*God, Man, and A Compromised Sexuality?*
Greetings, it is good to be with you again. Have you ever met or “ran into” a person that at first, you really liked? Liked (that is) until you found out they had different religious beliefs than you. Did you then view them with mistrust? If at first you liked them, what happened to change your mind? Did they suddenly put a “bone in their nose” and ask you to loan them twenty dollars? If not, then why the sudden distaste? Did you somehow consider them less intelligent or informed? Now I’m not talking about our general work acquaintances. We all smilingly tolerate those associates who may be of many different ethnic groups or religions. But if we had a choice, most would probably rather “Hob Nob or hang out” with others of “like mind.” Many entertain mixed groups while elegantly trying to project a gracious, well bred, tolerant image. But when mildly provoked or crossed, a few of these epitomes of virtue and science have been (privately) known to be quite an intolerant “piece of work.” Concerning the race issue, realistically, most are more comfortable with their own. After all this time, we still don’t know and trust each other. Can we? Is this caution justified?
Today we will be discussing three compelling aspects of Man’s continued ignorance of major issues and how this contributes to domestic and world unrest. Our subjects are: “God, Man, and A Compromised Sexuality? * Most that have read my work over the last twenty (or so) years know I have always tried to uncover and evaluate new scientific developments that are meaningful, and most importantly useful to Educators, other professionals, and of course, the scientifically astute community at large. It is hoped that my interpretation and explanations of the scientific developments discussed will lessen the need for a degree in Physics, Chemistry, or Theology in order to properly encapsulate the material. Our subject today is a bit difficult, with both scientific and unscientific arguments presented. Many writers will “gloss over or shy away” from the more controversial components of these topics, but I assure you, I will not. So please reserve judgment until the subject direction becomes apparent. Again, the personal observations, insights, and perspectives given are those of a chemist. For illustration, let’s begin by asking a test question about a popular world topic:
In your past life, what race and sex were you?
Ridiculous question you say? Don’t laugh. Do you know? And if you think you do, then how do you know? Not surprisingly, many think they have an answer to this question. And they’ll swear they’ve lived before. Some have what appears to be convincing documented proof. There are many striking psychological regression case-histories that would seem to validate actual reincarnation. In some of these cases, people believe they were indeed born previously as members of a different race and sexual gender. Is this type of belief “too far-fetched?” Is this belief system just another sign of human gullibility? Perhaps not in this case, but what about this *Life* that we all talk about so often? There are many intriguing belief systems alive and well in the world, but unfortunately there is no time here to address them all individually. But who or what is/was the “Originator” of the parameters that encapsulate and enable a nurturing environment to continually provide for all of our biological and intellectual needs? Some scientists seem to think they know.
I believe all of evolution, (or creation) is given genetic limits on what each planetary species can actually know, understand, and accomplish. In the case of human beings, what we predict can either turn out to be right, wrong, or both, (e.g. Nostradamus) We can also assume our present knowledge of physics and chemistry to be true, and continue to write the necessary theorems and equations, while carefully factorizing them to obtain maximum financial and scientific reward. It is my view this advancement can only be successful within inherent human biological and intellectually achievable limits. (Wherever they are)
There is yet no resident absolute authority to unquestionably correct us without threat of professional assassination or some kind of projected forecast of hell, but there is always that “Brick Wall” that thankfully keeps most of us honest. The truth is, no one knows everything absolutely, but obviously some secretly believe they do. If we were to extend some mathematical verifications far enough, many accuracies still use a given, (at some point) or eventually the standardizations, proofs, or lack of demonstrability would lead to error. And so we have plus or minus this and that, with concentrated blah, blah, and brilliantly spoken, ingeniously embellished amounts of what is frequently known as “B.S.” Factually, there is at least as much we presently don’t know as that which we do. I will not list references for all material discussed today as that would require a library of additional space. The three questions listed below are prime examples of controversy and ignorance as they are laden with disagreement by billions. I’ll be brief but descriptive.
*Three “Grand” Questions*
- God: Who (or what) is in charge of this universe? We have great scientists, religious books, and teachers. Some physicists are now claiming a God was not necessary for human existence. Is this true? Was there ever a beginning?
- Man: It has been scientifically determined the physical chemistry of our bodies comes from the reactions of nuclear fusion (Past exploding stars) in our universe. Thus we are all made from “stardust.” If not God, then who or what formulates and then bestows conscious life to unconscious chemistry?
- A Compromised Sexuality?: Heterosexuality (Hetero =different) is the genetic mechanism by which past and present propagative human existence depends. Is Homosexual activity genetic or choice based?
As we can analytically surmise, all these questions appear to be somehow tied to one another or have related roots. At first look, the answer seems to be relatively simple. The real problem lies with the multitudes on either side of these issues hearing an answer they refuse to accept. If you remember, I’ve told you in the past that many of today’s scientists and backyard geniuses appear to be in the process of attempting to usurp even the idea of an altruistic, supernatural God or Supreme Being. They are busily explaining *Him/Her/It* out of even our ethereal experience and into the stark realm of physics. For direction and edification let’s address the three above enigmatic questions and ponder what answers they reveal to us. We’ll start by using physics for perspective.
In my view, the best definition of *God* is: The *UNCAUSED CAUSE, * someone or something with the power to “Create,” initiate, and maintain *SOMETHING* out of *NOTHING* on a grand scale. This ability allows the creator to: subjugate, control, and “maintain” the following Physical Constants that govern our universe either by evolutionary mechanisms or by “fiat” to within incredible functional tolerance levels. E.g.:
If any one of these constants lost even a “hairs breadth” of its value, (e.g. if Gravity lost even 1 in 10-60th part) the universe would be uninhabitable and would either have thinned out and allowed no stars, planets, chemistry, or life of any kind to form anywhere, or it would have collapsed in on itself with the same results. So it was definitely “fine- tuned” by someone or something for some purpose. The chance of all this cooperation happening by accident or some evolutionary collaboration is so infinitesimally small that even Las Vegas would not venture a bet. Chance could not choose from options that did not yet exist!
Now look at the aspect of a beginning. Whether there was a “Big Bang, Singularity, or something else” there would be a “dependency” generated, and that dependency would be subordinate to its initiator. That would be defined in language as a beginning and the Initiator of this dependency could for lack of description be known as *God*. (The Uncaused Cause) Listen, there is no known miraculous life or consciousness creating mechanism in physics. Then exactly how was it done? And who or what did it? In my view, the definitive answer to that question is still far above what our species can know. And therefore the concept of *God* may be wounded, but it cannot be eliminated or replaced by today’s physics or any other science available to reliable scholarship.
I could start this segment by explaining the traditional “Lake of Soup” theory filled with RNA, DNA, t(transfer) RNA and endeavor to explain life by using a base molecule of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen atoms, a sugar, a phosphorus atom connected to oxygen and nucleotides of sugars and phosphates for RNA production, hydrophobicity and the chemistry of amino acids. (Phew!) And if I concluded here I’d not have made a “dent” in the makeup of a simple Amoeba, much less a *conscious* human being equipped with a complete set of values, complex attitudes, and a taste for Kentucky Bourbon. Look at it this way: While Man is by far the most remarkable assembly of organics in existence, (in my opinion) he is still in possession of a species specific, finite mind.
What can we identify in this small space of time that will help to make the life origin and the success of this “Man Animal” clearer and more understandable? Time is usually wasted in this area of explanation. And real, unquestionable proof of our total origin is still “not quite finished.” It is true that great strides have been made showing how the chemistry of tRNA and amino acids may have gotten the “ball rolling” again in the simple life structure of evolution, but I’ll not waste time parked here. While this is important, it only gives us more information that arrives at the points once again that we have already arrived at. We still have not identified the mechanism by which actual life and consciousness came to be. But let me offer a different clue: “Where did our DNA double helix design come from?” It seems to me we ought to look at that incredible amount of scientific information first.
Evolution gives us many (almost) irrefutable arguments of man’s status as to how we evolved to the stage we find ourselves in today. Was Man originally an Ape? Man has 46 chromosomes, twenty-three from Mom and twenty-three from Dad. All species of Ape have 48! If we truly “evolved” from Apes where did the extra 2 chromosome go? Well, it seems that fusion took place at base site 114,455,823 / 214,455,838. (Within 15 bases) And that would be at our # 2 chromosome. Telomere protection lines up perfectly. (This Corresponds to Chimp chromosome # 13). The fusion is at chromosome number two. So our evolution from ape to man is “set in stone” right? But what if our evolution had a little (outside) help?
The DNA Double Helix design of code letters ACGT, more than 5 billion letters, 3 million variation possibilities, with alphabet, syntax, information, intentionality, and six feet of code in each of our 100 trillion cells. It appears someone or something eventually wanted us to see how our DNA coding information was done. It was developed in such an advanced mathematical way to show us someone or something’s workable design ability was far superior to Man’s fertile comprehension. “Are we being told the whole story?”
Sir Francis Crick, (with James Watson) was the co-founder and Nobel Prize winner for the DNA Double Helix. After developing and studying this ground-breaking phenomenon, on occasion said “The genetic code in this DNA is so mathematically complex it could not possibly have evolved by chance, it is not of this earth!” (This was one of the Founders opinions!) Dear reader, it appears (to me) the chance of this DNA molecule which is more than equivalent to an entire set of “Encyclopedia Britannica” and a complete, accurate compilation of previously unknown internal sequencing information being put together by some “naturally occurring” earthbound evolutionary mechanism would be the same as a hurricane ripping the encyclopedia into a billion pieces, and a summer breeze blowing it back together in proper sequencing order! In my view, thinking this “DNA masterpiece of design” happened collectively in a pond somewhere *all by itself*is an example of “blindness or intellectual dishonesty.” Many of you are noted university educators with highly valued professional opinions, what you think is of primary importance.
When we arrive at a better understanding of Quantum Theory and Quantum Consciousness we’ll be better equipped to tackle the “consciousness generating bubble”, but not until then. At that point (I believe) science will make another adjustment in thinking.
*A Compromised Sexuality?*
For the record, I am a heterosexual male with a wife and three grown children.
Psychologist’s tell us because one has had an exploratory minimum of homosexual relations does not designate them as homosexual. Nor does simply having the “right” to openly experience homosexual relations have bearing on being an actual homosexual. But many people we see wearing loud, striking dress and marching in *gay parades* may think this makes them “a true homosexual.” In some cases, these actions may satisfy some internal need to be a “different,” misunderstood human being. The trouble with this scenario is many of these “pseudo-homosexuals” are really “sexual opportunists” and are not exclusively homosexual at all. No small number of them can be seen equally active in heterosexual activity a month or even years later. I do not believe one’s legal sexual direction needs continual public validation. On the contrary, in my view, such advertisement only serves to incite disagreement.
One of the physical properties of human genitalia (with subject blindfolded) is they will respond to stimulation (by the application of physical pressure) from multiple sources. (Use your imagination) The psychology of the choice of the source has been the question for many thousands of years. The failure of the pseudo-homosexual to remain homosexual when they are actually non-exclusive sexually makes it difficult for true homosexuals to gain the respect of an already overwhelmingly biased heterosexual world. Many talented scientists and religious leaders have lined up to show their analytical and spiritual prowess in the area of treating what some may call a form of psychological misdirection. For continuity let’s look at homosexuality strictly from a scientific point of view and hopefully we may be able to discern some fact from fiction.
All male and female babies do not have the same experience in the womb. Some babies can have very different experiences. Here testosterone has a significant opportunity to influence fetal development and even sexual orientation. Testosterone levels in the fetus can be quite different and this may correspond to a time of rapid brain development. High testosterone exposure can manifest itself quite early in fetal development and here it has the time and opportunity to also participate in programing the brain. As for gender identification, this fetal programming can last over the life-span of the individual. In those women who experienced high testosterone levels (from data in amniotic fluid) in their adulthood about 2% choose to live as men. (This sounds small, but that’s hundreds of times more women than would otherwise do so) Genetic activity appears to be involved in this fetal development, as there is no (normal) significant outside environmental influence inside the womb.
In the case of males, (XY males in the womb) some of these males cannot respond to testosterone. And so these males are actually XY females. They produce normal levels of testosterone (including prenatally) but their cells cannot respond to testosterone. They have testes but because they can’t respond to male hormones they look like females and almost 100% of them grow up and want to live as women. Here (again) we find a concrete mechanism (insensitivity to testosterone) that appears to exonerate outside influence in the genetic sexual orientation question. While it is important to note there may be many environmental aspects such as questionable parenting and outside influential contributions involved with sexual preference, these would generally be classified in the “choice or environmentally based argument.” The study (in this case) shows a footprint in favor of selective prenatal genetic involvement. *Ref: Prof. Melissa Hines, Cambridge University.
*Note: Prenatal sexual redirection in a normally developed fetus during gestation (to my knowledge) has not been established. That is not to say such mechanisms do not exist. The gestation processes discussed above may not have occurred in all that call themselves homosexual. But it is important to note that some prenatal sexual redirection (however small) can and does happen. The degree of effect may be commensurate with the degree of testosterone exposure. In my view, the individuals in this study (past and present) should not be thought of as traditional Men and Women. The Holy Books (time sensitive) vernacular interpretation of “Man and Woman” in ‘dated’ scriptural understanding is not incorrect. But I believe it is scientifically misunderstood by readers unaware of modern gestational science and the redirection hormonal possibilities that may have existed for millennia.
In my analytical opinion, more research involving Testosterone, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, and Dihydrotestosterone should be encouraged. I also believe, the scriptural anathemas against homosexuality given by some Holy Books are more indicative of the non-selective promiscuous members of the “normal” population than those predisposed to this activity by elements (from birth) beyond their control. The information contained in this section may facilitate an adjustment in mainstream thinking on this issue.
And so we have touched on three of Man’s most difficult questions:
- God: It looks as though “God” has survived this scrutiny. Physics still cannot remove Him from the discussion. In part because of the recent discoveries of Kepler-452b, 186f, and hundreds of other planets of habitable size and environments somewhat similar to Earth exist in our galaxy. Many life questions will be pending with them. We can see the future of the God/Man “creation vs environmental” discussion only deepening and becoming more “precise” and “less” interpretable than ever. It will not get any easier. The more difficult the science gets, the more it points in the opposite direction of “chance” and leads more to dichotomy and intent. Religion will remain attractive because it alone gives answers man can find nowhere else.
- Man: Man is finding there is much about himself that he has yet to finalize. Things I told you about in my article “The First anthropological Enlightenment,” (www.henriwtartt.com) give evidence of Alien (or other) involvement in selective DNA application (to the masses) is being written about by credible scientists today. I simply gave you an example of what my research over the years has shown. It appears (to me) that man’s accelerated advancement had help either from God or …?…. about six thousand years ago. Please keep in mind that I’m not referring here to “Ardi” (Ardipithecus 4.4 million years ago) or “Lucy” (Australopithecus 3.2 mya) I’m talking about “Adam,” the first biblically recognized totally human “looking” Man. It is very important that this part of our discussion remains clear. I believe we know something happened (to us) along the way, but absolutely no one knows (or can prove) exactly what.
- A Compromised Sexuality?: As is the case in our first two categories, we still have much to learn about our sexuality. Our sexual hormones ‘do not play games.’ They back up our very life force. To think they are easily controlled is to underestimate reproductive chemistry. Right or wrong diversified sexuality is a fact of life. But with all of the awareness on truth and honesty today, we must find a way to define the correct natural parameters into which our existence fits. Obviously, in the vernacular of scriptural times the facts (as they are today) could not be written about or explained in the necessary technological terms. There was no interpretive language or accurate explanations available to early science. This subject is controversial, but it appears (to me) traditional sexual development would not be available to the unborn in this study. Of course this work was far more extensive with more complex samples examined than I had room to show here. But I’ve condensed these in order to give you adequate general information for a competent appraisal.
All members of our society must be treated equally. Equality defines who we are. Of course there will be unforeseen problems with any new status, and many are not happy with recent legal decisions. But science and the law dictate we must press on. We are accountable to both God and Man for the implementation of the best current day understanding (and interpretation) of what we believe to be right. Hopefully such a plan will be advantageous for lawful societal order and personal dignity.
The Holy Books provide us with a path to Faith, Love, and Hope. As more scientific facts become available, it will be interesting to see how men and women of the Clergy and various world religious institutions will correlate difficult wording, interpretation, and understanding of modern Man’s scientific advancements with the wisdom of The Holy Scriptures. I am not implying any scripture is incorrect. Some carry multiple interpretation, but this is not that kind of article. I am simply explaining the latest science without bias. One recurring social problem will continue to be that of moral sexual limitation. Western society is set up ideally for monogamy, but promiscuity continues to run rampant in “all” sexual communities. However, it is important to keep in mind, a natural ‘sexual impetus’ is paramount to the survival of our species, because without it Man would likely become ‘too lazy to mate.’
I believe our most lethal future problem will be found within the concepts of religion. I also believe Man’s basic insecurity about God is grounded in his deep seated (and often hidden) unbelief. Some of these people lead very dangerous, powerful countries. I believe the only comfort some have is to see countless others committed to their religion or ideology while secretly hoping for a self-conversion that never comes. Yet they continue to masquerade piously about their countries “pretending to be honorable believers.” In my view, this kind of leadership must be recognized for what it is and steps taken before the button is pushed by confused fanatics seeking some kind of religious immortality. Men still cannot trust each other. (With good reason) Combine ignorance, the uncontrolled ego, disrespect for humanity, and disagreements about God with the mounting black, white, and brown racial issues …then add unprecedented access to ‘The Bomb’… and this pattern does not bode well for the future of world relations.
Is reincarnation real? Is the universe alive? Is nothing controlling all of this? Where is God? Remember, regardless of position, people are manipulators. Ultimately they all want you to agree with them. Try keeping this simple fact in mind and difficult decisions will be much easier. Unfortunately, it appears the restorative fact that we are all genetically and chemically intertwined may never sink in.
It seems we are all searching for the same answers. If, however, this information “needs” to be hidden from man, (by his finite mind) I believe these answers will forever remain ‘just out of reach,’ and perhaps that’s for the best. There is still room for hope. Stay well
*Educators: Please feel free to share this article with students, colleagues, and friends*
*Some religions fight each other far more than they fight evil*-Henri W. Tartt, Chemist