If people do not already share with you the same basic values you have no reason to be very upset with or resentful of them merely because they are mistaken or because they do not agree with you. For instance, you cannot expect to achieve much social reform with or move the consciences of people who sell themselves and their families into slavery for money and material wealth.
People who listen to and are predominantly guided by spirit people (that is, aside of course from the holy spirit) rather than honest and equitable facts and reason listen to and are guided by death. It is this listening to life versus listening to death then that are the only true political ideologies and, indeed, are what effectively separate people into Heaven and Hell.
The works or writings of great philosophers are like fireplace hearths -- only of use when there is a fire going, but fairly useless and taking up space when there is none (or at least no anticipation of one.)
I am a Christian; and yet for all the years I have been subject to violence and persecuted by Hell people, angels, halos, a literal heaven in the sky (all of which I have seen with the naked eye) -- and despite people's ideas about these things -- have made no impression on me but a negative one. It is not that I am inherently against these things, it just they are obviously of no value when honesty and truth are not present.
Matthew 7:24-29:
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
In the game of mind control, honest and just reason is that rock -- woe unto ye which forsake it!
Although Aristotle predated Jesus by some hundreds of years, his thought was in its complex working relatively new and in stark contrast to some of the primitiveness found in the earlier part of the Bible. Inasmuch as Christianity was a transition from the more ancient view, it is interesting how the more recent Greek perspective (i.e. �recent� compared to the Old Testament) presaged and later integrated so well into its teachings. To illustrate which, the following are some excerpts from Nichomachean Ethics, as translated by W.D. Ross:
Book VIII
"One may find resemblances to the constitutions and, as it were, patterns of them even in households. For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy, since the father cares for his children; and this is why Homer calls Zeus 'father'; it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule. But among the Persians the rule of the father is tyrannical; they use their sons as slaves. Tyrannical too is the rule of a master over slaves; for it is the advantage of the master that is brought about in it. Now this seems to be a correct form of government, but the Persian type is perverted; for the modes of rule appropriate to different relations are diverse. The association of man and wife seems to be aristocratic; for the man rules in accordance with his worth, and in those matters in which a man should rule, but the matters that befit a woman he hands over to her. If the man rules in everything the relation passes over into oligarchy; for in doing so he is not acting in accordance with their respective worth, and not ruling in virtue of his superiority. Sometimes, however, women rule, because they are heiresses; so their rule is not in virtue of excellence but due to wealth and power, as in oligarchies. The association of brothers is like timocracy; for they are equal, except in so far as they differ in age; hence if they differ much in age, the friendship is no longer of the fraternal type. Democracy is found chiefly in masterless dwellings (for here every one is on an equality), and in those in which the ruler is weak and every one has licence to do as he pleases...
Book IX
"In all friendships between dissimilars it is, as we have said, proportion that equalizes the parties and preserves the friendship; e.g. in the political form of friendship the shoemaker gets a return for his shoes in proportion to his worth, and the weaver and all other craftsmen do the same. Now here a common measure has been provided in the form of money, and therefore everything is referred to this and measured by this; but in the friendship of lovers sometimes the lover complains that his excess of love is not met by love in return though perhaps there is nothing lovable about him), while often the beloved complains that the lover who formerly promised everything now performs nothing. Such incidents happen when the lover loves the beloved for the sake of pleasure while the beloved loves the lover for the sake of utility, and they do not both possess the qualities expected of them. If these be the objects of the friendship it is dissolved when they do not get the things that formed the motives of their love; for each did not love the other person himself but the qualities he had, and these were not enduring; that is why the friendships also are transient. But the love of characters, as has been said, endures because it is self-dependent. Differences arise when what they get is something different and not what they desire; for it is like getting nothing at all when we do not get what we aim at; compare the story of the person who made promises to a lyre-player, promising him the more, the better he sang, but in the morning, when the other demanded the fulfillment of his promises, said that he had given pleasure for pleasure. Now if this had been what each wanted, all would have been well; but if the one wanted enjoyment but the other gain, and the one has what he wants while the other has not, the terms of the association will not have been properly fulfilled; for what each in fact wants is what he attends to, and it is for the sake of that he will give what he has...
"Therefore the bad man does not seem to be amicably disposed even to himself, because there is nothing in him to love; so that if to be thus is the height of wretchedness, we should strain every nerve to avoid wickedness and should endeavour to be good; for so and only so can one be either friendly to oneself or a friend to another...
"But if one accepts another man as good, and he turns out badly and is seen to do so, must one still love him? Surely it is impossible, since not everything can be loved, but only what is good. What is evil neither can nor should be loved; for it is not one's duty to be a lover of evil, nor to become like what is bad; and we have said that like is dear like. Must the friendship, then, be forthwith broken off? Or is this not so in all cases, but only when one's friends are incurable in their wickedness? If they are capable of being reformed one should rather come to the assistance of their character or their property, inasmuch as this is better and more characteristic of friendship. But a man who breaks off such a friendship would seem to be doing nothing strange; for it was not to a man of this sort that he was a friend; when his friend has changed, therefore, and he is unable to save him, he gives him up...
"...a man ought to ransom his father even in preference to himself...
"At the same time to the benefactor that is noble which depends on his action, so that he delights in the object of his action, whereas to the patient there is nothing noble in the agent, but at most something advantageous, and this is less pleasant and lovable. What is pleasant is the activity of the present, the hope of the future, the memory of the past; but most pleasant is that which depends on activity, and similarly this is most lovable. Now for a man who has made something his work remains (for the noble is lasting), but for the person acted on the utility passes away. And the memory of noble things is pleasant, but that of useful things is not likely to be pleasant, or is less so; though the reverse seems true of expectation...
"The question is also debated, whether a man should love himself most, or some one else. People criticize those who love themselves most, and call them self-lovers, using this as an epithet of disgrace, and a bad man seems to do everything for his own sake, and the more so the more wicked he is -- and so men reproach him, for instance, with doing nothing of his own accord -- while the good man acts for honour's sake, and the more so the better he is, and acts for his friend's sake, and sacrifices his own interest... Does it not follow, then, that, as for lovers the sight of the beloved is the thing they love most, and they prefer this sense to the others because on it love depends most for its being and for its origin, so for friends the most desirable thing is living together? For friendship is a partnership, and as a man is to himself, so is he to his friend; now in his own case the consciousness of his being is desirable, and so therefore is the consciousness of his friend's being, and the activity of this consciousness is produced when they live together, so that it is natural that they aim at this. And whatever existence means for each class of men, whatever it is for whose sake they value life, in that they wish to occupy themselves with their friends; and so some drink together, others dice together, others join in athletic exercises and hunting, or in the study of philosophy, each class spending their days together in whatever they love most in life; for since they wish to live with their friends, they do and share in those things which give them the sense of living together. Thus the friendship of bad men turns out an evil thing (for because of their instability they unite in bad pursuits, and besides they become evil by becoming like each other), while the friendship of good men is good, being augmented by their companionship; and they are thought to become better too by their activities and by improving each other; for from each other they take the mould of the characteristics they approve -- whence the saying 'noble deeds from noble men'. -- So much, then, for friendship; our next task must be to discuss pleasure.
Book X
"The happy life is thought to be virtuous; now a virtuous life requires exertion, and does not consist in amusement. And we say that serious things are better than laughable things and those connected with amusement, and that the activity of the better of any two things -- whether it be two elements of our being or two men -- is the more serious; but the activity of the better is ipso facto superior and more of the nature of happiness. And any chance person -- even a slave -- can enjoy the bodily pleasures no less than the best man; but no one assigns to a slave a share in happiness -- unless he assigns to him also a share in human life. For happiness does not lie in such occupations, but, as we have said before, in virtuous activities...
"Happiness, therefore, does not lie in amusement; it would, indeed, be strange if the end were amusement, and one were to take trouble and suffer hardship all one's life in order to amuse oneself. For, in a word, everything that we choose we choose for the sake of something else -- except happiness, which is an end. Now to exert oneself and work for the sake of amusement seems silly and utterly childish. But to amuse oneself in order that one may exert oneself, as Anacharsis puts it, seems right; for amusement is a sort of relaxation, and we need relaxation because we cannot work continuously. Relaxation, then, is not an end; for it is taken for the sake of activity...
"But that perfect happiness is a contemplative activity will appear from the following
consideration as well. We assume the gods to be above all other beings blessed and happy; but
what sort of actions must we assign to them? Acts of justice? Will not the gods seem absurd if
they make contracts and return deposits, and so on? Acts of a brave man, then, confronting
dangers and running risks because it is noble to do so? Or liberal acts? To whom will they give?
It will be strange if they are really to have money or anything of the kind. And what would
their temperate acts be? Is not such praise tasteless, since they have no bad appetites? If we
were to run through them all, the circumstances of action would be found trivial and unworthy of
gods. Still, every one supposes that they live and therefore that they are active; we cannot
suppose them to sleep like Endymion. Now if you take away from a living being action, and still
more production, what is left but contemplation? Therefore the activity of God, which surpasses
all others in blessedness, must be contemplative; and of human activities, therefore, that which
is most akin to this must be most of the nature of happiness.
"This is indicated, too, by the fact that the other animals have no share in happiness, being
completely deprived of such activity. For while the whole life of the gods is blessed, and that
of men too in so far as some likeness of such activity belongs to them, none of the other
animals is happy, since they in no way share in contemplation. Happiness extends, then, just so
far as contemplation does, and those to whom contemplation more fully belongs are more truly
happy, not as a mere concomitant but in virtue of the contemplation; for this is in itself
precious. Happiness, therefore, must be some form of contemplation...
"But, being a man, one will also need external prosperity; for our nature is not self-sufficient for the purpose of contemplation, but our body also must be healthy and must have food and other attention. Still, we must not think that the man who is to be happy will need many things or great things, merely because he cannot be supremely happy without external goods; for self- sufficiency and action do not involve excess, and we can do noble acts without ruling earth and sea; for even with moderate advantages one can act virtuously (this is manifest enough; for private persons are thought to do worthy acts no less than despots -- indeed even more); and it is enough that we should have so much as that; for the life of the man who is active in accordance with virtue will be happy. Solon, too, was perhaps sketching well the happy man when he described him as moderately furnished with externals but as having done (as Solon thought) the noblest acts, and lived temperately; for one can with but moderate possessions do what one ought. Anaxagoras also seems to have supposed the happy man not to be rich nor a despot, when he said that he would not be surprised if the happy man were to seem to most people a strange person; for they judge by externals, since these are all they perceive. The opinions of the wise seem, then, to harmonize with our arguments. But while even such things carry some conviction, the truth in practical matters is discerned from the facts of life; for these are the decisive factor. We must therefore survey what we have already said, bringing it to the test of the facts of life, and if it harmonizes with the facts we must accept it, but if it clashes with them we must suppose it to be mere theory. Now he who exercises his reason and cultivates it seems to be both in the best state of mind and most dear to the gods. For if the gods have any care for human affairs, as they are thought to have, it would be reasonable both that they should delight in that which was best and most akin to them (i.e. reason) and that they should reward those who love and honour this most, as caring for the things that are dear to them and acting both rightly and nobly. And that all these attributes belong most of all to the philosopher is manifest. He, therefore, is the dearest to the gods. And he who is that will presumably be also the happiest; so that in this way too the philosopher will more than any other be happy...
"If these matters and the virtues, and also friendship and pleasure, have been dealt with sufficiently in outline, are we to suppose that our programme has reached its end? Surely, as the saying goes, where there are things to be done the end is not to survey and recognize the various things, but rather to do them; with regard to virtue, then, it is not enough to know, but we must try to have and use it, or try any other way there may be of becoming good. Now if arguments were in themselves enough to make men good, they would justly, as Theognis says, have won very great rewards, and such rewards should have been provided; but as things are, while they seem to have power to encourage and stimulate the generous-minded among our youth, and to make a character which is gently born, and a true lover of what is noble, ready to be possessed by virtue, they are not able to encourage the many to nobility and goodness. For these do not by nature obey the sense of shame, but only fear, and do not abstain from bad acts because of their baseness but through fear of punishment; living by passion they pursue their own pleasures and the means to them, and and the opposite pains, and have not even a conception of what is noble and truly pleasant, since they have never tasted it. What argument would remould such people? It is hard, if not impossible, to remove by argument the traits that have long since been incorporated in the character; and perhaps we must be content if, when all the influences by which we are thought to become good are present, we get some tincture of virtue..."
One of the most intriguing and at the same time bizarre aspects of Christianity is its notion (though one not exclusive to it) of apocalypse. And what makes it so bizarre is partly what can also make it so fascinating, as in Matthew 23-24. Some reading those texts will assume they are meant literally, but it is not at all clear that this is necessarily what is meant -- and how these declarations and judgments are interpreted and taken makes a radical difference in their meaning. For example, the predictions and censures may be merely a manifestation and outpouring of Jesus' grief and outrage, but which are expressed in a masterly way -- that is masterly for a prophet and poet (though this is not to insist that these are all that Jesus was ) -- and yet, as poetry or truth revealed from the heart, still be later proven empirically correct. Further, apocalypse then has no clearly defined form in how it necessarily takes place ; whether it occurs in moments, over ages, with large groups of people, small groups of people, or individuals; and this allows a far wider latitude of interpretation with respect to Christ's statements than on the surface might seem to be the case.
Were by chance any of you my readers seriously contemplating suicide of late, I thought I might suggest the watching this tv trailer for "The Tudors" (Season 2, episode 1) at YouTube -- death from boredom being perhaps a much less painful method compared to some others.
The nature of the human condition is such that when people reject honesty, reason, and basic morals they reject self-government. Now out and out disaster and slavery would not necessarily have to follow from our not governing ourselves as such; since the vast majority of people simply and really are not all that cruel and greedy. But ah, you see it is these damned spirit people who step in when people are not honest, rational and moral, and who then end up taking over, corrupting, and ruining life for everyone. Either therefore people at large need to take steps to empower themselves with reason and morals, and or else these criminal spirit people (whether in the guise of Heaven, Hell or what have you) need to be wiped out and obliterated from existence. What choice, I ask you, otherwise is there?
By the way and since I use the term so frequently, by "rational" is meant someone who is both logical and has a sense of equal fairness and justice toward others, and in turn regulates their conduct with a mind towards respecting and venerating those others' basics needs, concerns, rights, and fundamental freedoms. That there is and should be essential equality for and toward all stems from the idea that all are, at best, second after God himself or the One who is one. To this traditional interpretation must be added the importance, if not in all instances necessity, of honesty and sincerity; because without honesty and sincerity one is not going to get very far or accomplish very much either with logic or justice.
The Google/Quotations Page "Quote of the Day" for this March 27, 2008 is this:
"Humor is everywhere, in that there's irony in just about anything a human does."
- Bill Nye
Does this mean Jack the Ripper and genocide are funny? Surely this is not what Bill Nye ("the science guy") intends. Yet to a ghost magician or sorcerer they can use this seemingly ubiquitous principle and indeed apply it everywhere -- that is, certainly, in the minds of those who are neither adequately alert and or rational.
With reference again to Borley Rectory, although accounts of that haunting focus on the foreboding and spooky, as likely as not there were lighter and comedic occurrences, and religious moments as well -- say, with respect to the latter, when those present might be made to have religious feelings and experiences, and perhaps in the form of consoling angels or a "heavenly" voice (recall the habitants of the rectory during the height of the hauntings were clergymen and their families.)
The nun that is reported as appearing at Borley on a number of occasions was in my opinion either a spirit person actress, or else a spirit person who could technically be diagnosed as a mental patient but whom the magician would use and send to go her "rounds" for purposes of his show. The skull later dug up at the rectory and which some have interpreted as belonging to her I rather doubt as actually being hers. For one thing, the magician (assuming my theory) would have known about it beforehand, and that he permitted the skull to be found might suggest that there was something fishy or contrived about its presence (recollect also the spirit person magician can have regular people working for him who will carry out his instructions as, for instance, in the placing or removing of objects.)The victim's reaction to all this spirit person carrying on will understandably vary depending on the person and what is specifically being done to them. Yet aside from times of sheer physical agony, in my own experience, no matter how diverse the types of personages and tricks involved and generally speaking (and once you've got the idea), the feeling is not funny, religious or frightening really, but rather one of being very annoyed, cheated, and inconvenienced.
Someone might ask, "If (in the case of Borley) it was just a show then what was all so wrong about it? Perhaps it was mischievous but that doesn't necessarily imply evil does it?" Spirit people shenanigans of this kind, particularly those which are elaborate, require large amounts of money and other certain unusual props and advantages. Spirit people who have access to large amounts of money (as far as one can tell) always or most always are acting in cooperation with other spirit persons of the very most depraved and murderous character. It would be like having a rich uncle who has money and privileges (and powers) of his you can use, but he wants you do something very bad to have access to them, and this something might be torture or murder -- because that, in one form or the other, is what made him so rich -- with your similarly degrading yourself by such cooperation demonstrating for him your fealty.
Aristotle and Plato's view of morals significantly differ in that Aristotle sees guilt as possible; this based on whether it was reasonable to assume the (given) accused knew or didn't know what he was doing. Plato's is different in that no guilt can ever really be impugned someone because, as he argues, no one does wrong except out of ignorance. Both agree that the most knowledgeable is someone who knows best what is good. People, then says Plato, who commit crimes do not know what is good, and this is not a crime. Aristotle (Nich. Ethics, book III) would argue a distinction is to be made between opted for and compulsory acts, and therefore he whose act can be interpreted as intentional and voluntary is not always someone who can absolve himself or use as an excuse his ignorance. He is held to already know that if he has the power to choose then his choice might be bad as well as good, and therefore has a responsibility to see that his bad choices do not adversely and unjustly impair or harm others.
After making mention of Borley Rectory the other day, I out of curiosity went and did a Google search, and I was struck at the rather bizarre, spleen filled antipathy leveled at not only Harry Price, whom we see repeatedly spoken of as a hoaxster, but and more so Marianne Foyster. Observe, for example, these two items at href="http://badpsychics.com/badghosts/modules/news/article.php?storyid=77"> and http://lifeprint.com/borleyrectory/ What I found particularly of interest is that this animosity toward the woman paralleled that of the ghost magician (and I assume that is who it was) who it seems to me was hitting her up -- his obsession with her apparently out lasting Borley itself. That Ms. Foyster in later years reported that she herself fabricated some of the alleged "paranormal" occurrences can be easily explained by her being placed under unearthly (and perhaps earthly) pressure to do so. Note also how one could live through a terrifying experience like Borley Rectory and still joke and live somewhat and more or less normally. Well, that is not just what regular people do when the haunting is through, but the ghosts themselves as well; such that we see in this how real life horror is something that must be turned on and only for certain occasions; much as with certain enthusiasms or past times.
Even more absurd than the proposal of late for a missile defense system by the Bush administration -- to fight "terrorism" -- are arguments by some of its opponents that it isn't technologically feasible! Why are both parties so crazy you might wonder? Because, quite simply, this is their way (not unlike monster.com as we mentioned earlier) of appeasing the "powers that be" -- that is the spirit people, and the latter's fabulously wealthy henchmen; whom they evidently and ultimately feel themselves beholden to (rather than truth, facts, rationality and humanity) for their prestige and political power. No one otherwise cares less or actually sees the need for such a system, and the proposal and its debate are merely the participants manner of sporting a nose ring or facial tattoo.
As much as I write about spirit people, devils, and angels and such one might understandably think I do so out of more than usual concern for the subject. But this is not so true as it might appear. Really, I talk about these things as much as I do much more out of practical necessity than out of fascination for the topic. Animals, nature, and domestic living and happiness are, for instance, of far more interest to me than spirit people. But you see, it is the problems caused by spirit people that prevent one from best or better appreciating and taking pleasure in those things we do like; hence the need to get at and address what has become a hindrance or obstacle to what actually does draw our enthusiasm. About the most intriguing thing I personally find about spirit people are haunted houses and ghost stories, but even here you can sufficiently enjoy those kinds of subjects by means of literary or movie fiction without having to bother all that much with or dwell on the real thing; though granted "true life" stories such as that of Borley Rectory can sometimes compete very well with fine literature or a good film.
I saw an ad on the internet the other day for monster.com that said "tap into the power" (or something very similar.) How typical I thought. For if their power is actually so great as stated then why do they have to call themselves monster.com ? Clearly it is not because the name is especially amusing or appealing to anyone but rather, as you may surmise, a way of throwing the "dark forces" tribute or a bone.
And did not the gladiator fairly deserve his liberty and earn his prize money, oh tribune, oh consul, oh emperor?
Reptiles are often and traditionally associated with evil. Yet it is not that a reptile's nature is inherently given over to evil. Instead, it is simply an easier sort of creature for a trouble making spirit person to drive or operate as a vehicle. A fish, on the same principle, can also just as or more easily be "worked" but is subject, among other limitations, to the scope and restrictions of a watery environment.
The odds of anyone escaping Hell in this life are very slim indeed. And for some Hell is a disease that they do not merely encounter but are forced to live with. Imagine for example being constantly harassed, beaten, tormented and abused for years on end with no one to care, listen or help you (and worse and with worse added.) That is what Hell is like, and some may go through much or most of their entire lives subjected, in one form or another, to such treatment.
As previously, I have composed here yet another little list of tips or things to keep in mind when fighting or resisting Hell and Hell behaviors.
1. When they torture or assault you, try to think of them as, in a manner of speaking, paying you money. The more they abuse you, the more money you are being paid, and the stronger and richer you become. Now at first this will seem not only counter intuitive, but absurd. But you see what they want to do is break you, and either get you to despair and or to go along and cooperate with them. But by "sucking it in" as it were or "taking it on the chin," or "rolling with the punches" you are forcing them to fail in what they are doing. This in turn makes what they do harder and more difficult for them. If you then save up your "money" you can spend it on defeating and getting rid of them -- but do not spend it on anything else (such as revenge or consolation prizes.) Understandably, this is easier to state in theory than carry out in practice. But with time and some self-discipline it can be done. And when you have and do accumulate this "money," you spend it exclusively on ejecting them from your life permanently; because that, under the circumstances, is what you most want.
2. If possible, avoid trifling with second banana characters and take your fight against their leadership, particularly thinking here of spirit people, and do not be distracted by "dummies" and intended distractions. Not only are you wasting your energy by failing to do so, but you may be harming or taking it out on someone who is only a puppet, and may in fact themselves be among Hell's worst victims -- even though as puppet they work for them.
3. While they can make you to suffer many different sorts of things, keep a sense of priority as to what is and what isn't the most dangerous threat to you. To cite one example, they might create a situation where you are made to be isolated, and as a result starve you of friendship and companions. But it is not being alone that really is the problem rather it is them attacking you. Therefore, keeps your sights focused, not on the pain of being alone, but instead on them who are causing you to be so. For if you get rid of them, you will have effectively solved the worst part of your problem. But if you dwell too much on the pain of isolation you are only permitting yourself to be distracted from what is your real problem.
4. Do not see Hell as a necessity of life but instead think of them or it as merely someone's (a spirit person's) bright idea of obtaining and achieving their own greatness. If such a one, by chance, happens to manifest himself to you as God or the voice of God reject any such approaches no matter how perhaps awe inspiring and seemingly magnificent; since they can make you feel and believe those kind of things by using magic and spirit person tricks. God is of the truth, justice beauty -- does it then become him to act like a sneak, in secret, or in an overbearing manner such as this kind of behavior suggests?
To describe the phenomena briefly, what they will do is rob and cheat you and then use spirit people to make it seem as if you will be compensated for your pains by a "heavenly" reward. How does this differ from real Christianity? Real Christianity, by definition, is of the truth, and therefore honest. What these types, on the other hand, are up to is to masquerade as both Heaven and the hope that Christian faith proffers; using spirit people tricks, furtive knowledge and magical "wonders" to attempt to establish their justification and effect their argumentation.
But true Christian Heaven and authentic Christian hope are not founded or based on spirit people operators and authorities (aside from the Holy Spirit; which is the embodiment of honest love and truth, and not what I mean when I speak of "spirit people.") Easter itself, which we recollect and celebrate today, contains within it precisely the message that there is no real hope in finding life through spirit people, but only rather in the resurrection one day of the body. This, conversely, is not at all what false religious (including false or deceived Christians) and witchcraft people are about. For to them the after life is not the resurrection of the body but the incarnation of oneself into a ghost who then is supposed to be rewarded in that form in what is supposed to be "Heaven," a domain inhabited by spirit people. Further proof that this interpretation is not Christian is that, again, it is not truthful. And it is not truthful inasmuch as those who listen to spirit people, and spirit people themselves, are simply not forthright and honest to begin with; when Christianity, by definition, not only is founded in truth but indeed is the very deification of the truth. What then is passed off as Christianity by some is merely a form of occultic gnosticism that both denies and eschews honesty and hence the truth; while embracing secrecy and invoking the authority of ghosts, angels and "group think." That some people, even though their numbers be many, will rather believe the spirit people's view of Christianity (rather than what such as we here assert) begs the question, and to that extent is simply irrelevant and beside the point.
That you are nothing more than Winchell-Mahoney Time is made plain and cried out by your very self; in that you use your role as dummy to exonerate your own guilt and participation when it comes to the very worst crimes. And that a person could have done a whole lot better for himself in life than to have culminated in becoming the "Bogey man" -- doesn't that of itself also prove everything I say?
Here once again we come to address and speak about real terrorism as it affects the vast majority of people -- whether in North America or the Middle East. It has been one of the oldest games of hoodlums to try to sell people protection. Now there is this company which keeps calling me up and leaving me previously recorded automated messages on my answering machine advising me to renew my auto protection warranty; despite my having on a number of occasions entered "9" to have them take me off their calling list. (Though I actually have good reason to suspect it, I will not at least here insist that there was necessarily a connection between these car problems and the warranty reminder calls.)
One readily discerns and recognizes in this behavior a very overt psychological outlook that I interpret this way. They are in effect saying, "There is a power of destruction that cannot be avoided. We happen to know the very people who have made it their job to be the masters of destruction. How do we know this? Well, we have seen and experienced the most amazing feats from them and which we are certain cannot be confuted or denied. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that you owe us in order that we can protect you and spare you their wrath."
Now I ask you, what is or might possibly be wrong with this argument?
Unhappiness is caused either by unthinkingly living in someone else's house or some unwelcome else living in yours. It is then, quite understandably, one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government to keep them separated whose cohabitation is not mutual and voluntary.
It's not that our past poems weren't good enough; only we still had to keep writing them in order that we might continue to prove to others that we had meant what we'd said before.
If the truth is not outlawed (that is according to the unwritten law) then who do you know that speaks it? It is the aversion to truth that breeds most death and evil. So when you hear someone pointing out what is supposed to be wrong and yet who casually avoids or deliberately distorts the truth what kind of person is this?
To say to a devil or an angel: The peace that surpasses all understanding. You might try it sometime. (The demonistic way is no good, etc.)
Knowing what I do about you and knowing what you have done, not only do I not see you as divine, but in truth I would actually be embarrassed to be associated with you. Is there anything else? What more is required to more clearly convey to you more exactly where I am coming from (and I would think this said it all.)
If you were a strong man, you'd help the weak because that is what truly strong men do. Persons who are strong otherwise and not rationally self-reliant are mixed up with Spirit people. As a team they are strong; but aside perhaps from the evil one himself, as individuals they are weak compared to those who are rationally self-sufficient.
The Point
My life up to this point --
Alone, betrayed, poor, beat-up fool
Still seeking the time
When love made the town glow;
With nothing left it seems
But to escape the ruling show.
Can we rage against the ages
And lament what once was known?
Mourn fate past
Yet unable to escape our own?
Music is like (certain kinds of) love;
There is and there isn't time for it.
And people you love are like songs;
You can't always be with them
No matter how so you long.
Love is like music;
Good only up to a point.
Yet in that point is sown the seed
Of tomorrow's today.
Today is so fraught with sorrow
I wouldn't even call it today.
Today then must be tomorrow.
I have no one.
But when I think of
The one it's she.
And how do I know?
Because she moved me.
But when today comes,
Will she be mine?
Probably not,
But she would have been,
And this love is the flower
That bloomed unseen.
I finally got around to watching "Chandu on the Magic Island" (1934), and basically what it is is an amalgam of some sequences previously used in the "Return of Chandu" with an almost wholly new and different story evidently shot about the same time as the original serial -- and same great music. Highly recommended! It is interesting to note (to me anyway) that two of the principal actors, Wilfred Lucas (the ship Captain) and Joseph Swickard (Chandu's ally, the white magician), were people who worked at Keystone with Mabel Normand and Mack Sennett; and of course Clara Kimball Young (Chandler's or Chandu's sister, Dorothy Regent) in her day had been a big silent star.
I was looking at a crucifix the other day and when I thought of "Jesus" the sight bewildered and terrified me. But when I thought of a humble, poor, loving, courageous and or innocent individual being sacrificed to glut the ravenous appetite of others then I saw Jesus.
In reading the gospels again recently, it struck me that incidents like the transfiguration or the apostles obtaining a coin from the mouth of a fish are later fabrications. It seems all the more necessary to see the Bible more as truth bespeaking poetry rather than scientific history; true in its essentials but highly suspect in some of its historical particulars. This is not to deny the veracity of all reports of miracles; only it is clear that at least a number of them are patently false. Yet this is less the fault of Christianity than of subsequent interlopers and con-artists attempting to change, truncate and modify its teachings; not least of which in the honoring of magic and spirit people and the concomitant and predictable downplaying of honesty and morals.
He (say, "Speilberg") gets mixed up with this ghost. The ghost, by means of his expertise in crime and magic, gets him money, fortune and importance. "Speilberg," our "self made" man and using his newly acquired wealth and position, then tells us (society) that the ghost is one of us. Moreover, if he and his friend the ghost don't continue to cause all these problems that they do -- then we will have all these other problems.
I have come to think that Satan or the Devil must be an object of most ultimate pity; for no matter how many times or for how long one fairly and squarely beats or defeats him, he still gets away with murder.
(Again in passing, briefly) It is not the Chinese government that needs to persecute and repress the Tibetans. Rather, it is ghosts using the Chinese government for that purpose. What motive does the Chinese government have to so embarrass itself and bring global shame and condemnation down upon it? But the Chinese government acts as it does and is willing to endure such ignominy so as not incur the disfavor and wrath of certain very powerful spirit people (and the latter's wealthy henchmen); just as people do and will have attacked others of honest religious faith down through history (and this phenomena is hardly restricted to Christians or any honest religion in particular.)
Okeus: Grand Wizard of the Klan (all hail!)
Very briefly (and to give my two cents) -- regarding this story about the "appalling" remarks of Barack Obama's former pastor (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor ) and by applying some Chanduesque reasoning, read in the following:
1. This pastor sounds like he was heavily under the influence, if not directly delivering the words and philosophy, of Simon the Magician (or someone quite like this.)Of course, the "Magician" (though not the pastor) as usual is or would be being a complete hypocrite; because his own people (if not actually himself) were or are as much or more so to blame for all the tragedies, catastrophes, and other serious problems mentioned in the pastor�s address.
2. The whole incident was purposely set up in advance by the "Magician" and his people to create mockery and embarrassment that makes no one look good.
3. Observe the affected tone and marked tongue-in-cheek similarity of the reporting of this news story (as, say , illustrated in the above link) with how "news" is delivered at "Voice of Reason.com"
Those other people using you may very well know what they are doing, and granted we don't quite know what exactly they are thinking. But with you on the other hand, there can be no question. With you it is an indubitable and ineluctable certainty that you do not know what you are doing.
After many years now of dealing with spirit people what I think makes them overall and most of the time most dangerous is their ability to get people to take or trade false or specious goods for real and valuable ones. For instance, most any of us has it in our power to be rational and honest, and what a spirit person can do is get a person to relinquish these in favor of mystical visions or experiences (such as by means of magic, secret knowledge, amazing predictions or pretty spirit girls.) Similarly, true humor comes from a certain harmony that takes place between thought and emotion. To replace this, a spirit person can bring or evoke jolly laughter in a person but in a manner that is largely if not entirely divested of thought. It is interesting in this latter regard how some persons heavily influenced by spirit people will think they know what funny is and yet themselves, after many, many times trying, usually don't really know how to be humorous. This is because spirit people can get them to laugh boisterously without the subject's thinking all that much.
Likewise, it's the same thing when it comes to sex or romance, or else, say, God and religion. Spirit people can implant false ideas about these kinds of things and the irrational subject will be so dazzled and amazed that they will think the spirit person knows everything about those topics; till they come to believe they themselves (like the spirit people they listen to) possess such higher knowledge and ultra-rational wisdom -- but which of course and in actual point of fact is nothing more than carefully and elaborately orchestrated deception and distortion (cautiously interspersed with some truth.)
And so it goes. Spirit people will milk the real good out of us, and if we believe them, leave us with, at best, hollow shells and empty or superficial nothings. This of course is one reason why many are so stubbornly adverse to truth and truthful speaking, indeed sometimes belligerently and ruthlessly so; namely, because honest and rational discussion and understanding will go a long way to dispel and thwart such illusions. If then Hell were denied its power to deceive and trade false substitutes for the real and lasting goods we possess, at least half the battle against them would be already won.
As it is, many live their lives such that they look to spirit people as their security and salvation rather than as the most virulent of all diseases that needs to be expelled at any cost. This is not to impugn all spirit people, but unless the very bad and very arrogant ones are got rid of, the would-be good or better spirit people can't be of help or of use to others any more than regular people can living and laboring under the same threat and circumstances.
Ah, now here is something that actually looks like it could be of interest. (Some of the real thing, by the bye, can be found here.)
"Everybody Gets It"
I guess Microsoft could not help making the trend from at one time a nerdy yet innovative technological leader to instead a dumb downed follower given over to "spoofing" that caters to the lame of mind -- indeed, have got in step with what is supposed to be the "entertainment" industry of the past ten years or so. At any rate, it's at least nice to know that those MS big bucks are finally going over to those, in other words, who really need and deserve them. Although the woman in this ad is a good actress, the idea and humor themselves are fairly representative and on the same level of intelligence of these same latter people about whose only participation in the PC revolution of the past three decades was perhaps to play, if not produce, "video" games like "Warcraft" or "Grand Theft Auto" (if that much.)
If what Aristotle asserts is true then the soul can be essentially separated between the Rational and Irrational soul; both of which seek happiness in their own ways, together and separately; and either can in a given instance and overall overtime supersede and even subjugate the other. What seems to have been done to these more crazy spirit people is that their Irrational soul has been so armed, encouraged and inflamed that it holds the Rational aspect in physically shaken terror and distant abeyance; with almost all sanity overthrown (and on particular occasions and instances completely and utterly overthrown as witnessed in the below anecdote.) It only then makes sense that, since one can little appeal to their Rational soul, that means and approaches be considered what could be done to effect and perhaps change the other from its woeful and dangerous state. For if we could change their Irrational souls it may be possible to release or help release them from their thralldom; both psychological and with respect to the person or persons that have mentally and emotionally enslaved them.
