Previous William Thomas Sherman Info Page postings, quotes, observations, etc.
If it is a merely a given fish, insect, flower, or weed, then clearly God has no love or concern for it. (True or false?)
If the sun is a person then you could, conceivably, view and dismiss him casually or with contempt; just as you might a stranger or acquaintance of whom you thought little. That much in theory seems plausible. But try, when you get the chance sometime, actually look up and face the sun (sort of sideways, and without looking directly, of course) and see him literally as just another or any given somebody -- and see what happens.
Did I have a crush on Vicki Peterson way back when? Come to think of it, I did!
["the Bangles restless live" c. 1986]
["City of New Orleans - Willie Nelson and Sheryl Crow"]
He gave him a Heaven and an angel host for exactly the same reason he allotted Spielberg a billion dollars; namely, because he knew and knows that neither could really do anything truly worthwhile and interesting with them. Similarly, we see others made very wealthy who can't really do much of anything with those riches either. In the meantime, and not so surprisingly, true merit, worth, and virtue are customarily penalized and or made to starve for refusing to cooperate with the existing order.
Now do you see a pattern? This is what spirit people religion, jurisprudence, and economics is all about: the survival of the mediocre with Old Scratch or Leviathan at the monolithic head.
"The truth isn't allowed."
The ghoulish magician literally said this to me several years ago and at a time, that lasted for a few weeks, when I was naively compliant and listening to these spirit people myself. (Of course, I've learned my lesson a long time since then.)
In examining and attempting to assess the controversy concerning who actually wrote "A Visit from St. Nicholas" (see http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/henry/xmas/livingstonmoore/index.htm ), I have to admit that, although I need to go through the pertinent material and evidence further, the case against the authorship of Clement Clarke Moore (1779-1853) and for that of Henry Livingtson, Jr. (1748-1828) in many respects is very convincing. Yet not less mysterious, or at least perplexing, than the controversy itself is the bitter lambasting and sarcasm leveled at Moore personally by Mary S. Van Deusen, Livingston's champion (and which you can find interspersed among other writing at the above website); including quotes from contemporaries (assuming them authentic) whom ostensibly seem to have shared Ms. Deusen's rancor and disgust of him.
This antipathy, I submit, may explain what happened with "A Visit from St. Nicholas." First, it seems out of character that Moore would have been so adamant about his own false authorship (assuming it was false.) True, it may be understandable that initially he was not prepared to speak out against the errant attribution made by his children, but why as time went on would he have persisted in going along with it? There are a number of possibilities that might explain this.
1. Others may have played up the charade to such a degree that he was foolishly persuaded that it would do more harm than good to be honest.
2. He wanted to and would have finally told the truth, but others would not let him.
3. The entire thing was a set-up by spirit people to discredit him; and they accomplished this either by deceiving him (as to what was the right thing to do); or he was blackmailed into cooperating; or some or all of what are made to seem his own claims of authorship were done with neither his knowledge and or consent. While the last might normally seem very improbable, bear in mind that a professional sorcerer is fully capable of creating the most fantastic illusions and deceptions, and Moore's being both tricked and kept in the dark is not so highly implausible as it otherwise would ordinarily appear.
I take this view (at least at this time) because the very acute animosity directed at Moore suggests that he was indeed (and taken all in all) a good man, and it was precisely for this reason that he was both set-up and later attacked so cruelly and vindictively. At the same time, are we to assume he lied merely to avoid embarrassment while at the same time gain great glory for himself -- all the while giving Livingston the knife? If true, this would actually imply something diabolical about him. But the fact is such a conclusion flies in the face of almost aught we know (of him); and who else would desire that he be cast in such a sinister light but those who were themselves so?
"From all these it is evident that God did not seek sacrifices and holocausts from them, but faith, and obedience, and righteousness, because of their salvation. As God, when teaching them His will in Hosea the prophet, said, 'I desire mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings.' [Hosea 6:6] Besides, our Lord also exhorted them to the same effect, when He said, 'But if you had known what [this] means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless.' [Matthew 12:7] Thus does He bear witness to the prophets, that they preached the truth; but accuses these men [His hearers] of being foolish through their own fault."
~ St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, ch. 17
With the sweet, balmy weather we are having here in Seattle, it's much more agreeable to post music than write at present. So...
["No Time (1992) Ringo Starr, Burton Cummings, Joe Walsh and Todd Rundgren at Montreux" Switzerland]