Archive for September, 2009


Not having kept a daily journal—which I’ve often regretted not doing so, I have to rely on memory. While my memory is still in good shape, recalling the date on which some particular event occurred, or even the year, gives way at times to guess work.
Back, say 1957 or 58, and with nothing to go on other than a question ricochetting about in my mind, ‘If it’s true, why didn’t Paul preach it’, and an idea I had concerning how all llife forms first came into existence, I eagerly read an article I discovered in a scientific magazine from the shelves of a local library an article that so closely resembled my thoughts, I bought a copy of the magazine, which I promptly mislaid and never found.
My idea was this: Every species of animal life originated from but one source, a “sea of universal “soup” containing what I chose to call molecules—I was and I still am woefully ignorant of all things scientic. What was to become a horse became a horse. What was to become a zebra, became a zebra and so on.
Following that line of reasoning, it made sense to me to conclude that homo sapiens also evolved from a more primitive form, but nevertheless, were destined to become what we are today … a species with thumbs which give us the ability to preform intricate tasks and the only species with the ability to think, to imagine the impossible and to believe in the improbable—but, back to the original subject matter.
This morning I decided to search for either the article I read back in the later 1950s or its counterpart. All I could recall were the words, ‘primordial soup’. The author of the article suggested that, if there was viable life somewhere in the universe other than on earth, life would likely resemble lifeforms on earth because of life originating from what was commonly called “primordial soup”. Well, I found such a site and I’ve taken the liberty of lifting a few words from the work I believe I read those many years ago:
August 7th, 2009 (PhysOrg.com) — In 1953, Stanley Miller filled two flasks with chemicals assumed to be present on the primitive Earth, connected the flasks with rubber tubes and introduced some electrical sparks as a stand-in for lightning. The now famous experiment showed what amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could easily be generated from this primordial stew. But despite that seminal experiment, neither he nor others were able to take the next step: that of showing how life’s code could come from such humble beginnings.
Mr. Miller did not claim to have discovered some long-hidden truth, but did go on to suggest that all life had its beginning from a single source, and he wasn’t referring to that source as God.
Nothing pleases as does a bit of vindication, because those very thoughts were my thoughts back in the latter 1950s, and still are. This may be true: up until the present time, scientists have not been able to create “life”. Is their failure to do so, proof they never will? Perhaps not in the years yet allotted me, nor during the lifetime of anyone reading this, but don’t bet anything you can’t afford to lose, that they never will.


Read Full Post »

Yes, Why?

Yesterday, in an attempt to prod myself out of the lethargy I seem to have acquired during my battle with walking pneumonia, and the toll in energy spent during my wonderful, but tiring trip to Pennsylvania and the annual family reunion, I visited several blogs hoping for some inspiration. One in particular caught my attention, and I’ve taken the liberty of lifting a few words that caused me to cogitate. I love using that word because it was the word that first stirred me “awake”, that caused me to first question all religious theology.
Now I dislike using another’s words in any of my own writing, but in this case I don’t have much choice if I wish to make a point clear. Verbatim, and understand, these are not my words: but if God caused his Son to be born a perfect man, and his life course counterbalances that of the only other perfect man, Adam, and thus can buy back, or redeem, what Adam lost … you must admit there is some internal logic there, and not just some gooey “God died for us to show how much he loves us.” Moreover, if god wants us in heaven, as all religions believe— except for Jehovah’s Witnesses—why didn’t he put us there in the first place, for crying out loud?
Now I hereby concede that that is one beautifully, thought-out question and, my hat’s off to the author. The question deserves some serious consideration, that is, until a bit of logical thinking is brought into play. Remember, Jehovah—God—is omniscient as well as omnipotent. Using the same reasoning my fellow-blogger used, I’ll ask: if God—Jehovah—first intended for Adam and Eve and their offspring to live on earth forever—just like Jehovah Witnesses believe they will, after something called Armageddon takes place, then, Why, for crying out loud, did God—Jehovah—plant that “forbidden apple tree” in the Garden of Eden knowing full well that both Eve and Adam were going to disobey orders? Why, for crying out loud, didn’t God—Jehovah—simply cut that “walking, talking snake, Satan” off at the knees before he had a chance to “talk”, first Eve, then, through Eve, Adam into sinning? Why, for crying out loud, would God—Jehovah–go through all that b…s…, about sin and the shedding of blood to atone for sin—both human and animal—when, in the long run, humans, that is, certain humans, are still going to live on the earth forever. Sure puzzles the hell out of me.

Read Full Post »

Written to be read and critiqued in my Thursday Morningside Writers Group

According to the Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary installed in my computer, there are eleven different definitions given for the word commandment, including the word, law. Those who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, and believe the Bible specifically declares homosexuality to be a sin, homosexuality—to this day—must be forbidden. Although the Bible states that sex between two men is an abomination, it fails, as far as I can determine, to mention anything about lesbianism. Perhaps, because early Semitic fathers chose husbands for their daughters, and because daughters were kept confined under strict supervision until safely married, Moses did not question God’s possible oversight. Perhaps God did not find sex between two women to be as objectional as that between two men. If that is the case, I wonder why? I think I know why, but modesty causes me to refrain from reading such thoughts in mixed company. Although it is apparent to me that love—and not lust—between two of the same sex stirs them to seek legal protection called marriange—enjoyed by heterosexual couples—there are those who do not.
Fundamental Christians apparently deem the Constitution of the United States of America to be badly in need of rewriting. The constitution of the United States of America does not spell out in incontestable detail what constitutes marriage. The document does not define the state of matrimony to be solely a legal commitment between a man and a woman. When I made my entrance into the world, the Constitution did not uphold, or give women any status whatsoever at the voting booth: it took an amendment to rectify that particular injustice. Before I die, I’d like to see another amendment added to the Constitution. It is time to stop penalizing love! Just because two men, or two women, find themselves in love with each other, marriage between them in no way jeopardizes the “holy” state of matrimony for heterosexuals. It is time to remove the stigma imposed upon those who love someone of the same sex. It is time each and every American be granted equal rights.
When it comes to the Bible—and especially the Old Testament—the scriptures found in Leviticus, Chapter 18, verse 22, and Chapter 20, verse 13, troubles me. To the person who uses the Bible as proof that God censures love between two people of the same sex—and therefore such unions must be forever outlawed—I have a question. By what criterion do you safely eliminate other commandments—or laws—just as simple to understand as those concerning homosexuality, but with which you do not agree and therefore, do not obey?
I claim this in the defense of marriage between both homosexuals and lesbians: although many of them are willing and eager to care for homeless children, they obviously do not seek abortions, which should please those who deem the act akin to the murder of a viable human being, nor do they contribute to the over-population of the earth!
If God is the Loving Father Jesus preached, perhaps, sometime after the Bible was printed and too late to amend the many abominable laws found in it, God had a change of heart. I like to think that God, if he exists, softened his heart toward those who love someone of the same sex. I like to think that God regrets all such harsh commandments as those against homosexuality and would have retracted—if he could—such commandments found in the Old Testament as the stoning to death of brides who do not produce proof of their virginity on their wedding night. One of the worst, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” was a primary factor in the horrible persecution and death of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and even children during the centuries religion held sway over Europe, centuries now known as the Dark Ages.
I cannot, nor am I interested in trying to prove that God does not exist, but I sometimes grow weary of those who try to prove to me he does. I will add this much to the subject: no God of mine could possibly have caused to be written much of what I read when I read the Bible, including the scriptures condemning homosexuality.

I believe the human brain to be the only brain in a living body capable of imagination. That may explain its ability to imagine the impossible and believe in the improbable.

Read Full Post »