Only New Knowledge Can Correct False Dogmas in Today's Religions and Sciences

I have submitted the following comment to the Conservative Treehouse site, in response to another comment averring that we need to start separating true religions from violent ideologies (Islam):

It will take new knowledge of ancient history -- more correctly, pre-history -- to clean out the false dogmas in every religion. Islam was created when Christianity was seen to be the inheritor of the Roman Empire, exercising its "worldwide" power (as it has ever after tried to do, from the walled "city" of the Vatican). Islam was an Arabic jealous reaction to that exercised power, mimicking both Christianity and Judaism while positioning itself in total opposition to them; it is literally founded upon a view of a religion as a coercive world power. Islam itself teaches that the term "Islam" means "submission", but that is an ancient lie (though a telling truth about its coercive nature) and false dogma -- Islam literally means, to any properly educated in the ancient languages, "No Peace" (as "I-Salaam", just as the biblical Isaac, the son of the century-old Abraham and Sarai, means "no laugh", because Abraham childishly swore to God that he "did not laugh" when God told him a son would be born to them so very late in life -- though he DID laugh). Islam is a mirror of the dogmatic imperfections in the religions it aped, making those false dogmas central rather than mere hangers-on from the older time, of the "capricious and jealous gods" who once ruled the minds of men.

New, unprecedented knowledge -- which I, an old and better educated scientist, have uncovered, as the Galileo of this climactic time, and which this generation is too full of dogmatic hates and false judgments to conceive of, much less to heed.

True religion teaches the young true morality and strong character; false religion coerces adults, in the name of God, treating them as children and stunting them intellectually. All religions need pruning at the very least, just as all modern sciences do -- my unprecedented discoveries reveal a new paradigm needed by both.

On the Fundamental Lie of Religious Coercion

I have posted the following comment on the American Thinker site, to an article asking why our elected officials embrace Islam, which wants to destroy them in the end:

We live in a climactic time, when every major confrontation is being driven by people (on one side, at least, and sometimes on both sides) who adhere religiously to their own pet, and false, dogma, over good honest reason. In the case of Islam, there is the added wrinkle that the Muslim is religiously commanded to lie to the unbeliever, and mask his true intent until he is in a position to attack. The Western, mostly Judeo-Christian side, on the other hand, has made itself vulnerable to Muslim barbarism, and Muslim lies (taqiyya) through a century and a half of internal fighting, with that Judeo-Christian teaching; to make the long story short, it pounced upon the undirected evolution theory of Charles Darwin in order to deny its own religious teachings, especially the very existence of God, and the spiritual origin and true home of man in spirit. Atheism and secular humanism have prospered here.

Yet atheists have long ago become comfortable with the non-coercive nature of Christianity towards unbelievers. To Christians, this may seem to be an awkward and obviously true statement (dogmatic atheists think otherwise, to the extent they think about it); but contrast the "non-coercive" nature of Christianity (and just about every modern religion BUT Islam) with the completely coercive nature of Islam.

The Christian West has embraced secular humanism, through the apparent authority of a secular science recognizing only undirected evolution of everything, through random physical processes alone (even most claimed Christians obey that line of thinking -- the "consensus science" -- though it denies any over-arching meaning to this incredible world and universe). In determinedly denying its own past religious teachings, yet naively thinking "all religions are alike" (equally false, but equally non-threatening, non-coercive, in this "modern" world we have inherited), the West (or at least what I call The Insane Left, like the Democrats in the cult of Obama, since 2008) embraces Islam as just another secular influence, to fight off Christianity. What they have really embraced, of course, is a huge ball of taqiyya, of religious lies. Obama's long, habitual litany of blatant lies is a perfect example of that; the Insane Left MAKES itself insane by eagerly accepting those lies, in knee-jerk, cult-follower fashion.

What the West needs to do is rethink its rejection of Christianity. I am a scientist, a physicist, and the herald of the next scientific paradigm, the discoverer of the origin of all the ancient mysteries of man on earth. It will allow that rethinking, of all past dogmas, all religious (and scientific) beliefs. But it will require a commitment NOT to war with dogmas, against dogmas, which is where mankind now stands. The new knowledge I have uncovered is vitally needed now. It is not, in the end, a matter of Left vs. Right ideology, nor of Christian vs. Muslim. It is a matter of learning the truth, of which we all have been substantially ignorant. Traditionally, among the tribes or nations of Earth, it takes real war to get men to the point where they are ready to drop their dogmas, and start to really, honestly reason, with newly available, or newly recognized, knowledge.

The picture is so much bigger than anyone can realize, without standing aside from their own accustomed thinking, their own limited understanding.

Positive Morals Versus Coercive Dogma

I submitted the following comment on American Thinker, to a post titled "The Catholic Church You Never Heard Of":

It is necessary to separate the personal morals espoused, from the dogmas insisted upon as being unquestionable, in a religion. This article seeks to defend the moral effect upon history of Catholicism.

But Catholic dogma is advanced here, in the comments, with no supporting evidence other than arguments from authority, such as that "it is widely believed" (that is, that the vast majority of "Catholic" churches, or sects believe); or that (for example) the Inquisition was somehow standard, "accepted" procedure at the time--that it was even "BENIGN", as one commenter here wrote, in capital letters. The innocent victims, such as Giordano Bruno, would beg to differ.

It is really pretty simple, though, if you're ready to lay down your dogma in favor of truly moral precepts, which of course Catholics commenting here show they are not willing to do (just like everyone does, of course, when they spout received dogma): You cannot call it "Christianity" if you worship "The Virgin"--that's ancient goddess worship, if you look far enough back in history, rather than just obsess about early Catholic sources, which operate in their own pagan-denying but pagan-promulgating, pagan-propagating bubble (the Pope is really nothing but a God-King, ruling "by Divine Right", and to be believed as such, "ex cathedra", as one commenter admitted). The dogmas in the Catholic Church--not "The Church", Catholics--are older than Catholicism, and you don't seem to know that, and, considering your apparent devotion to ancient history, are no doubt blocking from your own minds, in defense of your dogma.

All of today's religions still contain dogmas--good and bad, encompassing truth only in metaphorical, "mythical" form, and therefore misleading lies--from the first religion, before the beginning of history. Catholics are not alone in this, and should not be singled out for it. The millennia-long "war" between the Goddess and the patriarchal Gods, and later God, who followed Her in the religious development of Man--a war still alive in the Catholic Virgin worship--goes back to the very beginning of religious belief in pre-history, as it was the storied overturning of the Goddess by the patriarchal "gods" that marked the end of the "golden age", universally remembered in the earliest "myths" worldwide. The Titans overthrown by the "new generation" of Zeus were, before the patriarchal rewrite of ancient history, led by the White Goddess of many names, in many lands around the world: Eurynome, Venus, Cerridwen, Aphrodite, Astarte, Isis, Ereshkigal, Pele, Izanami, Atse Estsan (Navajo), ...virtually every goddess in myth is but another name, or title, in just another story, of the One Goddess.

The ancients worldwide, called pagans by the Catholic Church, LOVED their Goddess, beyond the ability of any new dogma to discard her. That is why the early Church--and it will always be "the early Church", or more correctly the Roman Catholic Church, not "the Church", to any but Catholic cult believers themselves--brought the Virgin into their midst, into the very center in fact (virtually as a goddess, The Goddess, in fact).

Just as the pagan "corn god" or other-named "agricultural" god, was sacrificed each year (like Jesus was said to be) at the winter solstice (that's Christmastime, to modern, still-pagan Christians), only to "rise again" at the time of the spring equinox (just as the Sun-God of old--and later, the son of the Sun-God--did, and Jesus the "Son of God" did, and as the physical Sun itself actually does, every year, in rising above the celestial equator just at that time), so the "fertility goddess" suffered her various mythical travails and lost her virginity(!), and subsequently gave birth (re-birth) to the Son of God (also of many names) each year, only to renew that virginity each spring, in token to all that new life springing forth at that same beginning of spring, and to her "eternal" nature--thus "ever-renewed", in her virginity, herself, and ever-renewing of the life on Earth.

The truth behind all the "sacrifice of the Son of God" stories, long before and up to the time of Jesus of Nazareth, and sacred tales that "He rose again", is that they are all variations on a religious mnemonic for the actual yearly passage of the Sun, as it makes a circuit of the starry sky, or celestial sphere, as seen by earthbound mankind--above the celestial equator for six months, then crossing to below the celestial equator for six months, with the crossing points defined as the vernal, or "spring" equinox (when it rises, or "springs", above the celestial equator), and the autumnal, or "fall", equinox (when it--wait for it--"falls" below the celestial equator).

I am the only scientist in the world who knows, for a fact, WHY the Sun's motion was so religiously enshrined, worldwide, before the very beginning of known human history, before the first human religion was in fact invented. It is the same reason--the same objective, physical origin--for the fact of all the "Creation" myths, including that told in Genesis. Because all of it--all the precise construction and working mechanism of it--was in fact deliberately imposed. It was not "Creation", but a re-formation, and a real 'overturning" of an older world (and solar system) order. But later religions TAUGHT it as "the Creation".

This new knowledge will usher in a new paradigm, in both science and religion. It is a crucial milestone in human knowledge. And only the many divisive dogmas, still going strong today, are blocking its revelation and new intellectual and spiritual honesty. When new truth becomes known, the path forward necessarily becomes "straight and narrow". The way has suddenly become very straight and very narrow, that will not allow mankind's unquestioned dogmas--whether the oldest religious ones, or the newest "scientific" ones--the free rein they have had up to now.

------------------

A few readers here may note I emphasized the historical passage from "gods-driven" ancient religions to later, morals-teaching religion, in the recent post, "Religion, Dogma, and the Ancient 'Gods'".

An Inalienable Right of Man: No Religious Coercion

As the communicator of new scientific knowledge that must change current paradigms, both inside and outside of science, I want to focus solely on that scientific knowledge. However, the problems we face today are urgent and require acknowledgement wherever they arise. Warning Signs has a post on "Leaving the Church of Environmentalism", to which I have responded:

Radical environmentalism--which is now being preached as politically and morally correct by all of our authoritative institutions--is not just a church, or religion, but a religion on a jihad, a holy war as it were. And they are out for revenge (against the Bush years, "Capitalism"--as they see it, "Big Oil", "Big Corporations", etc. ad infinitum); their self-righteousness is what is driving them, what has in fact made them insane in so many of their ridiculous claims and demands, without regard for how many innocents they are harming (including the false education of recent generations and the reputation of modern science itself). And they are but one part of the coalition of radical groups that now feel supremely empowered by the Obama administration--and by a man clearly lacking in character.

Mankind needs to learn from the many varieties of war being waged because of religiously-held, but patently false, beliefs now.

There is a basic--inalienable--right of Man that needs to be brought out and explicitly made a foundational part of all our laws. A new injunction must be strictly enforced upon all merely religiously-held beliefs (those lacking observational support, i.e., for which there is objective evidence AGAINST the belief): "No coercion, in any form, of unbelievers." We should already know this; millennia of hard experience already gave birth to "the separation of church and state" in the U.S.A..