Chi

Chi: definition: life force or energy force. From Taoism, this word is not compatible with Christian thought as there is no Christ which to most Christians is the only way to God.


Chi also could be thought as the life force that flows through the body and through everything. In Christian thought it might be akin to the Holy Ghost.


While not monolithic among Native American tribes the notion that there is a “Great Spirit” has some similarities to the “Holy Ghost”. In my readings of Native American religion there is “God in all things,” much like Buddhism. I suspect if you (me) wants to start an argument, or in the worse case scenario, a war, I suggest that all these “spirits, ghosts, etc” are one and the same. By the way, there is some similarity to the Japanese Zen, “MAKYO” and Tibetan “NYAM”. I am fairly certain that each group would argue vehemently that they are the only holders of “the truth”.


While personally, I hold onto the belief in “a God” I cringe at how easily some folks can tell you that they (or their families, in-groups, church etc. etc.) are the ONLY holder of their “Ghost” or “God”. Of course, once I have uttered this belief, I open myself to being labeled as a heretic.


In my way of thinking Chi is much like a porcelain bowl, but at the same time not the actual bowl but the inherent potential of the unfulfilled bowl. In contrast to the Western concept of Christianity, most of us can conjure up a picture of Jesus in our heads, mostly a slightly effeminate figure with long brown hair and piercing blue eyes in a dazzling white flowing robe -


No such figure exists within the concept of Chi. Why is all this hair-splitting necessary? Of course in Western thought it becomes crucial as several religions vie for dominance on the world stage. As the Muslim religion strains to make itself a prominent religion pushing Eastward on the planet, all of this push and pull soaks up resources, and in a sense their competing factions bring us in the present world, often not peace but war.


It is my further belief that humans are not born equal, and in fact, never will be, despite what the founding fathers might have wished. The U.S. Constitution is as flawed as mankind is. The Bible (or whatever version of it one uses) argues through Jesus that “the poor will inherit the earth” of course is symbolic rather than factual. What we have here is the split between faith and law.


Of course in Christianity, the ultimate balance between faith and law only becomes manifest after our own death. At best, this notion is a slap-in-the-face to those with the least, and at its worst utter nonsense. But hey, ever since the beginning of Christianity this has been the sleight-of-hand that capitalism uses to disguise the reasons for unjust legal and monetary advantage.


So, as I stated earlier, the notion that men (and women are equal) is a fallacy, always has been, and probably will be as long as humans are on this tired blue ball twirling in space around the sun. One could ask, so is the saint more precious than the sinner? I mean if we must examine the worth of each human, are we to treat them equally as many religions ask?


After all, our concept of equality is definitely a social construct any way you choose to look at it. The slippery slope becomes who, or more relevantly, which religion holds the most political juice and is “in charge” of determining which humans are more worthy. Hitler tried this and we all recognize what a terrible outcome ensued.


Theologians might argue that their brand of “Chi” is superior to others but the historical evidence is dismal, i.e. the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Salem Witch Trials, and many more, including slavery and more recently racism, male patriarchy, etc.


Should we let the grinding wheel of evolution decide which “holy ghost” evolves? Is mankind the arbitrator? Or, is God the arbitrator? But we have so many Gods on this planet, how is he (she) to decide what is to be saved and what is to be discarded?


Personally, I have never been comforted that one religion was superior to the rest, whatever flavor you choose.


Jesus said something like, “the only way to Heaven is through Me.” That’s a paraphrase but you get the point. I admit that theology goes mostly over my head. I suspect many theologians of different faiths also adamantly insist that their religion “is the way, and perhaps the only way” Do you understand why I am confused?


While some research suggests that the U.S. religious followers are decreasing, it is clear from the past U.S. presidential election that there are still many Christian MAGA fans out there.


I think a fair guess that whatever the course of religious hegemony, the overall trend will be a declining influence of Christianity in this country — and maybe in the world. Unless there is a drastic decline in economics in which case all bets are off.


The long historical reach of Catholicism was arguably due to lots of sex among its adherents, breeding batches of children which added directly to the Vatican’s coffers. I feel some folks reaching for stones to pelt me with, oh well, this is an opinion piece and others are free to view my ramblings otherwise.


Once a religion owns the political and legal framework, the shaping of behavior and thought become a logical conclusion, I believe, that naturally follows.


Please don’t read this as a total condemnation of religion, it’s not. Without religion’s gift to charitable causes, and most importantly, framing human behavior in a positive sense, the world would be perhaps more difficult than it already is. Truly, if God did not exist, there might have been a case for man creating God in his, or her image, and not the other way around.


What about human evolution? Does it follow that as humankind advances, or to some scholar’s way of thinking, moves backward, due to over-exploitation of resources, massive amounts of starving masses, world-wide pollution, global warming, etc. that the human species will devolve. Will the human species continuation demand a mutation that could possibly save the planet, from what looks more and more likely to be the course.


There remains a conundrum, as unfettered capitalism lays bare, will civilization become more and more, a battle between physical giants like Arnie against intellectual monetary giants like Elon Musk? When I say Arnie, you know that I am being facetious, but not, as right-wing strong men seem to be flexing their political muscle all over the planet. Is this the new evolutionary struggle? I would hate to believe that Donald Trump is at the top of the evolutionary ladder, heaven forbid, but we may be headed in that direction.


As the so-called Goldilocks Zone gets smaller and smaller due to human negligence, most any well-read observer knows we are on the knife-edge of oblivion. Despite all the noxious calls for more oil, the drill-baby-drill bullshit only shields the ignorant from the truth. Despite everything I still believe there is a sliver of hope.


Many well-meaning religious souls will tell the gullible that all of this is “God’s work” and salvation will soon be at hand. This religious fatalism is not a cure for disaster, but many believers embrace it.


Back to my original essay. That all men are not created equal. I am neither an evolutionary biologist nor a noted religious scholar, I am just a writer living in the woods, but I recall Nero’s own admission that he fiddled as Rome burned.


I really don’t care who takes the credit for saving the planet from its own death by human hands. Could be a gifted politician, a mystical shaman, or a diesel mechanic with dirt and grime under his or her fingernails. The point is we have a looming catastrophe that requires exceptional leadership to solve. While many folks argue about the powers of the “Holy Ghost” my heretical belief is I care more about whose beer cans are strewn about at my favorite fishing hole. Peace.


Hilton Moore.
​