At best this breeds a smug superiority or condescension towards those geniuses – we paint them as disturbed, crazy, self-absorbed fanatics, unwilling or unable to grasp the Truth of Christianity do to their pride or arrogance. They are victimized, demonized.

Show me a Christian literary teacher who will admit to their students that Satan is meant to be the hero of Paradise lost, representing Milton’s own struggle and revolution against the tyrannical king?

OK. That’s it. I’m sure I’m wrong, and that many Christians are fine teachers. I just can’t grasp how.

But I just found a website explaining the history behind our beliefs in monogamy, which actually argues for Polygamy, and more interestingly, for Christian Polygamy. I found the following website fascinating: http://www.truthbearer.org/

It argues that Christianity was originally polygamous, and that Monogamy, like most other things, were copied directly from the ethical vacuous Romans and Greeks. While it can be easily dismissed as crap, the website offers an extremely lengthy and well researched treatise on the historical developments of both polygamy and monogamy, which for historical interest, is quite brilliant and interesting.

My own convictions are that:

A) love in all forms is good, and an intimate relationship with others should never be unnecessarily thwarted

B) honesty is paramount: “do no harm” is a good starting point

C) For practical reasons, when intending to raise a family or live with someone, monogamy is probably going to be a necessary evil, and can be quite fulfilling if you work at it.

What do you think?

What did you learn about in school today, dearest? I learned about the revolt of the slaves. I learned how the Jewish, slave mentality, unique in history as the theology of a poor and downtrodden nation, re-invented morality and inserted their perverse sickness into every aspect of contemporary culture. In Nietzsche’s time, it was a BIG deal to criticize Christianity, but he did. How have things changed? What is the critique for my own society? How are things different from Nietzsche’s time? Well, I am allowed to criticize Christianity. In theory, at least. However, those Christian ideas, of pity and self-sacrifice, had already seeped so deeply into the spiritual thought of the last 2,000 years, the cultural conscousness, that they crept outside of religion and made roots in societal consciousness itself. Certain safeguards became in place. Nietzsche is out of vogue now because of political correctness and religious tolerance. It is amazing to me that, despite Nietzsche’s brilliant, methodical, impossible to confute theory on the social evolvement of human morality, Christianity still exists! And they believe the same thing! Why is this? Well, even Nietzsche recognizes that many people are cut out to be sheep. Out of every large group of people, many will be stupid. At least half, maybe more. And so, regardless of religion, there will probably always be some pervading, superstition which, however false and vile, will be believed by all the stupid people. I suppose, to spend a lot of time yelling at stupid people, trying to convince them that what they believe is stupid, is itself very…stupid. (Blake quote) If they were not stupid they would not believe it anyway, the real trick is how to avoid making stupid people in the first place…and this may be somewhat circular, for if the religious system has, from the very beginning, put pride in blind faith and stupidity and meekness and vileness and sickness, and suffering in general, so thick a film of stupidity surrounds them that it is amazing they can function at all. So….the crime of my society, if the stupid are to be left alone, is how the stupid have woven a web of social responsibility so overwhelming that the powerful, the strong and intelligent, must abide by it.

Religious tolerance is one: it is not a Christian value, it protects all religions equally. It protects religions from each other, and it protects religions from academic criticism. What a gift for the stupid! (I need a new word for stupid, too derogatory. Deceived? Blind? Arrogant and clueless?) They can continue with their system, (which is the absolute height of intolerance!) condemn and judge those who don’t agree with them to everlasting fires of hell, without being rebuked, countered or questioned. The wise philosopher who goes to the mountain and spends his life meditating on Truth and Justice and Goodness, returns to society. When it is found out that, in his meditating, he did not encounter the name “Christ, Jesus,” he is checked off the list of eternal reward and penned in for eternal punishment. Eternal punishment! Not for any sin of character, any stain of evil, but for a name untaught! And, as the societal law of Religious Tolerance decrees, he cannot defend himself. He cannot offer counterproof or argument, he cannot engage in a logical debate to save his mortal soul from the clutches of the masses, the millions of uneducated who, for all his constant seeking, and for all their ignorance, know exactly where he will be sent when he dies. What good is this religious tolerance? And to whom? To the religious, of course. And how is religion helpful to society? One religion ties a society together, teaches it to be good, and maintains its divine superiority over other societies. In the rise of nations, then, religion has been instrumental. As have wars, violence, cultural smugness and empirilism, and slavery. Religion has allowed and excused everything necessary for the past 2,000 years of development, everything we know label an error in judgment. “yes, that was wrong, that was bad, but we see that now, and have moved on.” And yet the instrument, the vehicle, which allows us to sin gravely, but sin communally, and be excused for it, has been maintained.

Religion is necessary perhaps, and useful, perhaps. But while earlier religions were honest with man, and god, and honest with life, life, good and bad, modern religion is a revolting life. A lie to truth, at complete odds with reason, an enemy to the body, a prison cell to god.

Besides Tolerance, another evil of modern society is Political Correctness, which disables us from judging any groups (society, bound together, living in community, used to glorify itself through religion. When introduced to other societies it could not vanquish, the exhaltation of the meek. But when living together with other societies, which it was not beneficial to call evil and to fume with hatred, it was settled on tolerance. Once societies blended together, and religion was no longer an umbrella holding together the like-minded, and thus religious tolerance no longer protected from criticism, we arrived at political correctness. Political correctness means we cannot criticize or find fault with any group, for anything. Not for their religious or spiritual beliefs, not for their sexual orientation or practice, especially not for their looks or skin color. This may be a positive step, I’m not sure. However, as an enforced, externally imposed moral, I can’t see how it’s better than any other externally enforced moral. Although its reasons might be sound, and its application practical, it is not beyond the critical examination of Nietzsche’s morality; is it “Good”, good in itself? It has convinced itself that it is; when breached, you will be chastized harshly by whomsoever you have deeply and personally offended. In fact culturally, we are in such a state of hypertension that we are sensitive and easily, so easily angered.

I am not black, and I am not Buddhist. But if someone makes a cutting joke about either blacks or buddhists, I am aware that this is not only poor taste but absolutely off-limits, against the rules. I am offended, but to what end? And for whom? Who am I stepping up for, all blacks and buddhists every where? What has made it my job to defend them? It may be noble, and an advancement of human society in general that we hesitate to say bad things about any group of people, except for two things: we are not able to observe something that may be true about a race. (Nietzsche’s views on Jews: The Jewish slave mentality caused the perversion of morals. The sickly triumph of the weak, continued today in Christianity, is the Jews fault.) But oh no! We can’t blame the Jews. We can’t blame them for anything. We can’t put a critical eye on them at all. Why? Because they have suffered as no people have suffered. Worse than the millions starving in Africa, even today? Is our casual indifference any less cruel than the Nazi’s plan for Jewish extermination? And interestingly, if Political Correctness is good ‘in itself’, we don’t hesitate to speak poorly of other people. I can hate whomever I please, I can hate their actions, their manner, their background, etc, as long as I single them out for something I hate in them alone, and not something they share with a large group. Yet in this case I malign a specific person…is it less hateful than a large group with countless, faceless members?

Enough. I will go no further, for I realize heavily another part of this argument, the final part: Nietzsche, and all philosophers in fact, miss one crucial point, and this is not their fault for it lies in a misconception about the nature of philosophy. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and consequently the pursuit of wisdom. All too often this is confused with pursuit of truth. The truth, is unfortunately, not synanamous with wisdom for many reasons. The first is that, as many philosophers have shown, Truth is either too far up there to be reached by human intellect, or it is in fact created by human intellect and changes with the tide of human progression. Further more, the Truth as philosophers see it, tends to be at diametric opposition to the contemporary truths of culture. The philosopher, as a gadfly, is the one who has dared to step outside of assumed social truths to seek the Truth, the one with the big ‘T’, up in the sky. The philosopher is the one from Plato’s cave who steps outside into the light, comes back to share the message of the Truth with the big ‘T’, and is consequently torn apart by his contemporaries….in this the philosopher separates himself, although it may be more acurate to say, the philosopher is first the one separated, from society. Looking at the lives of philosophers, they are often full of tragedy. Nietzsche himself, while terribly sick, could not get along with many people, fell viciously in love with women who would not receive him, did not have his work accepted as he had hoped, went mad and died in relative darkness. And, subsequently, while he hoped his work would overthrow social constraints, cause a revolution in religious and philosophical assumptions, in fact, it did not. Those drawn to Nietzsche today are likewise those who consider themselves outsiders, prophets, wisemen, who intelligently and honestly describe the errors of contemporary society, artists and writers, philosophers, musicians. And here’s the secret, silly and humorous: society, at large, ignores them completely. The music is enjoyed, of course, the idealogies of the masses change a bit, but society and its progression, is unaffected.

Why? For one, the heart of society is more Marxist than anyone acknowledges. Commerce and economy marches on, and humans race for the oars, for at the end of the day, we must find a place in this complex, economic organism to buy our daily bread. Even philosophers, pretending to be above such duty, cannot escape the fact. Life needs fuel, and we have lost our taste for nuts and berries, and lost our skill at hunting, skinning and flesh; and were we to regain it, we would have no time for such pursuits as philosophy. But I digress. Society continues. I may be Christian one day, Marxist, the Nietzschean, and final some conglomerate of New Age idealisms, but every day, I put on my tie and go to work. Idealogy has no effect on commerce and economy. My point? Nietzsche and philosophers, while fascinating, can be easily discarded as malcontents, criticizing only what they once desired but failed to attain. What if the first girl Nietzsche had proposed to had accepted? Most likely he would never have written another book. He may have had the same ideas, possibly, but might have been convinced by his better half not to stir the waters or offend the in-laws. Nietzsche’s writings were his own form of hatred and revenge; revenge on a society who ignored him and didn’t hold him in the esteem he held for himself. His Zarathustra was his own personal warrior, sent in to defeat his enemies: although he had no trouble naming and defiling his enemies (which were also once his best friends) on paper. And now? Today we have bred a society of philosophers. With the insurgence of new and contradictory ideals, the post-modern breakup of community and group, as well as any hope for meaning and truth (despite blind acceptance of some religion, which should have, on its on merits, died out in the face of rational criticism). We have a whole lot of malcontents, struggling to find a place in society, struggling to be counted, to be loved, eager to offer their criticisms on society or anything else they can think of; and yet, we also, as in any age, have everyone else, the masses, the sheep, who try to carve their name into the side of the wall nearest them and hope someone reads it. With the ease of being suddenly rich and famous, based on skill only, everybody wants to be rich and famous, and so we covet grandness, while sipping our coffee and enjoying every day as much as we can. My point: I’m trying to get something out of myself which is stubbornly staying inside, somewhere where I cannot coax it out, but will have to consciously force it out and commit it to paper; in the ensuing battle parts may be damaged or violated but here goes nothing: Maybe philosophers are not necessary anymore. Maybe they have never been necessary. Perhaps like all artists, entertainers, they offer a brief destraction, some great ideas, hell they may even describe life exactly as it is, perfectly, and have come to know the True nature of all things. So f*ing what? Tomorrow we will still need to work. We will still need to eat. We will still have the same animal instincts towards the opposite sex, towards fear and danger, we will still have jealousy and pride, we will still have to get along with and co-exist with people we may very well like to strangle. What good is Truth?! We cannot escape the symptoms of our existence, the state of our earthly mission. And so, rather than prophets of eternal reality, philosophers are really the people sitting on their ass, looking at the clouds go by, refusing to participate for fear of giving their efforts to a point they can’t conceptualize intelligently, while the rest of us are trying to make do. At least, that has been the philosopher of the last 2000 years. Much more useful, perhaps, no – definitely, are those persons who can acutely understand our actual existence, on its own terms, without criticizing its obvious pointlessness, and offer concrete ways to improve it! What does it matter WHY we are here. We ARE here. What does it matter, if what we see is ‘real’, if our actions are ‘good’ or ‘evil’ and if these terms hold eternal value or are social constructs. All of philosophy is immediately dismissed. All that matters. ALL that we can ever know for sure and nothing else, is this, one moment we find ourselves in, and every previous, and every subsequent, until death. And so, what I find of immense value, is anyone who knows how to increase the worth of this one moment.

How worth? I would like to propose the term “enjoyment” although many may disagree. If you prefer sorrow, suffering, meekness, then go martyr yourself and be done with you: you will still have chosen what you find preferable and it wouldn’t be hard to prove what you prefer, what you choose, is what you enjoy. Hence, enjoyment. How do we make THIS moment more enjoyable? How do we make every moment, as best as we are able, keeping in mind that we have real lives which we are always immersed in, and cannot, as Nietzsche says, simple get out of the current and stand on the shore and watch (It is all a current, even the shore, there is no escape from the river of life, short of death). We have returned, finally, to one of the original, and I argue, the only valuable aim of philosophy: the pursuit of happiness. Happiness~! Joy! Have you not noticed that it is from this emotion that Love flows effortlessly, Generosity too and self-lessness is second nature to Happiness. We WANT to help others. To be Happy, truly happy, makes morality trivial, inconsequential. You do not need to force someone to be good when they are happy (Yes, I realize I am probably wrong on this, but this is not the place to examine myself more closely) My point only is that Nietzsche, while giving us lots and lots of truth, could  not find for himself any happiness, and thus, has not really given any else happiness. Or was that my point? I seem to recall my point being that there is no point to criticize the herd, for they will never change, and that learning to live with them was more advantageous, at least for the individual soul. Man is, after all, a social creature.

In my view – the (increasing) animosity between Christians and Atheists has no where to go but from bad to worse; especially when they aren’t willing to actually talk to each other – and animosity, the creation of us vs. them groups, is never healthy for a society. Moreover, the Christian perspective raised some issues that are not at all addressed by Myers; for the sake of mediation, I’d like to compose a more thoughtful response.

This is the original list as given by http://st-eutychus.com

1. Stop being so smug.
2. Don’t assume every piece of Christian evangelism is directed at you – we want the undecideds, not the decided-uns.
3. Admit that the debate about God’s existence is complex – and that it can, depending on your presuppositions, be quite possible for intelligent and rational people to intelligently believe in an intervening deity who communicates through a book.
4. Admit that the scientific method – which by its nature relies on induction rather than deduction (starting with a hypothesis and testing it rather than observing facts and forming a hypothesis) – is as open to abuse as any religious belief, and is neither objective nor infallible.
5. Try to deal with the actual notions of God seriously believed in by millions of people rather than inventing strawmen (or spaghetti monsters) to dismiss the concepts of God – and deal with the Bible paying attention to context and the broader Christological narrative rather than quoting obscure Old Testament laws. By all means quote the laws when they are applied incorrectly by “Christians” – but understand how they’re meant to work before dealing with the Christians described in point 3.

Here are my responses.

1) Atheists are smug. Sure – their views are based on reason, logic and evidence and from that basis they can be pretty confident. However, rather than trying at all to explain their views humbly, they mostly make pompous, pretentious ‘holier than thou’ statements which create unnecessary conflict. Saying “I don’t believe in God because I can find no evidence for it” is very different from “Everyone who believes in God is a stupid fool.” I have absolutely no problem with Atheism or Atheists – but their attitude of superiority (especially by young kids, with little common sense or intelligence, who are simply puppeting great scientists for shock value) is disconcerting. 

2) If I don’t agree with Christianity, and I don’t want it to take over the world and control politics, laws, and influence my society, then I have the obligation to stop you from converting the ‘undecideds.’ Standing by and letting beliefs spread which I know to be false is the same as watching someone cheat another person. Admittedly; Christians believe the same about their need to convert, but luckily, given equal opportunity, I don’t think the Christian cause is strong enough to convince a rational person (those the need for better education).

3) I’ll admit that belief in God is complex, and I’ll even admit it may be possible for an otherwise intelligent person to conceive of a Deity who writes his laws down in a book for humankind. However – I also know that the Bible is a product of varying religious cults in various episodes of spiritual reform, with little consistency, outdated cultural prohibitions, and some ghastly stories that I wouldn’t let near my kids. I’m also pretty sure it is completely a rehash of older or emerging ideas and that “Jesus” had nothing to do with it. An intelligent or rational person, will be willing to face the historical evidence surrounding the rise to Christianity.

4) I don’t know enough to comment on the scientific method, but I’d say it’s a pretty good system of finding out more about what’s real. I will admit that ‘Atheism’ as a belief, while based on evidence or logical argument, does not warrant the fanaticism shown by modern Atheists. (At the same time, I appreciate that the exasperation is simply a response to the obstinacy of Christians who continue to refuse basic scientific principles).

5) Number Five is the very purpose of this website. We try to investigate the specific claims, the historical traditions, the Biblical support for Christian faith; we treat Christians as intelligent persons who are basing their faith on erroneous ideas about the available evidence, and strive to make the actual evidence as accessible as possible.

The disagreements between Christians and Atheists are wide variations in paradigms. There exists an uneasy truce, but both sides are incapable of communicating in a way that makes the other side hear what they are saying. And so without further ado, in order to help Christians deal with Atheists, here are 5 simple rules to follow.

5 ways for Christians to talk with Atheists

…or as Myers says, “5 ways for Christians to seem more intelligent“

1) The God Atheists don’t believe in is the humanistic God of the old Testament; the one who intervenes in history to make his chosen people prosper (or suffer). Instead of talking about God like a person, talk about Him like a conscience, an inner voice of goodness, or a universal natural principle. The early Greek conception of the One, the Logos (the divine, organizing principle that animates life) is not foreign to scientific minds or basic human experience. Start with this shared notion and agree that “God” may not be the best word to convey it. (Belief or disbelief in ‘God’ is meaningless when both parties have different ideas about God).

2) Understand that there is no ‘proof’ for the existence of God; many great minds have tried and failed to provide an adequate argument for God. Belief in God is a personal choice (or a social institution). Don’t try to prove that God exists to Atheists; they are most likely much more familiar with the logical arguments than you are. Without evidence, either belief may be held as long as it is of benefit to the holder and causes no harm; the best you can do is say “I believe because it consoles me” and move on.

3) Belief in God is very different from belief in Jesus Christ or Belief that Evolution is False: these are historical claims that can be refuted by contrasting physical evidence. And if you ignore evidence with claims that ‘reason is untrustworthy’ or ‘God is a mystery’, you cannot at the same time claim to equal Atheist’s in intelligence or logical ability. (If a genius chooses to disregard his own reason, and instead believes something on faith at a disregard for evidence, his opinions or arguments can hardly hold up against those who have not made such a choice – if this is you, recognize that you cannot participate in honest, intellectual discussion and it is right that your opinions will simple be dismissed.)

4) Educate yourself! How can you hope to support your own beliefs without looking for evidence to support them? The recycled arguments for Jesus Christ or the existence of God have no weight with Atheists; they are platitudes that do little to convince someone familiar with the subject matter. For example, I make a pretty good argument on this website, in many places, that the Jesus Christ of the gospels didn’t exist as a historical person. I can make this claim because of an abundance of historical evidence; much more than the handful of quotes used to justify a historical Jesus. Jesus existed or did not; your faith in him doesn’t sway my opinion, which is based on evidence. However – if you were familiar with all of the evidence I provide, and could put forward a theory that explains it all while being dependent on a historical founder, I’d be fascinated.

5) Understand that Christian history has been long and dark. Most Atheists disbelief in God is supported by the evils done in His name. The Christian church has done very little good for the world in the last 2,000 years, and very many travesties. Although the Christian church may hold some kernels of wisdom, the idea that the church is God’s vessel, his plan for salvation, doesn’t fit with the available facts. Someone has done something very wrong. It is no use to say “Men corrupted the church” or “All those bad things have nothing to do with the Christian message” – there would be no Christianity without the organizing body of leaders who edited and preserved the scriptures, and often drastically reinterpreted them. Explaining how God’s chosen plan was capable of such ‘perversion’ will not be an easy task for you, but it demands an answer.

However – I’ve found that by publishing mildly controversial articles, I can get people to pray for me. If I am very bad, and insult a lot of religions, I could get millions of people to pray for me. Would God still send me to hell, even with all those prayers? (If so – what good are the prayers… God either listens to them or he doesn’t. Assuming he listens to them, there should be a ‘critical number’ perhaps that he responds to.)

Is it better to be God, and have no one praying for you, or be bad, and have many people praying for you?

In my conception of God and life, it doesn’t really matter. You see, although it’s stubborn and not very smart, I’m not willing to ‘hedge my bets’ by doing something that doesn’t make sense to me. I’m going to do what, in my mind, is good, right, just and true. I won’t kill, rape, cheat, steal or murder. I don’t even lie to girls to get them to sleep with me. I’m only slightly proud. I try to help others, I donate, I share, and I’m a good listener. I guess my problem is, I’m a big fan of justice, and I know – I KNOW – that a just God (or anybody, for that matter) cannot reward or punish someone based on a belief without taking into account all of the motivating factors of that belief, as well as balancing out their good thoughts, actions and intentions. I’m a sinner automatically because I was born and nothing I do can change that? I’m sorry, but that’s one of the foulest ideas I’ve ever come across (and it was developed nearly 4 centuries after Christ, by St. Augustine, a notorious sex-addict, and later included in Church doctrine.)

But go ahead – pray for me! It can’t hurt, and I don’t mind. And I’m sure I need it more, than say, starving African kids need 10% of your paycheck. The important thing is that we all sleep well at night.

Peace.

Western religion, especially Christianity, is also completely wrapped up in ideas of blood sacrifice, martyrdom, scapegoat, etc (only Jesus willingly went to his death)… and we think this kind of noble act trumps all others. Yet, we go to church and are only expected to tithe – usually 10% (but I’ll bet the vast majority of Western religious folks don’t tithe even that much of their incomes). Magic, religion and ritual spirituality are all about letting go. Giving control to God. Asking for help/releasing the strings. A powerful act of self-sacrifice can help ‘cinch the deal’ (as in blood-treaties); or at least make the experience more profound (pain increases our senses and awareness).

There is frankly no comparison at all, in my mind, to going to church and singing and tossing a few dollars into the collection plate (then drinking coffee with friends and going off home to watch TV), and spending a day climbing several thousands steps and then cutting your penis to offer your blood and yourself to God. What demonstrates more devotion and belief? Which is more likely to get God’s attention?

If you’re like me… you probably don’t want to mutilate your genitals. I’d very strongly rather not. However, in principle, ‘giving till it hurts’ is a very wise method of self-actualization. Try meditating or standing still until you can’t take it anymore, or fasting for as long as you can, or giving away the money you’ve been saving to buy yourself a very important (yet ultimately wasteful) new car, TV or toy.

“Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and has not stood in the way of the sinners, and has not sat in the seat of the evil men. But his will is in the law of the Lord; and in His law he shall meditate day and night. He shall be like the tree which is planted by the streams of water, which shall yield its fruit in its due season, and its leaf shall not scatter, and in everything he does he prospers.”

“Not so are the ungodly, not so; but rather they are like the chaff which the wind scatters upon the face of the earth. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in judgment, nor the sinners in the council of the righteous. For the Lord knows the way of the righteous; but the way of the ungodly shall perish. ALLELUIA.”

So, the three little pigs story is pretty much based on Christian theology (or, more precisely, folklore wisdom that got written into the Bible.) The basic idea is that being good, being clean and sinless, makes you strong like a tree (or having built a brick house) and, sinful fun-loving cretans will get blown away by the big bad wolf (i.e. sin or Satan.)

That’s a pretty decent interpretation. But this quote is also anti-Christian. Christ, in both words and deeds, taught that we need to hang out with the sinners, hang out with the prostitutes, drunks and lepers. Christ taught that ‘purity’ is not a physical state that can be spread like the flu, but an internal peace that is self-controlled. Actually this quote is a remnant of Old Testament self-righteousness which Jesus condemns. Don’t be proud. Pray in secret. Don’t assume you’ve made it into heaven, Jesus warns; be prepared.

Building up a strong character is the moral equivalent to a brick house. Charity, kindness, wisdom, and faith are all bricks. But once you’ve built your house, make sure to share it with those in need.

Provided by Jef Poskanzer

This chart shows that, contrary to popular belief, religious ethics are not ‘pretty much universal.’ However, there are some things in this chart that don’t make sense to me; like why is something either ‘unacceptable’ or ‘condemned’. Wouldn’t it be one or the other? Or does unacceptable just mean you shouldn’t do it, but it will be forgiven?

How do you feel about these issues?

As with any paper I edit, I leave comments on the side for passages that don’t seem to bear up under scrutiny, that are conflicting, incongruous, poorly reasoned. I pointed out that if Mary was predetermined to be Jesus’ mother, then it wasn’t a choice and the strength of her character had nothing to do with it. Unless God made her into the meek and humble servant required of the Mother of Jesus, in which case all honor and glory belongs to God, not to Mary, who had no freedom in the matter.

On the other hand, if Mary is praised as the best of all human beings because of her complete lack of self and willingness to submit herself to God, so that he could use his vessel to plant the seed of Jesus (and no matter how we look at this, it is hardly different from Zeus raping the Swan or any other myth of God impregnating humans except for the fact that Mary just lay down and took it without a fight) – if she was rewarded with the glory of being the mother of God for her noble nature and character, presuming some element of personal choice, then she was in no way predetermined to become the mother of God.

This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s simply the result product of reasoning and logic. However I’m wondering, as I edit, if I will lose the customer for ‘crossing a boundary’. At which point does a mistake, and error in writing involving poor logic, of the ilk that we all make sometimes, become a mystery, a matter of faith and dogma which is True and Unquestionable?

Summum is a cult/organization, from Utah, that ‘reintroduced the public to mummification in 1975.’ Fascinatingly, the practice of its mummification rituals is acknowledged by the IRS and exempt from federal taxation. Besides mixing a bunch of Egyptian, Gnostic, Freemason ideologies, it doesn’t seem to offer much except an anecdotal footnote in the history of cultism. Its founder, Claude “Corky” Rex Nowell, claimed to have a series of encounters with highly intelligent beings referred to as the Summa Individuals. Like most cults, it has a fascination with sex and death, however it is also refreshingly scientific. To quote from their website:

We stress the application of the Systematic Law of Learning to all the principles in order for you to assess real understanding as opposed to mere faith or belief. Belief in anything is a state of ignorance about reality, and the principles must be experienced to be understood.

That’s something I can agree with. I also enjoy the romance in the idea that Moses’ first set of tablets, the ones given to him by God, were broken when he got all upset about the golden calf – a biblical fact – and that the new ones, the famous 10 commandments, are a watered down version of rules meant for the spiritually inept Israelites. Summum claims that the following ‘7 aphorisms’ are what were on the first tablet.

1. SUMMUM is MIND, thought; the universe is a mental creation

2. As above, so below; as below, so above.

3. Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.

4. Everything is dual; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.

5. Everything flows out and in; everything has its season; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing expresses itself in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.

6. Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is just a name for Law not recognized; there are many fields of causation, but nothing escapes the Law of Destiny.

7. Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all levels.

Most of these 7, however, mean the same thing. They are, therefore, redundant and not wise enough for me to believe the claim of divine inspiration. That doesn’t make them untrue; but they mention nothing that is not more poetically demonstrated in the book of Tao or the fragments of Heraclitus. Smartly, they admit that the Summum philosophy is nothing new, but still worth getting to know.

At any rate – the Summums are apparently suing for the right to put up their own monument, a monument of the 7 aphorisms, next to an older city statue of the 10 commandments. It’s made it to the Supreme Court. I don’t pretend to understand free-speech politics well enough to have an opinion, but another blog does a decent job of presenting the case here.

Free speech aside – why the heck is this news at all? National news, before the Supreme Justice of the United States, about putting up a rock in a little city park for some fringe religious sect? Aren’t there bigger problems to be concerned with? Incidentally I watched “Recount” last night and learned that the Supreme Court refused to allow all the votes in the 2000 election be counted, under bizarrely one-sided circumstances, demonstrating that “Justice” in America is as elusive and prone to human error, prejudice and pride as it has ever been. Carve the damn stone, or don’t. How can it be a matter of any importance, regardless of your beliefs?