power no longer saves from death. Out-datedness is when the state of Perfection fails and must be reinvented and then, repeated as often as necessary. What fails to achieve Perfection becomes old and outdated, thus it must be destroyed to make room for the 'new' and up-dated, the reinvented. The process must destroy to make room for the 'new', the 'up-dated', the reinvented. The process of removing failed Perfection results in death---death to that which has failed---to the old and out-dated. Failed Perfection must be removed, must be banished as if it never existed, this process of removal is death. Failed Perfection thereby creates death. Death calls forth the need to recreate and then repeat itself, over and over again. The cycle begins again, death to life, death to life. With birth, the old and out-dated is replaced by the new. Science's plan is to replace the old with new and improved models and techniques until death is eventually defeated.Thus results the false idea of humanity approaching super status and near states of Perfection all the way to total Perfection The process of birth to death to birth and,again, to death, repeats itself over and over again through all the phases of Time.
Indeed, it is this process of life to death that called forth and created one of the elements of creation, Time. Thus the patterns of Time are established as nature repeats itself over and over again trying once more to get it right, trying once more to achieve Perfection, trying once more to become God. These are the patterns that create life's cycles. These cycles become the history of creation. Is this the Perfection that religion and science strive for? Religion has this trait of believing it has achieved Perfection covered by its Faith in the Perfection of its God and hence Perfection of itself in its God's Name. Science will have a problem with Perfection as science is dealing with the human Intellect in a human body and mind unless science is able to raise itself to deification. Of course, this is why science must set as its first and true goal-- the discovery or the creation of eternal life. Extending life alone, however, would not qualify science for deification. Deification would demand that science ultimately would conquer death.
Indeed, it is this process of life to death that called forth and created one of the elements of creation, Time. Thus the patterns of Time are established as nature repeats itself over and over again trying once more to get it right, trying once more to achieve Perfection, trying once more to become God. These are the patterns that create life's cycles. These cycles become the history of creation. Is this the Perfection that religion and science strive for? Religion has this trait of believing it has achieved Perfection covered by its Faith in the Perfection of its God and hence Perfection of itself in its God's Name. Science will have a problem with Perfection as science is dealing with the human Intellect in a human body and mind unless science is able to raise itself to deification. Of course, this is why science must set as its first and true goal-- the discovery or the creation of eternal life. Extending life alone, however, would not qualify science for deification. Deification would demand that science ultimately would conquer death.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Post #162 "The Search for Reality II"
In the search for Reality in science and religion, one could wonder, does science ever use Faith as a means of attaining Knowledge and does religion ever use Reason as a means of attaining Knowledge? Does science ever depend on the word of its experts or is every fact tested individually by each scientist? On the other hand, what of religion? Religion could be seen as depending on the expertise of its founding leaders as eyewitness to persons and events on which it bases its beliefs and tenets as in the christian religion's belief in its leader, Jesus, the Christ through the testimony of its apostles and disciples. Does science credit eyewitness as an acceptable means to attaining Knowledge? Most religions rely on an eyewitness accounting that is, then, handed down throughout history.
Would science allow eyewitness accounts to be acceptable as akin to establishing a bed-rock of fact? Rene Decarte's final book was written on the passions of the soul. It is interesting and seemingly contradictory to his total movement of Faith to Reason, that Decartes, at the culminating moment of his career, would refer to 'passions of the soul.' Russell Shorto, in his book Decarte's Bones, p.252 says that Decartes had "long realized that there was difficulty with his division of Reality into mind and body---the difficulty being to figure out how the two substances interacted." Decartes concluded that there must be a connection between the two. Is science Really replacing religion's Faith or is science replacing Faith with Reason to fulfill the human need to worship, in this case to worship at the altar of exclusive, self-perpetuating academic cults or individual fame and glory including the worship of possessions, or to put it more succinctly.... Self Worship? It would seem then that the creation of life would be the creation of the state of Perfection, the state of Knowledge/possession of Infinity--the unattainable and exclusive quality, usually associated with one's God and the perfect habitation of that God known by many names such as Heaven, Eden, Utopia, Shangrila, or Camelot.
Just what is the quality of that which calls forth worship? Would that quality not have to call forth acknowledgement of the finest, of the best, the most, in other words----Perfection? Worship, then, is the act of acknowledgement of who is our God. As Power has been determined as the action and effect of the Ultimate God/the Ultimate Power, power would be the means of identifying that which is Perfect. All that which is ultimate feeds into the Ultimate, it feeds into power. The 'All-knowing', the 'All-loving', the 'All-mighty', the 'All of anything and everything' is the state of Perfection by which God is identified. The 'most', the 'finest', the 'best', of everything creates the state of Perfection. Perfection is Power! Perfection is the identity and Power is the action of the Ultimate God of Creation.
Would science allow eyewitness accounts to be acceptable as akin to establishing a bed-rock of fact? Rene Decarte's final book was written on the passions of the soul. It is interesting and seemingly contradictory to his total movement of Faith to Reason, that Decartes, at the culminating moment of his career, would refer to 'passions of the soul.' Russell Shorto, in his book Decarte's Bones, p.252 says that Decartes had "long realized that there was difficulty with his division of Reality into mind and body---the difficulty being to figure out how the two substances interacted." Decartes concluded that there must be a connection between the two. Is science Really replacing religion's Faith or is science replacing Faith with Reason to fulfill the human need to worship, in this case to worship at the altar of exclusive, self-perpetuating academic cults or individual fame and glory including the worship of possessions, or to put it more succinctly.... Self Worship? It would seem then that the creation of life would be the creation of the state of Perfection, the state of Knowledge/possession of Infinity--the unattainable and exclusive quality, usually associated with one's God and the perfect habitation of that God known by many names such as Heaven, Eden, Utopia, Shangrila, or Camelot.
Just what is the quality of that which calls forth worship? Would that quality not have to call forth acknowledgement of the finest, of the best, the most, in other words----Perfection? Worship, then, is the act of acknowledgement of who is our God. As Power has been determined as the action and effect of the Ultimate God/the Ultimate Power, power would be the means of identifying that which is Perfect. All that which is ultimate feeds into the Ultimate, it feeds into power. The 'All-knowing', the 'All-loving', the 'All-mighty', the 'All of anything and everything' is the state of Perfection by which God is identified. The 'most', the 'finest', the 'best', of everything creates the state of Perfection. Perfection is Power! Perfection is the identity and Power is the action of the Ultimate God of Creation.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Post #161 "The Search for Reality I"
The natural world can only exist as far as creation, but if the human intellect is boundless, then science also has created infinity. Is science discovering through its advancing technology that the universe is seemingly limitless or is science creating, through its powers of intellect, a limitless universe? Is science creating, through its power of imaging, a limitless universe? Did religion create the heavens to create a limitless universe? Is science really claiming that human Reason is limitless? The search for Reality continues to unfold.
As religion is about Faith and science is about Reason, the question arises; is Faith a faculty of the mind? If so, then, is the mind a faculty of the soul or of the body? Science does not seem to have a need for a soul. As Reason is most certainly a factor of the mind, would science view the mind as a factor of the body? If the mind is a factor of the mortal and destructible human body, then does this not limit and inhibit the possibilities of the mind to become enshrined and deified as Human Intellect, the Font of Reason and the Ultimate Creator of the Universe? It seems that the distinction between religion and science is ecoming a bit blurred. The lines of division are becoming less clear-cut and distinct. Science has no alternative but to discover the means to create life and overcome death.
If science has researched and determined a new scientific fnding or fact, then would it not be expected that all those involved in the research would have to accept that new finding as fact based on the power of Reason? Would the acceptance, then, on the part of those not involved in the research, have to be on some degree of faith...faith in the reputation of the researchers or the 'experts', or would the new finding be subjected to universal questioning until a bedrock of fact was established by all? The situation would involve some of both modes of acceptance. Would not those farthest away from the field of the particular finding be more inclined to believe on Faith, and trust those they hold up as expert?
As religion is about Faith and science is about Reason, the question arises; is Faith a faculty of the mind? If so, then, is the mind a faculty of the soul or of the body? Science does not seem to have a need for a soul. As Reason is most certainly a factor of the mind, would science view the mind as a factor of the body? If the mind is a factor of the mortal and destructible human body, then does this not limit and inhibit the possibilities of the mind to become enshrined and deified as Human Intellect, the Font of Reason and the Ultimate Creator of the Universe? It seems that the distinction between religion and science is ecoming a bit blurred. The lines of division are becoming less clear-cut and distinct. Science has no alternative but to discover the means to create life and overcome death.
If science has researched and determined a new scientific fnding or fact, then would it not be expected that all those involved in the research would have to accept that new finding as fact based on the power of Reason? Would the acceptance, then, on the part of those not involved in the research, have to be on some degree of faith...faith in the reputation of the researchers or the 'experts', or would the new finding be subjected to universal questioning until a bedrock of fact was established by all? The situation would involve some of both modes of acceptance. Would not those farthest away from the field of the particular finding be more inclined to believe on Faith, and trust those they hold up as expert?
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Post #160 "Ultimate Worship"
Is not total dependence on, desire for, and wonder at, forms of worship? Does not that which we worship determine that which we hold to be our God? No wonder religion is so threatened by science. Any discovery by science toward its goal of immortality makes the creation of life seem more possible. A step will be the creation of life, as we know it, in a test tube. That has probably already be accomplished. Every discovery of science threatens religion's Faith-based traditions. How religion had to scramble and feared disclosure, when science declared Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, a tribal God. When the creation of life and new life forms exist through the efforts of science, how could science not be expected to, rightfully, claim for itself the Ultimate Power as the God of Creation, as religion now claims Ultimate Power for itself; through its Knowing God, through its naming God, through its claiming God, through its efforts to enclose or its efforts to contain God, through seeing itself as representative of God, and, in other words, as actually being God on Earth. In summation, science's goals can be interpreted as directed to replacing religion's God of Creation with its very own God of creation---the God of Reason. Herein lays the root of the controversy.
Religion and science are indeed claiming the same turf and competing for the same goal. Religion clams the Ultimate Power as being outside of and beyond the world, as in its ideas of heaven, and the heavenlies. Science claims Ultimate Power in that which can be seen, touched and smelled, as within creation. But in creation as beyond the world.....science has now seen, touched and smelled space. Religion's ideas on space are dated to pre-science. Science has indeed, broadened considerably our beliefs on the heavenlies, which simply means beyond the earth. To science these 'heavenly' words are obsolete. Religion becomes confusing when its reality is thought to be outside the world and as, today, the 'world' becomes creation and includes universe and cosmos, religion with its narrower view of creation becomes very dated and not acceptable to thinkers of a larger scope and larger vision. Besides limited and unlimited views of space, religion and science indeed claim the same turf and compete for the same Ultimate Goal. Another difference between the systems is that one system works through unquestionable obedience called Faith and the other through an empowered sense of self called Reason. Science, as religion, wants to become Creator, but interestingly, can only achieve this by eliminating religion's god which it is in the process of doing. God can only be God through acknowledgement. A god can only become God through worship. The One God can only be The One God through universal acknowledgement, hence the need to have one's God acknowledged by all as supreme Power,.. like in sports, the winner of the pennant or the seasonal trophy...the undefeated God! Science creates its own God and accepts Reason as God over all other ways of knowing. As science proves total dependence on itself, as is more obvious every day, all other Gods will fade away until the God of Reason reigns supreme and there will be no need or desire for the God of Faith, the God of Religion. Science has created and accepted its own God and by making humanity and nature dependent on its God reaches the Ultimate Goal as God is One, there can be no other. Basically, science becomes God, until and if science fails by bring us to the edge of destruction as it seems to be doing. What will happen then? Will humanity, once again, call on the God of Faith?
Religion and science are indeed claiming the same turf and competing for the same goal. Religion clams the Ultimate Power as being outside of and beyond the world, as in its ideas of heaven, and the heavenlies. Science claims Ultimate Power in that which can be seen, touched and smelled, as within creation. But in creation as beyond the world.....science has now seen, touched and smelled space. Religion's ideas on space are dated to pre-science. Science has indeed, broadened considerably our beliefs on the heavenlies, which simply means beyond the earth. To science these 'heavenly' words are obsolete. Religion becomes confusing when its reality is thought to be outside the world and as, today, the 'world' becomes creation and includes universe and cosmos, religion with its narrower view of creation becomes very dated and not acceptable to thinkers of a larger scope and larger vision. Besides limited and unlimited views of space, religion and science indeed claim the same turf and compete for the same Ultimate Goal. Another difference between the systems is that one system works through unquestionable obedience called Faith and the other through an empowered sense of self called Reason. Science, as religion, wants to become Creator, but interestingly, can only achieve this by eliminating religion's god which it is in the process of doing. God can only be God through acknowledgement. A god can only become God through worship. The One God can only be The One God through universal acknowledgement, hence the need to have one's God acknowledged by all as supreme Power,.. like in sports, the winner of the pennant or the seasonal trophy...the undefeated God! Science creates its own God and accepts Reason as God over all other ways of knowing. As science proves total dependence on itself, as is more obvious every day, all other Gods will fade away until the God of Reason reigns supreme and there will be no need or desire for the God of Faith, the God of Religion. Science has created and accepted its own God and by making humanity and nature dependent on its God reaches the Ultimate Goal as God is One, there can be no other. Basically, science becomes God, until and if science fails by bring us to the edge of destruction as it seems to be doing. What will happen then? Will humanity, once again, call on the God of Faith?
Friday, October 17, 2014
Post #159 "Ultimate Power V"
What would happen, if or when, science answers all the questions it seeks as to the natural world, or more inclusively, to the cosmos? Does this goal of answering all the ultimate questions, that includes the knowledge and ability to create life as we know it, and beyond that, to the knowledge and ability to create other unknown life forms, finally settle the controversy? If this goal were achieved, would this not then be the end of science as E. Gates suggests in comments on the assumptions of science at the end of the twentieth century? It seems that toward the end of the twentieth century some pundits were claiming that the answer to the question, 'what is the universe made of?' has been found with the basic understanding of the basic nature of matter. They were of course, wrong. However, the indication that discovering the substance of the universe would unlock the secrets to creating all forms of life, including human life, would certainly justify feeling that all the questions are resolved, consequently, that the end of science was in sight. (from Einstein's telescope p6)
Much of the shift away from religion has already been accomplished. Where now the Ultimate power is divided between two Gods of Creation, science's triumph of discovering the secret of life would allow science to claim, through possession of its God, its God's Power, the creative Power of life of its God of Creation. If science achieves its goals, science and religion would meld and become one, the new Religion of Science. After all, we know that only One God can exist for God is One.
Are we not seeing signs of this in today's technological, mechanical age? Daily new technologies are being imposed into our lives. Is not science and technology becoming indispensable in every circumstance of today's world and mentality? Is science not being considered essential and consequently, in many aspects being acknowledged through universal dependence and wonder, and desire as the means of achieving Perfection, as the means to becoming The Creator? Is not science and technology being looked to for all the answers to life's difficulties? Is not science and technology being hailed and upheld as the promise of a new and better world?
Much of the shift away from religion has already been accomplished. Where now the Ultimate power is divided between two Gods of Creation, science's triumph of discovering the secret of life would allow science to claim, through possession of its God, its God's Power, the creative Power of life of its God of Creation. If science achieves its goals, science and religion would meld and become one, the new Religion of Science. After all, we know that only One God can exist for God is One.
Are we not seeing signs of this in today's technological, mechanical age? Daily new technologies are being imposed into our lives. Is not science and technology becoming indispensable in every circumstance of today's world and mentality? Is science not being considered essential and consequently, in many aspects being acknowledged through universal dependence and wonder, and desire as the means of achieving Perfection, as the means to becoming The Creator? Is not science and technology being looked to for all the answers to life's difficulties? Is not science and technology being hailed and upheld as the promise of a new and better world?
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Pst #158 "Ultimate Power IV"
Science, through Reason, would also claim, as religion claims, that its God is the God of Creation. Science's quest is to proclaim itself the Master of Creation through the mastery of and over
creation. The Master of Creation is the God of Creation. Again, no wonder there is a non-solvable controversy between religion and science and between religion and religion and also between science and science, when both religion and science raise up a God who claims to be THE GOD, the God and the Master of Creation. Religion, through possession of its God's Power through the faculty of Faith and science through the Power of its God through the faculty known as Reason, known as intellect, known as humanity. Each system determines that its God is Absolute, in other words, each claims its God is One....meaning that each will not accept any intrusion into their system of belief, their system of worship. For religion, no other God can exist beside its God! Of course, neither religion or science can allow another God to exist besides its own.
The controversy, then, is an opposition to the same identity and a claim to the same identity. This is not an opposing rivalry of opposites but a sibling type of rivalry for who will win the inheritance, for who will inherit the kingdom. Whose God will reign? There can only be one winner and that winner will have Ultimate Power or, better yet, Ultimate Power will determine the winner. Again quoting E. Gates, "The quest to understand what things are made of -which also helps us determine where we fit into the grand scheme of things, reads rather familiar and insinuates that science, as religion, strives for power over life and death. Science strives for power over life and death by seeking to, firstly, extend life indefinitely, secondly, to create life within its test tubes, through using mathematical formulas, and electronic gadgetry, and thirdly and most importantly, to conquer mortal death, thereby creating its own infinity....that is, infinity within creation. Science thereby transfers creation from image into reality----becoming God!
Science strives through experimentation, research, and personal advancement, for power over life and death. Technology has certainly concentrated its efforts on the enhancement and preservation of youth. Science wants to know what the earth is made of so that it can find the means to create life. Not only plant and animal life but ultimately human life. And not only human life but beyond human life to new and futuristic unknown forms of life..... the creation of a new creation. Science studies and experiments with basic elements, with plant and animal life, with powerful drugs and instruments, with machines, with electronic devices and manipulations, with uncharted areas of outer space, with human life and development, and on and on, that it can through Reason and Intellect replace religion's hold and religion's God through the issues of life and death. Science's God of Creation is competing with religion's God of Creation. Competing is the means to accomplishing the goals and is what the controversy is all about. Competing determines whose God is the most Powerful because Power is what is worshipped . The act of creation is the worship of Power. Th question raises its ugly head..... just whose power will win out?
creation. The Master of Creation is the God of Creation. Again, no wonder there is a non-solvable controversy between religion and science and between religion and religion and also between science and science, when both religion and science raise up a God who claims to be THE GOD, the God and the Master of Creation. Religion, through possession of its God's Power through the faculty of Faith and science through the Power of its God through the faculty known as Reason, known as intellect, known as humanity. Each system determines that its God is Absolute, in other words, each claims its God is One....meaning that each will not accept any intrusion into their system of belief, their system of worship. For religion, no other God can exist beside its God! Of course, neither religion or science can allow another God to exist besides its own.
The controversy, then, is an opposition to the same identity and a claim to the same identity. This is not an opposing rivalry of opposites but a sibling type of rivalry for who will win the inheritance, for who will inherit the kingdom. Whose God will reign? There can only be one winner and that winner will have Ultimate Power or, better yet, Ultimate Power will determine the winner. Again quoting E. Gates, "The quest to understand what things are made of -which also helps us determine where we fit into the grand scheme of things, reads rather familiar and insinuates that science, as religion, strives for power over life and death. Science strives for power over life and death by seeking to, firstly, extend life indefinitely, secondly, to create life within its test tubes, through using mathematical formulas, and electronic gadgetry, and thirdly and most importantly, to conquer mortal death, thereby creating its own infinity....that is, infinity within creation. Science thereby transfers creation from image into reality----becoming God!
Science strives through experimentation, research, and personal advancement, for power over life and death. Technology has certainly concentrated its efforts on the enhancement and preservation of youth. Science wants to know what the earth is made of so that it can find the means to create life. Not only plant and animal life but ultimately human life. And not only human life but beyond human life to new and futuristic unknown forms of life..... the creation of a new creation. Science studies and experiments with basic elements, with plant and animal life, with powerful drugs and instruments, with machines, with electronic devices and manipulations, with uncharted areas of outer space, with human life and development, and on and on, that it can through Reason and Intellect replace religion's hold and religion's God through the issues of life and death. Science's God of Creation is competing with religion's God of Creation. Competing is the means to accomplishing the goals and is what the controversy is all about. Competing determines whose God is the most Powerful because Power is what is worshipped . The act of creation is the worship of Power. Th question raises its ugly head..... just whose power will win out?
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Post #157 "Ultimate Power III"
LOOKING FOR A NEW ANSWER
Just what is the question science seeks to understand and then provide the answer to? Physicist Evalyn Gates says that as we enter the twenty-first century, the most urgent and compelling question facing scientists is, "what is the universe made of?" She continues, "Toward the end of the twentieth century there was some thought that the answer had been achieved, that would have then spelled the end of science. It seems we were very wrong. The question has now been completely rewritten." (from Einstein's Telescope" p. 6) One could wonder whether science asked the right question or whether science is still asking the right question or questions. Where does science's question of 'what is the universe made of?' fit into the basic fundamental questions and, consequently, the quest of humanity?
It doesn't seem that science's question of 'what is the universe made of?' would lead to helping humanity determine where to fit into the grand scheme of things. It seems that science's question bypasses the basic quest for identification and purpose. Is science avoiding or pretending to not be avoiding, these basic questions? Is science pretending to have absolutely no resemblance to that which it vehemently opposes and has opposed for 400 years? Does science not recognize the need for the defining and clarification of identity and purpose?
So then, what is science's real purpose? What is essentially behind science's question of what the universe is made of and its consequent quest? Is science wanting to know for a reason closer to religion's quest for power over life and death. Does science, as religion, want to be the determinate over who lives and who dies? Does science, as religion, want to be the means of and the means to created Life? If Faith in the God of Creation is the Ultimate Power for religion, then what is the Ultimate Power for science? Reason, of course, is the Ultimate Power for science. Then it would follow that Reason, as the Ultimate Power for science, is for science, its God. Reason is a human faculty, hence science outwardly proclaims what religion obscures and hides, that there lies deep within humanity the desire to become God. And what faculty of God makes God, God? Immortality, of course. Conquering mortal immortality brings about Godship. Immortality is the Ultimate Power and this is the goal of religion and science.
Just what is the question science seeks to understand and then provide the answer to? Physicist Evalyn Gates says that as we enter the twenty-first century, the most urgent and compelling question facing scientists is, "what is the universe made of?" She continues, "Toward the end of the twentieth century there was some thought that the answer had been achieved, that would have then spelled the end of science. It seems we were very wrong. The question has now been completely rewritten." (from Einstein's Telescope" p. 6) One could wonder whether science asked the right question or whether science is still asking the right question or questions. Where does science's question of 'what is the universe made of?' fit into the basic fundamental questions and, consequently, the quest of humanity?
It doesn't seem that science's question of 'what is the universe made of?' would lead to helping humanity determine where to fit into the grand scheme of things. It seems that science's question bypasses the basic quest for identification and purpose. Is science avoiding or pretending to not be avoiding, these basic questions? Is science pretending to have absolutely no resemblance to that which it vehemently opposes and has opposed for 400 years? Does science not recognize the need for the defining and clarification of identity and purpose?
So then, what is science's real purpose? What is essentially behind science's question of what the universe is made of and its consequent quest? Is science wanting to know for a reason closer to religion's quest for power over life and death. Does science, as religion, want to be the determinate over who lives and who dies? Does science, as religion, want to be the means of and the means to created Life? If Faith in the God of Creation is the Ultimate Power for religion, then what is the Ultimate Power for science? Reason, of course, is the Ultimate Power for science. Then it would follow that Reason, as the Ultimate Power for science, is for science, its God. Reason is a human faculty, hence science outwardly proclaims what religion obscures and hides, that there lies deep within humanity the desire to become God. And what faculty of God makes God, God? Immortality, of course. Conquering mortal immortality brings about Godship. Immortality is the Ultimate Power and this is the goal of religion and science.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Post #156 "Ultimate Power II"
Now to science's quest. Science, as religion, is also concerned with Ultimate Power and that is why there is a power struggle. So how does science's quest for creating power compare to religion's authority and ownership over power...over the Ultimate power of its God? If science's quest differed there should be no controversy as there would be no threat. No one's territory would be threatened. There is, however, an enormous controversy which suggests that religion and science are basically defining and claiming the same turf and competing for the same goal....a struggle for Ultimate Power. As religion claims ownership to the Ultimate power of its God, science's challenge is not to ownership of religion's Power....religion's God, but to a redefining of Ultimate Power, a redefining of who or what is God. Science is challenging religion's God....for a new kind of Ultimate Power. The main kick to religion from science is that science is challenging not only religion's claim to Ultimate Power but to the very existence of religion's God. Do the elemental questions of 'Who are We?', 'Where Have We Come From?', and 'What is Our Purpose?', define for science, as for religion, its purpose and quest? As science must continue its opposition and disagreement with Faith and Tradition, it must appear to be presenting itself as the opposition to, or contrary to, religion. Would science even allow itself to address the same basic questions of existence? It would seemingly be unthinkable and unspeakable, as the formation of science was based on doubt and on questioning or on whatever was perceived to be in opposition to religion with its faith based teachings and tradition.
Science questions everything until a bed-rock of fact is reached. Religion does not appreciate being challenged, questioned, or being asked to be a bed-rock of fact. Religion resents being asked to prove itself. This intellectual approach of science is certainly contrary to the faith-based methods of religion. The birth of science, based on Reason, based on the human intellect, was in particular a rebellion to authority, and in particular to the very established authority of religion. Where religion has no questions that cannot be answered through Faith, science, on the other hand, has many unanswered questions about the natural world.
Cosmologist and physicist, Evalyn Gates, in her book Einstein's Telescope, pp1-5, notes that the world of science has been tipped upside down when bigger and better telescopes revealed a world that did not act at all the way it was supposed to act. Gates says that "in a sense, science has fallen through a rabbit hole, and the world in which we find ourselves is far more preposterous that any Carrollian adventure." (p.4) Gates continues, "Before we can look for answers, we first have to understand the the question." But does science think to consider the questions humanity most needs answers to, those basic questions to existence, or does it seek to form its own questions, thereby confusing the issue of what is Real and basic to existence.
Science questions everything until a bed-rock of fact is reached. Religion does not appreciate being challenged, questioned, or being asked to be a bed-rock of fact. Religion resents being asked to prove itself. This intellectual approach of science is certainly contrary to the faith-based methods of religion. The birth of science, based on Reason, based on the human intellect, was in particular a rebellion to authority, and in particular to the very established authority of religion. Where religion has no questions that cannot be answered through Faith, science, on the other hand, has many unanswered questions about the natural world.
Cosmologist and physicist, Evalyn Gates, in her book Einstein's Telescope, pp1-5, notes that the world of science has been tipped upside down when bigger and better telescopes revealed a world that did not act at all the way it was supposed to act. Gates says that "in a sense, science has fallen through a rabbit hole, and the world in which we find ourselves is far more preposterous that any Carrollian adventure." (p.4) Gates continues, "Before we can look for answers, we first have to understand the the question." But does science think to consider the questions humanity most needs answers to, those basic questions to existence, or does it seek to form its own questions, thereby confusing the issue of what is Real and basic to existence.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Post #155 "Ultimate Power I"
The issues of existence come down to the basic issue--life; the creation of life, the sustaining of life, and the control of life. The issue of life must also include the antithesis of life--death. Religion 'assumes' credit for and power over life and so also, consequently, over death. Where religion assumes credit, science 'strives' to assume credit for and 'strives; to assume power over life and death, as science, as previously noted, does not yet have all the answers. Its all a power fight, really...religion and science. Its all based on how to 'Know'....the Knowledge of Faith or the Knowledge of Reason. Faith and Reason are not compatible. Who will win the ultimate victory? It is a power struggle between religion and science and also within religion and science Once the winner, has found the ultimate key, the struggle will continue as to which person will be given credit for the discovery. That key will be the key to Immortality. Religion claims ultimate power, that is, the power of the Ultimate-the God of Creation. By-the-way, religion considers that Ultimate God to be under its control, meaning that if religion controls God, religion controls and hold ultimate power. A serious study of religion shows exactly that....a power struggle, using outside power, the power of its 'outside of creation' God for ultimate authority and ultimate control. Religion owns God, or so it thinks and acts.The identification of religion's God as Creator and Master, on earth and in heaven, gives meaning to religion's claim to the ultimate power of its God, as religion sees itself as God's earthly presence. As the earthly presence of its God, religion assumes and presents itself as the determinate of spiritual life and spiritual death.
To accomplish this purpose, religion has created grace and sin. Religion determines what is good and what is evil. In fact, one's own philosophy on good and evil becomes one's religion. Religion becomes one's source of power. This 'ultimate power' takes its effect through the threat of sin which means final and everlasting damnation. This 'ultimate power', based on grace and sin, is executed through creeds, laws, commandments, rituals, observances, and celebrations. Thus religion controls , besides life on earth, access to heaven and, seemingly, control of heaven itself. In summation, religion assumes power over temporal life and death through its Law, that is, over the eternal life of grace which is heaven and over the eternal death of sin which it calls hell. Religion demands allegiance through a Faith that may not be questioned or challenged. Religion demands obedience through promises of heavenly reward and threats of eternal hellfire. Religion has demanded, throughout history, total obedience and submission under penalty of the severe torture, deprivation, and merciless wars and slaughters. A logical question here would be; does religion provide answers to life's basic questions for the sake of expressing and interpreting that which is true or does religion provide answers and interpretations that bend or ignore Truth thereby serving its own purpose of self-contained, power based institutions?
To accomplish this purpose, religion has created grace and sin. Religion determines what is good and what is evil. In fact, one's own philosophy on good and evil becomes one's religion. Religion becomes one's source of power. This 'ultimate power' takes its effect through the threat of sin which means final and everlasting damnation. This 'ultimate power', based on grace and sin, is executed through creeds, laws, commandments, rituals, observances, and celebrations. Thus religion controls , besides life on earth, access to heaven and, seemingly, control of heaven itself. In summation, religion assumes power over temporal life and death through its Law, that is, over the eternal life of grace which is heaven and over the eternal death of sin which it calls hell. Religion demands allegiance through a Faith that may not be questioned or challenged. Religion demands obedience through promises of heavenly reward and threats of eternal hellfire. Religion has demanded, throughout history, total obedience and submission under penalty of the severe torture, deprivation, and merciless wars and slaughters. A logical question here would be; does religion provide answers to life's basic questions for the sake of expressing and interpreting that which is true or does religion provide answers and interpretations that bend or ignore Truth thereby serving its own purpose of self-contained, power based institutions?
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Post #154 "Forming a World Conscience"
Is the perfect Life the Life of God? As one becomes God, does that one live the Perfect Life? Perfection is seen as the essence of God. Again, how is this attained? What offers a better way of becoming God than that which prolongs and perfects life. Does this means that which conquers mortal death? What better way of arriving at Perfection than conquering mortal death? What quality of God speaks more to Perfection than that of Immortality which includes freedom from all death, mortal death as well as spiritual death? Religion's plan of Immortality, however, does not seem to include freedom from mortal death. Then, what about science? Does science hold the key to Perfection, to Godliness? Does science hold the key to Immortality, to freedom from mortal death? It seems, then, that while religion looks to freedom from spiritual death, science, on the other hand, looks to freedom from mortal death. If there is freedom from mortal death, is freedom from spiritual death necessary? If science holds the key, then how does science, in regard to life and death, differ from religion? Is the difference only in terms of the definitions of spiritual and non-spiritual? Could the determining difference be how each system approaches and defines Knowledge? In this case, could Knowledge through Reason, rather than Knowledge through Faith, be a better plan?
Religion, in one form or another, has directed politically, culturally, and socially, much of the world's societies. Through this political, cultural, and societal control, religion provides answers to the basic life questions. Thus, religion has set and determined the basis for past and present morality. Religion has assumed authority over the basic issues of life, but as religion has assumed and been given, throughout history, total authority through its moral code of good and evil, it could be determined that religion can and should be held responsible for creating a world morality that thrives on war and destruction; a world morality that allows the powerful to feed on the innocent and vulnerable. Religion has established and nourished a power based, class conscious, and gender conscience, in other words, a victim/bully world. Religion has been the basis that has established and nourished world attitude, world structure, world systems, and world conscience.
Religion, in one form or another, has directed politically, culturally, and socially, much of the world's societies. Through this political, cultural, and societal control, religion provides answers to the basic life questions. Thus, religion has set and determined the basis for past and present morality. Religion has assumed authority over the basic issues of life, but as religion has assumed and been given, throughout history, total authority through its moral code of good and evil, it could be determined that religion can and should be held responsible for creating a world morality that thrives on war and destruction; a world morality that allows the powerful to feed on the innocent and vulnerable. Religion has established and nourished a power based, class conscious, and gender conscience, in other words, a victim/bully world. Religion has been the basis that has established and nourished world attitude, world structure, world systems, and world conscience.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Post #153 "Who Holds the Key?"
There lies deep within humanity the desire to become God. This desire touches all aspects and phases of created life.The desire to become God is behind all choices and determinations and is the very basis of human thought, dreams, and aspirations. It establishes life cycles, patterns, customs, alliances; the very structures of created life. The desire is the force of, and the actuality for, the perpetual search for Perfection. Humanity seeks to become God. Humanity seeks Perfection.
The restlessness and dissatisfaction that so characterizes the struggles of the ages of history is resultant as the goal often seems to be allusive and unattainable. This accelerating restlessness and dissatisfaction drives all aspects of human endeavor. A spirit of freneticism seems to permeate the air more and more with each passing age as if sensing that time is running out. How successful have we become in attaining our goal of Perfection? How successful have we become at attaining our desire of becoming God? Life today is not satisfied with living today but always looking ahead to some vague tomorrow. We always seem to be progressing or moving ahead rather than being present to what is now. Its like being at a beginning, but the kick is that the beginning has an ending. All creation is moving to its goal of becoming, of moving toward the achievement of Perfection, of fulfilling the desire to become God, to become the God of Creation.
We need to know, 'Can anyone achieve Perfection? Can anyone become God? Is Godship limited to any one group ; as in race or culture, or denomination, or sex, or whatever? If God is One,there must be selection. So who is selected? Looks like the desire of becoming the Perfection, of becoming God, is causing a big mess! Surely this would cause great agitation, anxiety, and freneticism, as in violence and hatred and wars. The list would be endless. But who holds the answers? Who hold the strategy? Who holds the secrets? Where is the plan? Are there directions? A blueprint? A college degree perhaps, for Godship?
How do we satisfy our longing and desire? How do we begin the process? So, who holds the key? Who holds the key to Perfection/Godliness....hence to Immortality? Religion has always held the key. Religion's key, however, passes through mortal death. Humanity, today, thinks it can do better than that. We believe that we are close to bringing about the fulfillment of hopes and the promises of religion. Science seems determined to accepting the role of fulfilling the hopes and promises of religion. An interesting thought.....religion fulfilled in science?
The restlessness and dissatisfaction that so characterizes the struggles of the ages of history is resultant as the goal often seems to be allusive and unattainable. This accelerating restlessness and dissatisfaction drives all aspects of human endeavor. A spirit of freneticism seems to permeate the air more and more with each passing age as if sensing that time is running out. How successful have we become in attaining our goal of Perfection? How successful have we become at attaining our desire of becoming God? Life today is not satisfied with living today but always looking ahead to some vague tomorrow. We always seem to be progressing or moving ahead rather than being present to what is now. Its like being at a beginning, but the kick is that the beginning has an ending. All creation is moving to its goal of becoming, of moving toward the achievement of Perfection, of fulfilling the desire to become God, to become the God of Creation.
We need to know, 'Can anyone achieve Perfection? Can anyone become God? Is Godship limited to any one group ; as in race or culture, or denomination, or sex, or whatever? If God is One,there must be selection. So who is selected? Looks like the desire of becoming the Perfection, of becoming God, is causing a big mess! Surely this would cause great agitation, anxiety, and freneticism, as in violence and hatred and wars. The list would be endless. But who holds the answers? Who hold the strategy? Who holds the secrets? Where is the plan? Are there directions? A blueprint? A college degree perhaps, for Godship?
How do we satisfy our longing and desire? How do we begin the process? So, who holds the key? Who holds the key to Perfection/Godliness....hence to Immortality? Religion has always held the key. Religion's key, however, passes through mortal death. Humanity, today, thinks it can do better than that. We believe that we are close to bringing about the fulfillment of hopes and the promises of religion. Science seems determined to accepting the role of fulfilling the hopes and promises of religion. An interesting thought.....religion fulfilled in science?
Friday, October 10, 2014
Post #152 "The Lesser God"
How is this God of Creation doing? How do we feel about the archetype that we have created to represent us? How close are we to becoming that which we have chosen to become? How close have we become to being God? How do we feel about this God to whom we have created and given the credit for the creation of the heaven and the earth in six days and who we determined deemed the seventh day, a day set aside as belonging to this God's purpose? What of the change in our values through the levels of Time and Place? It seems we have created our God to be what we need God to be, no matter how inconsistent and conflicting that mold, that pattern of God has become. Of course, as Time divides into smaller and small fragments, the pattern also divides into smaller and smaller fragments, the imprint becoming more distorted and blurred with each passing generation, each passing day, each passing level of history. How does this process of division affect or influence our association or our non-association with the God of Creation? How much does this association or lack of association with Reality result from the impact of religion and science? A recent report by the American Religious Identification Survey claimed that the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. It seems that the America, which could at one time be described as a Judeo-Christian religious culture is more aptly described now as a post-Christian culture.
This shift threatens the very purpose and cause of our American foundations. Europe has, for some time now, been identified as a secular culture. One could almost deduce that we are losing interest in that which was once considered the very essence of American foundations, and according to the christian bible, of creation itself. Is interest being lost or has the interest been reinterpreted or transferred to a new focus?
The more scientific a culture becomes, the more difficult it is for that culture to relate to that which is unseen. More and more as time moves on through all the levels of creation, credibility rests in the very tangible, the see-able, the touchable, the edible. Where does dreaming, which brought this all about to begin with, fit into the picture? Dreams are far from tangible. Surly, we still dream, image, and create. Our multi-media culture seems to present a state of perpetual, mechanical, dreaming and imaging. Many find themselves lost in the stories of life situations produced on screens of all sizes and shapes. All themed and built around all sorts of escape substances. It could be said that these situations produce an out-of-touch-with-reality condition. Where did it all begin? Where did we make the Choice? Where do we shift from one focus or give up on an ideal and create a new reality? Seems we are on a never-ending quest to rediscover Reality. But why do we not allow Reality to be Reality? Why do we insist on Reality being our own creation?
This shift threatens the very purpose and cause of our American foundations. Europe has, for some time now, been identified as a secular culture. One could almost deduce that we are losing interest in that which was once considered the very essence of American foundations, and according to the christian bible, of creation itself. Is interest being lost or has the interest been reinterpreted or transferred to a new focus?
The more scientific a culture becomes, the more difficult it is for that culture to relate to that which is unseen. More and more as time moves on through all the levels of creation, credibility rests in the very tangible, the see-able, the touchable, the edible. Where does dreaming, which brought this all about to begin with, fit into the picture? Dreams are far from tangible. Surly, we still dream, image, and create. Our multi-media culture seems to present a state of perpetual, mechanical, dreaming and imaging. Many find themselves lost in the stories of life situations produced on screens of all sizes and shapes. All themed and built around all sorts of escape substances. It could be said that these situations produce an out-of-touch-with-reality condition. Where did it all begin? Where did we make the Choice? Where do we shift from one focus or give up on an ideal and create a new reality? Seems we are on a never-ending quest to rediscover Reality. But why do we not allow Reality to be Reality? Why do we insist on Reality being our own creation?
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Post #151 "Becoming God"
From the beginning, since the desire to become God actualized and expressed itself in creation, creation became and becomes symbolic of the desire to become God. Creation actualizes that desire, however, not into the intended exchange of roles with Reality, as in transference, but into the creation of the distorted and inverted image of the Reality....creation, itself. Everything that follows in creation, consequently, also is symbolic, is the ritualized action of the basic desire of creation expressed particularly in the human intelligence. The biblical and mythological characters, Adam and Eve, reenact over and over again in their lives, as in our lives, the scene in the Garden which actually was a failure of their goal to achieve Knowledge, the Knowing, which would give them Power over God through which the transference of themselves into God would take place. Possessing the Knowledge of God is akin to owning, is akin to possessing God, thereby weakening God to a position of the feminine whereby the desired qualities of God could be consumed (as in eating an apple) by rendering God helpless to be replaced with one who now would possess God's qualities, thereby God's essence. Consummation takes place through the act of eating and through the sex act. Consummation is also ritually reenacted through creation.
Through the distortion of imagery, the process of division unfolded and the opposite effect occurred. The Power over God, the Power over immortality did not come about as planned. The transference did not take! Intelligence did not become Reality! What chaos, what frustration, what fear resulted! What fear results! These are the basic human emotions. Through the failure to transfer with Intelligence with Reality, we are people of chaos. We are people of frustration and above all, we are people of fear. Fear is our basic human emotion. Fear is the very fabric of creation for it well knows its end. As the biblical, mythical Adam and Eve, having no knowledge of the Reality they sought to replace, sought knowledge. Not just knowledge but KNOWLEDGE, the Knowledge of Reality. For whoever owns the Knowledge of the Reality, becomes the Reality.The outcome for Adam and Eve was not what they planned, they did not achieve their goal of assuming the Knowledge, of assuming the Essence of Reality. What they got was the image. The image that was created on the spot. They transferred into the inverted, distorted image of their desire. They did not get the Knowledge of Reality. Without the Knowledge of Reality, came instead, the knowledge of death. They did not touch, nick, or dent the Knowledge of the Reality, meaning they did not gain possession of that Realty, nor reduce it in any way to any position of weakness, to any position of the feminine, from which they could eat their fill. The "Apple" scene set the stage for the conquest of the Reality, the Reality which is the opposite of the image, the God of Creation, through eating the Apple of Knowledge. This is the pseudo-reality which is reenacted with every movement in every moment in creation.This is the movement of our lives throughout history; the staging and re staging of our struggle to gain the knowledge with which to become God. Actually, we have accomplished our goal to become God for we created our God. Our God is the God of Creation. But we only created the image. We created our archetype. Our knowledge is not of Reality and consequently, has no Power over Reality.
Through the distortion of imagery, the process of division unfolded and the opposite effect occurred. The Power over God, the Power over immortality did not come about as planned. The transference did not take! Intelligence did not become Reality! What chaos, what frustration, what fear resulted! What fear results! These are the basic human emotions. Through the failure to transfer with Intelligence with Reality, we are people of chaos. We are people of frustration and above all, we are people of fear. Fear is our basic human emotion. Fear is the very fabric of creation for it well knows its end. As the biblical, mythical Adam and Eve, having no knowledge of the Reality they sought to replace, sought knowledge. Not just knowledge but KNOWLEDGE, the Knowledge of Reality. For whoever owns the Knowledge of the Reality, becomes the Reality.The outcome for Adam and Eve was not what they planned, they did not achieve their goal of assuming the Knowledge, of assuming the Essence of Reality. What they got was the image. The image that was created on the spot. They transferred into the inverted, distorted image of their desire. They did not get the Knowledge of Reality. Without the Knowledge of Reality, came instead, the knowledge of death. They did not touch, nick, or dent the Knowledge of the Reality, meaning they did not gain possession of that Realty, nor reduce it in any way to any position of weakness, to any position of the feminine, from which they could eat their fill. The "Apple" scene set the stage for the conquest of the Reality, the Reality which is the opposite of the image, the God of Creation, through eating the Apple of Knowledge. This is the pseudo-reality which is reenacted with every movement in every moment in creation.This is the movement of our lives throughout history; the staging and re staging of our struggle to gain the knowledge with which to become God. Actually, we have accomplished our goal to become God for we created our God. Our God is the God of Creation. But we only created the image. We created our archetype. Our knowledge is not of Reality and consequently, has no Power over Reality.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Post #150 "Perfection"
Here the situation of homosexuality can be understood in male hatred for the feminine, strength hating that it is attracted to, needs and depends on weakness. Hatred follows the realization that one has not yet attained the perfection demanded to become the God of Creation. The male can only truly love what he respects and that would be another male who most resembles the qualities he most needs to complete his own goal of perfection. But, of course, these qualities of the other are desired for ones self. In pedophilia the quality that is desired by the perpetrator is the youth and purity of the victim. In partnerships the coveted qualities of the partner would have to be transferred to the male partner as the prince, thus bringing him closer to God-perfection. The qualities of the other must be devoured in order for the transfer of the qualities to take place, necessitating the death of the lover turned victim in the never ending quest to be what one is not. The image does not easily defeat its reality that it may transfer positions. The reality must be defeated for the transference of qualities to the other. This is a constant struggle. Who will win? Who will be the reigning prince...the closest to perfection? Whoever stands in the way of the transference becomes the enemy. How can the Reality, which the image cannot even grasp or comprehend, be fought? If the Reality or the reality cannot be fought, any enemy will do.
All struggle stems from the original dilemma; the desire to become God. From the desire comes the Choice. The Choice becomes movement, becomes energy. This is the energy of division. This is the energy of the void of pre-creation. The energy of division divides creation upon itself where it ritually and constantly performs its choice. In the biblical Garden of Eden, the Choice to become God is acted out in the eating of the proverbial apple. The apple is eaten and Adam and Eve seemingly split company from the God of the Garden, the God of Creation. The story continues as a struggle for survival in a new and hostile territory. Adam as male, remains the symbolic strength. Eve. as female, is forced into the role of weakness with her body redesigning itself to the weakness of becoming receptacle and nurturer. Adam's strength is represented by his seed, his link to immortality, his claim to the transference into his destination, which has now become a struggle. In this sense of duality, Adam's strength is derived from Eve's weakness. Male is strong because of female's weakness. The feminine becomes the masculine's enabler.
All struggle stems from the original dilemma; the desire to become God. From the desire comes the Choice. The Choice becomes movement, becomes energy. This is the energy of division. This is the energy of the void of pre-creation. The energy of division divides creation upon itself where it ritually and constantly performs its choice. In the biblical Garden of Eden, the Choice to become God is acted out in the eating of the proverbial apple. The apple is eaten and Adam and Eve seemingly split company from the God of the Garden, the God of Creation. The story continues as a struggle for survival in a new and hostile territory. Adam as male, remains the symbolic strength. Eve. as female, is forced into the role of weakness with her body redesigning itself to the weakness of becoming receptacle and nurturer. Adam's strength is represented by his seed, his link to immortality, his claim to the transference into his destination, which has now become a struggle. In this sense of duality, Adam's strength is derived from Eve's weakness. Male is strong because of female's weakness. The feminine becomes the masculine's enabler.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Post #149 #The Prince"
Power demands weakness. Power needs weakness. Power comes out of and is created by the roiling energy of the void. Power relates to the negative energy that caused creation. Power flows from the energy of division. Power, that is also the turbulent, relentless energy of division, needs weakness, and also needs to affirm itself through conquest. Here the attitude of the masculine displays its utter disdain for weakness, the feminine, and cannot even give it the acknowledgement of its existence by using it as the exercise of its energy. In truth, the male hates the female which represents weakness to him....his weakness, the weakness of humanity. Power must conquer! Power must have an enemy! Power will create its enemy! Power is weakness so it greatly despises itself and created female to absorb the self-hatred. The female...the scapegoat. Power creates its enemy because power must struggle that it may overcome and win that it may assume its proper and fitting place and position. That position, as well noted in mythology and religion, is nothing less than the position of the royal prince who seeks and desires to inherit the kingdom, the prince who desires and chooses to sit at the right hand of God, the prince of power who will become God. This prince can inherit the kingdom only after he disposes of his father, the reigning king. (after he disposes of God). Through the actions of the prince, the king loses respect and takes on his vulnerable, takes on his weakness, takes on the feminine, and dies. The prince inherits at his father's death.
As the Reality had to be done away with, the king also had to be done away with, and so the mythological story of the prince speaks with the truth that we have, indeed, created death. Now the trick is for us to create life. Its all a matter of survival. We will create life, first through religion and when that fails, through science. Creating life has been until now the means of imitating the Power over death. The male has the power to create life so the attraction of the sexual act for the male, plus, of course, acquiring control over the feminine. The act of sex confirms for the male his claim to his father's kingdom, confirms his claim to be the God of Creation. It boils down to killing the reigning king and rescuing the maiden..... for his own pleasure and use. Besides the father, now reduced to the feminine, the maiden also becomes the prince's victim as she succumbs to his desires. As she is sexually taken by the prince, she becomes his victim and his enemy, so he can and does defeat her. Once taken by him, she also dies to him, her only value as virgin lost. She is no longer the prize. She no longer has value. She now is simply the convenient receptacle and nurturer of his seed.
As the Reality had to be done away with, the king also had to be done away with, and so the mythological story of the prince speaks with the truth that we have, indeed, created death. Now the trick is for us to create life. Its all a matter of survival. We will create life, first through religion and when that fails, through science. Creating life has been until now the means of imitating the Power over death. The male has the power to create life so the attraction of the sexual act for the male, plus, of course, acquiring control over the feminine. The act of sex confirms for the male his claim to his father's kingdom, confirms his claim to be the God of Creation. It boils down to killing the reigning king and rescuing the maiden..... for his own pleasure and use. Besides the father, now reduced to the feminine, the maiden also becomes the prince's victim as she succumbs to his desires. As she is sexually taken by the prince, she becomes his victim and his enemy, so he can and does defeat her. Once taken by him, she also dies to him, her only value as virgin lost. She is no longer the prize. She no longer has value. She now is simply the convenient receptacle and nurturer of his seed.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Post #148 "The Celebration of the Masculine"
This celebration of creation, this celebration of the masculine, this celebration of power, is affirmed and celebrated by, not only the masculine itself, but surprisingly, also by the feminine. Women today would be repelled by such a thought because they feel that they have fought for and achieved equality. No male sincerely considers the female an actual, equal human being in the same sense as the male considers himself and other males as human beings. The feminine is so convinced and genetically implanted with her role as female that she is mostly oblivious to this fact and would actually deny the fact if confronted with it. In all ways, the feminine has been designed and programmed to be the receptacle and nurturer of the masculine, to be the enabler, to be that weakness that creates and sustains power. As hot would not be hot without cold and up would not be up without down, so male would not be male if female would not be female. Women affirm this division in all the ways of their lives. In today's culture many women imitate men in looks and actions. Its a matter of survival really, and women generally struggle much more with survival than men. Women see this desire to imitate men as a rebellion to male domination but the fact that rebellion is necessary further strengthens the duality.One only rebels against the reason for rebelling.
Obviously, equality was not a given in male estimation.To a male, women's imitation of him is seen as envy. As Consciousness envies Reality, the female continues the process of division and envies the male.Its the same story but on a different level of creation. Nothing is as affirming to one's ego as being envied. Women imitate men as an act of appeasement, as an attempt to be enduring, and as a means of survival....survival--the quest for immortality. Contemporary womanhood feels that it has argued and been granted equality, but what is equal and accepted need not be argued for. What women have really achieved is a nonchalant humoring by males, that, to a man, is no threat. Every man knows that no woman can ever be accepted as a real equal , but it is a fine game to play and plays up masculine strength and further makes women more ridiculous and consequently weaker and weaker. The female imitation of the masculine qualities enhances the masculine idea of representative of God, particularly in the patriarchal societies throughout history.
Feminine imitation of the masculine is worship. As God is desired and imaged, so the female images the masculine further promoting the masculine as the transference of God into Man and Man into God. The qualities that humanity has created to determine the essence of their God, are the qualities of masculinity, all encapsulated in Power. The qualities used to describe God are the same qualities of the masculine taken to the highest power; taken to the degree of perfection, masculine perfection. Interestingly, whereas Reality is Entity, the image, the God of Creation. is one part, the masculine, devouring the other part, the feminine, or one race bent on destroying another, or one religion dominating through all degree of control, abuse, and war. What clarification of the proof of the process of division.
Obviously, equality was not a given in male estimation.To a male, women's imitation of him is seen as envy. As Consciousness envies Reality, the female continues the process of division and envies the male.Its the same story but on a different level of creation. Nothing is as affirming to one's ego as being envied. Women imitate men as an act of appeasement, as an attempt to be enduring, and as a means of survival....survival--the quest for immortality. Contemporary womanhood feels that it has argued and been granted equality, but what is equal and accepted need not be argued for. What women have really achieved is a nonchalant humoring by males, that, to a man, is no threat. Every man knows that no woman can ever be accepted as a real equal , but it is a fine game to play and plays up masculine strength and further makes women more ridiculous and consequently weaker and weaker. The female imitation of the masculine qualities enhances the masculine idea of representative of God, particularly in the patriarchal societies throughout history.
Feminine imitation of the masculine is worship. As God is desired and imaged, so the female images the masculine further promoting the masculine as the transference of God into Man and Man into God. The qualities that humanity has created to determine the essence of their God, are the qualities of masculinity, all encapsulated in Power. The qualities used to describe God are the same qualities of the masculine taken to the highest power; taken to the degree of perfection, masculine perfection. Interestingly, whereas Reality is Entity, the image, the God of Creation. is one part, the masculine, devouring the other part, the feminine, or one race bent on destroying another, or one religion dominating through all degree of control, abuse, and war. What clarification of the proof of the process of division.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Post #147 "Power and Weakness"
Post #147 "Power and Weakness"
Power always seeks out weakness for power cannot be power if weakness does not exist.
The extent and measure of power is in direct proportion to the extent and measure of weakness. The more weakness can be brought down to its knees, the more power can rise and generate more power, more of itself.
Power generates power but only at the expense of weakness as in vulnerability.
From this abuse, weakness eventually sees itself only in the context of being that which is the food and nourishment of power.
The feminine, eventually, through ages of evolution, can only see herself in this role of vulnerability and subjectiveness.
Every level of Time throughout history sees the feminine more and more consumed by her role and more deceived by it.
Today's female would loudly protest, and say that she has indeed come a long way to emancipation, but she is deceiving herself for the truth is too awful to deal with.
Creation is a celebration of power.
Religion is a celebration of creation.
Consequently and essentially, religion is a celebration of the masculine for the masculine {Power) is the first cause image of the God of Creation.
Power is the first celebrated attribute of God......' God of power, God of might.'
As the masculine is the image of God, the feminine is the reflection of the masculine or, in other words, the reflection of image.
The feminine is the reflection of the image of the masculine.... the male imitates God, the female imitates the male.
Today's version of women's equality is trying to be male-like.
Women imitate the male because they have no idea what it is to be who they are.
If male and female are divided amoeba, the feminine is half amoeba.
But amoeba is undivided.
If male and female are divided amoeba, undivided amoeba would have absolutely no difference, or distinction or dividing marks because there is no division.
If there were no division would there just be a uni-sex?
Maybe this is where its heading with the growing prevalence of homosexuality.
Each level or layer of reflection, becomes more distorted and inverted. throughout the layers of history.
As the masculine is the distorted and inverted image of the God he seeks to imitate, so too, the feminine is the distorted and inverted image of the masculine.
She seeks to imitate the masculine as he is the image of God on earth, the essence of power, the power necessary to survival.
The feminine....taken from the weak 'side' of the male, the weak side of the powerful...not created but 'taken'.
(Masculine here, refers to a much more basic and fundamental meaning than man as in 'man and woman'.
Here, masculine refers to first causes of the duality that eventually brings about the division resulting from the division of amoeba into male and female, then extending to the division into race, into nationality, into religion, etc.)
Creation is a celebration of the essence of power over weakness, consequently its a celebration of masculinity.
This division of man from amoeba is the image of God and is thereby the God of Creation, the archetype of humanity.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Post #146 "Is the Masculine Enticed?"
Sin was created as a means of controlling the non-elite, the commonality, the masses. Religion wrote the bible. The bible could be viewed as the story of humanity's sin which ends in humanity's redemption. In the biblical story of creation, Eve enticed Adam so that he could not resist eating the forbidden fruit. The story accuses someone as being at fault. The story, religion, says Eve was at fault. The story, religion, and then the church, say Eve sinned. The story, religion, and then the church say there was no such thing as sin until the moment Eve took the apple and gave it to Adam. The story, religion, and the church say that Eve created sin. Eve brought sin into creation and into the world. Where, between the fashioning of Eve from the rib of Adam, could Eve ever have assumed or taken on the qualities to do this most disastrous of all acts? What germs could she have picked up to do this in the idyllic Garden of Eden, where they daily, walked and talked with God? Adam was not at fault, the story goes. Adam was enticed by Eve. Sexual overtones are obvious at this point. So Eve and sex are at the bottom of sin in the world. Of course, now we know why amoeba was divided into male and female. (Amoeba can subdivide, no problem for reproduction here) It would be facetious to suppose that anyone was at the scene recording it for history. This biblical story of Adam and Eve was written in a particular place in history by a particular person or sect for a particular issue or from a particular point of view. It certainly is not recorded history and falls into the category of religious myth. It was written to promote a patriarchal society. It was written to demonize. The demonization of women was embellished and promoted by the early church. The early church is the basis of much organized religion and many sects today. It the basis for what is coming to light in the world wide pedophilia scandal.
This mythical, biblical story was written to make Eve, as representative of the feminine responsible for bringing sin/evil into the world. Eve was created to be a source of power, to provide energy/power to feed and thereby empower the male. This is reflected in gender roles. Eve was created as food to feed the hungry. Sin was thereby established to replay the secondary level of the process of division/the duality of humanity to God (non-reality to Reality being the first or basic level) ---- humanity to God,---- Adam assuming the role of God,----- Eve given the role of the image of God---humanity. Eve thereby provided (through the symbol of eating) Adam with food. Scientifically, Adam took from Eve her positive/generative energy. Eve thereby provided Adam with the means to become God. Adan took and ate the fruit with the desire and expectation of becoming God. This is clearly spelled out in the Garden Story. Adam derived the power from Eve, in addition to his own, to become God by devouring Eve's essence. If Adam fed off of Eve's essence, where does sin lie? Did Adam not sin seriously against Eve? Another question surfaces... did Adam sin or was Adam just acting like Adam? If Adam is just being Adam, did sin occur? If Adam is just being Adam and just acting as Adam, how could sin occur? If a wild animal mauls or devours its trainer, does the animal sin? Most would say 'no'. No, of course not. The animal isn't vicious or violent. It is just acting like a wild animal. Its just being what it is. As humanity is of creation and subject to its function as the process of division...can humanity act other than what it is? Can the female recover if this is who she is? Can the male survive without devouring a form of food/energy? What if amoeba has never divided? But then.....creation is the process of division
This mythical, biblical story was written to make Eve, as representative of the feminine responsible for bringing sin/evil into the world. Eve was created to be a source of power, to provide energy/power to feed and thereby empower the male. This is reflected in gender roles. Eve was created as food to feed the hungry. Sin was thereby established to replay the secondary level of the process of division/the duality of humanity to God (non-reality to Reality being the first or basic level) ---- humanity to God,---- Adam assuming the role of God,----- Eve given the role of the image of God---humanity. Eve thereby provided (through the symbol of eating) Adam with food. Scientifically, Adam took from Eve her positive/generative energy. Eve thereby provided Adam with the means to become God. Adan took and ate the fruit with the desire and expectation of becoming God. This is clearly spelled out in the Garden Story. Adam derived the power from Eve, in addition to his own, to become God by devouring Eve's essence. If Adam fed off of Eve's essence, where does sin lie? Did Adam not sin seriously against Eve? Another question surfaces... did Adam sin or was Adam just acting like Adam? If Adam is just being Adam, did sin occur? If Adam is just being Adam and just acting as Adam, how could sin occur? If a wild animal mauls or devours its trainer, does the animal sin? Most would say 'no'. No, of course not. The animal isn't vicious or violent. It is just acting like a wild animal. Its just being what it is. As humanity is of creation and subject to its function as the process of division...can humanity act other than what it is? Can the female recover if this is who she is? Can the male survive without devouring a form of food/energy? What if amoeba has never divided? But then.....creation is the process of division
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Post #145 "Sex and Sin"
What else could be determined from this consideration, when, according to religion, women are thought to be incapable of all the most prized masculine virtues such as logic or incapable of possessing power. These opinions are very obvious in the writings of the early church fathers who have been canonized as saints of the church. The fact that there are religious denominations that still refuse to ordain women/allow women unto their hierarchy, gives rise to the fact that in order to be socially acceptable in today's world, the church has put on the pretense that it has finally placed the female in the category of accepted and acceptable humanity
Sin is seen by religion as a lowering of one's self worth, of one's souls worth. Sin was seen as a lowering of the masculine by being lured into perverse acts that were not really of his own nature or worthy of his nature. This makes it unacceptable for married men, that is, men married to women as opposed to men married to men, to also not be acceptable for ordination in those same religious denominations. These men are seen as sinning through touching the feminine of the female species as in an accepted marriage, which is comparable to becoming unclean by touching a corpse in early religious belief. If the masculine touched the feminine of the male, as in homosexuality, it is seen as God worship. This is the basis and foundation on which the idea of sin is founded. Surly this is why most sins can be traced to being sexual in nature; sexual sins being the most secret and perverse. When sin is seen as representational, sin doesn't exist because one does not act out of the chosen status of God's image and so does not sin against God. As self, one can only act as self, meaning to act as one is. If there is no desire to be like God, which is the same as desiring to be God, one has no knowledge of sin. To them, sin does not exist.
This god/God of religion is represented as holy, meaning without sin. This Gospel is said to give responsibility to the church for saving souls of sinners. Religion could be said to control and direct God's power of redemption, to have the power to loose and bind, to forgive sins. Interestingly, several Gnostic Gospels say there is no such thing as sin. The creation and use of 'sin' can be seen as an effort to access through control,...through creating the power of sin. Sin compounds as the process of division breaks down with the process of division of creation.
Sin is seen by religion as a lowering of one's self worth, of one's souls worth. Sin was seen as a lowering of the masculine by being lured into perverse acts that were not really of his own nature or worthy of his nature. This makes it unacceptable for married men, that is, men married to women as opposed to men married to men, to also not be acceptable for ordination in those same religious denominations. These men are seen as sinning through touching the feminine of the female species as in an accepted marriage, which is comparable to becoming unclean by touching a corpse in early religious belief. If the masculine touched the feminine of the male, as in homosexuality, it is seen as God worship. This is the basis and foundation on which the idea of sin is founded. Surly this is why most sins can be traced to being sexual in nature; sexual sins being the most secret and perverse. When sin is seen as representational, sin doesn't exist because one does not act out of the chosen status of God's image and so does not sin against God. As self, one can only act as self, meaning to act as one is. If there is no desire to be like God, which is the same as desiring to be God, one has no knowledge of sin. To them, sin does not exist.
This god/God of religion is represented as holy, meaning without sin. This Gospel is said to give responsibility to the church for saving souls of sinners. Religion could be said to control and direct God's power of redemption, to have the power to loose and bind, to forgive sins. Interestingly, several Gnostic Gospels say there is no such thing as sin. The creation and use of 'sin' can be seen as an effort to access through control,...through creating the power of sin. Sin compounds as the process of division breaks down with the process of division of creation.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Post #144 ".The Masculine, the Feminine, and Sin"
The question as to what denotes sin looms menacingly. Is sin intentional or is sin representational? Do we sin through the intention to sin or do we sin because of our circumstances; through who we are? To look deeper into this issue of sin and how this effects the issue of masculine and feminine, let's return once more to the biblical/mythological Garden of Eden story. Did Adam sin in eating the apple or was he lured into eating the apple? If he ate the apple intentionally he was fully responsible, however, if he was lured into eating the apple against his better judgement, he was less responsible. No doubt, Eve is fully responsible not only for herself but also for having enticed Adam. Of course, all of this has sexual implications. The stance taken by the church is obvious. The sin was on the female, even before sin existed, even before the apple was eaten. The man was incapable of sinning on his own. Religion has presented sin differently in different circumstances dependant on the male view or the female view, believer or non-believer, powerful or vulnerable, Christian or Jew. white or black, rich or poor. Is it a matter of sin or does sin depend on who you are?
The masculine, as representative of God is able to be lured into sin through the wiles of the feminine. The sin is the sin of the feminine. The feminine becomes sin. Sin becomes the feminine. The masculine is created in God's image (the feminine is created in Adam's image from a rib in his side) and as such are Sons of God and heirs of God's kingdom. As God's sons and heirs, the masculine is said by religion to be incapable of sinning on his own. Sin cannot possible reside in him. Religion has presented sin as representational, that the feminine is inferior to the male and not only inferior but opposite, If the male is human the female is not human but sub-human, incapable of thinking or able to be trusted on her own. She must be kept out of the market place and confined to the rooms of her home, bearing children. Sin is representational of who she is. Keep in mind here, that the early church, according to documented church history, considers only the masculine as true humanity and the feminine as sub-human. An example would be the philosophy of Augustine, a canonized saint of the church, (The Philosophy of Augustine pps354-430) who equated women with sexuality which was considered inferior to men's ability to contemplate God through Reason and also as reflecting the image of God. It said that women were created for sexual service, hence their bodies reflected only sexual function. Further, the church said that women were incapable of Reason, hence, incapable of thinking or controlling their own impulses. Is there any wonder that history is filled with the abuse and degradation of women. As the church set the moral code the church is responsible.
The masculine, as representative of God is able to be lured into sin through the wiles of the feminine. The sin is the sin of the feminine. The feminine becomes sin. Sin becomes the feminine. The masculine is created in God's image (the feminine is created in Adam's image from a rib in his side) and as such are Sons of God and heirs of God's kingdom. As God's sons and heirs, the masculine is said by religion to be incapable of sinning on his own. Sin cannot possible reside in him. Religion has presented sin as representational, that the feminine is inferior to the male and not only inferior but opposite, If the male is human the female is not human but sub-human, incapable of thinking or able to be trusted on her own. She must be kept out of the market place and confined to the rooms of her home, bearing children. Sin is representational of who she is. Keep in mind here, that the early church, according to documented church history, considers only the masculine as true humanity and the feminine as sub-human. An example would be the philosophy of Augustine, a canonized saint of the church, (The Philosophy of Augustine pps354-430) who equated women with sexuality which was considered inferior to men's ability to contemplate God through Reason and also as reflecting the image of God. It said that women were created for sexual service, hence their bodies reflected only sexual function. Further, the church said that women were incapable of Reason, hence, incapable of thinking or controlling their own impulses. Is there any wonder that history is filled with the abuse and degradation of women. As the church set the moral code the church is responsible.
Post #143 "Breaking Down to Nothingness"
Consciousness that lies in the future is certainly aware that the power-struggle games are not working. This fact is buried deep in the common and individual psychic as Time is nebulous. Beneath all the layers of lies throughout history, the Truth remains that Reality is Reality and image is image. The role-playing game of God/Male contrasted by other-than-God /female thereby renders the strong stronger and the weak weaker.The weak becoming weaker and weaker until, as atoms, breaking down into smaller and smaller subatomic particles, they, likewise break down into smaller and smaller pieces. As atoms lose all definition until they finally just pass away, so too the weak lose all definition, and also, finally, just pass away. The weak and oppressed become unable to survive much less fight back or retain any sense of human dignity for there is no room for human dignity in being the fodder for other's greedy appetites. In other words, the powerful need the life-blood of the weak to survive. The strong could never rise to Power without sapping off the life of that which is other than themselves, that which is vulnerable.
There is nothing inherently strong in needing to take strength from others. This need to drain the weak shows that the so-called powerful are weak themselves and are unable to admit, even to themselves, that they are not of Reality. When the strength from the weak and the vulnerable has been depleted, the powerful will always create more vulnerability to feed upon until only one remains----the most Powerful....... ..The God of Creation/the Collective Consciousness and the Collective Unconsciousness. The God of Creation will then recall Reality and begin to dream. The dream will bring about desire and desire will bring about The Choice to become that which image is not and the abyss will begin to stir and then to rage. Energy. Heat. Water.....the primordial waters of Nothingness....Future creating Past.
There is nothing inherently strong in needing to take strength from others. This need to drain the weak shows that the so-called powerful are weak themselves and are unable to admit, even to themselves, that they are not of Reality. When the strength from the weak and the vulnerable has been depleted, the powerful will always create more vulnerability to feed upon until only one remains----the most Powerful....... ..The God of Creation/the Collective Consciousness and the Collective Unconsciousness. The God of Creation will then recall Reality and begin to dream. The dream will bring about desire and desire will bring about The Choice to become that which image is not and the abyss will begin to stir and then to rage. Energy. Heat. Water.....the primordial waters of Nothingness....Future creating Past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)