A LOOK BACK, AT THE START OF LIFE

I am not a scientist, not even close. But I learned a bit about science in school, and a bit more in university. But I am not even as much as an expert. Especially I am not a biologist. I have never taken any course in biology. But I am an expert in my own spirituality, this I have studied for over 50 years now, since my mind was first opened to the possibility religion, in particular Abrahamic religions, had gotten it all wrong. Two things in particular were very problematic to me. One was the idea that there was an all-loving superbeing who could willy-nilly judge living beings of not being adequate to join him in his heavenly home, and thus condemning them to a life of eternal suffering. What love is that? Two, that this same superbeing created everything in existence, yet in the book he supposedly wrote, knew nothing beyond the land of the Levant, being what we now call the middle eastern part of our world. Does that make any sense? Not in my mind it did not! So I went in search of what seemed true to me. What has this to do with science, in particular biology? A bit more patience please.

Whether this post will be of any real value to anyone is not up to me. I am just the blogger. But I would like to say it was more or less inspired by my fellow WordPress.com blogger, The Common Athiest, a man named Jim. I first met Jim by reading a post of his about life being nothing more than the result of a functioning brain, a completely physical process. That I disagreed with him goes without saying, I am what I call a Spiritual Atheist, and that requires a spiritual component to life. But the ideas behind his words had some weird connection to my own ideas, so I set out to explore them. After all, the seat of my consciousness, and probably yours, seems to sit in our heads, so probably in our brains. That part made sense. But Jim wanted mental life to be nothing more than chemical reactions happening inside our brains, though he never delved into how particular chemicals got into our brains, or how they combined is just the right amounts to make us think we can think. But ignore that as unimportant. The main thing I could not accept was there is no spiritual component to chemical reactions, and if there is one thing I know, without doubt, there is a spiritual component to me. And as I am a living being, functioning in this world, I have to believe there are others in the world who also have a spiritual component to them. Please note, I said living beings, not just human beings. As far as I can tell, all life is connected. Human beings, which are but a tiny part of all life on Earth, are just part of the whole of life. Nothing special about us, though we love to see ourselves at the top of the evolutionary ladder.

Oops, there is that word, evolution. The bane of Abrahamic religions. Their bible teaches that their God created the universe, full blown and heavily populated with all kinds of life, about 6000 or so years ago. Complete with fossils showing the evolutionary paths life took to culminate in our human species. That was quite an amazing feat, but since the ways of God are unknowable, but he knows everything there is to know, he obviously seeded the world with said fossils to lead us astray, a deliberate trap like so many other deliberate traps he set to catch those of his chosen people to test whether they truly believed in him or not. And, no offence intended, if you truly believe an all-loving god could use such trickery to keep his creations from joining him in heaven, then something has gone wrong with those chemical reactions that are going on in your brain.

But, what do all those fossils really tell us? They tell us that life has proceeded in some haphazard fashion from original one-celled beings of ancient pre-history to the multi-trillion-celled beings who inhabit our world today alongside beings of all number and form of cells going back all the way to the original one-celled beings who started the process off some 3.5 to 4.5 billion revolutions of the earth around the sun we humans call years ago. And this is the time period I would like to look back at, using scientific descriptions, but as seen through the vision of my spirituality, for it indeed does go back that far in time.

Not being a scientist, I needs trust what they tell me fossil records show, because I know fossils exist, and that we think we can understand at least some of them. And humans have found enough of them to be able to tell a story about life. It is, of course, not a complete story, but it is a story worth telling. Our scientists have tried their best to fill in the blanks, and have, I think, done a credible job of it. But these fossils, these pre-historical records, are kind of like Jim, The Common Atheist. All they can see are physical records. By the very nature of spirituality not being a physical or material thing, it cannot be recorded physically. Yet I think the records are there, if only you know how to read them. I dabble at trying to read them.

These records exist, not physically, but spiritually, in the memories of the cells that are decended from the cells that lived in those early times. Impossible, you say? Think about it. How do cells reproduce? They do not use sexual methods to reproduce, they use cell-splitting. They reproduce by dividing their tiny bodies in half over and over and over again, and have been doing so for longer than we can conceive of in our petty little minds. But what does that really mean to those one-celled beings who exist today, or will exist tomorrow? It means that their memories, however we humans want to think about them, still have that within them that was there at the beginning. Mitosis, I think the scientists call it, is the splitting of one into two. This does not involve change, as would a human baby have genetic material from it’s parents but with changes that set it apart from those parents, but an exact replica of the material found in the very first cell that ever replicated itself. The exact same material. Think about it. No changes, completely unaffected by evolutionary processes, unaffected by time. Immortality, if one is willing to go so far, if one is willing to look with open eyes, and an open mind.

So, the one-celled beings that exist in the world today are exact replicas of the very first one that managed somehow to replicate itself all those billons of years ago. I cannot prove this of course, maybe there were many one-celled beings who managed to do this at close to the same time, but to put this into a different perspective, there are scientists who believe all humans are descended from one mother who started the whole human evolutionary chain. I will not agree or disagree with this theory, because the possibility is logical.

But looking at one-celled beings, this theory is not only possible, but probable. Somewhere, at some time, there was a FIRST LIFE, and life, I do mean all life, on Earth at least, is descended from that first life. And that fact means all life is connected, in some way, and that is what I call spirituality.

There is more to be said, I think, but for now I think this is the goal of this post, to put the idea out there, we truly are all related.

Thank you, if you managed to read this far. Please feel free to comment.

Author: rawgod

A man with a lot of strange experiences in my life. Haven't traveled that much per se, but have lived in a lot of different areas. English is the only language I have mastered, and the older I get, the more of it I lose. Seniorhood gives me more time to self-reflect, but since time seems to go much faster, it feels like I don't have as much time for living as my younger selves did. I believe in spiritual atheism and responsible anarchy. These do not have to be oxymorons. Imagination is an incredible tool. I can imagine a lot of things.

41 thoughts on “A LOOK BACK, AT THE START OF LIFE”

  1. There is a lot to address here, so if I may start with one
    ”And as I am a living being, functioning in this world”. I would reword this to “And as I am a living being, a function of this world”. Lets start with what we know, science or spiritualism, this is where we are. We essentially have four choices; the world as a self governing organism (even with the Big Bang) the world as a creation, or the world as a god, there is nothing that is not god, or it is a random fluke—the result of collisions, energy, and hot gasses, or the world as a drama. Which ones carry the least contradiction?

    Like

    1. Four choices, but only three good options, in my mind. The problem is, you are giving me material or fantastical options, whereas I see physical plus spiritual sharing the same space. Of your options, I obviously go with random collisions, energy, and hot games, but there are more options than you are offering.
      Life, whatever it is, is not addressed in your options, and life changes everything, because life is ever-changing.
      I do hope I did not misrepresent you, I tried to present you according to your many posts as I understood them, but that is problematic in itself. I have to pass you through my filters, which you do not necessarily fit through. I have at times seen other sides of you, but the side I chose to describe is the one I believe I see most often. My apologies if I am wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Does the idea of a self governing organism upset the idea that you are somehow a separate individual? This is the illusion of the ego. There is no freewill.

        Like

        1. Please say that as if it is not Truth, Jim, because while it may be your truth, it is not my truth, and never will be.
          Self-governing organisms are okay with me, as long as you are not talking a cosmic-sized organism. Chaos is the only thing that governs anything, because it is chaos, and can govern nothing. Shit happens.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. I would say if you have faith in the capital T Truth, they could coexist, but what are the odds of that? What are the odds of there even being Capital T Truth. 1 in a gazillion kazillion, and that one is definitely not human. And that’s the Truth, if you believe me, lol.

              Liked by 1 person

  2. The odds are there is only one truth and that is—what is it? That life is somehow a unique, yet separate idea from the whole world is borderline denial. Life is a symptom of the universe like mold is to bread. It’s all one process where form barely exists at all but in a relative state of relationships between mind and matter. What you are seeking is the seeker. The seeker is the sought. You could no more find that outside than you could find objects without space, or recognize space without objects. They all go together. All of it.

    Like

    1. In your world, maybe. I’M not willing to live in that world, Jim, not yet, if ever. We are talking two different languages, I can see that. I do not fully understand your language, and I do not know that I ever will. To me, your language is closed in a box of set rules, rules which I cannot even conceive of. I presume this is your scientific/biology-based experience, I don’t know.
      I do not want to be fighting with you, if that is what we are doing, but I have no awareness of what gĺoes on in that particular box you are in. I hear your words, but they are authoritative, parental if you will. I never learned to listen to my parents, except through fear, which was a survival mechanism I stopped needing the day I turned 16. That was my real birthday, not the one when I came out of my mother”s womb. So, if you want me to understand what you are saying, you cannot preach facts to me. Facts are just conveniences, tools. If someone wants me to believe what they are presenting to me, I need to be able to understand in my own mind why I should trust them enough to believe them.
      I am being as honest as I can with you. You make no sense to me right now. This is not meant as disrespect, or refusal to listen, or even sheer stubbornness. I cannot understand or accept your words, no matter how insistent you are that I believe you. It is like being in a foreign country, and trying to make a native-speaker underdtand what I am saying in my own language, and just repeating my request louder and louder. A person cannot understand what they cannot understand. Talk to me in a language I am capable of understanding. Whatever language you are using, it goes right over my head. Capice?

      Like

  3. If you are not willing to understand another point of view it seems your mind is made up yet don’t know what mind that is. It seems as though you are clinging to a moment in the past that does not exist anymore, but that is too, a piece of the whole event.
    Show me how life can be separate from non life, how matter can be separate from spirit, how black can be comprehended without white, how you are somehow separate from the whole and I’ll bite.
    But whether it’s science or belief,it’s all one process that we’ve been conditioned to separate with symbols, language, and graphs. The thing is not the calculus, the segments are not separate events. It’s all one event and one process. And you are one aperture of the whole thing. Capice?

    Like

    1. Yeah, that I understand. But the symbols (words) I need do not exist in my version of the world, and the words I do have are totally inadequate to the what the situation calls for.
      No, I am not stuck in a moment in time, because I am still learning from those moments. This is another thing that is hard to communicate. While in this other dimension for moments or even a few earth hours, being as there was no real sense of time there, I was able to absorb a lot of things that my brain? mind? spirit? stored away for future consideration, like getting a huge blast of reality in a packet the size of a hydrogen atom. Can that mean anything to you? If I had tried to unpack it all at once I would have gone insane, no question. My mind would have been blown to tiny bits. But I was able to store if for opening once a year on Christmas morning, if you need an anology. And I cannot just look at an item, I have to confront it, understand it, and let it become a part of me, so that I can continue to be me.
      You, with your own limitations, cannot conceive of what I am still going through today. I encountered an event, twice, that could not happen in our dimension. But you can only look through your own eyes, you cannot see through mine. And I can no longer see through eyes that do not involve the changesI have been through.
      You want to think I am unwilling to consider your point of view, but will has nothing to do with this. If I weren’t willing to try I would have never responded to your first comment. Hell, I would never have read a second post of yours after the first one I read. Mostly we travel on similar planes, one being the plane of atheism, which we both define and experience differently. You say, if you suddenly were given proof a god, particularly the Abrahamic God, did exist you would retract your atheism. I know such proof does not, and cannot exist. There is no creator. Period. But I do not generally say this publicly because I have no need to try to upset the lives of all the Abrahamists in the world. Given time, given enough incarnations, they will come to know this on their own.
      You ask how black can be comprehended without white, Jim? You will not allow me to be authoritarian to you, say without evidence that it can be, but that is no different from a theist asking you to prove the negative assertion that God does not exist. Black needing white is a negative, but I cannot prove that because it is unprovable. That does not mean it is not doable.
      You, Jim, are trapped in your experience and your ability to understand. I too am just as trapped in my experience, and my ability to understand. The use of facts, or even presumed facts, is impossible between us. We are that different. But yet, I think we both know, we are still connected, whatever you want to that connection. I call it life, and spirit. I am not sure what you call it. If we could agree to disagree, maybe we could get past this point. As of right now, I am not convinced we can. But I am not willing to give up. Are you?

      Like

      1. You, with your own limitations, cannot conceive of what I am still going through today. I encountered an event, twice, that could not happen in our dimension.”
        I think I understand it pretty well. Lsd opens all known receptors in the brain, floods it with chemicals and anything goes. You saw one thing, someone else sees another, based on the potency, mood, and their physiology.
        In one account I read the tripper described a lamp as living, changing shape and moving in and out like a vortex, yet the camera filming the trip saw nothing. Nothing. Maybe lucky it was just a lamp and he could dismiss it and a trip and nothing more.

        Like

        1. See, Jim, right there you show your blind spot. LSD opens doors, but it does not force us to walk through them.
          Again, you are only looking at the physical aspects, they are all you can see.
          The thing with the lamp, that is a visual hallucination. I have no idea how many times I used LSD, but I can tell you how many visual hallucinations I saw: 1. I saw things that were misrepresentations of normal sight, but they were not important to me, though some were more curious than others. My one hallucination was of a flower in a woman’s hair. That was definitely not there. What I saw during my NDEs while on acid, they were not hallucinations.
          Of the things you mentioned that could affect an LSD experience, you missed at least one. The power of the mind involved in the experience, again something your science cannot measure. You best give up, Jim, you think you know, you think you understand, but you do not. Just like I do not know how you do many of the things you do, or understand the things you understand. We are not in each other”s minds, or even brains, in deference to how you look at life. You definitely cannot see what my spirit shows me. This place, where we are right now, is a dead end. Communication has stopped. Can we move on to something else?

          Like

          1. Not sure why you think I’m only looking at the physical aspects as you have followed this blog quite some time. I have been completely fair and inclusive to a strange variety of readers and comments to the point of alienating some of my atheist readers.
            LSD opens doors, but it does not force us to walk through them. And it doesn’t help that you sat there on your couch or wherever and didn’t walk through any doors either. If you did you would have hit your head on it.
            Hallucinating feels as real as anything, yet none of it is real. Nothing is as it appears to be—stoned or sober. Twisting the illusion through pharmaceuticals must be incredibly convincing, just as the table in front of you. But when it is broken down and analyzed it isn’t what it appears to be—only a relative reality to which we are accustomed.

            Like

            1. My comment was only about this conversation, Jim. I thought you would recognize that. We have had lots of good conversations over the past few years, and that is partly why I am continually responding to you. But this is one conversation where you are sticking to your guns, and I cannot put mine down.
              Again, in this last comment, you tell me that nothing about hallucinations are real. You cannot say that to me, you do not know that. I cannot dispute your statement for anyone else, but I must dispute it for me. I am experienced with LSD, you are not. You make my experience as nothing. I know how much it means to me. I cannot believe what you tell me I know it is wrong. But you are not willing to try to trust what I tell you, because you believe you know the truth. I am not the stubborn one here, Jim you are. You are showing no respect for my experiences. You do not have to believe what I say, I don’t care about that. But you could at least offer me the common decency to accept what I am telling you as my truth.
              And twisting the truth through phsrmaceuticals? You tell me our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions. How are the che iCal reactions going on in my head any different from the ones going on in your head. It has been over 50 years since I last ingested LSD. There is no trace of acid in my brain by now. It’s been a good thirty years since I last had as much as a flashback. My mind is as straight as yours is. But yet you tell me we are different, that you know things I cannot know because I took a pharmaceutical 50 years ago. Get real, Jim. You know shit, just like me. If you can trust your experience, allow me to trust mine.

              Like

              1. Who’s digging in their heels? I’ve presented evidence that puts your experience in question. I do not automatically discount “spiritual” perceptions, but really, you were stoned and there is plenty of evidence that 99% of those experiences are hallucinations, except yours? Maybe someone else will chime in and note who is digging in here?

                Like

                1. You have presented no evidence, just words. I really don’t want to go any deeper into this, Jim. I’m not out to make a non-friend of you. I’ve said this twice already. You have your beliefs, I have mine. Please leave it there.

                  Liked by 1 person

                    1. Okay, thank you. Having said that, what do you think of the theme of the last two posts, that cells are the key to understanding life on earth?

                      Like

                    2. In wu wei it is said there is only one mind. That is why one cannot find it. What is sought is the seeker. All stemming from one organism we trace our roots back to LUCA, or the Progenote. But to say that cell division is impervious to evolution isn’t accurate. Even today, the coroner virus 🦠 is changing and mutating, finding equilibrium so it may endure.
                      If it kills its host too fast it will not survive, so these things, these tiny things change quite rapidly to adapt. So it is with cells.
                      The earth has changed. There was the great oxygen catastrophe and many other things that have guided evolution in a remarkable journey of change to get to this point. Has consciousness evolved too? No, I don’t think so but it does seem to play more and more complex games. Now cracking the code is harder than ever, thwarted by faith. Belief over intellect. I see it as the greatest of all games because in their self righteous perceptions they have stalled the millennia thinking they had IT when they don’t. It’s quite a show, really.

                      Like

                    3. Viruses are apparently not cells, and scientists can not even agree if they are alive. In my mind they are, they do indeed mutate, but that is not enough for everyone.
                      The one mind philosophy must be challenged, but it will win in certain instances, while losing in others. In my cosmology life starts with but one mind, which indeed cannot be found by itself. Unless you break that mind down into smaller parts, such as living beings, separating the bits from the whole for periods of what we call time, in order to have mirrors to look at. Except, the smaller parts discovered they were not all the same, and thus they did not become mirrors, but rather lenses that created different views. This allowed us to have relationships, and through relationships we find we can be more than seekers, but finders.
                      I keep coming back to the experiment I designed many years ago, probably in the late 70s or early 80s. Take a newborn child, hook it up for fuel, water, and air intake, provide it with safe ways to excrete air, liquid, and solid waste, suspend it in a pool of heated water about halfway between top and bottom, keep the temperature of the water the same degree for the length of the experiment, 5 years minimum, and then forget it until you decide to find out what has become of it.
                      I know what I think you will find, but what do you think the child will be like when you pull it out of the water, disconnect all the hoses, and expose it to the world at large. Let your mind roam freely.
                      I will give you the first question, or condition: Will the baby be alive? The rest, if anything, is up to you.
                      This is an experiment that should never be done on any living being. Anyone who tries it should be put into those very conditions for the rest of their lives. I designed it to prove a point, but the person I designed it to, a clinical psychologist, could not even imagine such an experiment. But he wanted to try it. That made me sick!
                      You read me wrong. If all cell division were the same, we could not be here to have this conversation. But there are those cells which have never mutated, and those are the ones that have achieved immortality through mitosis. The ones that have evolved to some degree at least, those are the reason we are here. We are far evolved from the pre-runners of single-celled beings. Yet, they are the closest relations we have.

                      Liked by 1 person

  4. If I may interject in this conversation …

    rawgod — you had an experience that left a deep and lasting impression on you. It (obviously) created a new life outlook for you — one that you seem to believe others are missing. But the thing you must consider and remember — this was your experience. Until or unless others go through a same or similar event, they will continue to see things through their own life’s lens.

    As Jim said, your experience was brought on by an outside component. And this is important to remember because, while there is no doubt it changed your life, the chances that others could ever totally identify with what happened to you is nil … simply because we are separate and discrete individuals.

    Like

    1. I am not asking anyone to believe anything, Nan, but I am asking Jim not to negate my experience because of what he believes.
      Best for you not to get involved in this.
      But you are wrong others identifying with what I experienced. There are others who went through extremely similar circumstances, some under the influence of other psychedelics. But mostly, the experiences were translated according to previous belief systems. Most saw what they expected to see. I will leave that there.

      Like

  5. (Pause to sit back and set fingers in the form of an apex- signal I am going to be insufferably pseudo-academic ).
    Y’see one of the facets of the Old Testament Bible which is ironically shared by those who are critical of it and those who adhere to it in the literal word-for-word, is not looking at its structure and components from an historical context or perspective.
    The first factor to bear in mind is that whereas we expect an historical document to be a plainly factual piece of work, this was not so in earlier ages. Accounts carried messages, poetical allegories and opinions and this style was accepted in ‘those days’. This style figures even in such ‘recent times’ as the 16th Century. Therefore taking Seven Days of Creation in the literal is going to get the reader into trouble or worse not thinking broadly; taking Seven Days as poetical licence as an interpretation of Creation; now that’s art being used to explain a concept, after all the folks writing those accounts did not have the myriad of equipment we have.
    Second factor- This one should be borne in mind by anyone who takers the Old Testament literally. It was originally an oral tradition, then written down in at least Aramaic, then Greek, then Latin (at least twice) and finally into English, with everyone pitching in in deciding what that word meant, and also adding their own proverbial 10 cents worth. Again allegory, studying of the times and the factors going on around are necessary. In fact English Bible reading is dangerous. Bible study is more to the point. Shallow reading is like running off with Darwin’s commentaries on evolution and coming up with the 19th 20th century idea that White Races were superior because they got metal ships and guns.
    Third Factor: Folk for all sorts of Human flaws screw with the message to suit their purposes. When Karl Marx sat down to write ‘Das Kapital’ I am fairly certain he did not have Stalin’s USSR (an old tale in Russian History) or Pol Pot’s Cambodia (here comes another despot) in mind.
    Layers, layers and layers.

    Like

    1. Ah, now we are getting to the meat of the religious matter. Please note, this reply is for the purpose of discussion only.
      You tell me the bible is allegorical, not to be read as meaning what it says. But, according to the bible itself, it was written by God, and I don’t see God as writing allegory, especially without telling us it was allegory.
      To go off topic for a moment, way back when I had occasion to have a similar discussion with a Christian university professor about Ovid’s Metamorpheses. We were discussing whether or not Ovid knew that what he was writing was fiction, or what he knew as fact. The prof was aghast that I could think Ovid might believe Greek gods were real. Ovid, he insisted, in a time when there was no Christianity, was a pre-Christian, and knew the stories he was writing were nothing more than fables. My ?question was: If Ovid, and not only his readers, but all Romans, did not believe in gods, why did they go to all the trouble of renaming Greek gods to have Latin names? ??According to my prof, it was all in the translation. Apparently, the Greek word Zeus translated in Latin to Jupiter. Except, where did the name Jupiter come from, I asked. From the planet, he responded, saying the supreme Roman God came from the name of the largest planet in the solar system. So I asked, then Pluto the God was named after Pluto the planet? Of course, he said. My answer, Pluto the planet was discovered in 1942, how did Ovid know it was even there.
      I do not accept that the Romans did not actually believe in gods, nor do I believe the bible was written by God. But yet, most believers (Does that include you, I do not know.) believe the bible is literally the word of God. You ask me to look at the structure, the messages. You tell me the bible has gone through many translations, each one with its own problems. Priests/preachers want me to believe the verbal stories that were collected into the bible once writing was discovered were verbatim the Word of God marred by humans during translations. I want to know why an omniscient god did not give humans writing to be able to record his words verbatim, and why he did not write them in every language–all-knowing, he must have known every language humans or other beings would develop–and written then down exactly as he wanted them to be read. God, being God, had no need of allegory. He had no need to hide what he was trying to say. To do so would mean he was purposely lieing to the very people he most wanted to believe in him, the people he wanted to worship and adore him. Why wasn’t he honest, when he demanded honesty of his people?
      These are the things I cannot understand, the things that make it impossible to believe the bible came from god, and that anyone should have any obligation to take it seriously, no matter what it is interpreted to say. Thus sayeth the Lord, but really, what he meant was this!
      Read your bible, I have no problem with that. Take from it whatever you find in it, I have no problem with that. But tell me it is the Word of God, and I have total trouble with that.
      And I cannot apologize for that.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Now this is indeed where we get to the meat of the matter and move into the areas of Facts as we humans perceive them, and Beliefs as we humans embrace them.
        To believed in God in the Abrahamic tradition does require an adherence to both the Old and New Testaments. However when we get into the area of ‘The Word of God’ then are we dealing with a spiritual message or a whole clutch of tomes falling out of the sky or being dictated to a person or persons. Again we have to come back to the fact that at some stage humans were recording this and since we are not perfect we are not transmitting the message consistently, which explains why a whole clutch of prophets kept turning up, and said prophets getting persecuted by kings who didn’t like the idea, and of course folk who agreed with the kings.
        THEN we have the problem all Christians should have face in that there’s a lot of slaughtering going on in the Old Testament by dutiful followers of God which you don’t encounter in the New Testament. (only when Christians decide in later centuries that this was God wanted, because it was convenient for them to reckon it was so).
        Thus a Christian finds it easier to handle The New Testament than the Old, which is where study of all manner of facets is required to ensure you don’t go running off saying ‘Hey let’s persecute other races, gays, religions and put women in slavery, because I read, (out of context)-blah-blah’.
        No doubt some will accuse me of Relativism (whatever), others of ‘Not knowing What I believe’ (Well fancy knowing my mind better than I do) and others ‘Of Making Excuses’ (whereas they have beliefs or non-beliefs I get ‘Excuses’- great).
        In short I make my deal with God, and ‘Thus sayeth the Lord’…..are you fellow believer sure that’s what He meant? Because if you are sounding Intolerant and looking for ways to abuse people, I’m not so sure you are tuned in.
        And thus coming around…Yeah I believe the Word of God is in The Bible, it’s just that I don’t buy into what a number of folk are telling me, had proclaimed and so forth, was the Word of God.
        And we’re back with Das Kapital again.

        Like

        1. Yup, Roger, you hit your fingernail right on your head. You should hear what many atheists say to me because I cannot be an atheist if I believe in the process of reincarnation and an eternally-evolving spirit, both of which I do happen to know exist for me. But I won’t tell you, you already know. It is they who cannot hear themselves.
          No, I have no use for infighting or outfighting, other than to be allowed to be me. But for some people, as you know, that is too much to ask for. Almost 8 billion humans on this earth, almost 8 billion ways to believe. I so envy those species that don’t have to listen to others of their species telling them how or how not to live. Notice I did not say they are not conscious of themselves, I believe they are, just they do not take themselves so seriously as do we. And there are quadrillion of quadrillions of them. We could take a few lessons–if we were not so busy being the superior fools we believe ourselves to be.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I hear you brother.
            I had the interesting experience of being told by one Christian, in a friendly way that actually I was not a Christian because…. He then went into some obscure points about The Council of Trent (1545 and 1563) and kinda lost me.
            There would be something rather unsettling (although we would not perceive) if we all thought exactly the same way. We are always going to disagree. I used to share a joke with a fellow blogger that our views were so far apart we would meet around ‘The other side of the Universe’ which they got and we worked that way because we both let the other one rattle on their own way.
            As you may be aware in the UK we have embarked on the rickety ship of Brexit captained by a fellow of less than solid qualifications.
            One of the reasons this happened was because of the ineptitude of the Opposition Party., ie Labour to mount anything like a credible campaign against The Conservatives (now in government). One of the major reasons for this being:
            If there is one person a Labour Party supporter hates more than a Conservative Party supporter, it’s a Labour Party supporter who does not agree with them…. try telling some that and you might as well suggest a ‘National Let’s Be Cruel to Puppies and Kittens’ Day.
            Small wonder the greedy, the selfish and the cruel slither their way to the top of the ‘food chain’.
            See you around the other side of the Universe.

            Like

            1. Outside? Or inside? Topside? Or downside? Upside, maybe? Not backside, I hope!
              Other side? Nah, that seems too boring! May I suggest at the non-side? Or at least the new-side? Okay! Okay! (Imagine a treble clef here, please, to denote the next line should be sung.) You take the high side and I’ll take the low side, and you’ll be at the seaside afore, me… But, seriously, I will meet you on the other side. Just knock on the Heavens Door, I’ll be waiting outside the back door.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Now we are talking on the same wave length! We could even meet along the side-side…..And this bring to mind the old Fairport Convention song, when the UK was embracing its own version of folk-rock:

                Meet you at the Wherever during the Whenever, by the However!

                Like

                1. Reminds me of a conversation I heard when sitting behind three teenyboppers on a bus, but which I can do longer remember the words. The one girl said to the other two, “Did you hear What’s His Name told Whatchamacallit about Whozit’s baby brother getting busted for You Know What?” The reply, “You’re sitting us, right?” as if they knew each person by name, and what the baby brother was busted for?”

                  Liked by 1 person

                    1. Yes, exactly. I have a very bad habit of misusing words, because I cannot find a better available word to describe what I want to say. English is a non-spiritual language, and I am a very spiritual being. What does that say to you?
                      My brain has this horrible quirk, I cannot learn foreign languages easily, despite many tries. Hell, I cannot even learn how to ten-finger type because I had to teach myself to hunt-and-peck when I was about six years old, and the pathways are so engrained they won’t allow change. But I had the last laugh on that one. Some typing course I tried to take, the teacher/lecturer swore up one side and down the other it was impossible to hunt-and-peck at a speed above 7 words per minute. So I bet him ten bucks that was a lie. He was so sure of himself he upped it to $100, which I agreed to, without a penny in my pocket. I sat down at his typewriter, he said go, and I typed out just over 30 words in a minute, allowing for a few typos. He tried to tell me it didn’t count, because I was not typing a preset passage, as a secretary might type her boss’s letters. I typed straight from my mind, making it up as I went along, even as I am doing with you right now. This was right in front of a whole class, by the way. They made him pay up, typing is typing, no matter what one is typing. He wasn’t so arrogant after that. $100 was a lot more money in those days than it is now.
                      But, to go back to languages, I am told Sanskrit, once considered a dead language that has miraculously come back to life, is a very spiritual language, so I tried to learn it in order to express myself better. Like French, or Spanish, or even Latin, I could not do it, even though it was important to me. English is entrenched in my brain. There is no room for another language in there.
                      And yet, the imaginative side of my brain is open to almost anything! Go figure me that.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. I would have loved to have seen that guy’s face as he tried to wriggle out of it. Two finger typing suits me, so I leave it be.
                      One the problems with being English speaking, is that the language has spread in so many directions in a short space of time both through the activities of the British and The Americans that everyone else has to or wants to learn it, so ‘us’ native speakers don’t have to. This can be very embarrassing when meeting someone from a non-english speaking nation who is more fluent, eloquent and witty in english than most native speakers. This might have played a part in the pro-Brexit vote, if ‘we’ go away, ‘we’ won’t have to speak with them.
                      Though this can pale against Americans and Brits using the same word or phrases for vastly different meanings.

                      Like

                    3. I never thought about language affecting Brexit, but the way you say it I guess it can. Y own thought was that Britain should have stayed in the EU, but living in Canada I don’t know any of the nuances that you would know without thinking. But, what’s done is done, and to try to undo it would cause a world of pain.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    4. I’ve been working my way through two audio books on ‘Ancient History’. One on the Peloponnesian War (Greeks vs Greeks) and the other on concerning the wars 230BC to 170BC in Greece which drew in Rome. These suggest as to later histories that no doubt there will be a change of direction at some stage and the UK (in whatever form it is) will try and get into another European Union (a far better solution than the ‘wars’ one which had been the go-to in previous centuries)

                      Like

                    5. Amen to that.
                      The worse aspect of the Horror and Tragedy being that victims, often when their turn comes to be on top, commit similar acts. Particularly when they shake of the chains ‘of imperial’ rule and are ‘free’.
                      Reading a lot of history can leave you either ‘Cynical’, ‘Fatalistic’ ‘Pragmatic’ or to use an academic term ‘A Realist’ (a branch of international politics study)….and you lose any sense of ‘Romance of The Cause’

                      Like

                    6. Have I said this to you, already, Roger? I’ve said It to more than a few somebodies: When it was declared An eye for an eye humanity became inhumane. Vengeance was the ruling tenet of society, and compassion vanished on any scale large enough to govern a group of people. Punish. And if you could not punish those who harmed you, punish someone else so you could feel better than them.
                      This would fall under the one of the four Gs I have surmised to be humanity’s worst inventions, falling under Government.
                      Instead of helping children to grow up to govern themselves, and be responsible for all their words and deeds, bring them up by telling them how to live, and then punishing them for not knowing how to follow rules that often made no sense to them. It turned us into slave-like weaklings, instead of being the strong and dynamic individuals we deserve to be allowed to be.
                      How is that for a condemnation of human society?

                      Liked by 1 person

                    7. The problem is one that the individual is the source of any method of societal organisation.
                      Until we have evolved an inherent method of Compassion and Tolerance as being constants within each individual the unsatisfactory cycle of violence and acquisition by means of force will continue.
                      At the very basics of all woes lies the will and the inclinations of the individuals.

                      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s