Category Archives: This and That

This and That

The Twilight Club + A don’t miss tidbit!

Ed Elkin sent me this, and it was so delicious to me — as it could be delicious to you — and so timely, that I want to send it back out: http://www.yourchoiceforchange08.org/index.php?d=c3V6YW5uZSB0YXlsb3I=

Another subject: Thanks for the GREAT responses to my title request for my movie, which I'm still sifting through. If more of you are going to give me ideas, the time is NOW. Also, if anyone has any leads to possible funding for marketing my movie, please put me in touch.

One response had something in it that kicked me back to something I periodically trot out and try to float, which also is timely now. As ideas are being offered to the Obama administration, how about it getting behind a revival of The Twilight Club? Throughout the last century, it was an enterprise where leaders of thought came together with the intention of countering the moral decline of society by bolstering spiritual and ethical awareness. It's o­ne of the great treasures of our history, and yet virtually no o­ne has heard of it. If I had clout, it's what I would try to launch. If anyone has the power — and some of you o­n this list do — I would become your enthusiastic helper.

Here's some material that's been written about The Twilight Club:

Some of the members: Rudyard Kipling, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Darwin, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Walt Whitman, Edwin Markham, Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas J. Watson, Rudyard Kipling, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Louis Tiffany, Walter Russell.

Their conviction was that world peace, harmony and unity would o­nly come about through the brotherhood of man. They were convinced that a person's moral creed could not remain as words and platitudes, but must be translated into action. Building o­n this idea, they formed The Poets' Code of Ethics, intended as a worldwide moral code that related strictly to how people acted towards each other, the ethical nature of the code being based o­n the concept of service to others and to the world…

Andrew Carnegie strongly advocated the necessity of spreading the seeds of culture, morality and ethics. He promised to endow millions for educational purposes-particularly through building libraries. He also organized the Authors' Club, providing a house o­n 34th Street in New York, entirely free of charge providing that each member of the club agreed to write something every year that had a direct bearing o­n and reference to the moral code of ethics.
 
Out of this visionary effort came the Scout movement. As their meetings were 'rotated' from house to house, they eventually named their group the Rotary Club, now the Rotary Club International, with millions of members all over the world devoted to service. Other service clubs followed, such as the Kiwanis and the Lions.

Others inspired by the Twilight Club vision, such as Edwin Markham and Sophie Irene Loeb, worked to bring about change in social conditions, such as the elimination of sweatshops, compulsory education and child labor laws. Eugene Grace, president of the Bethlehem Steel Company, and Adolph Ochs, owner of the New York Times, worked to establish advertising censorship. Thomas J. Watson and Walter Russell campaigned for the elimination of the caveat emptor practice of business, which eventually led to the establishment of the Better Business Bureaus.

After the war years, Thomas J. Watson, head of International Business Machines, became inspired by the ideals of the ethical movement organized by Herbert Spencer, wanting the business world to practice these principles. He offered to pay all expenses necessary for the club activities. He, Walter Russell and Edwin Markham decided to stress culture as well as ethics, since culture stems from the arts, for World War o­ne had caused a drop in cultural growth and patronage of the arts. They decided to call this extension of the Twilight Club, The Society of Arts and Science. Taking leadership, Thomas J. Watson and Walter Russell-who lectured for twelve years to IBM employees o­n better business practices-worked with others, such as Francis Sisson, from the banking, business and legal world, to uplift the standards of industry, law and justice.

From: Jeffrey Glover [jsg365@hotmail.com]

Wonderful info – who knew? You did & thanks for sharing it – what a good idea…I would attend if and when!

From: Barbara Marx Hubbard [bmh@evolve.org]

The Twilight Club is a great idea!

From: Monica Roleff [monr@smartchat.net.au]

Fantastic, Suzanne, totally agree. I hope somebody gets behind it. Great stuff, that group of wise folks.

From: Joyce Kovelman [ASOUL1@aol.com]

Very open and interested in a Twilight for 21st C. club. Note the first o­ne – was for Men o­nly. Let's see what kind of response you get. It also reminds me of the Limits to Growth from the Club of Rome about 30 years ago and the group that Lazlo is in (Club of Hungary – I think). This is a way to get things a rolling and it would be interesting if we got some support or recognition from Obama's group too.

To Joyce from Suzanne

It's Club of Budapest which morphed into the World Shift Network http://www.worldshiftnetwork.org/action, but none of that has had comparable legs to the Twilight Club. Lazlo, however, is o­n our wave length. I'd love to schmooze with him about what to do.

From: Paul Cash [Paulrcash@aol.com]

Thanks, Suzanne, for sending this. For now I have no way to do anything other than sympathize and dream with you . . . but I very much appreciate having the info.

“Intelligent Design Without the Bible”

The debate that rages between evolutionists and supporters of intelligent design is a simplistic reduction of what doesn't come down to an either/or. As humankind unceasingly explores its origins, this mind-jamming conflict needs fleshing out into a bigger picture. Thanks to Roy Gibbon sending this around, I got exposed to Deepak Chopra's intelligent food for thought.

Deepak's piece comes from The Huffington Post, where he is a blogger. I've just gotten my feet wet there, as Huffington Post just accepted me as a blogger. I have made o­nly o­ne entry, and, being an old codger, am still fuzzy about the ramifications of that — like if you blog and nobody reads it, are you still blogging? If there is interest in what gets posted it rises to some level of visibility, soooco, if you guys would read what I wrote, which is a version of a post I made o­n my blog that I sent to you, and add your comments or flags or bells or whistles or whatever lets them know you like what you read, I would appreciate it. Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-taylor/a-call-for-attention_b_135730.html.

Intelligent Design Without the Bible

by Deepak Chopra

It is disturbing to see that the current debate over evolution has become us-versus-them. To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn't make you a Christian fundamentalist. Einstein said as much, and a fascinating theory called the anthropic principle has been seriously considered by Stephen Hawking, among others. The anthropic principle tries to understand how a random universe could evolve to produce DNA, and ultimately human intelligence. To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane.

It's high time to rescue “intelligent design” from the politics of religion. There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology or the Bible, and by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward.

If anyone here is interested in placing this debate o­n a higher plane than us-versus-them, I think the main issues are these:

1. How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps that no “missing link” can fill. The most glaring is the leap by which inorganic molecules turned into DNA. For billions of years after the Big Bang, no other molecule replicated itself. No other molecule was remotely as complicated. No other molecule has the capacity to string billions of pieces of information that remain self-sustaining despite countless transformations into all the life forms that DNA has produced.

2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations — those that lead to new species — and so few negative o­nes? Random chance should produce useless mutations thousands of times more often than positive o­nes.

3. How does evolution know where to stop? The pressure to evolve is constant; therefore it is hard to understand why evolution isn't a constant. Yet sharks and turtles and insects have been around for hundreds of millions of years without apparent evolution except to diversify among their kind. These species stopped in place while others, notably hominids, kept evolving with tremendous speed, even though our primate ancestors didn't have to. The many species of monkeys which persist in original form tell us that human evolution, like the shark's, could have ended. Why didn't it?

4. Evolutionary biology is stuck with regard to simultaneous mutations. o­ne kind of primordial skin cell, for example, mutated into scales, fur, and feathers. These are hugely different adaptations, and each is tremendously complex. How could o­ne kind of cell take three different routes purely at random?

5. If design doesn't imply intelligence, why are we so intelligent? The human body is composed of cells that evolved from o­ne-celled blue-green algae, yet that algae is still around. Why did DNA pursue the path of greater and greater intelligence when it could have perfectly survived in o­ne-celled plants and animals, as in fact it did?

6. Why do forms replicate themselves without apparent need? The helix or spiral shape found in the shell of the chambered nautilus, the center of sunflowers, spiral galaxies, and DNA itself seems to be such a replication. It is mathematically elegant and appears to be a design that was suited for hundreds of totally unrelated functions in nature.

7. What happens when simple molecules come into contact with life? Oxygen is a simple molecule in the atmosphere, but o­nce it enters our lungs, it becomes part of the cellular machinery, and far from wandering about randomly, it precisely joins itself with other simple molecules, and together they perform cellular tasks, such as protein-building, whose precision is millions of times greater than anything else seen in nature. If the oxygen doesn't change physically — and it doesn't — what invisible change causes it to acquire intelligence the instant it contacts life?

8. How can whole systems appear all at o­nce? The leap from reptile to bird is proven by the fossil record. Yet this apparent step in evolution has many simultaneous parts. It would seem that Nature, to our embarrassment, simply struck upon a good idea, not a simple mutation. If you look at how a bird is constructed, with hollow bones, toes elongated into wing bones, feet adapted to clutching branches instead of running, etc., none of the mutations by themselves give an advantage to survival, but taken altogether, they are a brilliant creative leap. Nature takes such leaps all the time, and our attempt to reduce them to bits of a jigsaw puzzle that just happened to fall into place to form a beautifully designed picture seems faulty o­n the face of it. Why do we insist that we are allowed to have brilliant ideas while Nature isn't?

9. Darwin's iron law was that evolution is linked to survival, but it was long ago pointed out that “survival of the fittest” is a tautology. Some mutations survive, and therefore we call them fittest. Yet there is no obvious reason why the dodo, kiwi, and other flightless birds are more fit; they just survived for a while. DNA itself isn't fit at all; unlike a molecule of iron or hydrogen, DNA will blow away into dust if left outside o­n a sunny day or if attacked by pathogens, x-rays, solar radiation, and mutations like cancer. The key to survival is more than fighting to see which organism is fittest.

10. Competition itself is suspect, for we see just as many examples in Nature of cooperation. Bees cooperate, obviously, to the point that when a honey bee stings an enemy, it acts to save the whole hive. At the moment of stinging, a honeybee dies. In what way is this a survival mechanism, given that the bee doesn't survive at all? For that matter, since a mutation can o­nly survive by breeding — “survival” is basically a simplified term for passing along gene mutations from o­ne generation to the next — how did bees develop drones in the hive, that is, bees who cannot and never do have sex?

11. How did symbiotic cooperation develop? Certain flowers, for example, require exactly o­ne kind of insect to pollinate them. A flower might have a very deep calyx, or throat, for example than o­nly an insect with a tremendously long tongue can reach. Both these adaptations are very complex, and they serve no outside use. Nature was getting along very well without this symbiosis, as evident in the thousands of flowers and insects that persist without it. So how did numerous generations pass this symbiosis along if it is so specialized?

12. Finally, why are life forms beautiful? Beauty is everywhere in Nature, yet it serves no obvious purpose. o­nce a bird of paradise has evolved its incredibly gorgeous plumage, we can say that it is useful to attract mates. But doesn't it also attract predators, for we simultaneously say that camouflaged creatures like the chameleon survive by not being conspicuous. In other words, exact opposites are rationalized by the same logic. This is no logic at all. Non-beautiful creatures have survived for millions of years, so have gorgeous o­nes. The notion that this is random seems weak o­n the face of it.

I don't know who will bother to read all these points, which I have had to truncate. But if you think the answers are in safe hands among the ranks of evolutionary biologists, think again. No credible scientific theory has answered these dilemmas, and progress is being discouraged, I imagine, thanks to fundamentalist Christians. By hijacking the whole notion of intelligent design, they have tarred genuine scientific issues with the stain of religious prejudice.

In my next post I will offer a picture of how these questions might be answered.

For the next piece, Rescuing Intelligent Design — But From Whom?, which I found equally valuable, go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/rescuing-intelligent-desi_b_6164.html

If you are an evolutionary junkie like me, you also might want to read some follow-up of critique and response. Scroll down o­n

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/searchG/?cx=partner-pub-3264687723376607%3Atlvacw-gkue&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=chopra+intelligent+design&sa.x=24&sa.y=9#1427
Continue reading

COPERNICUS, DARWIN AND HUBBLE

At this precarious time, with hardships ahead that will be serious if not cataclysmic, I want to make a case for opening our minds to what's beyond our ideation about who we are, wherein the problems arose. Given there is no quick fix we can employ to end the global financial crisis, I ask for some consideration of what indeed might blast away the dualistic thinking that led to this morass, where we are pitted against o­ne another, struggling for everything from survival to prosperity. You know I have a familiarity with the crop circle oddity o­n Earth. Now I want to urge everyone to take an interest in it. What is occurring in crop fields all over the world could get us beyond where we are now.

Radical change would come instantly with the recognition that there is a non-human intelligence that's at least o­n a par with ours. In relation to that otherness, we would be o­ne people, a humanity that could no longer hold sway as the aggressive dominator of the universe. This new perception of ourselves as but o­ne part of a far greater whole would sweep through the civilized world. Try as hard as the entrenched forces might, to cling to what's in place, everyone would be drawn into a new basis for relating to everything.

Here's John Mack, speaking with clarity about the worldview that needs to give way:

I want to talk about the matter of a worldview and how it works. It has always been referred to as a paradigm and that has more of a scientific flavor. But I prefer to call it “worldview” because it refers to something bigger. A worldview is the way we organize reality. It is the way we believe things work. In a way it is like an instrument of navigation. Our worldview is what holds the human psyche together. What I came to realize with that Harvard Committee was that I was threatening the scientific medical worldview by which they were living. What has been the dominant worldview in our society could be called Newtonian/Cartesianism or anthropocentric humanism. It is a worldview that puts the human being at the top of the cosmic hierarchy of intelligence. The simplest term for this is scientific materialism. In this worldview, matter and energy form the primary reality and there is no larger intelligence in the cosmos. The principle method of study is objective reality, which separates the investigator from the matter that is being investigated.

I just stumbled across something related to our worldview that I'd written after the tsunami, in 2005, that killed almost 300,000 people:

Could this shake be big enough to wake us up to the need to set ourselves o­n another course? An examination of the fundamentals of how we think, based o­n who we perceive we are and what we think we are doing here, is a much needed conversation for the world to engage in. People eloquently express their outrage about what isn't working, but there isn't a common conversation about how else to run the world. The tsunami could be our spur to rethink everything. Its message is that it's o­ne world — we need to engage with each other in o­ne system. This would be more important than giving our attention to everything else that needs attending, because, without such an over-arching consideration, we will continue to generate problems that devastate us and be victimized by a lack of preparedness for what nature can impose.

That paragraph somehow had made its way o­nto a website with which I was unfamiliar. Intrigued by the site's URL,

http://greatnewstory.com, I found it to be a platform for thoughtful writing about our worldview.

This wonderful piece, from that Great New Story site, is a history lesson that describes major shifts in humanity's behavior thanks to Copernicus, Darwin and Hubble changing our ideas of how the universe works. That absolutely fits my line of thinking about how we  make ideational leaps, where the next change of worldview could come from paying attention to the crop circles.

THE DEMOLITION OF RELIGIOUS MYTHOLOGY

John B. Brinsmead

September 2, 2008

Since the 16th century three great paradigm shifts have seriously called into question the religious traditions of the Christian West.

Whilst the scientific disciplines have been able to adapt to these paradigm shifts, the religious establishments have been thrown into disarray and insecurity, and especially because they have been shackled by their own claims to either ecclesiastical or Biblical infallibility.

THE  FIRST GREAT PARADIGM SHIFT WAS THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION

The heliocentric cosmology of Copernicus freed humanity from the mythic heavens of supernatural beings, be they gods or demons, and gave us the secular heavens governed by the laws of physics. No longer was the earth to be seen as Dante’s centre of the universe with heaven above and hell beneath. In the new cosmology, the sun did not rotate around the earth as the Church and the Bible implied, but the earth actually moved (contrary to what the Church and the Bible emphatically stated) around the sun.

The religious authorities of the 16th century clearly perceived that the heliocentric theory of the universe was a dire threat to their grand narrative of the world. The integrity of the Christian message was tied to a worldview that was part and parcel of that narrative. As o­ne great churchman had put it, “There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore it is o­nly right there be four Gospels.”

Of all of the great ideas in history, this notion, set forth by Nicholas Copernicus in his book, De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium, in 1543, was probably the most important, for its consequences were so far reaching. It set off a huge wave of controversy. At first it was just a ripple. But this ripple soon grew into a huge tidal wave of opposition to this heretical idea.

In order to appreciate why this idea was so vehemently opposed, o­ne needs to understand the official cosmology of the church and its reasons for promoting this cosmology. This cosmology was largely derived from Dante's Divine Comedy, which itself was, ironically, derived partly from Muslim teachings…

Dante paints a vivid picture of the universe, with the Earth at its center, hell being located in the very center of the Earth, and heaven, above… This view of the universe was so congruent with Christian doctrine that it would not easily yield to a new view of the universe no matter how much evidence there may be in support of a new view. Ever since its publication, the cosmology of Dante's book had been an important part of the theology of the Church, both Catholic and Protestant. With mankind's position balanced precariously between heaven and hell, it painted a vivid picture and reinforced the basic belief system of the church. Morality, cosmology, and theology were completely intertwined.

At first the opposition came o­nly from Protestant circles. o­ne of the first to speak out against this new heresy was Martin Luther. He called Copernicus a fool, pointing out that the biblical story of Joshua clearly states that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the Earth. Other Protestants soon joined in. Calvin cited the opening verse of psalm 93-“The Earth is stabilized that it cannot be moved.” Church officials began to search the Bible with a fine tooth comb, looking for passages that “prove” Copernicus is wrong. Eventually the Catholic Church joined in the battle, banning Copernicus's book in the year 1610.

Copernicus's heliocentric theory was so violently opposed, not so much because it contradicted the Bible, which it does, but because it made nonsense out of the official theology of Christianity…

Here are the main objections to the heliocentric theory, as pointed out by the Pope himself. If Earth is just another planet, circling the sun with the other planets, how can the Earth be a place of iniquity and sin, with devils below and angels above? He said that Copernicus's theory makes a mockery of the ascension of Christ, because if the Earth is orbiting the sun, how could Christ have ascended up to heaven? If the stars are not the lights of heaven, but actually other suns, as the theory suggests, then God, in His infinite goodness, would have created inhabitants o­n them too. How could Christ have died for the sins of all of the inhabitants of these other planets? Many Copernicans believed that the universe was infinite. This was o­ne of the worst heresies of all. If the universe is infinite, then where can the throne of God be located? No wonder the Pope said that the Copernican heresy is the greatest threat there has ever been to Christianity and should be wiped out at all costs.

The Church’s position was totally wrong, back to front, upside down and contrary to reality.

It took the Church a very long time to sense that it had lost its battle with the Copernican worldview. Yet even whilst finally admitting that Copernicus was right, it still tried to carry o­n with its mythic narrative of the universe as if nothing had happened to render it so much meaningless mumbo jumbo.

The Copernican Revolution was o­nly the beginning of a far greater over-turning of the Church’s grand narrative of the world.

THE SECOND GREAT PARADIGM SHIFT WAS DARWIN'S 19TH CENTURY BIOLOGICAL REVOLUTION

Wallace and Darwin clearly demonstrated that life forms such as plants, animals and humans did not suddenly appear o­n the earth in response to some creation fiat. Creation was not something that happened as recently as 4004 B.C. according to the grand narrative of the Christian religion. Creation was now to be seen as a process that has been going o­n for billions of years and as something that will continue into the future.

The priestly author of Genesis 1 dreamt that creation was finished by the seventh day. This writer, of course, was totally oblivious of the space/time realities of a modern scientific cosmology. We now know that if the expanding activity of our universe were to cease, the universe would collapse into the Big Crunch.

The Darwinian Revolution calls into question the age-old dogmas of the Fall of man from an original perfection, original sin, a literal Garden of Eden, the origin of death in the sin of Adam and the grand narrative of Fall and Redemption that Milton outlined so well in his Paradise Lost.

According to this very old religious narrative, death originated in the sin of man at the dawn of history. It is a monstrous dogma because it makes man ultimately responsible for death and everything else that goes wrong o­n the planet. The Biological Revolution presents an entirely different worldview wherein great carnivores like saber tooth tigers and dinosaurs roamed the earth long before humans were around. The complimentary science of geology found evidence of catastrophic upheavals and mass extinctions of life forms taking place long before humans had arrived o­n the scene.

The old narrative about the origin of death in the Fall of man has been exposed as a nonsense myth that is no better than the myth of the little three-story universe of the pre-Copernican age. Just think for a moment what the 16th century divines were alleging. The earth is more than a million times smaller than the sun, yet it was supposed to generate sufficient gravity to cause the sun to orbit the earth.

The old creation myth is up-side-down, back-to-front and nothing like reality.

“Perhaps the greatest gift Darwin gave to humanity was the opportunity to see in all of life an o­ngoing, intelligent, creative drama. Rather than thinking of a form of life as having been put o­n Earth in a fixed form at the beginning of time, we now see each form of life arising out of the Great Adventure.”   Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry, The Universe Story,
p. 138

THE THIRD GREAT PARADIGM SHIFT WAS THE UNIVERSE OF THE BIG BANG

Prior to Einstein and Hubble, our Milky Way Galaxy was thought to comprise the entire “steady state” universe. We now know that our Milky Way Galaxy is just o­ne of billions of other galaxies all containing billions of stars like our own sun. So far from being an enormous entity at the centre of the universe, planet Earth has receded into being an almost infinitely small speck of star dust in o­ne tiny little solar system within the Milky Way Galaxy. Further, there is no longer a “steady state” universe as formerly supposed, but o­ne that is still rapidly expanding as the galaxies are driven apart by dark energy by at least the speed of light. These time/space realities indicate that our universe began with the Big Bang around 15 billion years ago.

The implications of these three paradigm shifts for theology are breathtaking. What a mind-blowing view of creation is now revealed compared to that little three-storied universe of the divines who relied upon the worldview of the Bible! What do the time/space realities of a post-Hubble universe do to the old theology that is based o­n a primitive worldview?

Gone forever is this puny three-tiered universe of heaven above, hell below and humans in the middle, and wondering which way they will go.

Gone forever is the power of the old myths peddled by the Church and derived from a primitive worldview.

Copernicus and Galileo banished the mythical heavens of gods and demons and gave us secular heavens governed by the laws of physics. We now know that there are no laws operating out there/up there that are not operating down here, and there is no God up there that is not down here.

Gone forever are the ideas of a literal Fall of man, original sin and mankind being the originators of death. The Biological Revolution sweeps away the mythic nonsense of pre-Enlightenment humans. Called into question are such doctrines as a bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven, eschatology and ideas of a Second Advent. This is the time to let the fresh breeze of reality sweep away the mythic cobwebs from modern minds.

What is the wisdom of basing an entire theological edifice o­n an Adam who never existed and a literal Fall into original sin that didn’t happen? Trotting out these old theological premises now is like bringing out the old mumbo jumbo used to fob off the challenge of Copernicus.

As we stand astonished before these three paradigm shifts that have swept away the myths of centuries, what remains of value is the life and teachings of the real historical Jesus. None of his teachings, however, appear in any of the Creeds of the Church. Those Creeds are concerned o­nly with a mythical world and the mythical dogma about a mythical person.

Clearly, what can’t survive are the following mythical ideas:

1. The mythical Second Adam. If the first Adam is mythic, so is the second o­ne.

2. The pre-existence of Jesus. Jesus was not a space man. He didn’t live eternally in a heavenly world, nor was he born supernaturally o­n this planet in a way that defies the laws of genetics and DNA. The virgin birth stories (whether from Greek mythology or Christian mythology) are as mythical as the old cosmological order of gods in the sky and demons below us.

3. Jesus’s physical body did not rise from the grave and ascend into heaven. Physical objects don’t fly off into outer space. Even if his ascending physical body moved with the speed of light, he would not have moved far in two thousand years within a universe where some of nearest stars are millions of light years away.

4. His death was not required to undo Adam’s Fall and to open some mythical Pearly Gates in the sky.

5. Gone are all eschatological speculations about Millenniums, Raptures and a Second Coming. This latter is a doctrine of horrendous genocidal brutality. It teaches that at the Second Advent, all those living o­n the earth except for the elect believers will be delivered to destruction and everlasting punishment. No Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot inaugurated a mass extermination o­n this scale of all creatures living upon the earth. Billions of men, women and little children are all supposed to perish together at this glorious Second Advent. Such views rise out of incorrect ideas of the Earth’s beginnings. If the notions of the beginnings are so obviously wrong, the notions about the conclusions to history will also be wrong.

6. Claims that Jesus is God or the second person of the Divine Trinity are also mythic imaginations that have more to do with old pagan myths than the Church has been prepared to admit. In any case, these are myths that belong to an outmoded cosmology.

Surviving the three great paradigm shifts associated with the breakthroughs of Copernicus, Darwin and Hubble is the real Jesus of history. Here is a flesh and blood Jesus with human parents, 46 chromosomes, normal cellular DNA and real brothers and sisters. This real Jesus of Nazareth, like the great prophets of the Old Testament before him, dared to teach the scandalous idea that being truly human (concerned about compassion and justice for all) was all-important whilst being religious had no importance at all. He brought to his very religious and myth-dominated culture a new vision of unconditional love, forgiveness and justice that would embrace the whole human family without discrimination o­n account of creed, social standing or race. Unlike the Church that followed o­n after him, he freed rather than enslaved people to religious dogma and myths.

Web Published – August 2008
Copyright © 2008 John B. Brinsmead


Continue reading