good vs evil

[loupe lou]

In this introduction, we see that in contrast
to our stagnant universe that doesn't grow
well; that in an all-good universe with lots
of growth, no one is left behind, but are all
advanced to high levels, in good time.
(Note: FogoHC means Force of good of
High Capability. And force of good means
to generate positive growth)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When the joint venture of GROWTH and
gripping, does growth and gripping on
itself; there's a circular feedback created
that produces tremendous quantities of
growth. When forces of good are producing
capability (exhibiting growth); they can
either produce new forces-of-good; or new
neutral-capability.
Forces of good are made of capability. And
for one force of good to produce a second
force of good; is a force of good producing
a force of good. A force of good can also
be a force of good, by producing neutral
capabilities. There are great advantages for
forces of good to produce more forces of
good, as opposed to neutral capability. For
one thing, the newly created force of good
can in turn produce force of good of its
own; and an exponential increase in the
production of the force of good will result.
Whereas, with the increase of neutral
capability, only a flat rate of capability
increase is achieved, and no new force of
good is produced.
For another thing, the forces of good are
protected by the fogoHC, while neutral
capability is not (not absolutely). Thus
forces-of-good producing forces of good, is
more advantageous than forces of good
producing neutral capability.
However, before something can be a force
of good, it usually has to have some
minimum level of capability. Like, it might
help if something were alive, so it could
reproduce itself; or that it be intelligent, so
it could rise above random action, which
produces decrease(destruction) as well as
increase(growth). Thus even though the
forces of good may want to increase force
-of-good capability right away, they have to
go through an increase of neutral
capabilities to reach a minimum level,
before forces of good can start increasing
forces of good. (And, a neutral capability
cannot be gripped before it exists/-before it
is produced.) When a force of good that is
able to do gripping- (that is, a fogoHC),
comes in contact (together) with neutral
capability produced by forces of good; that
neutral-capability becomes a part of the
fogoHC, and is thus protected. We see a
picture of the fogoHC going about gripping
forces of good and gripping the neutral
capability that all forces of good initially
produce. With more neutral capability
being produced; those forces of good who
can do gripping (that is forces ogoHC),
have more neutral capability to grip, and
thus turn into force of good capability. As
we can see, there is always more and more
neutral capability (to grip) that is being
produced. But where does the capability go
after it has been gripped and is a marginal
force of good? Well, there are 2
possibilities: A) it goes no further and
serves to produce neutral capability for the
fogoHC. it remains at about its original
level of capability and fails to advance:
being frozen at some level of advancement
so that it is useful to the fogoHC, but that it
advances no further. or possibility B.
B) it could advance in its abilities to first
become alive; then advance in intelligence;
and finally become a fogoHC. it continues
to advance and eventually becomes a
fogoHC itself. With possibility A, more
and more neutral capability is produced.
The amount of it increases exponentially.
But the fogoHC becomes no larger. There
is no growth in the fogoHC because no
lower capabilities are allowed to become
fogoHC. For the fogoHC to produce more
of itself, it can replicate itself. But this is
taking lower forces of good and advancing
them to be a fogoHC. This is example A
not example B, so the fogoHC doesn't do
this. It finds itself with an ever growing
supply of neutral capability to make contact
with. It might get swamped by the size of
it. It needs to grow in size to match the
growth of the neutral capability. It could try
and make itself more powerful and become
of higher capability within itself. But
whether it could do this or not is uncertain;
whereas the creation of itself has been
proven possible by its own existence. The
fogoHC must increase its own power at an
exponential rate just to keep up with the
neutral capability. But this is unlikely as
the fogoHC would be increasingly more
busy trying to handle the exponential
growth of the neutral capability, that it
would have less and less time to work on
its own advancement. Also, it is into
uncharted areas, as it has never been that
powerful before. It is a driven and
desperate fogoHC, that is forced to keep up
a growth output and is driven by growth
needs, if it can keep up at all. In this picture
of a universe, it is easy to see how a
fogoHC could become overextended and
how the marginal force of good and neutral
capability could overgrow a fogoHC, and
eventually become unmanageable. It could
cease contacting the neutral capability, but
that would make it vulnerable to evil. Thus
the force of evil would step in and
stagnation would result after some point of
expansion.
Possibility B: Now let's observe a universe
where the basic forces of good produced,
do advance to finally become a fogoHC.
With possibility B, there would be more
and more fogoHC to keep up with the more
and more neutral capability being
produced. There would be no problem of
the fogoHC getting swamped.
Here, the contacting of the ever-growing
neutral capability is provided by a fogoHC
that is also growing exponentially.
Also, the fogoHC isn't forced to grow in
uncharted areas; only in the replication of
more of itself, which by its existence, has
already been proven possible to do. So it's
very probable that not only does the
fogoHC contact neutral capabilities and
turn them into marginal force of good
capability; the fogoHC also advances these
marginal-good capabilities to be very
intelligent, capable, alive; and finally to be
forces ogoHC. (Growth plus advancement.)
End introduction. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A SHORT PREVIEW ON HUMAN
HUNGERS:
Often in the areas of human hungers, it is a
no win situation where if we do satisfaction
of the hunger, one area benefits while
another area suffers; and if we abstain, then
the one area suffers while another area
benefits.
I would argue then that in these situations
the best way to go, is to do a medium or
middle doing of the hunger satisfaction so
that neither directive of either doing, or
abstaining from, the hunger satisfaction is
favored over the other.
Now, this middle or medium level can be
achieved in different ways. One can
cycle about the medium level, by doing
full 'on' of the hunger satisfaction for a time
and then full 'off' for an equal time. And
the cycling frequency can be adjusted so
that one doesn't spend too long in either the
'on' or 'off' part of the cycle so that one is
not hindered excessively by the shortages
created in different areas due to the
unbalanced nature of this no win situation.
Another way to achieve the medium level,
is to do the hunger satisfaction at a constant
or non varying medium level that is mid
way between the full 'on' state and the full
'off' state. These two ways of achieving the
medium level each have their own
advantages and disadvantages. The cycling
on and off way allows one to go to higher
intensity in both 'on' and 'off' areas,
allowing more concentrated attention to
each individual area without being
hindered by the demands of the other areas.
But on the down side, one must work to
regulate this repeating on and off cycle, and
cannot rest or take one's attention off it.
Whereas with the non varying constant
medium level, one can just let it go and not
have to work at regulating it so much.
END PREVIEW.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
REPRODUCTION
Consider the concept of supply and
demand; as applied to human beings. If
there is a shortage of humans, then they
will have a higher value and will be treated
better. But if there is a surplus of humans,
then their value will be low, and they will
be treated poorly, according to their low
value according to supply and demand. So
that when women are considering how
many humans to produce in terms of how
large a family to have; collectively, they
have quite an impact on how we're all
treated by those economic forces that rule
over us. Xxxxxxxxxx In response to this,
someone wrote: "According to the law of
supply and demand, a shortage or surplus
of humans would not affect their treatment
but their 'price'. In some cases, a high price
might lead to worse (or better) treatment,
but there is no necessary connection."
xxxxxxx And I responded: -A high price for
humans, means that they are paid a high
wage. A high wage means that they are not
in abject poverty.
Sometimes too much money leads people to
be unhappy. But a little money keeps them
out of the other unhappy extreme of abject
poverty. Another way to look at this, is to
look at Mexico. There the catholic
traditions against birth control and for big
families means that there are always a lot
of little Mexicans running around. And the
resources of the society must be divided up
again and again amongst them all so that
they mostly live lives of abject poverty.
That's not to say one cannot be happy in
abject poverty, its just that it is a challenge
to overcome. And in a world where there is
destructiveness around; a medium ability
environment is what is needed, not those of
abject poverty, nor richness. Note that
Bible prophecy predicts plagues and
famines for an apocalyptic end to the
world. And if people overpopulate the
world under religious direction, then the
plagues and famines will appear, as
predicted.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx And then there is the
conservative, religious rules over our
sexuality. But first let us consider sexual
reproduction in itself. Sexual reproduction
produces offspring that are not exact copies
of their parents but are different from their
parents to some degree. So, sexual
reproduction generates differences between
each of us; it is a generator of differences.
But people who are different, do not hang
together. no, it is people who are alike, who
hang together. And E Harmony matches to
those who are alike, not to those who are
different.
Now, if we were all to have sex with each
other in unrestricted sexual reproduction,
then our genetics would be well mixed; and
those differences would be spread all back
among our population and we would not
build on or accentuate those differences.
But that's not the way sexual reproduction
works in our world. Sexual reproduction is
restricted to one man one woman and to
form a family grouping to raise the
offspring produced. People of like interests
and skills tend to hang around with each
other; and that is where they are likely to
meet a mate, where they will spend a
lifetime together with someone with
common interests. This leaves the people
that are different, as not reconnected
together. So that the genetic differences
generated by sexual reproduction are
preserved and compounded over each
successive generation. Being different
means that they are good in different areas.
So that different groups of people are
developed, each being good in one
particular area, while not so good in the
other areas (exploring the scope of genetic
differences that human genetics allow). So
that as individuals they cannot function
well, but only as a group can they work
together to combine their good areas to
make a complete and competent societal
whole. Thus the rulers of a society have at
their beck and call, all the humans of the
society to do their bidding, because as
individuals they are all unbalanced in their
skills, incapable of being self sufficient as
individuals, who can only survive and
excel by joining the societal group each to
contribute their best skill. So that what the
conservative rules over our sexual
reproduction do is to breed individuals who
are slaves who are easily molded by the
rulers of a society, who are incapable of
much independence as individuals, so that
we are more so a commodity to be used by
those who rule over us.
Human sexuality doesn't stop, but continues
to generate differences in the offspring; and
with the conservative rules remaining in
place, this results in ever increasing
specialization in an individual's best skill
area, while the rest of the individual's areas
lag further and further behind; so that
individuals become more and more
unbalanced so that eventually the
individual becomes a commodity (which is
their best skill), and is not so much alive
anymore in any of the other areas; as
generation after generation of sexual
reproduction under conservative protestant
rule progresses.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In a world where the
force of destruction is a problem, we shall
see that being at medium ability, not at
barren, neither rich ability; is the solution.
Concerning the unbalanced individual;
being at barren ability in all the other areas,
is not good; and the other areas, although
lagging behind, need to be advanced too,
eventually; otherwise it doesn't work out.
However, outside the considerations of
dealing with destruction; what is the best
configuration to have, concerning the
societal entity (which is made up of the
best skills of each individual); and also
concerning the individual entity?
The societal entity, and the individual
entity, are both areas (of value) that can be
grown into and improved. To leave a
vacuum in any one of these areas,
represents an improvement that can be
made and grown into. To act so that either
of these areas is to be sacrificed, is
destructive, and is against the directives of
growth/goodness and love, which God
purportedly is. The force of good-and
-growth needs/is able, to scale and cross
barriers to find raw materials separated by
barriers, so it can continue to grow. This
represents many individuals(representing
the individual position) trying out all the
many different possibilities until one is
found that works; not the elimination of
options(eliminating the individual
positions) and choosing just one (societal)
way; especially before one has found the
answer to the next challenge to growth.
Also there is the consideration of
coordination. As unbalance progresses in
the individual, the individual looses sight
of where its best skill fits into the other
societal areas, as its own 'other areas' are so
feeble. Eventually the societal entity
becomes the individual, as the individual
entity no longer exists. What was the
individual entity, is now like cells of the
body -incapable of any life or action
outside the body
-there is no longer any intelligent life at this
level. The result of all this, is the causation
of a rich area (the societal entity); and a
barren area (the individual entity); from
what used to be a medium ability situation.
What has occurred, is a polarization to
absolutes, by using sexual reproduction and
conservative rules over sexual
reproduction; over the generations. Note
that neither of these absolutes(barrenness
nor richness) is capable of dealing with the
problem and force of destruction; whereas
the medium ability environment is. And
since we live in a world still with the
problem of destruction, we will need to
bring back these medium ability
environments. And this means we at some
point need to interrupt this conservative
breeding program that has been cornering
the effects of human sexuality; and violate
it. Otherwise we will be in hell. (// Note
that to actually obey the command to die to
yourself for Christ's sake; that when you
take into and part of yourself (so that it
becomes part of yourself), this action to die
to yourself; that you must also die to this
dying to yourself; so that an incomplete
dying to yourself actually results; which
provides the medium environment needed,
not these absolute polarizations.//) The
religious exhortations to be like a seed and
die to yourself so you can be part of the
great big religion in the sky; so that you
can be part of the body: an arm, a leg, an
eye or an ear or a hand maybe; so that you
can die to yourself and be one(in the
(societal)body): are all leading you down
the wrong path; it seems to me.
Because the appeal of Jesus Christ, and
need that He fulfills, as being part of
humanity; as being in between the
absolutes of highness and lowness,
representing humanity and the in between:
is not found here.
And the creation of a barren area in what
used to be the individual entity, is against
the directives of growth and love. Now, in
response to a totally evil environment, this
would be a good response. Like a case can
be made that the world of the Roman
Empire, needed to be brought to an end.
But life is no longer so much so. Yet the
controls are set on autopilot in this
direction, and need to be changed. A little
bit of this unbalance is OK, because it
causes the individual entity to also share
with the societal entity, so that both entities
can exist and grow. But too much
unbalance forces the individual entity to
death so that only the societal entity
remains. But then I am reminded of the
idea that if high good ways exist, we as
individuals should seek to give up our
individual ways, because individual ways
are fraught with more destruction and are
not as good as the higher ways (of a
societal entity). But wait a minute: this is
not that situation. The directive to bring the
individual entity to nothing as a means of
solving the imperfections of the individual
entity/position; is a different solution than
the solution of having a robust individual
entity lay aside its ways and let the societal
ways fill its needs (with the medium level
Jesus Christ entity as facilitator); because
in this solution, both the societal entity and
the individual entity EXIST and are well
grown into.
(Not all of the individual's actions are
defective; some are wholly good and evil
free.) Now then, not all evils are based on
need. The ones that are, are eliminated by
both these solutions, dealing with the
neediness of the individual position. But
other evils that pop up, well, if there is no
individual position, then they must be dealt
with by the only remaining position -the
high and rich societal position. And as we
shall see, when an evil is put into a rich
environment, a firestorm results and the
whole thing is burnt down. Better to let
evils be worked out in the individual
position, so that the societal position,
(which is made of the best parts of the
individuals collectively and is very rich)
can know how to avoid these evils, having
learned from its individuals. Once again, I
reiterate: we are screwing ourselves if we
continue down this path to death of the
individual entity through conservative
running of our sexual reproduction! Get off
your ass and fuck different people (while
trying to avoid a venereal disease, which is
the weakness of this directive). And have
some, but not too many kids from this.
Otherwise, if you insist on being good and
morally, sexually conservative; you along
with the rest of your kind will be the cause
of the end of the world scenarios that
religious fundamentalists predict.
Because when hatreds are worked out on
the individual levels, it is with guns and
knives and clubs. But when there is no
more individual level, and there are still
hatreds to be worked out; the societal
entities work these out with atom bombs.
And who wants to be responsible for
blowing up the whole world? Who is the
biggest terrorist now? Why it is the
conservative fundamentalists. So, in the
war on terror, we ask you to loosen your
morals a little. Or if you insist on one man
one women, then find a mate who is out of
your class and social group, who is
different from you, to marry and have kids
with. (Stop catering to 'the MAN'(so much
/so absolutely).)
Ending up with a burnt out cinder for a
world after we have committed armageddon
against each other, is really not an
acceptable direction to seek to produce. I
mean, there is certainly no harm in trying
to do better than this. Xxxxxxxxx
Note that we have been handed a legacy
from many generations of mammalian
reproduction; which is that human infants
are very helpless. This is a result of that
good societies are superior to cruel
societies. You see, if a society is cruel, it
won't care for its infants well and they will
die due to their helplessness and put an end
to that cruel society. But good and kind
societies will thrive because the helpless
infant will thrive. This is a legacy we have
from many generations of cave men before
there was organized religion. But now with
our women, (and men) insisting on people
not cheating; a family structure is enforced.
With a family structure where the parents
are made responsible for raising their
offspring; the helpless infant is raised till
they are of age and are no longer helpless;
where they can be fodder for their society
that can be as evil and cruel as it wants,
because the infant is no longer an infant
and is no longer helpless. In this society, if
there is something that is supporting evil
and allowing evil; we usually take action
and stamp it out. What we can do then is to
stamp out this enforcement against
cheating because it is what prevents us
from using our legacy of our helpless
infants to make our societies good. And
we are forced to reprove over and over
again that good societies are superior to all
the evil/cruel societies that we now allow,
that before would have been eliminated. xxxxxxxxxxx
In this insert, let us consider the racial
purity philosophy of Hitler and the Ku
Klux Klan and others. The idea is that one
race is superior and that the other inferior
races need to be exterminated. To
exterminate the differences brought to the
global societal entity by other 'inferior'
races, does curtail and handicap the societal
entity; thus providing some favor to the
individual entity (of the surviving race).
This stops the perpetual advancement of
the societal entity at the expense of the
individual entity under conservative
sexuality. And when genetics under
conservative sexuality causes some
individuals in the master race to be too
different from the standard of the master
race, these individuals too can be
exterminated or sterilized.
Thus the ultra specialization brought by
continued conservative sexuality is
stopped, as individuals who are too
specialized are exterminated. So this
seems to work, theoretically. But getting to
this point is the problem. Not all races are
willing to lay down and be exterminated
without a fight like the Jews in ww2. And
now the Jews of today in Israel are
certainly not going down without a fight.
So that the end of the world will be
achieved by trying to exterminate the other
races in the world war this would cause.
Much better to loose the conservative
sexuality to achieve the same result,
without all the destruction and end to the
world. But perhaps having the different
races intensely prejudice of each other will
keep them from joining together into a
greater societal entity, thus limiting the
societal entity, which is what is needed in
systems of continued conservative
sexuality. Perhaps this may explain why
prejudice exists today, and what function it
serves. However, this is not the best
system that can be. As a better system is
one that puts together the differences of the
races (not all the time), but periodically;
and this would replace systems of eternal
prejudice; and it would not be a system of
eternal conservative sexuality.
End insert.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now, with the Amish, individual expression
is stamped out, and everything is plain. So
that when a woman is looking for a mate,
she has a harder time finding someone just
like her, due to them all looking pretty
much the plain same. Thus the Amish may
not have so much of an accentuation of
differences as their generations pass. And
with the Mexicans, the man has a few kids
with one woman and then moves onto the
next woman to do the same, and the next
and the next etc. Thus there is good mixing
of the genetic material, and differences are
put together again. The same is true of the
African American male/ also the gang
banger, who does a bit of philandering and
doesn't spend much time in the home; thus
providing the needed genetic mixing. And
with the Arabs, (and the Mormons) the
harem provides a genetic mixing and
melting pot. And with the Americans, a
melting pot where different types
intermarry, brings genetic differences back
together. But with the conservative
Protestants, no such getting the genetic
differences back together occurs. They may
not overpopulate the world like the
Catholics, but they instead create ever more
unbalanced offspring eventually no longer
capable of any individual existence but
only of a societal existence, resulting in
societal conflicts that will annihilate the
world (as predicted). This is unfortunate for
them (and everybody else). Now, if you go
with the free love of the communes, the
hippies, and the 60's, and Disco 70's, you
can have individual expression as well as
good genetic mixing.
(But what about inbreeders? Since they are
of the same family, there is much similar
genetic material. Here again, it is people
who are the same getting together, but
these people are so much the same
genetically, that weaknesses in genetics are
not complimented by a different partners
genes, and these people often have serious
physical problems due to genetic deficits.
However, the differences generated by
sexual reproduction are put back together.
So that if a well balanced well rounded,
self sufficient group of individuals does
this, they preserve themselves. But if an
unbalanced group does this, that is where
the trouble is.)
Of all these things I have spoken against
religion, you might think I am against
Christ. Well, I am not against a Christ who
values both advancing the individual entity
as well as the societal or body-of-Christ
entity. But I am against a Christ who
sacrifices the individual entity completely
and absolutely to the societal entity; who
does not advance the individual entity
along with the societal/christ body entity.
-Because that is extremely
destructive/wasteful as it brings about the
end of human life on earth. And also
hinders the force of good from finding
solutions to barriers to new growth, which
it needs to do to be able to live in a rich
environment without the force of evil. And
I will replace this 'bad' Christ, with the
'good' Christ, who is more fit at being
savior of the world, unlike the 'bad' Christ,
who is unfit to be our savior, but serves
only to be our destructor.
Obviously there is only 1 Jesus Christ, and
reportedly He is still alive, having survived
the crucifixion. But He is now at the right
hand of God, so that we may all have His
Holy Spirit; so that He is not easily
accessible to settle which interpretation of
"die to yourself for Christ's sake" did He
mean. -Did He mean to completely and
absolutely sacrifice the individual entity for
the societal body of Christ? or did He mean
to partially sacrifice the individual entity so
that both the individual and the societal
entities would prosper? Depending on His
answer, is my answer of either support, or a
true need to find a better savior; not only to
save us but also Him. xxx Obviously there
is only one Jesus Christ, but there may be
two answers. Some may claim the Holy
Spirit has led them to one interpretation,
while others, to the other interpretation. I
claim the Holy Spirit, through logic, has
led me to the interpretation that causes both
the advancement of the societal body of
Christ entity, as well as also the
advancement of each individual entity;
(and by doing so, also claim to be a
Christian); albeit a non traditional one:
mainly because of Christ's stand that we
love and be kind to one another. If you
can't stomach that, then I think we need to
be separate from one another.
xxxxxxxx Maybe I just don't get it. I'm still
not going to restrict my sexual lifestyle
according to the conservative Christian
way, which as I have explained is part of
the fallacy of sacrificing the individual
entity absolutely and entirely for the
societal entity. It won't be me who throws
Christ out, but perhaps Christ will throw
me out if it turns out that He is for the
interpretation of absolutely sacrificing the
individual entity for the societal, body of
Christ entity. In that case, there still exists
inside me, a christ like part which functions
to intercede between my absolute, high
good parts and my human parts; which will
continue to act, and will be thrilled to join
with a Christ like savior who is of similar
make up, who actually can function as a
savior. But I have faith, that Christ will
come through for me, and for us all. xxxxx
There is a concern about anybody who is
against Christ, is an anti Christ, and who
could be the big anti Christ who will bring
about the end of the world as predicted in
the Bible. So that we must all be careful to
be just like Christ in our beliefs and actions
to avoid this. Kind of like 'simon says',
except it is 'Jesus says'. So that our
thoughts and beliefs are under societal
control and anything outside of what Jesus
says, is to be eliminated. Thinking for
ourselves is more difficult as anything that
is outside of what Jesus says, must be
disposed of. This may work out if Jesus
always has the correct answer as to how to
think and how to be; but even so, and
irregardless of that; we always have the
enactment of having to compare our
thoughts and actions to that of the current
view of Jesus, and eliminating that which is
not in line with that. The action to
eliminate involves the use of destruction,
(self destruction). That may work well
when what we destroy in ourselves, is also
destructive; but when we make a mistake
and are destructive to that which is not
destructive, then we have become the
perpetrators of destruction. When we use
destruction as a tool, it requires us to know
all and get it right all the time. And that is
a difficult tightrope act that few can follow.
But that is not what this anti Christ idea is
all about in reality, although it is what it
has become-that is Christianity patrolling
and policing your thoughts and dictating
how you are to think, lest you be labeled
and anti-Christ, and be disposed of.
Just what does it mean to be against Christ,
which is to be anti-Christ? When Christ
was alive, they condemned him and
persecuted him and his followers. That is
what it means to be an anti-Christ: that is to
condemn and do harm (to Christ and his
followers). If I discuss the pros and cons,
mainly cons of some of the sexual
regulations; that doesn't mean I have
condemned Christ.
Now there are those who condemn and do
harm to Christ and his followers, and there
are also religious people who condemn and
do harm to those who they may say are
anti-Christ or who they may say are
heathen or blasphemers (recall the
inquisition). And I guess we could call
these people anti anti-Christs. What I
would like to point out is where does Christ
fit into this picture? Christ never
condemned anyone. That is a line that can
be drawn. All these people, the anti
-Christs, and the anti anti-Christs all
condemned someone. But there is another
position outside of both of these; and that is
to not condemn and not to be destructive to
another, which by the way is the side of the
line Christ is on. Any of these (either the
anti-Christs or the anti anti-Christs) could
be the big anti-Christ. But by choosing to
not condemn or be destructive to others,
including any 'bad Christ', I put myself
outside this anti-Christ, and anti anti-Christ
destructiveness.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
One can find Biblical condemnations of
how God condemns homosexuals, and
fornicators and adulterers, and how any
lustful feelings are guilty of adultery. So I
could say it seems God condemns all forms
of human sexuality. And if we look at it
from this angle, there may be some truth in
it. You see, in order for a part of us to
become a high part and to join God, it
would have to outgrow and escape the
imperfect human sex drive. So that
perhaps what is being said here is that God
condemns these forms of sexuality from
Himself: -that anyone who would claim to
be God, or a high part in God would be
required to have gotten beyond the
imperfect human sex drive. And this is
true, that imperfect human activities are to
be kept separate from perfect high parts.
But if a person is willing to come out and
admit that they are not God; that they are
less than God, that they are not perfect, and
that they are instead human; then I think it
might be possible that these condemnations
do not apply to them, as they were only
meant for those who would be God, or part
of the high God. Yes, it is not totally
inaccurate to say that a God who condemns
forms of sexuality in just the Godly area, is
a God who has condemned these forms of
sexuality (without mentioning it is just over
the Godly area, and does not include the
human area). Because if one says that God
condemns forms of sexuality in the human
area, then it draws God into being part of
the imperfect human area by this need to
police the human area; and that just doesn't
happen. And it is instead the Jesus entity
who acts to keep the human stuff away
from the high parts, and also casts off all
bad parts off of the human stuff in a 3
dimensional sorting. For the Jesus entity to
condemn human sexuality in humans as all
bad, is just inaccurate because human
sexuality from the human sex drive, is one
of those human things that is neither all
destructive nor all good. -That even we
weak and imperfect humans can see that
the sexuality that comes from within us
imperfect humans, is neither all destructive
nor all good. And that to label it as such, is
just inaccurate, and is part of the 2
dimensional sorting that is flawed. So that
when some religious humans claim these
things about God condemning human
sexuality in humans; even we weak and
imperfect humans know this is inaccurate,
and if we believe it were true then we
thereby believe that God is also inaccurate
and flawed, giving us a queezy feeling, and
an aversion to these religious people. So
that my interpretation of these
condemnations of sexuality in the Bible, is
that it is for marking off a separation
between that which is high Godly area, and
that which is human area; and that this part
of the human area is to stay away from the
high Godly area; and that is all it is for.
And that within the human area, these
sexual things are in their place and are as
all human things are -neither all bad nor all
good; and are certainly not absolutely
condemned. -that this Biblical
condemnation does not apply here and was
not meant to apply here. And to those who
would insist that it does apply to us as
humans; just shows me how 2 dimensional
they are and how I do not go along with
that, because if I did, that would just
degrade and defile God, the persona and
attributes of the most high God. Because
God does not act 2 dimensionally as these
do. Xxxxxxx
At first we start with a kind and gentle man,
Jesus Christ, who reportedly healed many
of sickness, and overcame death.
How then does that translate into this end
where we end up with a controlling
influence over us all whereby if we don't
do and think the way Jesus says, then we
are condemned? Now this forces Jesus to
get it right every time. -(And apparently,
the right response is to remove oneself and
become separate from the evils in worship
and religion; and to contact one's followers
through one's spirit; outside the evils of
worship and religion: and that is where
love, God's love is.) -(This is an example of
how God does not condemn these
imperfect human things in the human area
(that is, religion and worship) and allows
them to exist in the human area, while still
keeping them out and away from the Godly
area.)
Because of this
threat of condemnation over our head all
the time, a destructive factor is placed upon
us to eliminate all that is outside of what
Jesus says. Because destructiveness is used
against that which is bad (ie, that which is
outside of Jesus), this forces Jesus to get it
right all the time, otherwise destruction is
done to us. And when there comes up
issues about what Jesus wants for our
sexuality where on one hand some say
Jesus condemns human sexuality, but
others say, no, Jesus just keeps human
sexuality away from entering into the
kingdom of heaven. Well, the idea is that
when the Bible says the adulterers,
fornicators, homosexuals, idolaters, etc
won't enter the kingdom of heaven; some
people react to that to think that these
people will be condemned because
everybody wants to get into heaven, and if
you don't make it to heaven then you are
then going to hell where you will be
tortured and tormented for eternity -a fate
worse than death. But on the other hand;
this same denial of fornicators, adulterers,
etc, from entering heaven, can just be a
separation of that which is godly, from that
which is imperfectly human (and of course,
fornication, adultery, etc, represents the
imperfect human sex drive, which is part of
human things). Some people apply a 2
dimensional sorting to this, but with a 3
dimensional sorting of this, things work out
quite differently. The fact that imperfect
human things are sorted away from perfect
heaven and God, does not condemn them,
but helps them. So that in one way of
thinking, one may think Jesus wants us to
eliminate these imperfect human activities
of the human sex drive; while in another
way of thinking, one may think it is best to
allow a medium amount of these imperfect
human sexual things in a human area, as
the best way for these things to escape their
imperfect humanity and pass to perfect
heaven and God; and think that this is the
way Jesus wants it. So that if we don't
know exactly what Jesus wants here, then
we are always in risk of being condemned
according to this condemning paradigm
that has grown up around Jesus for not
aligning yourself completely with Jesus.
What I say is a problem, is this
condemning paradigm about aligning
yourself completely with Jesus, itself. The
problem is due to the destructiveness it
holds near to us all. It is destructiveness
itself that is the enemy and the problem;
and this condemning paradigm contains a
heavy use of destructiveness, and is
therefore part of the problem. Remember,
Jesus was a kind and gentle man, who had
nothing to do with terrorizing people with
destructiveness if they didn't do what he
wanted. Now, on the contrary, roman
emperors WERE people who would cause
excessive destructivenesses to be done to
those who didn't do exactly what they said.
It appears that a roman influence has
overtaken the worship of this kind, gentle
and loving man, Jesus Christ, has taken
place. And if I were a follower of Jesus
Christ, (and I'm not saying I'm not), I
would be kind of upset, and would act to
remove (as non destructively as possible)
this destructive thing that surrounds
my(and perhaps your) fellowship/oneness
with this kind and gentle, loving man/God.
(Note that total oneness can be achieved
when we have all shared what we have
gained and are in the all equal and all self
sufficient part of a cycle. But when we are
in an unbalanced part of a cycle, that
oneness must be limited to a partial
oneness where there is some presence of an
individual entity for each individual.) xx
When the Bible says fornicators, adulterers,
homosexuals, etc won't enter the kingdom
of heaven; that is one action of sorting (into
two tiers or dimensions). The imperfect
human sex drive is kept separate from the
perfect Godly material, presumably by the
perfect human, Jesus. In a two dimensional
sorting, this leaves the imperfect human
material (that has both goodness and
destruction intertwined), to be together
with/tormented by the all-destructive
material. But if we go a step further and do
a 3 dimensional sorting, Jesus can do
another sorting action to sort the all
destructive material away from the
imperfect human material(which is partly
good and partly destructive), into a third
pile or tier. In this 3 dimensional sorting,
the human material isn't tormented, and I
say, generates material that escapes the
human area, finds perfection, and joins
God; a small percentage of that material
coming back down and joining Jesus: and
the all destructive material self eliminates. Xx
Some of us discover that we are humans
and not Gods, and that we have imperfect
sexual things from our imperfect sex drive
in us that we were born with. We then think
and fear that we won't make it into heaven
(because of them); so try to hide and
eliminate this very human part of
ourselves; and this reflects the two
dimensional sorting mentality where that
which doesn't make it into heaven is
tormented and eternally burned in hell. But
with a 3 dimensional sorting mentality; if
one happens to be an imperfect human, one
needn't fear what and who they are, but can
allow the 3 dimensional sorting actions to
act positively and beneficially upon them;
and not suffer blame and torment for who
they are; and not to be scapegoated as the
cause of the entire human condition as a
response to that condition(their only crime
being born into it as an imperfect human);
-scapegoating, which does nothing to fix or
improve that condition; as opposed to
fixing and improving that condition (which
is what 3 dimensional sorting does)!
Shame on you two dimensional religious
people. Xxx
And then it is these same two dimensional
people who think you are a lower life form
than they are because you appear not to
have left your imperfect human things,
while they are therefore above you;
themselves being more Godly. And they
then try to treat you lower on an economic
scale by suggesting that you have had your
fun and now its their turn for you to serve
them and be their servant so that they can
have their fun, (as we are all allocated
equal shares of fun), in an economic
system.
They further emphasize that they are a
superior being over you by pointing out
how since you haven't left your human
things, that you are devoid of godly things
and are thus a burden and a freeloader on
the rest of godly society, and how much
you owe and are indebted to them.
Well, speaking of voids; we humans use
those human things to partially fill those
voids; and when they try to point out that
we have voids in the godly area, because
we have been sorted out of the godly area
due to our mild use of human things; we
just realize the inaccuracy of this
by realizing that not only can we enjoy life
on the human plane, (because our Jesus
representation has cast off any all-evils that
would attack us in our mild use of human
things); that we also generate a robust
amount of material into the godly plane
from the material that naturally escapes
there from our mild doing of human things;
(which also delivers its small percentage to
our Jesus representation which then keeps
our human plane safe from attacks from
all-evils). So that it is actually these poor
sorry saps who are into holier than thou 2
dimensional sorting, that find themselves
wanting, who are now NOT able to turn that
lack of satisfaction into an advantage by
trying to convince us it is their turn over us
because they have refrained from enjoying
any human things. We realize now that
what they need to do, is just help
themselves and indulge in a mild doing of
human things also, and quit trying to
achieve this holier than thou status through
as humans, eliminating of all doing of
human things from the human area.
Important insert:
In Christianity, mention is made of those
with eyes who do not see, and those with
ears who do not hear. But coming to
Judism, Christianity, Islam, and secular
tabloid newspapers with some creep into
the regular news: those with brains who do
not think.
We have an activity, of sorting; -of sorting
that which is good into its own kind, and
that which is destructive, or evil, into its
own kind. And in areas that can be sorted
completely into that which is good vs that
which is destructive; this sorting activity
works well to advance goodness over
destruction; as that which is all destructive,
self consumes while that which is all good,
survives, when these forces are separate.
But what do we to do with human areas
and actions which have goodness and
destruction intertwined in the same action;
that do both good and destruction
inseparably from the same action (to
different areas)? What do we do with these
human actions, concerning our activity of
sorting? What if we realize that there are 3
types of things: -1, those things that are
mostly all good; -2, those things that are
mostly all destructive; and 3, those things
that are hopelessly both good and
destructive intertwined. Then we could,
possibly, apply a 3 tiered structure to our
sorting activities.
But what if we instead, denied the natural
trinity of our situation, and applied only a
two dimensional sorting action to our
situation anyway? We could take an
imperfect human action with good and
destruction intertwined, like the
reproductive drive area (an area that has a
large influence because it effects us all),
and we could sort some of it as good and
some of it as bad. We could sort those who
didn't cheat into the good side as a holy
estate ordained by God; while we could
sort those who did cheat to the bad side;
and so enact a 2 tier structure to our sorting
activities. (But what is so great about
forcing a 2 dimensional solution upon a 3
dimensional reality?) Since the reality of
our situation is that the human reproductive
area is one with good and destruction
hopelessly intertwined; what we would
have done is to corrupt the all-good side
with the destructive part from the holy
estate ordained by God that is sorted to the
all-good side; and also provided the evil in
the all-bad side a source of good to feed off
of, from the good of human material that
was sorted to the all bad side, so that the
evil would then not self consume and die.
So that the benefits that could possibly be
achieved from doing sorting activities;
would in actuality, not be achieved; thus
making our sorting activities unproductive
and of no account.
So that when a person idles their mind and
applies a 2 dimensional sorting action to a
3 dimensional reality, is it any wonder
things don't work out so well and this area
continues to be problematic.
Realize that when we take a human action
or part of a human action (it still has both
good and bad intertwined), and sort it to
either the all-bad side, or the all-good side,
that we have done an inaccurate sort action,
because we have just added some good to
the all-bad, so that it is no longer all bad; or
have added some bad to the all-good, so
that it may no longer be all good, and may
even burn it down in a firestorm. Xx
One might be able to believe that short
sighted old men would come up with these
crappy 2 dimensional solutions; but one
would expect God to be beyond that. And
with the inclusion of Jesus Christ; 2
dimensional thinking can expand into a 3 D
reality with a trinity that includes Jesus
Christ; as it was Jesus Christ who took a
stand by not condemning the woman taken
in adultery; while short sighted religious
and secular men, even to this day, did/do.
Unless you are as powerful as God, and are
able to sort all things into all good vs all
bad, then as humans, we must place what
we are not able to separate into all good vs
all bad, into a third pile. (end insert) Xxxx
Now when religion condemns us as humans
for our use of imperfect human things,
(which is what our imperfect human sex
drive that we were born with, is); that
condemnation is a totally and all
-destructive thing; whereas the imperfect
human thing that is being destroyed, is a
thing that has both goodness and
destruction intertwined. If we were to act
from a Jesus representation, we would sort
that all destructive thing, the
condemnation, off of the human thing, that
was being condemned. But even though
they are two different types of things (the
human thing; and the condemnation that is
destroying the human thing, that is), some
2 dimensional religious people may say, 'so
what'; that is the way my God wants it, and
that is the way it shall be! So, let us see the
result of a 2 dimensional all-destructive
condemnation upon our imperfect human
things. Well, after the condemnation
destroys our doing of the human thing,
there is a void and a nothingness in this
area. We are still human (the part of us
which is still alive and not destroyed), and
are still under the human condition, so that
the void in the doing of this human action
where the condemnation had destroyed; is a
doing of a totally 'off' or abstinent setting,
of that human action. And under the
human condition, both goodness and
destruction results; goodness results in
some areas while destruction results in
other areas, to the extent that the 'some
areas' become rich, while the 'other areas'
become barren; (because this is an
imperfect human area where both goodness
and destruction occur no matter what we
do, just in different areas). And this
polarized situation is not conducive to the
remaining human material advancing to be
high parts, and we find ourselves now
trapped in the human configuration (as a
result of their condemnation).
Now if we rebel, and replace what they
destroyed with the doing of the material
they destroyed, (and use our Jesus
representation to cast off their
condemnations and sort them away into an
all-destructive pile); then we will be doing a
'full on' doing of the human material, which
results in the 'some areas' going barren and
the 'other areas' being made rich; and this
also traps us in our human material from
advancing to high parts; not right away, but
after a time after moving away from the
destructive condemnation; so that we find
ourselves needing that religious destructive
condemnation of our human thing
periodically, and then rebelling against it
and doing our human thing full on, so that
we cycle about a middle ground level of
doing this human thing. So that we retain
this destructive religious condemnation to
allow us to function and be able to let our
human material advance to be high parts.
However, if we instead, replace the void
area (where the religious condemnation
destroyed), with a mild doing of the human
action that combines a balance between the
full 'off' of abstinence with the full 'on'
doing of the human thing; then the 'some
areas' would find themselves at a medium
level between richness and barrenness, as
would also the 'other areas'; and our
remaining human material WOULD
advance into being high godly material;
from which a percentage would replenish
our Jesus representation, which would then
be powerful enough to cast off the all
-destructive 2 dimensional religious
condemnation.
Now with the all-destructive material such
as their condemnation, being sorted in a 3
dimensional sorting into a 3rd pile; it is all
by itself with no human material to feed
off; it thus self consumes.
With no life available representing the all
-destructive, there is no all-destructive life
to carry out the condemnations demanded
by the 2 dimensional religious people, and
their will is not done. Of course, if we
allow ourselves to live under a 2
dimensional religious world, then we allow
the all-destructive to have human material
to feed off of so that there will be plenty of
all-destructive condemnation available to
destroy our human material when we need
that destroyed. But not all of us choose to
live under such a system; and because that
system makes heavy use of destruction, (in
the all-destructive condemnings of human
material); that system is under a less
powerful god than a system that doesn't use
such destruction, because destruction
brings one down and one's system down.
Realize that a 2 dimensional system of
sorting is non functional and doesn't
advance goodness over destructiveness,
whereas a 3 dimensional religious system,
IS functional in the area of advancing
goodness over destruction; as when all
-destructive material/condemnation is truly
alone (with no human material to feed off
of), it does self consume, and is no longer
there. And when goodness is advanced
over destruction, that system is more
powerful. Xx
Note that just because you do what your
told and be faithful and don't cheat, or that
religion destroys in you, parts of your
human self; doesn't change or heal or fix
that this is still a human area that is
imperfect, that has both good and
destruction hopelessly intertwined: -and
needs to be done at medium level, between
full on and full off.
So that when 2 dimensional religion
destroys some of your doing of imperfect
human things; don't let that void stand in
the full 'off' mode: go right away and with
your Jesus representation, fill it with a mild
doing of your human thing that balances
the full off against the full on doing of that
human thing; and defend that mild doing
against further destruction by casting off
the all-destructive condemnation, as non
destructively as possible(so that your
sorting action itself won't be sorted to the
all-destructive pile), into a 3rd pile
containing all that is all-destructive. By
thus enacting a 3 dimensional sorting, you
will overcome the attempts at 2
dimensional sorting done to you. And you
will be part of a 3 dimensional system that
is functional at favoring goodness over
destruction; and not a part of a pretend 2
dimensional religious system that is non
functional. Xx
When we find our human selves being
attacked for not achieving enough or when
we are thinking of attacking our human self
for not achieving enough; realize that our
human self is a valuable piece of life(do not
forget that that imperfect human life is
valuable and that without it, these other
productive actions have little to no
meaning)that is an imperfect human
material that has an all-destructive thing
(the attack) that is together with it. To
neglect sorting that attack away because
one is trying to divert resources into trying
to do some other productive thing; is a
wrong response. Because allowing the all
-destructive attack to feed on imperfect
human material, not only feeds that all
destructive attack allowing it to
grow/exist; it also brings the human
material towards barrenness; which is a
wrong action because the human material
needs to be at medium ability to allow its
material to grow to escape its internal evil
to join the high parts (this medium level,
being what human material naturally
produces when experiencing what itself
produces (when not under any outside all
-destructive attacks)) -(so that just having
one's human material free of attack and at
medium ability, IS a productive end in
itself; (allowing its material to escape its
internal evil and join high parts)) whereas
at barrenness (which is the result of an all
evil attack together with and upon human
material), the human material is unable to
grow into freedom from its internal evil
and escape to the high parts. So in the
sharing between the individual entity and
the societal entity, the circumstances must
be pretty dire with the societal entity also
under 'a human condition' (and the societal
entity is usually never under a human
condition, but is always rich from receiving
the best parts from its unbalanced
individuals) for the individual to even
consider such a sacrifice of their internal
productiveness; (and if so, that SHARED
sacrifice is not at the same high percentage
that the individual entity normally delivers
to the societal entity), as a society cannot
advance with destructiveness tormenting
and feeding on its individuals. And if a
society is just trying to improve its
production, or competing to do so; that isn't
reason enough to take such a wastefull
action toward the individual's internal
productivity, as the individual person is a
much more valuable entity than any of the
things this individual could produce (who's
only purpose is to enhance the lives of
other individuals; -products which are
worthless at doing that if an individual is in
torment in order to produce these things. It
is the individual in torment that holds the
greatest value in reversing that torment,
with these other things of much less value:
from any perspective -either the individual
under torment, or the whole societal entity.
So that the individual under torment is
almost always right to cast off these
tormenting attacks, whether or not their
societal entity agrees. Because feeding the
destructive force is never a wise course. So
that it is the all destructive attack that needs
to be cast off the human material in order to
make it productive; and not that the human
material needs to be attacked to motivate it
to be productive. Human material should
experience what it produces and reap what
it sows (which is a medium level
environment); and should not be prevented
from experiencing itself by being altered by
an all-destructive attack, that may come in
the guise of being a motivating force to
favor productive actions; but that in reality;
is counterproductive to that. Because by
feeding destruction and not letting
destruction eliminate itself; just brings us
all down. Allowing an attack to be with
our human material allows evil to be fed
and grow. That evil should not be fed with
these additional actions of doing anything
productive. Recall that in an all-evil
situation, we do no work, so as not to feed
at all, this all-evil. So that the right thing to
do when our human area is under attack; is
to actively shut off and stop any doing of
anything else productive, so as not to feed
the all destructive attack with that
productive material; and single mindedly
do a 3-D sorting action to remove the all
destructive attack away from ones human
material to a 3rd pile that is away/separate
from ones human material. (Once the all
destructive condemnation is separate and
alone by itself, it self consumes and
disappears.) And once that is done,
when/if one is successful at sorting away
the all destructive; one then reverses one's
stance of actively suppressing any other
productive activity; to now being open to a
medium amount of productive activities,
because now the situation is no longer all
evil, but now has some good. And one can
then do some degree of other productive
activities that one finds interesting while
under the situation where ones human
material is free or separate from any
attacks.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have been told there is a soul mate, one
spouse who is just for me. -Now, when
people are being generated who are ever
more different and ever more unbalanced;
it is true that there are fewer and fewer
people who are similar to me, so that it can
be said that there is just one person who is
best compatible with me, having the same
like interests as me. But for me to marry
this person and enjoy our lives together,
and have (many) children with, just
perpetuates this tendency towards
unbalance and elimination of the individual
entity for the sake of the societal entity.
Seeing that this isn't what we need at this
point; I thus avoid doing this. Xx
In the relationship with my spouse, I cater
only to her, and vice versa; and we seem to
indicate by this that we are the only people
who matter. But reality check: we are but
two of many people, all of more or less
equal value. And the denial of the worth of
all these other people is a false reality, one
that is not true. One that is also unbalanced.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me rehash this stuff a little bit.
When people get married and have kids,
they have to spend a lifetime or a long time
together. It helps if they have common
interests (ie, they are pretty much the same)
so that they can enjoy their time together.
This puts quite a persuasive incentive to
find someone who is similar. So that when
similar or the same people hook up, this
leaves dissimilar people Not hooked up. So
that differences fester and grow so that
eventually in a population, different groups
of people are generated, each being good in
different areas, to the extent the genetics
allow. From this, a societal entity forms
whereby a person who is good in one area
but deficient in other areas, is not weeded
out, but can survive by joining the societal
entity. People can specialize and develop
their good area extensively while letting
their other areas slide; and together with
everyone else, who also specialize in each
respective area, can make a competent
societal whole. But resulting from this is
that no one person is competent to satisfy
their mate; that there are 2 sources of need
satisfying; that compete. If someone isn't
the best at their good area, then where they
plug into the societal entity is at less pay
and less of a good lifestyle. So that they
may seek a mate based on complimenting
skills that are not the same so that they may
improve satisfaction of their needs from the
societal angle, but at the same time, give up
compatibility and enjoy their time together
less. ie, when one marries for money. This
allows for some putting back together of
the different specialized areas, (done by
those less competent in their societal good
areas). and also, when people get together
for a short while and then divorce, who are
not necessarily compatible but just
attracted, this also allows for more mixing
and putting back together of the different
areas. So that the absolute directive to take
away from the individual area and give to
the societal area, certainly is slowed; and
perhaps would be enough to prevent the
absolute/complete raiding of the individual
entity for the benefit of the societal entity.
but there is certainly room for the relaxing
of moral directives and for the allowing for
divorce. Xxxxxxxx
Let me go over this again in a bit more
depth of analysis: One is required to spend
their whole life with their mate in sexual
exclusivity if one follows through with the
conservative way. When people are young,
sexual attraction occurs and boys and girls
pair up. Most of the time they are not
compatible; that is they don't share the
same interests and are not the same. These
then break up and soon after, move on to
another partner. Eventually partners find
themselves with people of similar interests,
who are pretty much the same (ie
compatible); and these people then take the
plunge and get married. (In this insert,
some say that opposites attract. But perhaps
what is going on instead, is that there is a
sexual attraction between most men and
women, and that when they pair up, most
of the time they are different, or
'opposite, while only occasionally do pairs
contain similar people. Xxxxxxxxxx
Because the requirements of sexual morality
require us to at least make an attempt to
live with a partner for a long time in sexual
exclusivity; this favors people who are
alike to come together, so that they may
enjoy their long time together pursuing
common interests; thus leaving people not
alike, ie, different, as being left apart and
not connected sexually/genetically. As a
society specializes and its individuals
become unbalanced -that is they are good
in one area, -maximized in tune with one
area; but deficient in all the other areas: this
provides another need/need satisfaction
source (in addition to the reproductive
drive need and need satisfaction source).
That is, an individual needs to participate in
their society, giving of their good area so
that they may receive their small shares of
the Many(more than 2) other good areas
supplied by Many other unbalanced
individuals (who are also maximized in
their own respective and different good
areas); and thereby satisfy each others
needs (other than sexual) as a societally
competent whole. As a society continues to
specialize, the number of different areas
(manned by individuals who are good in
each particular area) grows well beyond 2.
So that if a person was thinking of giving
up similarity in a mate in order to join a
mate with complimentary skills; this would
not work out well because 2 skill areas
does not a society make. And the society
way would do a much better job at
supplying needs through combining the
skills of a multitude of skill areas (supplied
by individuals) much greater than 2. No,
better a person find someone of like skills
for a mate, and they can both work on
improving their performance in their one
good skill area and thus get better
recognition and pay from their job (joining
with the societal entity and through their
societal connection). And at the same time
they can enjoy each other's like interests.
But what if a person is at the top of the
heap in their good skill area, and already
has good pay? Well, with those needs
satisfied, the only need left is the
reproductive drive. Here, finding someone
of like mind/ability/interests allows this
couple to enjoy their greater command of
resources (from society) together. So, we
see an uninterrupted directive to ever
increase specialization and sacrifice the
individual entity to benefit the societal
entity, so far. However, in some ideas
about good vs evil; life vs destruction, we
will see that meanness and cruelty doesn't
get along with itself. They are the same,
yes, but two mean people, being mean to
each other, do not get along and are not
compatible. Perhaps if they can direct their
meanness to others, they can get along, but
this can be tentative at best, as mean,
competitive people often go after each
other to establish who is dominant. So that
pairing of like people who are
mean/competitive, does not provide
satisfaction in the traditional morality
concerning satisfaction of the sex drive.
These dominant ones find submissive ones
to dominate, and they are not the same, do
not share the same mind, and once the
sexual need is satisfied, they have a lot of
time on their hands with little in common
to do. And there is no harmony here
concerning the traditional way. The societal
way of satisfying other needs, is the only
way that does work for these people. They
are often at the top of their heap and make
good money. It is in the marital area where
things are problematic. Since the traditional
way in the sexual area doesn't work for
these people, they are tempted to model
this area after the way that does work for
them -the societal way. They are thus
tempted to add the sexual area and treat it
the same way other needs are handled by
the societal area. -That is to have the input
of many different people each contributing
their best skill, not just 2 people. This
means multiple partners, maybe a girl in
every port; divorce, bigamy, going from
one mate to another in rapid succession,
etc. It is these kinds of behaviors that mix
the genes, and prevent absolute sacrifice of
the individual entity to the societal entity,
thus saving our ass!
It is odd how a religion based on love and
kindness depends on meanness and mean
and competitive people to save its ass/ our
ass.xxx
But then one day I was made to reconsider
my stance on this; but not that it changed
much. Men and women are different (thus
they are good at different things) , and as
such they compliment each other. This
probably is the very basis of the attraction
between men and women. And continuing
on with opposites attract, we would then
think that a woman who was unlike her
man would thereby compliment him; and
this may be the very basis of additional
attraction here. But because of societal
specialization; a person needs many more
than just 2 areas done well; this couple also
finds itself wanting at being satisfied, or
balanced and self sufficient, which leaves
areas unfilled so that there is always
potential attraction to even different
partners for the unfilled needs that they
could fill; so that couples often split up and
chase other partners; chasing after that
attraction(due to attraction to different
differences of other complimentary
partners) in an endless chasing that can
never be filled, due to it takes more than 2
skill areas done well to satisfy a human
being. And it is this endless chasing of
attraction that thus saves our ass by getting
us to mix with different partners
(who are different), thus putting genetic
differences back together through mating
and offspring.
Note however that these partners that we are
attracted to (due to how they compliment
where we are deficient in (due to our
differences and our unbalanced states)); are
not people who we make strong
connections with. Since they are so good
at where we are feeble at, and vice versa;
there is little togetherness of mind or joint
achievement.
But woe to us who through attraction
between the sexes, (due to the
complimenting differences from being
male and female) are led to join with a
mate who is otherwise similar to us. Here
the pair can and do work together and build
joint achievements together, bonding them
together in a lasting bond. They will
always experience the fleeting attractions
to others, but are taught by religion that this
is the carnal man which is to be put to
death. This long term partnership with a
similar spouse is the type of thing that the
marriage rules and religion encourages and
what also ultimately will result in our
demise if taken to extreme and
absoluteness. So it is the attractions people
feel towards others who are different (or
opposite); which cause them to chase after
an unachievable satisfaction so that they do
a serial line of partners attempting to satisfy
these attractions (the woman at the well
who had 5 husbands and the man she was
living with now was not her husband; is the
biblical example): these attractions cause
some of us to violate the absolute directive
of enactment of the marriage rules;
allowing for genetic mixing and putting
back together genetic differences in the
offspring produced between these
DIFFERENT (and thus maximally attracted
people); thus saving our ass; (even though
the individual never finds and never will
find total or complete satisfaction by
chasing these attractions with any one
partner).
So it is these occasional violations
of the marriage rule that are valuable and
are needed to keep our society healthy.
(This attraction, which comes from people's
differences complimenting each other;
begins with the differences between men
and women, and does continue on in a
societal entity of many unbalanced people,
each good at a different area where the
many different good areas are put together
to make a competent and satisfying societal
whole. Where does the other thing, the one
man one woman thing, fit into this?)
It is the marriage rule and religion that
encourages and incentivizes like couples to
get together long term in spite of the
reduction in attraction (and penalizes those
who chase their attractions too much) as it
is these like people who can make it work
long term; while the maximally attracted
people, (the people more into following
their attractions), find that they can't stay
together long term. Ex: the woman at the
well. So, yes, opposites do attract, and
differences do cause attractions; but these
attractions don't help relationships last long
term.
So that religion and the marriage rule
still do the things that I said and still cause
the individuals generated to be increasingly
unbalanced over the generations; and still
need to be prevented from being enacted
absolutely in order to prevent absolute
elimination of the individual entity
resulting in end of the world scenarios.
And it is attraction itself that does this by
helping break up these long term
relationships between like people to bring
about the needed genetic mixing between
unlike/different/opposite people.
Note that there still exists a 3 dimensional
sorting plan or religion which actually
works (to advance goodness over
destruction); which we can use within
ourselves* to our and everyone's benefit
*(as within ourselves there exists high parts
and human parts and also sometimes all
destructive parts): even though the pretend
religions of 2 dimensional sorting also exist
along side, but do not work.xx
Let me say that there is an exception. There
is one area that doesn't fit into this mating
scenario; where we do NOT allow different
parts of this area to get together and
compliment each other but instead insist on
like parts of this area to get together; even
if that means a loss of attraction due to
what this one area would contribute. Yes,
in the area of kindness and good vs
meaness and destructiveness, is this
exception where we do do the conservative
religious way, and do not mix the two
together so they would compliment each
other. If we did, that would allow larger
representations of both forces, since each
force supplies the input of the other force.
And with large amounts of life
representing these forces; that life would be
fodder for the force of destruction, as that
is its input. This setting would favor the
force of destruction. Also, nothing else
would get accomplished because whatever
the force of good accomplished would just
get knocked down soon after by the force
of destruction. So that setting would be a
total win for the force of destruction.
No, instead, we should do the setting
whereby we encourage like parts of this
area to get together. That is, nice and good
people should get together, and cruel/mean
people should be left with each other. Now
we know mean people can't get along
together, so that spoils their fun as far as
any long term relationship. Since we avoid
putting mixed couples together as policy,
that also eliminates long term relationships
there. But what about kind, nice couples?
Here they would build up a rich area rich
in kindness and goodness with many joint
achievements that would bind them
together in the same mind. Having built up
this rich area, they would then find it
difficult to make additional improvements
within themselves, thus limiting their force
of good within themselves. Now let me
deal with these items one at a time.
Because they have built up a rich area, that
is often food for the force of destruction.
And since they are human, and have gotten
together on the basis of sexual attraction;
there is human evil nearby, which could
burn these rich areas down. However, the
sexual area and the concept of good vs evil
which can cover all areas; do not need to be
the same area. As individuals, we have all
good parts and human parts and we need to
have a system of keeping these parts
separate. (This is one part of 3 dimensional
sorting, (also included in 2 dimensional
sorting).) So that as a couple, rich, all good
areas can be built up outside of the sexual
area and other human areas, and be kept
separate from the human areas. While in
the human areas and the sexual area, these
can be kept at only medium level and not
richness. And when rich areas are kept
separate from the destructive force, they
do quite well, as it is only under the
unavoidable contact with the force of
destruction (as exists in human areas)
where we need to limit things down to
medium level and avoid generating rich
environments.
Now as for the building up rich areas only
within the couple; one can avoid that by
interacting with others outside the
boundary of the couple so that they spend
time away from each other, with others,
and do not build up an excessively rich area
just within their couple boundary, but
extend that building up richness to also
include other good people. And who says
they have to be monogamous within their
couple boundary; but instead be
monogamous just within the boundary of
all good people. (And if a good person is
forced by their desires to do the deed with
someone who is not good like they are,
then they should limit that connection with
that person to only a medium level of
human sexuality, and prevent their other
(good) areas from contacting the bad areas
of the other person.)
So then, if a good/kind couple is careful,
they CAN form a long term relationship; if
they do not extend their rich
goodness/kindness into their sexuality, (but
instead only extend medium level
goodness/kindness); and if they do not limit
their generating of richness to the evil free
areas of just themselves but also include
the evil free areas of others outside their
couple boundary.
Note that we maintain some form of a
couple boundary and it is not (necessarily)
a sexual free for all (although it could
almost be); but that that couple boundary is
not an absolute boundary.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(In this insert, I consider that jealousy is
from a fear of loosing ones significant
other, absolutely, due to the absolute nature
of the traditional morality. Because the
traditional morality is unlike the societal
way of need satisfying, in that it totally and
absolutely shuts out others from sharing in
ones mates sexuality; one fears any
advances on ones mate by others may
cause ones mate to switch partners, and
thus exchange places so that one is now
absolutely shut out from ones former
mate. It is the absolute shutting out action
that brings this about. If sexuality were not
so absolute, the tensions would be eased,
and sharing could occur without jealousy,
overpowering jealousy. When we deliver
goods and services in our job, we dont
service just one person, but deliver/share
our goods/services to many people. If
sexuality were not so absolute, multiple
partners, and shared relationships would
occur; so that the loss of one lover would
not be as hard to take as in the absolute
world where one has only one lover, whose
loss results in the loss of all the love that
one has. Plus, does anyone person really
have the right to all of another person's
attentions?
Note that the sexual attraction one person
feels for another, causes them to value the
object of their feeling above all other
people; when in actuality, people are of
equal value; and we do treat them equally
when we are not under a sexual attraction
towards one of them. But when we are
under a sexual attraction to one of them,
this focuses our attention and valuation all
to that one person.
Now if we have sexual feelings for more
than one person, one might think this is
expressing more sexuality. But the most
sexuality one can express is being attracted
to just one person, because the nature of
sexual feeling, is to remove importance
from everyone else, and concentrate it to
this one person. If one removes importance
from everyone else, and concentrates it to a
group of people, that isn't as much of a
concentration. So the person who has
multiple partners, although they may think
they are being more sexual, in actuality,
they are being less sexual, due to the
concentrating nature of sexuality itself.
When a man and woman share their
affection with each other, they may think
that they enjoy that. What do you think?
Don't you think that men and women
sharing affection is an enjoyable thing? But
then they take a good thing that they enjoy
and limit it and put it under a box and
prevent it from expanding and keep it to
themselves. Now if one were to take the
good news of the gospel and hide it under a
basket and try to limit it, then religion
would be up in arms about that. But more
to the point, when women(men) refuse to
service all mankind's(womankind's) sex
drives except one partner, then there are a
lot of unsatisfied customers out there.
Women(men) may be attractive to
men(women) and some very much so, but
it is all just a tease unless one does submit
to the conservative breeding program that
could very well result in the apocalyptic
end of the world. I would ask the people
attracted here to realize that the
conservative way is a mostly all destructive
entity that does prey upon the imperfect
human area of sexual expression; and that
the sogp/jesus representation (explained
later) can and should (as non destructively
as possible), cast this mostly all evil out of/
off of, the human sexual area; so that our
sexual area tends towards medium ability,
out of barrenness and low ability. End insert.)
Xxxx
Note that although the people of Jesus' day
condemned the adulterous woman; note
that Jesus did not condemn the adulterous
woman; (while still keeping a separation
between the Godly and the human actions
when he said 'go and sin no more').
Now, when people of today work in their
jobs (so they can get paid so they can buy
things to satisfy their other needs (other
than sexual)), they are not absolute in their
action. They do not service just one
customer and deny all the other customers
their service. Instead, they give each
customer a little bit of their time and do
service many customers. But in the
satisfaction of the sexual area, this is NOT
how things are done. Instead, each person
satisfies only one customer, and leaves the
rest unsatisfied.
These two different ways of need
satisfaction are incompatible. For example,
if each worker were to pick one customer
and service only them, then most of the
work would not get done, and this system
would collapse and be unworkable.
But way back in the past, in little house on
the prairie days, when individuals were
more self sufficient, this actually would
work out. Each person would take care of
themselves and their spouse and their
family grouping, and leave the rest of the
world to fend for itself, just like they
fended for themselves. And when the
nearest neighbor was miles away, one man
one woman was how the sexual area was
done also. So that there was no dual or
conflicting ways of need satisfaction. It
was all the absolute way, the all or nothing
way, and each person did not service many
other people, but only their own family
grouping.
But not only is this way less efficient and
can be replaced by a way of societal entity
and individual entity balanced with each
other: That as I have explained; many
generations of one man one woman does
generate ever more unbalanced, and thus
less self sufficient individuals.
Yes, to start, a group of self sufficient
individuals or family units could choose to
isolate themselves from each other; and this
would favor one man one woman in the
sexual area.
But one man one woman generates ever
more unbalanced individuals. So that out of
necessity (due to the loss of self
sufficiency), a societal entity formed and
lessened the individual entity.
And from that group of self sufficient
individuals who chose to live in quasi
isolation from each other, and who did not
allow the sexual area to mix it up; they are
now forced to be a part of a societal entity
because they are no longer self sufficient,
but are now unbalanced. In this societal
entity there is no longer isolation, but many
people working together and intermixing.
From those interactions, more sexual
intermixing should follow, which thus halts
the ever advancing trend towards
unbalanced individuals. However,
sometimes a society clings to the one man
one woman theme due to religious
directives.
So that today, the only thing left of the self
sufficient/absolute way of need
satisfaction, is the sexual area; whereas all
the other need satisfactions are done with
the societal entity and no longer with the
self sufficient individual entity. But if the
societal way were applied to the sexual
area, then people would service many
others instead of just one other, and would
be called 'whores' and 'creepers' and
'rappers'.
Now when there is a balance between the
individual entity and the societal entity;
that is the best and most powerful system.
But as the one man one woman, absolute
self sufficient way persists in the
satisfaction of the sexual area; we continue
generating ever more unbalance, and
overshoot balance and end up with all
societal entity and no individual entity; and
that is a lesser state.
And when young women cling to this last
expression of the self sufficient individual/
absolute way in the sexual area, they thus
thereby eliminate completely any
individuality or individual expression
leaving only societal expression. Eve, put
down the apple(of religious rules).
Note how imperfect the area of human
mating/dating is. And that absolute
directives have no place in such an
imperfect human area. When the spouse
strays, note that imperfection. But also
note the imperfection of the other spouse
who stays true. Yes, following an
imperfect rule over the mating area, even if
one does so perfectly, does not make one
perfect, but just emulates the imperfection
within the rule itself. And when a rule
causes a society to overshoot the balance
between individuality and the societal
entity, to eliminate the individual entity;
and also, causes those following it to
become sources for evil; that is an
imperfect rule. Xxxxxx
In today's society, everyone is unbalanced
and not self sufficient. So that when a man
and woman love each other, they generate
an incomplete or unbalanced love. Now, if
one were to generate a complete love for a
complete spouse, that person would not
exist because self sufficient
spouses/individuals do not exist. But if one
generated this complete love anyway, and
then distributed the part that matched their
unbalanced spouse, then that would work
out well to bring multiple unbalanced loves
together into one complete love. And one
may go even further back and generate a
complete entity containing both male and
female essences, which then splits off the
needed parts for one's unbalanced love,
leaving the remnant for balance. And if
one is going to join multiple loves, one
needs to adjust the complete entity one
generates to contain much more of their
core or common self that will then become
multiple copies each copy distributed to be
part of each unbalanced love.
As people become more unbalanced, they
need to get together and each contribute
their best skills to form a competent and
balanced societal whole. We can think of
this like each person represents a part of the
societal body; like one person is an arm and
another is a hand and yet another is a foot,
etc. Now in the dating game, when a hand
gets together with a foot, they don't have
much in common and are thus incompatible
for a long term relationship. But when a
hand gets together with a hand, they do
share common interests and skills, and they
are compatible. However, all the
compatible pairs are of unbalanced
individuals; and the loves that they
generate for each other are all unbalanced.
And since they are acting as a couple, they
don't include others in to provide a
complete, balanced (societal) whole, (since
this is lovemaking/romance between the
couple, and the rest of society is not
allowed into this area). So that we end up
with hand love and foot love and arm love
etc, which are all unbalanced and
incomplete loves, each generating growths
in excess of what they need, and
experiencing shortages of raw materials
that they themselves cannot supply; -the
result of unbalanced growths.(in this area
of romance/love between the couple).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxx
GOOD VS EVIL:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx Let us Consider that
goodness, growth, and being kind to one
another, is a superior force over the force
of destruction, death, decay, and being
mean to each other.
(To do this, we consider all possibilities)
-Considering what'd happen if in a universe
with only the force of goodness-and
-growth:
-If in a universe where only the force of
death/destruction existed:
-Or if we were in a universe with both
forces. Here on earth we're in the situation
where both forces exist. But that doesn't
mean this is the only way, -that other
situations aren't possible.
Let's consider a universe of only the force
of destruction and death. As death
/destruction progress, they take whatever is
alive, and kill it, so that where life once
was, now exists (is produced) nothing and
nothingness. Ashes to ashes, and dust to
dust. Pretty soon, life becomes in scarce
supply, while a whole lot of empty space
and inanimate material is left behind. After
awhile, all the life is killed, and then what?
With no life left to kill, the force of
destruction comes to a stop (no more
destroying can be done), because from
nothing, this force can go no further from
there. Here is a definite bottom to the
universe. The force of destructiveness
comes to a stop and cannot continue.
Now consider the force of good-and
-growth as being the only force around. As
this force acts, it takes nothingness/lifeless
matter (dust), and creates life in its place.
Soon everything starts to come alive. Pretty
soon we begin to run out of improvements
to make. Emptiness and undeveloped raw
material (dust) starts to come into short
supply. If everything is alive, then no more
growth/goodness can be done, and thus the
force of good is stopped, right? Well,
there's not so much an absolute ceiling, as
there is an absolute bottom. You see, life
forms can advance/be advanced and
become ever more capable and alive; and
this thus continues the force of good. And,
a universe that is alive (full of life), is very
capable -able to do lots of things, (unlike a
barren universe consisting of nothingness).
And with that life/capability, it can bridge
barriers and reach raw material (dust) that
had previously been separated from it by a
barrier.
Hence, the force of goodness and growth
can survive by itself much better than the
force of destruction/death can. This is an
advantage: -When the force of destruction
can be escaped from; (the good separated
from the destructive); that which is
destructive, when alone, burns itself out,
finds itself boxed in by barriers, and ceases
to exist; Whereas the good alone, survives,
bridges barriers, and continues to grow. Of
course when both forces are around, the
force of good generates life for the force of
destruction to feed on and destroy as it
survives. (and the force of death/decay
generates voids, which the force of good
uses as its starting material.) This is the
way things are here on earth. And both the
forces of; good, and destruction, have an
easy time finding material to work with
(compared to if they were alone). /(insert)
when the force of good is advanced to be
free of destruction, it is under more
pressure to cross barriers and find new raw
material for growth. Thus it needs the
individual entity even more so, and cannot
totally sacrifice the individual entity for the
societal entity here in the end, in perfection
anyway.(as the individual entities are
needed to try out all the possibilities to find
the solution to the next challenge to
growth)(end insert)/ xxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, it takes life-and-capability to do or
be either 'the force of good-and-growth', or
'the force of destruction'. The lack of life
can't do/be either force. Since what the
force of good produces is life, such life can
continue to do forces. But since what the
force of destruction produces is death and
nothingness and voids in life; since this
cannot do or support either force, then the
force of destruction alone is destined to a
quick end while the force of good and
growth alone is destined to continue.
Xxxxxxxxxxxx
ALSO, since only life can do-be either
force: When destruction experiences what
it produces, or is applied to itself, it doesn't
grow, but instead shrinks to nothing. But
when goodness experiences what it
produces, (when goodness is good to itself)
it does not die, but instead, grows. So, the
force of destruction needs something other
than just itself to exist (is a parasitic force),
while the force of good does not and is self
sufficient with just itself. So that when
alone, good survives while destruction self
eliminates and vanishes. From this we can
see that good and growth, is a superior
force to the force of death and destruction.
Xxxxxxxxxx
Let us consider some situations, while
keeping in mind these truths:
-that it takes life and ability to do/be either
goodness, or destruction (and that lack-of
-life is unable to cause either of these
forces);
Inputs and outputs:
-that the force of destruction takes in that
which is alive as its input/raw material; and
produces voids-in-life / inanimate material
as its output, as what it produces.
-That the force of goodness/growth takes in
voids-in-life and inanimate material, as its
input/raw material; and produces -life- as
its output and what it produces.
With these concepts in mind let's consider
the situation of the force of destruction in a
rich environment. Not only does this force
have plenty of its raw material or input
(life), present here in the rich environment;
-destruction also has what supports what
either force is made of (which is also, life).
Thus here the force of death-and
-destruction can grow rapidly and become
quite large here, in a rich environment.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(In this tangent, please consider that since
enforcing rules over the gray areas of living
life causes a patchwork of rich and barren
environments(rules structure and FIX
WHERE the good, and destruction,
respectively, of a gray action, are done):
my question is, why do we scrape together
these rich environments where there is the
force of destruction nearby -(as destruction
is inescapably a part of all gray actions at
our level of ability)?
This will just result in successive firestorms
where the gray actions' destructiveness
burns down the rich parts of the patchwork.
All this does is feed evil/destructiveness.
As for myself, I do not wish to succor and
feed the force of destructiveness. End tangent.)
(2ndinsert: When a man and woman share
their affection with each other, they may
think that they enjoy that.
What do you think? Do you think that men
and women sharing affection is an
enjoyable thing? -a force of good?
In the imperfect area of human sexuality,
some good and also some destruction are
generated. Why is this imperfect good
forced to live in a RICH area, where it has
a hard time finding its input
-voids/improvements to make, when there
is right next door, areas of barrenness that
it needs to make its goodness force active?
Why does one torture their imperfect good
this way? End 2nd insert.)
(Here is another important tangent:
Here on earth, we live with what is
destructive and also that which is good and
growing. In this respect, we often do
actions which contain both goodness and
growth and also destructiveness in the same
action.
These actions I would term 'human actions'
(also referred to as 'gray actions' ). These
human areas are hopelessly a mixture of
both goodness and destruction (at our level
of ability we're unable to separate the
forces), and there is no purity of action in
them, as they contain both goodness as well
as destructiveness inescapably intertwined
in the same action. These mainly center
around human hungers and needs. So that
whether or not a human action is done,
partially done, or refrained from; some
destruction is always present, just in
different areas. Like when we eat, this is
good for our survival, but at the same time,
destructive to some other life form's
survival as a plant or animal had to die to
provide this. And if we don't eat, this is
good for the surrounding plants and
animal's survival, but destructive to us as
we starve.
However, in our human world, not all
actions are these 'human' or 'gray' actions.
Some actions CAN be divided up
completely (or much more so), into all
good vs. all destructive parts. And it is
here, with these non human areas, there can
exist a purity of action as is not seen in the
human actions. Areas of all-good exist, as
well as do areas that are all destructive,
exist. However, when areas of purely all
destructive exist, they soon self consume
and disappear. So that only the areas of all
-good exist with such a purity of action.
Still, if that which is all-destructive can
find a human action, it can feed off the
good in the human action, and it won't have
to self consume. -(It can continue to exist
and not disappear.) So, when the all-good
casts off the all-destructive: -to achieve
purity of action; the all destructive actions
become as ravening wolves seeking to prey
upon human actions, feeding off the good
in human actions, so that they can survive
and won't self consume/die.
And who is going to save a human action
from being preyed upon by these all
destructive actions? It is true that the all
destructive action CAN be separated away
from the human action, (unlike the
destructiveness within the human action
that is part of the human action); but who is
going to do it? The all destructive action is
desperate, as its life depends on preying on
a human action, and so has apparently
overpowered the human action. An all
-good action might intervene and separate
an all-destructive action from a human
action; but if it did so it would spoil its
purity of action and it would no longer be
an all-good action. So that all-good actions
are reluctant to intervene to separate an all
-destructive action from its prey human
action, as they loose their purity of action
in doing so. So it would seem the all
destructive actions (although since they've
mixed with the human actions, are no
longer purely all destructive), have found a
way of survival and a continued food
source by preying on the human actions
and human hunger satisfying; thus making
the human world more towards the
destructive side; towards barrenness (which
preserves the togetherness of the good and
destructive within that human action, as
we'll see later). (Recall the parable of the
good Samaritan.) xxxxxxxxx
However, what about this plan: What if the
all-good actions split a small part of
themselves off to come and deal with this
situation, while leaving their major part of
themselves behind, still separate and still
maintaining their purity of action. (The
smaller part that split off would loose its
purity of action through it's intervening.)
The smaller part that split off would come
and separate the all-destructive part from
the human part so that the all destructive
part would finally self consume and die;
leaving the human action no longer preyed
upon by the all destructive action; so that it
tended not towards barrenness, but towards
medium ability. Thus evil/destruction
would be lessened and much eliminated by
this plan. Xxxxxxxxxx
Now, in the human areas; when the smaller,
split off, all good part is
generating/creating something (to medium
ability), in the vacuums (where there is
nothing and barrenness) caused by
destruction, even the destruction of rules
over human areas,(and even the
destructions that are part of the human
actions themselves): it is wise for this split
off part to limit its exposure to only the
human part it is presently
creating/generating, and not the rest of that
human area; even if this generated material
is eventually for the rest of that human
area. This is because this smaller, split off,
all good part can limit the loss of purity and
exposure to destruction, to just what is in
the human part it is generating. Once it is
done creating a piece of this material, it can
then withdraw itself and then allow the rest
of the human area to have possession/use
of it. So that the split off all good parts of
us can act to generate material in isolation,
and then shortly, to also act to release
pieces of that material away from itself and
this isolation, unto the rest of this human
area. In these coordinated set of actions that
build parts of human actions/things; once a
certain part has reached medium ability,
this part is no longer generated in isolation,
but other parts are, as the split off all good
does move onto these other parts that are in
need of being brought from nothingness to
medium level. The parts at medium level
that are no longer being generated, are still
participants in the rest of this human area,
and do receive what is released from
isolation; its just that they do not keep on
being generated; so that they do not move
then from medium level to high ability, (as
a result of this generating in isolation and
then release). Xxxxxxxxx
There may be a difference in when a part is
first being created, and when it is added to
in additional generatings. When the split
off good part (sogp) is first generating an
action, it may divide in two and leave the
part to be corrupted in human ways,
behind. In order to do this, it generates
even less than what is needed for medium
ability (in the whole); sort of like the
romantic gestures around valentines day,
which are small, but mean a lot. Then it
moves it all to the half of itself to be left
behind in human ways, thus concentrating
them. At this point they are now at medium
level. (If they had started at medium level,
the concentration into the half that was to
be left, would result in a high level, which
would burn down in the evil present in
human ways.) However, with subsequent
additions to this action, a more robust
doing unto medium level right away can be
done, as there now already exists a
platform and entity to deliver the generated
material to.
Note that even if, for the sake of argument
say, it turns out that Christianity is a fraud
and that Jesus wasn't anybody special: note
that the structures of Christianity still exist
in our human world and in our universe and
within us, anyway; as some areas are more
easily all good vs all destructive, while
other areas have the destructive and the
good hopelessly intertwined in the same
action. Where does Jesus fit in? If we take
the Biblical account, Jesus was from God,
(and is therefore rich). But Jesus also
received God's punishment for our sins,
unto death. But he survived it as he was
resurrected. So we can't say he is as high as
God because he also received God sized
punishment. But we can't say he represents
the low point either, because being of God,
he survived the punishment and was
resurrected. Somewhere in between the
high and the lowest points, I would say (the
Bible says somewhat below an angel). Here
we see an entity often in between the
highness of God, and the lowness of death
and nothingness or hell: -who
longstandingly represents humanity and the
in between, and the medium level; better
than any other mortal human ever could.
Xxxxxxx
It is our sogp(smaller split off part from our
all good areas) that then acts to separate
destructive parts away from human areas
that can be separated away; and to fill
vacuums in the human areas to medium
ability; and not done by our main high all
good parts which are separate and kept
away from the human area. So that if we
are waiting for God almighty to step in and
do this. No. It is the meek and smaller
Jesus representations that are here with us
in the human area, that do this instead.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For our high, all-good parts to be separate
from any/all evil, even the small evil
amount found in human actions; is a
helpful thing. But this directive to label
human appetites as sinful, and make a
distinction between the sinful and the all
pure; can be taken too far. Just because the
all-good needs to be kept ultra pure, doesn't
mean the human appetites and the human
area is valueless or to be discarded. -That
absolute values are applied to say that there
is nothing in the human appetite area worth
keeping. That is why we have a Jesus
representation to intercede between the
high all good parts of us, and our human
appetite parts.
Now, superseding all this, is the directive to
either sacrifice completely ones individual
components (for the good of the complete
whole-and-ones high good parts); or to
instead, grow BOTH the areas of ones
individual components, as well as ones
complete whole.
So we want to choose the second option,
and put this spin on all we do.
So that in ones high good area, we actively
generate this dual nature of growing both
the components, as well as the whole. Now
at the border of our Jesus representation, or
sogp, our high good parts are acting to not
go into this area (because destructiveness is
nearby), and are doing this action of
staying out of this area in the dual
generating way/spin, and actively so. Now,
with the Jesus representation, since it is
made from small split off parts from the
high parts, it has this dual generating
already, and is how it comes naturally,
without additional or active effort (if that is
how we did our high parts)(since our Jesus
representation comes from a small split off
of our high parts). And our Jesus
representation acts to cast away any evils
away from our high parts (including
gray/human hunger evils); and also away
from itself, (save those which are gray,
which are part of human hungers); and also
casts away total evils out of gray, human
hunger materials/structures; and finally
generates to medium ability in vacuums
caused by destructivenesses. It is then in
these generatings to medium ability in the
vacuums that active dual spin generating
occurs once again. Xxxxx
When the sogp is generating to medium
ability in the gray areas; one might
consider that the sogp should generate to
medium ability in all possible gray areas
because these are all (supposedly)
legitimate areas for growth: and that
therefore, one's individual sogp
representation should also generate all
possible gray areas, even if one has no
hunger in some of these gray areas. But the
idea of a gray area is that some goodness is
obtained for the destruction that is also
generated. If you don't have a hunger or
need in a possible gray area, then by doing
the specific motions of that gray area, you
don't derive any satisfaction (or goodness)
from it, but the destruction is invariably
still done. Hence, if you don't have a
hunger or need in a possible gray area, then
it is not a gray area for you, but an all evil
area.
So that once your hunger is satisfied, you
don't continue feeding indefinitely, but do
stop feeding. Now, if a partner is involved
in a gray area hunger/feeding, one should
respect the partner's need to continue
feeding until satisfied; even though one is
right to stop their own feeding once one is
satisfied. But in areas where one
experiences hunger in, it is ok to generate
to medium ability after ones hunger has
been satisfied after finished material
has been spirited away to the all good,
leaving a complete vacuum in this gray
area, but now not so, since one generated to
medium ability before ending the feeding.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In this out of place insert, I was reading in
the philosophy section, and discovered the
argument about if there is evil in the world,
that proves that there is no benevolent, all
powerful omnipresent God. -That either he
wants to remove all evil, but can't (and is
therefore not all powerful); or he IS able,
but doesn't want to (making him
malevolent).
But my answer to this is that God IS dealing
with the evil in this world; and that the
situation we see today of God to be
nowhere in sight, with evil running freely
about with no almighty Godly intervention,
IS the process whereby God is successfully
dealing with all the evil. Because
evil/destruction is a parasitic force and not
self sufficient; by just leaving it alone, it
self eliminates. For an almighty or God the
Father to come down in power and
richness/love to confront evil/destruction,
would just provide the material for the
force of evil/destruction to grow. So that
Gods presence would just perpetuate and
encourage/grow evil. So to eliminate evil,
almighty God acts by staying away; and
sends a lesser powered representative,
Jesus Christ, to separate these all-evils off
human actions so the evil is totally isolated
and can self eliminate. -these evils that
keep popping up due to people's free will,
whereby they are learning to advance to be
more and more powerful as well as good.
Now because the moral evils perpetrated
by humans, demarks areas where God stays
away in his process of eliminating evil;
then natural destructions that occur in these
same areas don't change that. Hence
Christ's words about natural evils that the
people caught in them aren't any more
sinful than others, but that those not in him
will all likewise perish; indicating that
those who are in him, have the presence of
God to protect them; not on this earth, but
in that they die and are resurrected again in
perfection in him. So that from a
philosophical sense, there is no trouble
with the existence of an almighty
benevolent God; although He is
deliberately not omnipresent; as a tool to
remove evil.
However, God is omnipresent if you count
Jesus and the rest of us underlings who
work in the name of Jesus.
Now then; unfortunately, many who work
in the name of Jesus, have so irritated the
rest of us with their holier than though
behavior and inappropriate restriction of
the sex drive, that it is completely
understandable why some would try to
come up with a philosophical argument
against the existence of a benevolent God.
Its just that that is incorrect as I hope I
have eluded to. Not that it can be proven
absolutely that God exists. Where we
are at now, is that it isn't proven absolutely
either way whether God does exist or does
not exist. Gone is the proof that God does
not exist.
However, I think I have shown that
goodness/kindness is a superior force over
destructiveness; so that the odds are good
that a benevolent God does exist, and that
if not now, that one may exist in the future;
and if that means that this future
benevolent God is not quite God but is only
a near God, an almost God due to the fact
that He did not always exist, then so be it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let us now consider the force of
destruction:
To continue, go to the website

http://sites.google.com/site/feelosofree/ok1