Faith
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Aloha Peyote,
G'day
>You know, you're in no unique spot.
>All of us are called upon to make choices and entertain
>beliefs for which we have insufficient evidence to support
>either binary choice.
This depends however on the groundwork or the set of beliefs.
If someone says jump in front of that moving train then I would not
do it; regardless of what someone tells me about their brand of faith
being able to 'protect me'.
>Here, you are in such a spot too.
>
>We've been running all around the Mulberry bush. And to what end?
Hopefully to a conclusion.
>You've seen the radish scans. Now you really have to make a choice on it, even if
>only one of forbearance.
>
>Either I faked them, or Religious Healing is real and powerful.
It is actually a little more complicated than that.
The seeds could have been tampered with by someone else, the
conditions for one set of seeds may have been slightly different to
the other set etc etc.
This is why it is important to have a proper study of the claim at
hand, trying to rule out all possibilities in the first place.
>It's just that binary. How much evidence is enough?
Enough is when the experiment can be repeated under scientific
observation and recorded accordingly.
>It can go on forever.
It only goes on as long as the said result is unable to be tested, or
testing is blocked by whoever.
>I can send you the actual seedlings. But that doesn't mean I couldn't
>have faked them too.
>
>You can come and see one of my haumana tested. Talk to him or her.
>But even then, fraud could take place.
True
>I believe that Tom has a Psychic Gift from God. Why? Because he
>says so, and although I have never met him, I have seen hundreds
>of his posts, and I've made my judgment. I believe Nitewalker is a
>Healer. Why? Because he says so, and he's never posted anything
>that has caused me to doubt it.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think those people that took their own life to follow a comet
into UFO la la land had doubt? I don't think so.
His followers accepted it as truth, they did not stop to think, to
reason, to investigate -and it turned out he didn't even have cancer
so he lied on that score- and so on.
And the result was?
A tragic waste of human life on the idiocy of one mans madness.
Jim Jones was another lunatic. Do you think you could reason with his
followers in the early days? Not a chance.
Okay Rev Moon is another example, you could prove black and white that
he was into arms sales, scaming money of his followers etc etc but try
and reason with them ... and you found it was all accepted on faith,
trust etc.
So no Lani, faith I have found is often an excuse to avoid facing up
to facts -reality or even other views- and in some cases 'faith' is
used to keep the minds of the people shackled to a particular cause.
Having said this I also do not accept the notion that all faith has to
be bad, evil, foolery or whatever.
>I believe that John F. from Australia actually does and has done
>exorcisms. Why? Because his experiences match mine, and I know
>that I am neither self-deluded nor faking it.
I don't know him, and have never heard of him, but I can ask around
and see what he is about. What city does he practice in?
>How large or small is your world?
Infinite.
>Mine is huge and filled with magic. I see the fingerprint of Io all around me.
Mine is filled with the infinite bounds of space.
>But you can chose how big a section of reality you can perceive or account for.
Providing it is reality one is talking about.
>There are many things outside of my reality that I hold in abeyance. For example,
>I have no opinion of the existential reality of UFO abductions. They might exist,
>they might not. But if my life encounters it in some way, I'll have to deal with
>it. There have been so many sightings of UFO's in general that I am convinced that
>there is something odd going on, and that some people ARE seeing, something some
>of the time.
>I could send you everything on my hard drive. I could send you the e-mail
>addresses of other Kahunas and other healers and exorcists or leaders of the
>Firewalk. But in the end, it comes down to an act of faith.
That is exactly what it should not come down to.
Who laid down the rules that faith & reason can not go together?
Hence we come back to my earlier position that 'faith only' can and
often is used as an excuse to avoid the evidence, facts or testing.
Under this anyone can say anything.
I could say right now I am God in the flesh. I will not prove my claim
to you because only the worthy shall have this revealed to them.
You have to accept this on faith alone Lani. Now you may laugh but
what I have actually said above is A Typical of what god/men do say.
>If someone I loved was ill, I would do my best to heal them. But if that wasn't
>successful or only partially successful, then I would help to get them Medical
>Help. Or it could just as easily be the other way around, and I would lay hands on
>them in the hospital where they lay.
Okay.
>But it is up to you. I cannot convince anyone over the computer of the verity of
>what I say I have done. Nor of the verity of what others I know, and have faith
>in, have done.
>
>And I can never convince you, either. It is for you to decide. Either way, it is a
>matter of faith. You can chose to live in a world of possibilities,
Here you have made another assumption. I do live in a world of
possibilities, but not in a world where facts or evidence is ignored.
>or have the faith that jcr and Liber8r are happier in a shriveled
>world full of frauds and bad men of which they consider me one.
That again is your opinion.
>Do as you will. But I can assure you that I have more fun than they do. After all,
>I have a far bigger playground.
How do you know?
Look up at the stars on a clear night then get back to me where the
bigger playground really is.
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>I would like to answer your questions here from my POV. I do not speak
>for Lani, only me. All of your examples here have one thing in common.
>People followed a person. A human. There is the flaw in your faith
>theorem.
Do you think Jim Jones, Koresh etc etc followed other people? I don't.
I put it to you that they indeed followed themselves -refusing to
listen to others or getting proper mental help- and in their case the
secondary result was people had faith in them and were led down the
same path of destruction as their icon went down.
>I propose that people follow their inner self.
See above.
>In my counseling work I encourage people to find any and
>all flaws in what I relate to them, and to proceed with their
>own best judgement, not mine, when they do find those flaws
>and errors.
Then you are honest. I hate to tell you this -though you already know
it I believe- honest people are rare to find. Even harder still is
knowing when a person is lying and when a person is telling it to you
straight.
Which comes back to the faith issue, faith in another person
-especially one who claims to be 'special in some way' is dangerous
when that 'uniqueness' is related to spirituality.
The person speaks with God, the person is a prophet, guru or god man,
and to use the words I once heard
'How dare you argue with God on Earth'.
>The concept of anyone following me blindly anywhere is
>horrifying to me.
Same here. Yet that is your view of it -and I agree BTW- however that
is not the view of millions of others who follow in faith some person
who is the authority of whatever they believe in.
Likewise that is not the view of many of those whom follow themselves,
as they feel led or whatever terminology they may use.
>Although I am perfect, for me, I certainly am not perfect for you.
Okay.
Peyote.
>Tom
John C. Randolph
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
[snippage]
> Then you are honest. I hate to tell you this -though you already know
> it I believe- honest people are rare to find. Even harder still is
> knowing when a person is lying and when a person is telling it to you
> straight.
Actually, I would say that most people are honest. Dishonest people
stand out as aberrations in my experience.
> Which comes back to the faith issue, faith in another person
> -especially one who claims to be 'special in some way' is dangerous
> when that 'uniqueness' is related to spirituality.
>
> The person speaks with God, the person is a prophet, guru or god man,
> and to use the words I once heard
>
> 'How dare you argue with God on Earth'.
If anyone tried a line like that on me, then depending on my mood, I'd
either come back at them with "How dare you pretend to be God?" or else
recruit a mob to stone him to death for blasphemy. ;-)
-jcr
liberator
>You've seen the radish scans. Now you really have to make a choice on it,
even if only one of forbearance. Either I faked them, or Religious Healing
is real and powerful.<
Peyote replied:
<It is actually a little more complicated than that. The seeds could have
been tampered with by someone else, the conditions for one set of seeds may
have been slightly different to the other set etc etc. This is why it is
important to have a proper study of the claim at hand, trying to rule out
all possibilities in the first place.>
The act of repeating experiments under controlled conditions is the keystone
of the pursuit of truth.
Lani wrote:
>It's just that binary. How much evidence is enough?<
Peyote replied:
<Enough is when the experiment can be repeated under scientific observation
and recorded accordingly.>
[snip]
<So no Lani, faith I have found is often an excuse to avoid facing up to
facts -reality or even other views- and in some cases 'faith' is used to
keep the minds of the people shackled to a particular cause. Having said
this I also do not accept the notion that all faith has to be bad, evil,
foolery or whatever.>
[snip]
<Who laid down the rules that faith & reason can not go together? Hence we
come back to my earlier position that 'faith only' can and often is used as
an excuse to avoid the evidence, facts or testing. Under this anyone can
say anything. I could say right now I am God in the flesh. I will not prove
my claim to you because only the worthy shall have this revealed to them.
You have to accept this on faith alone Lani. Now you may laugh but what I
have actually said above is A Typical of what god/men do say.>
Peyote, my cyber-friend, we share many commonalties when it comes to this
topic. Well said.
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://www.liberator.net/
Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider?
Visit CNET: http://webisplist.internetlist.com/
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> Let me ask you a question.
>
> Do you think those people that took their own life to follow a comet
> into UFO la la land had doubt? I don't think so.
Everyone dies. Their deaths are no different. From the outside it was perhaps a waste,
since they could have struggled a little more before death was inevitable.
From the inside, they did just fine. YOUR (and mine) assumptions that they were
incorrect are mere speculations on your part, and not compelling.
The theological question of their religion, if that is what it was, is, "Did it allow
them to live better lives than would otherwise be possible?"
The exemplar of Arte is the warrior Hector during the siege of Troy. Who was his next
door neighbor? See? Why do we still remember Hector after all these centuries, and not
every Greek?
Because there was something about his life which uplifts our own.
What if had done "the sensible thing", and meekly surrendered? He would still have
died, albeit in a little different time, and his story would be unremembered and his
grave unmarked.
You bring up Jim Jones. He did evil in the name of religion. Yet, how many have died in
this country since those deaths, whom you can't recall their names?
Perhaps more than 5,000,000 in car wrecks alone. What is the Created World trying to
teach you about Arte? That one is remembered and another forgotten?
--
-Lani
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> >I do know that their followers did just that: followed. And that
> >got them into trouble.
>
> I agree.
>
> They blindly followed in faith, they accepted the claims of their
> leader -and his claims of the paranormal- again on faith only.
>
> Testing, examining properly, and even comparing evidence -or demanding
> proof- is not a part of the 'faith & believe only' package. In fact if
> you look closely independent thought and examination is highly
> discouraged and or delayed by ready made excuses.
>
> Following that thought; the next question arises, as to why so many of
> these type of people follow the same pattern. I believe the answer is
> quite obvious.
>
>
>
> Peyote.
>
> >Tom
Here you are wrong. Many of Jim's "followers" were trying to escape, but they
were very much prisoners. Most of his followers were derived from drug
addicts and the homeless, etc. They had little to lose and much to gain.
Before their move to Central America, they were under attack by all and
sundry because he had been dealing with "those types" of people.
I had a counseling session with a lady last night. I have no idea which
religion she belongs to—if any.
She is having major finance troubles.
I told her that money comes from our relationship to Io, if we have one.
And that if she wasn't using her religion to make her ends meet, then she
needed to do just that, but if she was trying, and receiving no success then
she needed to try another religion.
Many are into the proper technology of Prayer Forms. I told her to try the
Church of Religious Science, if that didn't work, then try Unity, and if that
didn't fit her style, then try Huna, or any other religion which matched her
"knacks".
I told her everyone has particular knacks, and that some religions fit some
people, and not others.
But then again, tribal paganism demands performance on the part of its
Priests (by any name). I told her, its just like buying a new pair of shoes.
Find a pair that didn't pinch, and wear them until they wear out.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> >Where is you faith?
> >
> >The Will of Io is inescapable.
>
> This is on the assumption that there is a will of Lo in the first
> place.
No. I am a Kahuna. That is NOT an assumption. It is a Doctrine. An understanding of
how things really are.
> Now if there is no life after death you have just condemned the little
> life span that humans do have on this earth -children also- to the
> acceptance of abuse at the hands of a lunatic.
If there is no life after death, then there is no purpose or meaning, save hedonism
anyway.
> Do you really believe Lani that it is okay for children to be abused?
Waco caused me to join the Militia. I eventually got to the point where I helped to
organize it nationwide. I came up with the identifying symbol, and I suggested the
symbol. Linda Thompson, who started in Militia Movement had patches made made of the
symbol, and it adorns people willing to die before they see the Federal government
burn down another Church full of little innocent kids. Now that's what *I* did
about the incident. According to my Faith. I am a warrior. A fellow participant
here. What have *YOU* done about it?
> Do you seek to justify it on the 'belief' that it may or may not be
> better in the next life?
We are all immortal dreamworld creatures who come here from time to time to dream
into life for a little bit. To suffer and be frustrated with its concomitant growth
of wisdom, and to sport and play here too.
I have no "belief" in another world. I DO have faith that the Created World has an
existential reality for a short (compared to the Eternal World) time (about 100
billion years).
> >They are all safe, and in the arms of their Aumakuas.
>
> Again says who?
Everyone in this NG responds from the POV of their Faith.
It is accurate to say that when a person's temporary body "dies" then his or her
eternal body is caught in the loving arms of their Aumakua (something like a
Guardian Angel).
It is foolish for you to ask: "Again says who?", when each person speaks for himself
and his Faith alone.
I believe that Tom's understanding is similar, as well as that gal from Avalon, but
I could be wrong.
> This does not make it okay. Suffer now because it will be okay later
> on. Have faith that you will be okay or that it is the will of God -or
> whatever deity that one believes in-.
When you made the Created World, you made it a place tough enough to teach you what
was necessary to learn.
As such, and since Io alone suffers in His creation. You have only yourself to
blame.
Of course, you can be wrong. I can be wrong. Maybe I'll appear before the white
throne. If so, then I have a couple of complaints, the need for toilet tissue, in
the "highest evolved species" is one for sure! And several others.
> I think that it is better that none of this idiocy begin in the first
> place and most certainly not be justified -or perpetuated- by the
> ideology that 'it is okay, or all for the better in the long run'.
Really? OK. Perhaps that's why I have spent my life as an Exorcist and Healer. One
of the Hunian elements of its Mazeway states, "Evil, if ignored, spreads." It is the
purpose of religious warriors揖ahunas and others to resist Evil when we find it. But
there aren't enough of us anymore. Too many have closed their eyes and become
Atheistic hedonists. So we fall under the influence of The Dark.
We all pay the price for that. "Ask not for whom the [the funeral] bell tolls, it
tolls for you."
> >For a little bit, the drama is over for them. But Waco got
> >the Militia started.
>
> We are not talking about drama 'as an abstract' we are talking about
> real people, real children, who were horribly burnt to death, poisoned
> etc etc -depending on the cult-.
>
> Real people Lani with real lives, real hopes and dreams. Stop for a
> minute man and think about what you are saying.
>
> It is most certainly not 'a little bit of drama' being over for them.
Yes, that is exactly what it is. If I knew what was going to happen, I would have
gone to Waco myself and attacked the soldiers there who were killing the kids. When
I understood what was happening, I joined the Militia.
But the entire histories of all the Created World is a drama.
We are all immortal. The Created World, according to the real scientists is only
about 1/4 of the way through its cycle.
What our minds will be like in another 75 billion years, I can only vaguely guess
at. But I remember myself 50 years ago in Kindergarten. I remember the fights. The
Teachers, some of my other students.
But do I remember the abuse? Not really? Do I hold grudges? No. Why not, these
things were very serious at the time? Because if I had known where I was going to
end up in my life, what I would have experienced, and that I would make it out of
Kindergarten safely, it was all justified.
When the Waco kids look back on this one lifetime out of about 60, and know what lay
in store for them, they too will not remember it at all, except for its driving
force in their lives.
Yet, I would have died to prevent it. Even though I know that David Koresh, like Jon
here, would hang me in an instant if they were King-for-a-Day.
> >Perhaps this will turn out ill or to the ultimate benefit of us all.
> >Perhaps even the Militia's existence will change the course
> >of history.
>
> May it never happen again.
If so. It will be people like me and others here, and people of Faith, who will
prevent it.
Or as it said (my fav poem):
Litany For Dictatorships
Stephen Vincent Benet
For all those beaten, for the broken heads,
The fosterless, the simple, the opressed,
The ghosts in the burning city of our time
...
For those taken in rapid cars to the house and beaten
By the skillful boys, the boys with the rubber fists,
Held down and beaten, the table cutting their loins,
Or kicked in the groin and left, with the muscles jerking
Like a headless hen's on the floor of the slaughter-house
While they brought the next man in with his white eyes staring
For those who still "Red Front!" or "God Save the Crown!"
And for those who were not courageous
But were beaten nevertheless.
For those who spit out the bloody stumps of their teeth
Quietly in the hall,
Sleep well on stone or iron, watch for the time
And kill the guard in the privy before they die,
Those with the deep-socketed eyes and the lamp burning.
For those who carry the scars, who walk lame---for those
Whose nameless graves are made in the prison-yard
And the earth smoothed back before morning and the lime scattered.
For those slain at once.
For those living through months and years
Enduring, watching, hoping, going each day
To the work or the queue for meat, or the secret club,
Living meanwhile, begetting children, smuggling guns,
And found and killed at the end like rats in a drain.
For those escaping
Incredibly into exile and wandering there.
For those who live in the small rooms of foreign cities
And who yet think of the country, and the long green grass,
The childhood voices, the language, the way the wind smelt then,
The shape of rooms, the coffee drunk at the table,
The talk with friends, the loved city, the waiter's face,
The gravestones, with the name, where they will not lie
Nor in any of that earth. Their children are strangers.
For those who planned and were leaders and were beaten
And for those, humble and stupid, who had no plan
But were denounced, but were angry, but told a joke,
But could not explain, but were sent away to the camp,
But had their bodies shipped back in the sealed coffins,
"Died of pneumonia." "Died trying to escape."
For those growers of wheat that were shot by their own wheat-sheaves,
For those growers of bread who were sent to the ice-locked wastes,
And their flesh remembers their fields.
For those denounced by their smug , horrible children
For a peppermint-star and the praise of the Perfect State,
For all those strangled, gelded, or merely starved
To make perfect states; for the priest hanged in his cassock,
The Jew with his chest crushed in and his eyes dying,
The revolutionist lynched by the private guards,
To make perfect states, in the names of the perfect states.
For those betrayed by the neighbours they shook hands with
And for the traitors, sitting in the hard chair
With the loose sweat crawling their hair and their fingers restless
As they tell the street and the house and the man's name.
And for those sitting at the table in the house
With the lamp lit and the plates and the smell of food,
Talking so quietly; when they hear the cars
And the knock at the door, and they look at each other quickly
And the woman goes to the door with a stiff face,
Smoothing her dress.
"We are all good citizens here.
We believe in the Perfect State."
And that was the last Time Tony or Karl or Shorty came to the house
And the family was liquidated later.
It was the last time.
We heard the shots in the night
But nobody knew the next day what the trouble was
And a man must go to his work.
So I didn't see him
For three days then, and me near out of my mind
And all the patrols on the streets with their dirty guns.
And when he came back, he looked drunk, and the blood was on him.
For the women who mourn their dead in the secret night,
For the children taught to keep quiet, the old children,
The children spat-on at school.
For the wrecked laboratory,
The gutted house, the dunged picture, the pissed-in well,
The naked corpse of
Knowledge flung in the square
And no man lifting a hand and no man speaking.
For the cold of the pistol-butt and the bullet's heat,
For the ropes that choke, the manacles that bind,
The huge voice, metal, that lies from a thousand tubes
And the stuttering machine-gun that answers all.
For the man crucified on the crossed machine guns
Without name, without resurrection, without stars,
His dark head heavy with death and his flesh long sour
With the smell of his many prisons -
John Smith, John Doe, John Nobody -
oh, crack your mind for his name!
Faceless as water, naked as the dust,
Dishonored as the earth the gas-shells poison
And barbarous with portent.
This is he.
This is the man they ate at the green table.
Putting their gloves on ere they touched the meat.
This is the fruit of war, the fruit of peace,
This ripeness of invention, the new lamb,
The answer to the wisdom of the wise.
And still he hangs, and still he will not die,
And still, on the steel city of our years
The light falls and the terrible blood streams down.
We thought we were done with these things but we were wrong.
We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom.
We thought the long train would run to the end of Time.
We thought the light would increase.
Now the long train stands derailed and the bandits loot it.
Now the boar and the asp have power in our time.
Now the night rolls back on the west and the night is solid.
Our fathers and ourselves sowed dragon's teeth.
Our children know and suffer the armed men.
> >But the Will of Io, while it can be resisted, can never be overcome.
> >
> >So while in the micro-verse there always seems to be so many things wrong, in
> >the macro-verse, things are unfolding as they should. As they must. Your
> >resistance to some traditional means of organization is a case in point.
>
> And you are willing to allow and perpetuate ongoing suffering/abuse on
> a theory?
You are trying to mix religion with science again. Huna has NO theories. It has
"Doctrines". It is a religion, NOT a science.
Suffering does not need my permission to exist. It exists already. I AM willing to
understand its purpose in Io's great plan. I AM willing to understand its
justification. And the necessity to resist it. I do not and have never perpetuated
it.
> >Out of your frustration and struggle, you are destined to affect many people in
> >good ways.
>
> Or burn/poision/shoot/sexually abuse etc them; because in the end it
> is all within the will of deity X.
These things exist. I saw a TV interview of a rapist and the girl he raped. Out of
her eyes I saw Io looking. Io confused, and afraid and betrayed. Out of his eyes I
saw the eyes of Io, confused, not comprehending what he had done to ruin his entire
life, and the lives of his parents.
They opened my heart to them in aloha (compassion). A terrible thing.
And yet, if I had come upon them in the act, I would be duty bound to stop them.
Even to kill him if I had to, to stop him. Even to be killed if there was an
overshadowing force of a gang.
But: "It is not necessary for a warrior to have victory to succeed. It is only
necessary that the innocent do not die undefended."
But within those actions. In stopping the guy. In perhaps killing him. He would have
felt no hate from me. Only the plea to restore pono (righteousness).
> I don't buy it.
I wasn't selling it. It is a gift to any who find it useful. And those who don't
find it useful should pass it by.
> Peyote.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 11:49:59 -0800, Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> >
> >> Let me ask you a question.
> >>
> >> Do you think those people that took their own life to follow a comet
> >> into UFO la la land had doubt? I don't think so.
> >
> >Everyone dies. Their deaths are no different. From the outside it was perhaps a waste,
> >since they could have struggled a little more before death was inevitable.
>
> The method of death is very different.
>
> Being burned to death, poisoned, tortured or shot in the head are all
> quite different ways of dying Lani.
Um, they took a numbing, painless poison.
> Who has the right in faith to do these things? NO-ONE PERIOD.
Everyone dies.
> >From the inside, they did just fine.
>
> Oh really? A baby that was poisoned -or shot- by Jim Jones did just
> fine? Sure as if I believe that.
You're losing your rationality. YOU set up the discussion about "Heaven's Gate" NOT the
killing of babies. No babies died there. Period.
> >YOUR (and mine) assumptions that they were
> >incorrect are mere speculations on your part, and not compelling.
>
> One thing almost all good religions, atheists, humanists and agnostics
> agree on is the uniqueness of life, so it is hardly speculation that
> torture, abuse of faith etc is wrong.
They believed that their spirits were being called home, in the spacecraft seen beside the
comet.
They acted on that belief. *I* doubt it. But then I wasn't there. They are immortal, and
once they stop playing on their Dreamworld spaceship, they will simply be born again.
> It is hardly speculation that taking the life of a baby or child is
> wrong because people have faith in some lunatic.
True. And none were harmed in the Comet affair.
> What faith does a
> baby or child have hmm? Where is their choice? Where is their future?
They are Io, as is everything, they follow Io's Will.
> It is hardly speculation that those who did try to escape from
> Jonestown -when they woke up to the reality of what was really
> happening- wanted to get out -but were killed anyway-.
And interesting comment and topic. I wonder why you set up this as limited to the San Diego
Comet affair?
> It is hardly speculation that young boys and girls are sexually abused
> -and raped- by their leader/guru/god man etc is wrong.
And what makes you think this happened in San Diego? The youngest guy there was 18, AFAIK.
> They are facts Lani and not assumptions or speculation.
I think that they are irrational wild eyed speculations on the San Diego cult, which is
what I was responding to, which is what you asked me to respond to.
> What however
> is speculation and assumption is the concept that 'it is all under
> control' or to hold out for some future hope in another life.
There is only One Life.
> >The theological question of their religion, if that is what it was, is, "Did it allow
> >them to live better lives than would otherwise be possible?"
>
> The dead have no better life because they are dead, it is that simple.
Ah, then you remember your last vacation from "life" in the Dreamworld? You're very lucky
then.
> They were robbed of their life. How the hell in any ones book can that
> be said to be living a better life?
No one robbed them of their lives. No one can die. They ended their time here for a little
time. But they were all adults, and made their decisions.
But the question is not in the moment of their deaths, but what they considered the quality
of their lives to be from the time of their conversion to the moment of their deaths in San
Diego.
> Peyote.
There seems to be a dichotomy here. Whereas *I* am immortal, I would die to prevent the
spread of Evil, and have put myself in harm's way many times. And you believe that life is
meaningless (which it is if we are not immortal) and you talk about resistance, but you are
not an Exorcist. And are you involved in the free gun movement in Australia?
Are you prepared to risk your life in Australia for others as I was in the Waco affair?
John C. Randolph
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 12:37:12 -0800, altarS...@omnicast.net (Tom)
> wrote:
[snippage]
> >I do know that their followers did just that: followed. And that
> >got them into trouble.
>
> I agree.
>
> They blindly followed in faith, they accepted the claims of their
> leader -and his claims of the paranormal- again on faith only.
Not quite..
Let's not forget the role of deliberate deceit, here. Often the leaders
of a cult will use simple conjuring tricks to convince their followers
that they're able to do something miraculous.
The will to believe is very useful to the unscrupulous. Regrettably,
many people can be taken in by tricks as simple as spoon-bending, or by
shills who pretend to be blind or lame and then are miraculously cured
by the crook.
One thing that James Randi has done for years, is show an audience three
conjuring tricks that serve to "prove" that he has paranormal powers.
He then shows how two of the tricks are done, but does not show how the
third one is done, to make the point that even though you may not know
how he did it, it does not follow that the trick was done by any kind of
"magic" ability.
Jim Jones used the "psychic surgery" gag for years, convincing a lot of
his marks that they had been cured of tumors and the like. His
followers (as far as they knew) had seen him perform miracles. Sure,
they should have been more skeptical, but they weren't simply taking his
testimony as fact. If they had merely taken any of the stuff that Jones
had pretended to pull out of their bodies, and had it analyzed, they
would have been even more surprised to learn that their "tumors" were
actually rancid chicken livers.
Peter Popoff used to wear a small radio receiver in his ear, and pretend
to be hearing a "word of knowledge" from god, telling him the details of
what various people in the audience were worried about, and what their
names were, what their children's names were, etc.
The way he got this information, was that his wife was backstage,
reading notes to him from "prayer cards" that the audience members had
filled out before the show. I remember seeing a *Very* interesting
video of Popoff's show, with the audio from his wife's prompting
included.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 04:37:20 -0800, "John C. Randolph" <j...@idiom.com>
> wrote:
[snip]
> >You know the really scary thing, (which I learned at a very young age)
> >is that a suprisingly large number of people will do what they're told
> >by anyone who takes the initiative to issue orders.
>
> The lemmings syndrome rearing its ugly head again?
Well, in this newsgroup I won't get into the whole subject of MicroSoft
Windows. ;-)
-jcr
John C. Randolph
Lani wrote:
>
> Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
> > >Where is you faith?
> > >
> > >The Will of Io is inescapable.
> >
> > This is on the assumption that there is a will of Lo in the first
> > place.
>
> No. I am a Kahuna. That is NOT an assumption. It is a Doctrine. An understanding of
> how things really are.
In other words, it is so, because Lani says so.
Well, how can anyone argue with that?
> > Now if there is no life after death you have just condemned the little
> > life span that humans do have on this earth -children also- to the
> > acceptance of abuse at the hands of a lunatic.
>
> If there is no life after death, then there is no purpose or meaning, save hedonism
> anyway.
Nonsense. Something doesn't have to be perpetual to be worthwhile. I
can live a happy life, whether or not there is anything afterward. I
can have positive effects on my friends and family, contribute to the
body of knowledge, advance the technology of my industry, fight against
tyranny and ignorance, and do any number of other worthwhile things,
that *don't* depend on the the proposition that there is an afterlife.
> > Do you really believe Lani that it is okay for children to be abused?
>
> Waco caused me to join the Militia. I eventually got to the point where I helped to
> organize it nationwide. I came up with the identifying symbol, and I suggested the
> symbol. Linda Thompson, who started in Militia Movement had patches made made of the
> symbol, and it adorns people willing to die before they see the Federal government
> burn down another Church full of little innocent kids. Now that's what *I* did
> about the incident. According to my Faith. I am a warrior. A fellow participant
> here. What have *YOU* done about it?
Well Lani, if you've come out against gun control, then that may well be
the first point of agreement I've seen between you and I.
As a tactical matter, however, I think that joining the militia movement
is a mistake. The last thing I want to do is get on a list. Better to
get your weapon, keep your powder dry, and not be among the numbers that
government *knows* they're going to see in the streets. Surprise is a
definite advantage.
-jcr
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>[snippage]
>
>> Then you are honest. I hate to tell you this -though you already know
>> it I believe- honest people are rare to find. Even harder still is
>> knowing when a person is lying and when a person is telling it to you
>> straight.
>
>Actually, I would say that most people are honest. Dishonest people
>stand out as aberrations in my experience.
It could be, I guess in this our experiences differ somewhat.
>> Which comes back to the faith issue, faith in another person
>> -especially one who claims to be 'special in some way' is dangerous
>> when that 'uniqueness' is related to spirituality.
>>
>> The person speaks with God, the person is a prophet, guru or god man,
>> and to use the words I once heard
>>
>> 'How dare you argue with God on Earth'.
>
>If anyone tried a line like that on me, then depending on my mood, I'd
>either come back at them with "How dare you pretend to be God?" or else
>recruit a mob to stone him to death for blasphemy. ;-)
LOL.
>-jcr
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>>>Tom wrote:
>>>I would like to answer your questions here from my POV. I do not speak
>>>for Lani, only me. All of your examples here have one thing in common.
>>>People followed a person. A human. There is the flaw in your faith
>>>theorem.
>>Peyote:
>>Do you think Jim Jones, Koresh etc etc followed other people? I don't.
>>
>>
>>I put it to you that they indeed followed themselves -refusing to
>>listen to others or getting proper mental help- and in their case the
>>secondary result was people had faith in them and were led down the
>>same path of destruction as their icon went down.
>Tom replied:
>I do not know what or who (if anyone) those cult leaders believed in.
Fair enough.
>Nor do I know why they felt that somehow they were above other men.
Some mythologies actually encourage this.
>That may very well be a flaw in MY theorem.
Your point was still valid though from the premisses if the person is
honest, not into ego trips -or cultic power trips- etc etc.
>I do know that their followers did just that: followed. And that
>got them into trouble.
I agree.
They blindly followed in faith, they accepted the claims of their
leader -and his claims of the paranormal- again on faith only.
Testing, examining properly, and even comparing evidence -or demanding
proof- is not a part of the 'faith & believe only' package. In fact if
you look closely independent thought and examination is highly
discouraged and or delayed by ready made excuses.
Following that thought; the next question arises, as to why so many of
these type of people follow the same pattern. I believe the answer is
quite obvious.
>It is my concept that God loves us totally. I don't have to read
>a book, go to church, or follow anyone else, or even adhere
>to a set of rules, to know that. Nothing is required of us for
>God to love us.
Okay.
Peyote.
>Tom
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Tom wrote:
>>
>> I would like to answer your questions here from my POV. I do not speak
>> for Lani, only me. All of your examples here have one thing in common.
>> People followed a person.
>
>Although, in each of these cases they *believed* that the person they
>followed somehow knew more than they did about god's supposed will. The
>follower's willingness to obey was misused by the nutcases who led them
>to their demise.
>
>> A human. There is the flaw in your faith theorem.
>
>>I propose that people follow their inner self.
>
>YES! This is *precisely* why I tell people to avoid those who demand
>obedience. It is when people give up their own moral judgement, and
>just do what they're told by their priest or obergruppenfuehrer, that
>tragedies on a massive scale become possible. Wars are made possible
>not only by hatred, but by the *obedience* of the people in the warring countries.
>
>Petty and not-so-petty tyrants through the ages have demanded that
>people abandon their own intelligence, and commit unspeakable crimes,
>because (the tyrant says) god, or the race, or the nation, or something
>similarly fictitious wants them to do so.
Exactly, well said. -This one goes in my archives-
>>In my counseling work I encourage people to find any and all flaws in
>what I
>> relate to them, and to proceed with their own best judgement, not
>> mine, when they do find those flaws and errors.
>
>>The concept of anyone following me blindly anywhere is horrifying to
>me.
>
>I suspect that people like Elron Hubbard and Jim Jones had a different
>reaction, which was to despise the people who were weak enough to be
>followers. It might explain why they abused their nut-cult members so visciously.
I have often wondered about this. Could it be because they are in a
position of absolute authority over those whom have faith in them?
In other words they can do what they please -dissent or serious
investigation is not permitted- and in the eyes of the faithful; the
icon can never be wrong. In a group like this there are no counter
balances -especially if the government doesn't find out- or different
opinions.
>You know the really scary thing, (which I learned at a very young age)
>is that a suprisingly large number of people will do what they're told
>by anyone who takes the initiative to issue orders.
The lemmings syndrome rearing its ugly head again?
>-jcr
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
>I believe that there is a basic need for people to follow "something." I
>believe that spirituality, in whatever form one chooses, is a need for
>everyone.
I disagree. Often the 'need' you are referring to is mixed up with a
time in life when people question the bases of life -or reality- that
surrounds them.
It is more I believe in my opinion a 'need to know', a need to find
answers which make sense to the questioner.
>Of course many of the atheists in the group would say they don't
>follow a spiritual path. I would disagree with that, because,
>IMMHO, belief in any form is a form of spirituality.. . in a sense.
No this has been debated countless times on the atheist NG with same
result, ... 'atheists don't follow a spiritual path period'.
The same goes for the play on words that some try to ascribe to
atheists regarding the word 'belief' that this word automatically
implies spirituality of some kind. That is simply not the case.
Peyote.
>
>Kevin Stewart wrote:
>
>> 2500+ cults, Jonestown, Waco(?), Halley-bop-ers, and fanatics in general
>> say otherwise, Tom.
>>
>> How does a person KNOW it is their inner guide, (my term for your "inner
>> self"), they hear & not yrs of conditioning, accepted-on-faith beliefs, etc.
>>
>> A person starts going to a charismatic church. Friendly folks, scripture
>> right out of the Bible, etc. Bible studies and other activities follow. The
>> person is skeptical but "looking" and perhaps isolated. In time, s/he goes
>> up to be prayed over. The preacher encourages the person to "step out in
>> faith", "let go & let God....". All around are people speaking in tongues.
>> If/when s/he does too, is it mob instinct, the need for acceptance or other
>> that motivates?
>>
>> A child is raised in a church with the works: Trinitiy, Sunday-keeping,
>> X-mas &co, etc. God ain't doubted. The parents quit regular church & one
>> gets into a God-oriented cult where everything taught is out of the Bible.
>> The Inner Guide lead the kid to attend or is it yrs of God, Love, Heaven,
>> etc. indoctrination and this is the only 'show in town'? Besides, adults
>> aren't wrong & the other parent is indifferent.
>>
>> Why is it that so many who quit christianity, quit spiritual growth/seeking.
>> The Guide go, too? Why are so many neo-pagans ex-catholic. Perhaps it has
>> something to do with both being ritual- & symblol-heavy? Why is
>> christianity so big in the west, especially with its' bloody history & our
>> emphasis on proof & knowing?
>>
>> Why do so few otherwise good people fail to protests things like witch hunts
>> & 'red' scares, holocausts, etc.? Sure there's the instinct for
>> self-preservation, but what about the need to stand up, protect freedom
>> (sans war) preserve decent society, etc.?
>>
>> Why is there so much commercialism, bankruptcy (over 1.1 million in '97),
>> consumer debt and expensive trinkets, (sports cards, pokemon, 25+ yr old
>> john deere toys, etc)
>>
>> We are, for the most part, followers/conformists -- despite our
>> protestations to the contrary. (If/when the Robertson/Farwell types come to
>> power, watch how many spiritual/good people will fall in line and let "only
>> christians" serve in school boards or congress, etc.).
>>
>> Kevin
>> Tom wrote in message ...
>> >I would like to answer your questions here from my POV. I do not speak
>> >for Lani, only me. All of your examples here have one thing in common.
>> >People followed a person. A human. There is the flaw in your faith
>> >theorem. I propose that people follow their inner self. In my
>> >counseling work I encourage people to find any and all flaws in what I
>> >relate to them, and to proceed with their own best judgement, not
>> >mine, when they do find those flaws and errors. The concept of anyone
>> >following me blindly anywhere is horrifying to me. Although I am
>> >perfect, for me, I certainly am not perfect for you. Tom
>>
>> snipped
>
>
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Kevin Stewart wrote:
>
>> 2500+ cults, Jonestown, Waco(?), Halley-bop-ers, and fanatics in general
>> say otherwise, Tom.
>>
>> How does a person KNOW it is their inner guide, (my term for your "inner
>> self"), they hear & not yrs of conditioning, accepted-on-faith beliefs, etc.
>>
>> A person starts going to a charismatic church.
>
>Where is you faith?
>
>The Will of Io is inescapable.
This is on the assumption that there is a will of Lo in the first
place.
>Every person in Jamestown, every child in Waco are
>immortal souls who come here from time to time to be
>frustrated. As well as to have fun.
And that is exactly what encourages these forms of abuse to continue,
and even gives them the bases to justify their atrocities.
Now if there is no life after death you have just condemned the little
life span that humans do have on this earth -children also- to the
acceptance of abuse at the hands of a lunatic.
Do you really believe Lani that it is okay for children to be abused?
Do you seek to justify it on the 'belief' that it may or may not be
better in the next life?
Think about it.
>They are all safe, and in the arms of their Aumakuas.
Again says who?
This does not make it okay. Suffer now because it will be okay later
on. Have faith that you will be okay or that it is the will of God -or
whatever deity that one believes in-.
I think that it is better that none of this idiocy begin in the first
place and most certainly not be justified -or perpetuated- by the
ideology that 'it is okay, or all for the better in the long run'.
>For a little bit, the drama is over for them. But Waco got
>the Militia started.
We are not talking about drama 'as an abstract' we are talking about
real people, real children, who were horribly burnt to death, poisoned
etc etc -depending on the cult-.
Real people Lani with real lives, real hopes and dreams. Stop for a
minute man and think about what you are saying.
It is most certainly not 'a little bit of drama' being over for them.
>Perhaps this will turn out ill or to the ultimate benefit of us all.
>Perhaps even the Militia's existence will change the course
>of history.
May it never happen again.
>But the Will of Io, while it can be resisted, can never be overcome.
>
>So while in the micro-verse there always seems to be so many things wrong, in
>the macro-verse, things are unfolding as they should. As they must. Your
>resistance to some traditional means of organization is a case in point.
And you are willing to allow and perpetuate ongoing suffering/abuse on
a theory?
>Out of your frustration and struggle, you are destined to affect many people in
>good ways.
Or burn/poision/shoot/sexually abuse etc them; because in the end it
is all within the will of deity X.
I don't buy it.
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>> Let me ask you a question.
>>
>> Do you think those people that took their own life to follow a comet
>> into UFO la la land had doubt? I don't think so.
>
>Everyone dies. Their deaths are no different. From the outside it was perhaps a waste,
>since they could have struggled a little more before death was inevitable.
The method of death is very different.
Being burned to death, poisoned, tortured or shot in the head are all
quite different ways of dying Lani.
Who has the right in faith to do these things? NO-ONE PERIOD.
>From the inside, they did just fine.
Oh really? A baby that was poisoned -or shot- by Jim Jones did just
fine? Sure as if I believe that.
>YOUR (and mine) assumptions that they were
>incorrect are mere speculations on your part, and not compelling.
One thing almost all good religions, atheists, humanists and agnostics
agree on is the uniqueness of life, so it is hardly speculation that
torture, abuse of faith etc is wrong.
It is hardly speculation that taking the life of a baby or child is
wrong because people have faith in some lunatic. What faith does a
baby or child have hmm? Where is their choice? Where is their future?
It is hardly speculation that those who did try to escape from
Jonestown -when they woke up to the reality of what was really
happening- wanted to get out -but were killed anyway-.
It is hardly speculation that young boys and girls are sexually abused
-and raped- by their leader/guru/god man etc is wrong.
They are facts Lani and not assumptions or speculation. What however
is speculation and assumption is the concept that 'it is all under
control' or to hold out for some future hope in another life.
>The theological question of their religion, if that is what it was, is, "Did it allow
>them to live better lives than would otherwise be possible?"
The dead have no better life because they are dead, it is that simple.
They were robbed of their life. How the hell in any ones book can that
be said to be living a better life?
-snip-
>You bring up Jim Jones. He did evil in the name of religion.
Ahh but did he do evil according to his own faith? Did he even
consider that his actions or himself were evil or wrong?
>Yet, how many have died in
>this country since those deaths, whom you can't recall their names?
Plenty.
>Perhaps more than 5,000,000 in car wrecks alone. What is the Created World trying to
>teach you about Arte? That one is remembered and another forgotten?
No it is teaching us the difference between random death -due to
chance, natural occurrences etc- and death by the hands of lunatics
who take it upon themselves to rob other people of their life in
whatever cause or faith they expect you to believe in.
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>
>
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>> Testing, examining properly, and even comparing evidence -or demanding
>> proof- is not a part of the 'faith & believe only' package. In fact if
>> you look closely independent thought and examination is highly
>> discouraged and or delayed by ready made excuses.
>>
>> Following that thought; the next question arises, as to why so many of
>> these type of people follow the same pattern. I believe the answer is
>> quite obvious.
Lani:
>Here you are wrong. Many of Jim's "followers" were trying to escape, but they
>were very much prisoners.
See my other post, I have mentioned that some of his followers tried
to escape.
>Most of his followers were derived from drug
>addicts and the homeless, etc. They had little to lose and much to gain.
No they had everything to lose and nothing to gain as the end bears
out quite clearly.
>Before their move to Central America, they were under attack by all and
>sundry because he had been dealing with "those types" of people.
Big deal.
I deal with people like this everyday, so what? They are human beings
just like everyone else, and are not ripe for being used or abused
because some cult or person wants to take advantage of their misery.
The same thing I tell young girls & boys who need their next 'hit' and
a place to sleep for the night, selling sex -and some of them are in
the 10-13 year age group- is simply not on.
You demonstrate the A typical attitude that 'well they can't do much
worse' and a 'cultic hope is better than none.'
BS is all I can say to this.
I am astounded that you could even think this considering you work
with the underprivileged.
>I had a counseling session with a lady last night. I have no idea which
>religion she belongs to if any.
>
>She is having major finance troubles.
>
>I told her that money comes from our relationship to Io, if we have one.
That is bad advice then.
>And that if she wasn't using her religion to make her ends meet, then she
>needed to do just that, but if she was trying, and receiving no success then
>she needed to try another religion.
Or she needed proper financial counseling.
>Many are into the proper technology of Prayer Forms. I told her to try the
>Church of Religious Science, if that didn't work, then try Unity, and if that
>didn't fit her style, then try Huna, or any other religion which matched her
>"knacks".
How about directing her to the Salvation army or the Anglican mission
if she is religiously inclined? They do wonders here in Australia and
also offer financial counseling while helping out with food packages
etc.
Not being religiously inclined myself, I will admit that they get my
vote.
>I told her everyone has particular knacks, and that some religions fit some
>people, and not others.
>
>But then again, tribal paganism demands performance on the part of its
>Priests (by any name). I told her, its just like buying a new pair of shoes.
>Find a pair that didn't pinch, and wear them until they wear out.
If you want to really help her, have her deal with the reality of her
situation first -debt I assume- and how she can climb out of it, then
if she wants, ... proceed to the luxury of religion.
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>> Being burned to death, poisoned, tortured or shot in the head are all
>> quite different ways of dying Lani.
>
>Um, they took a numbing, painless poison.
Oh and that makes it okay? In case you hadn't noticed we are not
talking about one cult only Lani.
>> Who has the right in faith to do these things? NO-ONE PERIOD.
>
>Everyone dies.
Again answer the question and don't try to avoid it.
Who has the right to do these things? Do you?
>> >From the inside, they did just fine.
>>
>> Oh really? A baby that was poisoned -or shot- by Jim Jones did just
>> fine? Sure as if I believe that.
>
>You're losing your rationality.
Interesting, stating facts is losing rationality? Since when?
>YOU set up the discussion about "Heaven's Gate" NOT the
>killing of babies. No babies died there. Period.
Wrong I have set no discussion up solely on HG, look back in the
thread to verify it Lani. This was one group of a few which were
brought up and even more were covered under the general subject of
'believe or faith only cults & personalities'.
In-fact the very word I used 'cults' is in the plural. Is there a
reason why you tried to imply otherwise? Isn't this what you have
accused others of doing with your words? Ironclasts -or something I
believe you call them-?
>> >YOUR (and mine) assumptions that they were
>> >incorrect are mere speculations on your part, and not compelling.
>>
>> One thing almost all good religions, atheists, humanists and agnostics
>> agree on is the uniqueness of life, so it is hardly speculation that
>> torture, abuse of faith etc is wrong.
>
>They believed that their spirits were being called home, in the spacecraft seen beside the
>comet.
>
>They acted on that belief. *I* doubt it. But then I wasn't there. They are immortal, and
>once they stop playing on their Dreamworld spaceship, they will simply be born again.
This is another justification on your behalf based on the assumption
that there is even a life after death. Furthermore the guy was
supposed to have had cancer ... uhmm big lie ... he didn't have cancer
did he?
Yet they accepted it on 'faith' that he did have cancer, as much as
they accepted it on faith that they were going to UFO la la land.
See the fallacy of 'faith only' without any need to verify, test and
examine the evidence?
As I have said before; the fall back position of faith only is more
often than not used as an excuse to avoid proof and if one extends
this even further it can be used as a justification for any atrocity
past, present & future.
It quite literally can be a free license to do anything you want to,
and to do it to anyone else under the guise of faith.
>> It is hardly speculation that taking the life of a baby or child is
>> wrong because people have faith in some lunatic.
>
>True. And none were harmed in the Comet affair.
In the case of HG I would call a dead person as being harmed wouldn't
you? In the case of other cults along similar lines that end in death;
I would also dare say that they were harmed.
>> What faith does a
>> baby or child have hmm? Where is their choice? Where is their future?
>
>They are Io, as is everything, they follow Io's Will.
The baby follows Lo's will? How exactly? When a baby can neither
reason or make a choice whether it wants to follow or not?
You justify these actions of lunacy on the assumption -which you
assure us is true, without proof naturally- that it is Lo's will.
>> It is hardly speculation that those who did try to escape from
>> Jonestown -when they woke up to the reality of what was really
>> happening- wanted to get out -but were killed anyway-.
>
>And interesting comment and topic. I wonder why you set up this as
>limited to the San Diego Comet affair?
I don't that is the whole point. If you go back, the contention was
regarding the 'just accept X in faith' opinion etc etc.
>> It is hardly speculation that young boys and girls are sexually abused
>> -and raped- by their leader/guru/god man etc is wrong.
>
>And what makes you think this happened in San Diego? The youngest
>guy there was 18, AFAIK.
And what makes you want to focus on one area to the exclusion of other
'just accept X in faith' groups or people?
>> They are facts Lani and not assumptions or speculation.
>
>I think that they are irrational wild eyed speculations on the San Diego cult, which is
>what I was responding to, which is what you asked me to respond to.
Lets see shall we:
I said on the 14/11/99
==========================
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think those people that took their own life to follow a comet
into UFO la la land had doubt? I don't think so.
His followers accepted it as truth, they did not stop to think, to
reason, to investigate -and it turned out he didn't even have cancer
so he lied on that score- and so on.
-snip-
Jim Jones was another lunatic. Do you think you could reason with his
followers in the early days? Not a chance.
Okay Rev Moon is another example, you could prove black and white that
he was into arms sales, scaming money of his followers etc etc but try
and reason with them ... and you found it was all accepted on faith,
trust etc.
So no Lani, faith I have found is often an excuse to avoid facing up
to facts -reality or even other views- and in some cases 'faith' is
used to keep the minds of the people shackled to a particular cause.
Having said this I also do not accept the notion that all faith has to
be bad, evil, foolery or whatever.
==========================
Oops I also said on the 14/11/99 :
Do you think Jim Jones, Koresh etc etc followed other people? I don't.
==========================
Uhmm where in any of the above do you see the discussion of HG only?
Actually you also discussed Jim Jones in this thread with me, so where
did you get the idea to make this comment :
>speculations on the San Diego cult, which is
>what I was responding to, which is what you
>asked me to respond to.
Perhaps you could point out in which post exactly you restricted this
-or responded only- to a discussion on HG only, maybe I missed it.
>> What however
>> is speculation and assumption is the concept that 'it is all under
>> control' or to hold out for some future hope in another life.
>
>There is only One Life.
Other religions would no agree.
>> >The theological question of their religion, if that is what it was, is, "Did it allow
>> >them to live better lives than would otherwise be possible?"
>>
>> The dead have no better life because they are dead, it is that simple.
>
>Ah, then you remember your last vacation from "life" in the Dreamworld? You're very lucky
>then.
That is your assumption again.
>> They were robbed of their life. How the hell in any ones book can that
>> be said to be living a better life?
>
>No one robbed them of their lives.
Generally life taken is life robbed.
>No one can die.
ROTFL so graveyards don't exist?
>They ended their time here for a little
>time. But they were all adults, and made their decisions.
Again not all did make this decision -is this why you are trying to
focus on one cult only BTW- the decision for some was made for them.
-see previous posts in this thread-
>But the question is not in the moment of their deaths, but what they
>considered the quality of their lives to be from the time of their conversion
>to the moment of their deaths in San Diego.
Focusing on one cult again? Sorry this tactic doesn't work. So I will
state it again, this discussion -and even the name of this thread- is
regarding faith, which covers all groups that adhere to it.
And my contention is with the 'just believe it in faith gambit' etc
-cults included-.
>There seems to be a dichotomy here. Whereas *I* am immortal, I would die to prevent the
>spread of Evil, and have put myself in harm's way many times. And you believe that life is
>meaningless (which it is if we are not immortal) and you talk about resistance, but you are
>not an Exorcist.
Show me where I have said life is meaningless please :-D Is this
another assumption of yours?
>And are you involved in the free gun movement in Australia?
Huh?
>Are you prepared to risk your life in Australia for others as I was in the Waco affair?
Some people do not have a need to boast ;-)
Think about it.
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>
>
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>> This is on the assumption that there is a will of Lo in the first
>> place.
>
>No. I am a Kahuna. That is NOT an assumption. It is a Doctrine. An understanding of
>how things really are.
Can you prove it? No? Then it is an assumption from where I sit,
ideology, theory etc. -Oh yes doctrine could also fit into this LOL-
>> Now if there is no life after death you have just condemned the little
>> life span that humans do have on this earth -children also- to the
>> acceptance of abuse at the hands of a lunatic.
>
>If there is no life after death, then there is no purpose or meaning, save hedonism
>anyway.
Your still chasing your own tail.
First you set up a conclusion -or propose an inaccurate statement-
that there can be no purpose in life if there is no life after death
LOL -except for hedonism-. Not correct. Read some of R Ingersoll's
works for an atheist view of this.
Secondly, from your first misconception you then try to draw a case
based on the 'supposed life after death' which perpetuates further
suffering and misery.
Try again Lani.
>> Do you really believe Lani that it is okay for children to be abused?
>
>Waco caused me to join the Militia. I eventually got to the point where I helped to
>organize it nationwide. I came up with the identifying symbol, and I suggested the
>symbol. Linda Thompson, who started in Militia Movement had patches made made of the
>symbol, and it adorns people willing to die before they see the Federal government
>burn down another Church full of little innocent kids. Now that's what *I* did
>about the incident. According to my Faith. I am a warrior. A fellow participant
>here. What have *YOU* done about it?
You helped to organize a nation wide movement? What is its name and
what is this symbol that you suggested -and I assume they now use-?
Now to the next point, you state with confidence that you want to stop
the Federal Govt from burning down another church full of innocent
kids, well why should you even bother, after all is it not the will of
Lo that they get burned?
Why should you care who does the killing? It is the will of Lo, there
is another life after death so it is really OK and the killing that
happened was an act of faith by the US Govt.
>> Do you seek to justify it on the 'belief' that it may or may not be
>> better in the next life?
>
>We are all immortal dreamworld creatures who come here from time to time to dream
>into life for a little bit. To suffer and be frustrated with its concomitant growth
>of wisdom, and to sport and play here too.
Re-read the question above again. All you have given me is your belief
system. Do you justify the deaths and abuses within cults on account
of faith & belief that it is all Lo's will? Does that make it right?
Who are you then to say what happened at Waco was wrong?
>I have no "belief" in another world. I DO have faith that the Created World has an
>existential reality for a short (compared to the Eternal World) time (about 100
>billion years).
Well others obviously would disagree LOL.
>> >They are all safe, and in the arms of their Aumakuas.
>>
>> Again says who?
>
>Everyone in this NG responds from the POV of their Faith.
Everyone? I don't.
>It is accurate to say that when a person's temporary body "dies" then his or her
>eternal body is caught in the loving arms of their Aumakua (something like a
>Guardian Angel).
If the said faith accepts that one does indeed go to a Guardian Angel,
some go directly to paradise -generally Muslims- others go to Jesus,
some to Sach Kand etc etc.
>It is foolish for you to ask: "Again says who?", when each person speaks for himself
>and his Faith alone.
That is why I ask 'says who?' According to which system of belief and
salvation.
>I believe that Tom's understanding is similar, as well as that gal from Avalon, but
>I could be wrong.
>
>> This does not make it okay. Suffer now because it will be okay later
>> on. Have faith that you will be okay or that it is the will of God -or
>> whatever deity that one believes in-.
>
>When you made the Created World, you made it a place tough enough to teach you what
>was necessary to learn.
Once more others do not believe we created the world. Your only
representing a certain take of what you assume may or may not be. Your
beliefs could be totally wrong and YHWH created it all without human
help.
>As such, and since Io alone suffers in His creation. You have only yourself to
>blame.
I do not accept this. Blame should be put where blame is due. If I
hurt someone **I** have caused it not the person who has been hurt.
>Of course, you can be wrong. I can be wrong. Maybe I'll appear before the white
>throne. If so, then I have a couple of complaints, the need for toilet tissue, in
>the "highest evolved species" is one for sure! And several others.
ROTFL yeah especially the scratchy type :-D There should be a law
against selling that.
>> I think that it is better that none of this idiocy begin in the first
>> place and most certainly not be justified -or perpetuated- by the
>> ideology that 'it is okay, or all for the better in the long run'.
>
>Really? OK. Perhaps that's why I have spent my life as an Exorcist and Healer. One
>of the Hunian elements of its Mazeway states, "Evil, if ignored, spreads."
Well this I can agree with -except for the exorcism thing-. That has
been my experience too. Leave evil/abuse etc alone for long enough it
festers and spreads.
> It is the
>purpose of religious warriors Kahunas and others to resist Evil when we find it. But
>there aren't enough of us anymore. Too many have closed their eyes and become
>Atheistic hedonists. So we fall under the influence of The Dark.
People generally have three choices:
1. I will do it
2. I will not do it
3. I will sit on the fence undecided.
None of these choices needs religion to back it. However when that
power of choice is taken from you or you are sucked into a 'just
believe it in faith system' you are severely restricted to what you
can or can not do.
Atheists have as much choice of doing good as religious people do, or
equally they can do as much harm as religious people do. It has
absolutely no bearing on 'supernatural' forces.
>We all pay the price for that. "Ask not for whom the [the funeral] bell tolls, it
>tolls for you."
>
>> >For a little bit, the drama is over for them. But Waco got
>> >the Militia started.
>>
>> We are not talking about drama 'as an abstract' we are talking about
>> real people, real children, who were horribly burnt to death, poisoned
>> etc etc -depending on the cult-.
>>
>> Real people Lani with real lives, real hopes and dreams. Stop for a
>> minute man and think about what you are saying.
>>
>> It is most certainly not 'a little bit of drama' being over for them.
>
>Yes, that is exactly what it is. If I knew what was going to happen, I would have
>gone to Waco myself and attacked the soldiers there who were killing the kids. When
>I understood what was happening, I joined the Militia.
I guess that is warning enough for people to be very wary of you. Sad
really I thought better of you. Oh well you live and you learn.
What you should have really done since you believe in this Lo -and it
is all its will- is helped them to die even quicker and blown the
place -Waco- sky high with a large bomb.
>But the entire histories of all the Created World is a drama.
>
>We are all immortal. The Created World, according to the real scientists is only
>about 1/4 of the way through its cycle.
People burning to death -children included- is no drama, it is real
life and suffering. Cults, wanabe gurus etc that inflict suffering on
their people are without excuse period.
You may wish to justify it on account of your beliefs, but do not
expect normal people who do care for others to swallow your rubbish.
>What our minds will be like in another 75 billion years, I can only vaguely guess
>at. But I remember myself 50 years ago in Kindergarten. I remember the fights. The
>Teachers, some of my other students.
>
>But do I remember the abuse? Not really? Do I hold grudges? No. Why not, these
>things were very serious at the time? Because if I had known where I was going to
>end up in my life, what I would have experienced, and that I would make it out of
>Kindergarten safely, it was all justified.
And that is why evil exists Lani, because people like you try to
justify it away.
>When the Waco kids look back on this one lifetime out of about 60, and know what lay
>in store for them, they too will not remember it at all, except for its driving
>force in their lives.
>
>Yet, I would have died to prevent it. Even though I know that David Koresh, like Jon
>here, would hang me in an instant if they were King-for-a-Day.
Why it is the will of Lo? Haven't they brought it on themselves?
Aren't they better of because of it?
>> >Perhaps this will turn out ill or to the ultimate benefit of us all.
>> >Perhaps even the Militia's existence will change the course
>> >of history.
>>
>> May it never happen again.
>
>If so. It will be people like me and others here, and people of Faith, who will
>prevent it.
Again why prevent it? It is good isn't it, or are you now admitting it
is not so good after all?
-snip-
>> And you are willing to allow and perpetuate ongoing suffering/abuse on
>> a theory?
>
>You are trying to mix religion with science again. Huna has NO theories. It has
>"Doctrines". It is a religion, NOT a science.
Like I said theory. Can you prove it? Nope? Okay back to the word
theory then I guess.
>Suffering does not need my permission to exist. It exists already. I AM willing to
>understand its purpose in Io's great plan. I AM willing to understand its
>justification. And the necessity to resist it. I do not and have never perpetuated
>it.
There is no justification for suffering. If you cast of that myth and
stop looking for excuses you can begin to meet the problems head on.
>> Or burn/poision/shoot/sexually abuse etc them; because in the end it
>> is all within the will of deity X.
>
>These things exist. I saw a TV interview of a rapist and the girl he raped. Out of
>her eyes I saw Io looking. Io confused, and afraid and betrayed. Out of his eyes I
>saw the eyes of Io, confused, not comprehending what he had done to ruin his entire
>life, and the lives of his parents.
How about out of her eyes terror and his eyes lust? Put the blame
where blame is due. This Lo does not even enter the equation.
>They opened my heart to them in aloha (compassion). A terrible thing.
Terrible indeed.
But isn't it the will of Lo? Isn't it an experience which she will
grow by? Why should you feel compassion for her after all she must
have brought it on herself.
>And yet, if I had come upon them in the act, I would be duty bound to stop them.
>Even to kill him if I had to, to stop him. Even to be killed if there was an
>overshadowing force of a gang.
Why?
Do you mean like those who oppose the lunatics who say 'just trust in
me aka the faith alone gambit?'
Or were you perhaps talking about people pointing out the idiocy of
suicide cults?
>But: "It is not necessary for a warrior to have victory to succeed. It is only
>necessary that the innocent do not die undefended."
>
>But within those actions. In stopping the guy. In perhaps killing him. He would have
>felt no hate from me. Only the plea to restore pono (righteousness).
>
>> I don't buy it.
>
>I wasn't selling it. It is a gift to any who find it useful. And those who don't
>find it useful should pass it by.
Okay.
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>> The lemmings syndrome rearing its ugly head again?
>
>Well, in this newsgroup I won't get into the whole subject of MicroSoft
>Windows. ;-)
ROTFLMAO
>-jcr
Peyote
Kevin Stewart
FYi 8~3 )
Kevin
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote in message
<384db2f8...@news.primus.com.au>...
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:37:10 -0800, Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Being burned to death, poisoned, tortured or shot in the head are all
> >> quite different ways of dying Lani.
> >
> >Um, they took a numbing, painless poison.
>
> Oh and that makes it okay? In case you hadn't noticed we are not
> talking about one cult only Lani.
>
I am surprised at you.
You asked me specifically about the Heaven's Gate Cult in San Diego. I responded to that
question.
THEN you try to broaden the range of the question I answered, and pretend that I would have the
same answers for, say the Jim Jones Cult, which I wouldn't.
Or perhaps it is just an accident on your part. I hope so.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> >> Who has the right in faith to do these things? NO-ONE PERIOD.
> >
> >Everyone dies.
>
> Again answer the question and don't try to avoid it.
>
> Who has the right to do these things? Do you?
Yes. For me, and me alone. Each person owns his own life. Each person may chose how he will die.
Or do you think YOU have the right to stop, by Police Force, the Heaven's Gate Cult in San Diego
from suicide?
> >> >From the inside, they did just fine.
> >>
> >> Oh really? A baby that was poisoned -or shot- by Jim Jones did just
> >> fine? Sure as if I believe that.
> >
> >You're losing your rationality.
>
> Interesting, stating facts is losing rationality? Since when?
YOU limited the conversation to the Heaven's Gate Cult. No one there was under 18 years old. I
don't think you're stating facts. But if you think an 18 year old is a baby, then that is being
irrational.
> >YOU set up the discussion about "Heaven's Gate" NOT the
> >killing of babies. No babies died there. Period.
>
> Wrong I have set no discussion up solely on HG, look back in the
> thread to verify it Lani. This was one group of a few which were
> brought up and even more were covered under the general subject of
> 'believe or faith only cults & personalities'.
Wrong dude. Let me quote you what you asked and what I answered:
"Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 11:49:59 -0800, Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> >
> >> Let me ask you a question.
> >>
> >> Do you think those people that took their own life to follow a comet
> >> into UFO la la land had doubt? I don't think so."
> In-fact the very word I used 'cults' is in the plural.
You do not use the term cults or cult at all in the question you asked me, and which I answered.
> This is another justification on your behalf based on the assumption
> that there is even a life after death.
I have made no assumption that we live a continuous life. It is a Huna Doctrine. I am a Kahuna
or Priest of the Huna religion. I uphold that Doctrine on Faith. But I have also posted here
when science discovered the soul, and measured its weight, and published the experiments in a
peer review journal.
> The baby follows Lo's will? How exactly? When a baby can neither
> reason or make a choice whether it wants to follow or not?
All of Io follow Io's will. The immortal beings (all life) which come here to "dream" life into
otherwise inert matter follow Io's Will too. Gravity. Respiration. Citric Acid Cycle. Burning
carbohydrates, etc.
The Will of Io is inescapable—although it can be resisted for short periods.
> You justify these actions of lunacy on the assumption -which you
> assure us is true, without proof naturally- that it is Io's will.
I make NO assumptions here. I have NEVER assured you of its truth. It doesn't matter to me or Io
what you believe. you are Io caught up in the Created World's drama just as we are all.
Whatever has happened, has happened justly. No matter what you bring up. Everything is counted
at the moment of the NOW.
It is only during the NOW or in the future that we can make changes, and sometimes better the
world.
We can take the sad plight of the Jews in WW II. Just one element. They tried to come over here
in boats to escape the NAZIs, the President of the USA denied them the right to land.
When they died at the hands of the NAZIs, did not those who turned them away from safety have
some involvement in their fate? Did they not themselves, who could have seen it coming but
decided to wait too long. Decided not to resist Hitler before he fully secured his position of
power also share in the responsibility?
That no one assassinated Hitler?
At the moment of the NOW, all actions and decisions were "justified" or taken into account. And
the bubbles of Io released at the hands of the other bubbles of Io, and the drama continues on
to today.
And the Kahunas and a few others stake their lives to defend yours. In your country it is also
the Clever Men of the Koori.
And in doing this, I have been forced off the road. I have had many death attempts. I have done
Exorcisms and Healings. And still it is not enough to hold back The Dark which we are slowly
slipping into.
I will continue to hold back The Dark. but if we can not do it. THen, because of my
understanding of Io, I will not despair. I will understand that this part of the Created World
is simply, once again, slipping into another dark drama from which we will eventually emerge.
Because of Io, I will know that for every gloaming, there is a new dawn to come.
Our drives are not so different. Our love of pono (righteousness) is likewise similar. I suppose
that you prefer this ritual battle to enlighten you on how I can be on your side? How you can be
on mine?
--
-Lani
I will not lay down, I will not go quietly.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> Can you prove it?
OK. How does one "prove" a Doctrine held by faith alone?
> >Waco caused me to join the Militia. I eventually got to the point where I helped to
> >organize it nationwide. I came up with the identifying symbol, and I suggested the
> >symbol. Linda Thompson, who started in Militia Movement had patches made made of the
> >symbol, and it adorns people willing to die before they see the Federal government
> >burn down another Church full of little innocent kids. Now that's what *I* did
> >about the incident. According to my Faith. I am a warrior. A fellow participant
> >here. What have *YOU* done about it?
>
> You helped to organize a nation wide movement? What is its name and
> what is this symbol that you suggested -and I assume they now use-?
The Militia.
The symbol is:
===V===
For "victory" over ...
I took it from the Sci-fi series a few years ago.
Linda Thompson even had them made up for wear on Militia uniforms.
I recently saw an article she did—she is STILL using the symbol as her signature!!!
But it has been several years since I've talked to her, and I doubt if she even remembers
who came up with the understanding that the scattered militia elements needed a common
symbol to bind then together, and came up with the symbol.
I am not, and never will, be a famous person. But that doesn't mean I haven't done a
thing or two on this tour of the Created World.
> Now to the next point, you state with confidence that you want to stop
> the Federal Govt from burning down another church full of innocent
> kids, well why should you even bother, after all is it not the will of
> Lo that they get burned?
That is too clumsy an idea. It is within Io's will that we need the Breath of Life, and
that wood burns.
But the Created World was made so that Io (us) could hemolele or polish or purify our
souls. To that end, Io calls upon us to live bold lives. The Created World is designed to
develop the six sacred virtues: koa (courage), aloha (compassion), lokahi (unity,
oneness), malama (nurturance), pono (righteousness), ho`okipa (hospitality). Together
these form the basis for the next evolutionary step away from protoplasmic life.
If someone who has developed these virtues comes and takes effective actions in the NOW,
then the little souls of the One Soul will not have to suffer and "die", only to be
reborn again.
But there were no warriors to defend them. Or if they aren't effective enough. Then at
the moment of the NOW all factors are taken into consideration, and the drama moves on.
Io calls upon us to live bold lives. To become warriors. The cost is great if we shirk
from that, but there is no ultimate and permanent damage.
> Why should you care who does the killing? It is the will of Lo, there
> is another life after death so it is really OK and the killing that
> happened was an act of faith by the US Govt.
No. The entire Created World was made for a very important purpose. Each lifetime we
spend here is important. But when you speak of people I can no longer save—because they
are already dead. Then it is good to know that the damage is only really shallow and
temporary.
> >> Do you seek to justify it on the 'belief' that it may or may not be
> >> better in the next life?
> >
> >We are all immortal dreamworld creatures who come here from time to time to dream
> >into life for a little bit. To suffer and be frustrated with its concomitant growth
> >of wisdom, and to sport and play here too.
>
>
> Who are you then to say what happened at Waco was wrong?
Each person is responsible for the growth and polishing of his own soul. I am one of
those, you are too. You get to judge. But we see things an a far different manner. To me,
that flesh is frail comes as no surprise. To see that children should not be gassed then
burnt to death is also something I accept the possibility of. That it calls for the
creation of the Militia, I am proud of. In europe and in Australia they gave up their
only means from defending themselves from their government.
But to me, I notice, in the main, that there were not enough warriors there to save the
children from the claws of the Federal government. But even that is limited. For I only
have one "vote". I only have the responsibility of the development of my soul, my courage
and lack of it.
My only possible decision it to decide that I will not tolerate it to happen again if I
perceive the danger. In Waco I did not until it was too late.
> >> >They are all safe, and in the arms of their Aumakuas.
> >>
> >> Again says who?
> >
> >Everyone in this NG responds from the POV of their Faith.
>
> Everyone? I don't.
You have no choice, it is the Will of Io. Or perhaps I am wrong, who do you speak for
then, if not for yourself, from your POV.
> >As such, and since Io alone suffers in His creation. You have only yourself to
> >blame.
>
> I do not accept this. Blame should be put where blame is due. If I
> hurt someone **I** have caused it not the person who has been hurt.
So you would deny any responsibility of the elements of one's life to the person actually
living it? We are all victims then, and have no choices or responsibilities over our
lives at all. All responsibility rests only on the attacker?
> You may wish to justify it on account of your beliefs, but do not
> expect normal people who do care for others to swallow your rubbish.
Um, YOU sought Me out. I would never have searched you out. You cannot make me an
Atheist.
> Why it is the will of Lo? Haven't they brought it on themselves?
> Aren't they better off because of it?
First, they ARE Io, there is only One. Secondly, no the kids did not bring it on
themselves. It was meant to intimidate the populace, but it backfired. Thirdly, in the
drama, you are focused on the wrong people. Hundreds of thousands of citizens quietly
bought guns and determined that that kind of behavior would not be tolerated in our
government.
So throughout our nation, courage and the will to resist Evil sprang up. It is a harsh
thing for you to say, but yes they are better for it.
> >> >Perhaps this will turn out ill or to the ultimate benefit of us all.
> >> >Perhaps even the Militia's existence will change the course
> >> >of history.
> >>
> >> May it never happen again.
> >
> >If so. It will be people like me and others here, and people of Faith, who will
> >prevent it.
>
> Again why prevent it? It is good isn't it, or are you now admitting it
> is not so good after all?
What? The killing of the kids at Waco was pure unadulterated Evil. Like an allergic
reaction, it pushed back The Dark for a time by the inspiration it gave to the souls of
the Militia as it formed them.
> >> And you are willing to allow and perpetuate ongoing suffering/abuse on
> >> a theory?
> >
> >You are trying to mix religion with science again. Huna has NO theories. It has
> >"Doctrines". It is a religion, NOT a science.
>
> Like I said theory. Can you prove it? Nope? Okay back to the word
> theory then I guess.
Wrong. All scientific theories remain theories, and can never really be finally proven.
A Doctrine is never ever "proven", it isn't Science. It is found to be useful and
accepted on faith. Or it is not. There may be reasons to support the Doctrine, but at its
core, a Doctrine stands on faith, and faith alone.
> But isn't it the will of Lo
> (I'm not certain if you are being ignorant or insulting, if insulting then I will find
> no need to communicate with you further, if in ignorance then the name is" IO, and not
> Lo)?
> Isn't it an experience which she will
> grow by? Why should you feel compassion for her after all she must
> have brought it on herself.
Two separate questions: Yes, she stands the chance of being more careful in the future.
To be more awake more alert.
Io betrayed Io, how can one not have compassion for her betrayal and suffering?
> >> I don't buy it.
> >
> >I wasn't selling it. It is a gift to any who find it useful. And those who don't
> >find it useful should pass it by.
>
> Okay.
>
> Peyote.
--
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>
>
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 19:37:10 -0800, Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Being burned to death, poisoned, tortured or shot in the head are all
>> >> quite different ways of dying Lani.
>> >
>> >Um, they took a numbing, painless poison.
>>
>> Oh and that makes it okay? In case you hadn't noticed we are not
>> talking about one cult only Lani.
>>
>
>I am surprised at you.
>
>You asked me specifically about the Heaven's Gate Cult in San Diego. I responded to that
>question.
Yes and in the same section I also asked:
Jim Jones was another lunatic. Do you think you could reason with his
followers in the early days? Not a chance.
>THEN you try to broaden the range of the question I answered, and pretend that I would have the
>same answers for, say the Jim Jones Cult, which I wouldn't.
That was my assumption, because it appeared you tie everything to HG
only though the earlier post was most certainly not focused on that
one cult only.
>Or perhaps it is just an accident on your part. I hope so.
Okay it looks like I mistook you sorry, or the wires were crossed
somewhere.
My apologies.
Peyote.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> First it is wrong to assume that the Govt & police are always in the
> right, and have our best interests at heart. That simply is not true.
>
> Secondly does the Govt have the right to interfere with religious
> faith and growth? No it shouldn't, because if they start on one group
> where then do they draw the line? Today it may be X suicide cult
> tomorrow something else they don't like -or policy changes etc- and so
> on.
>
> Yet we come back to the same problem where does one draw the line?
Huna Doctrine: Io calls upon us all to be nice to each other. If a group isn't nice to each other, I
agree with you: Kill them all.
SO: Children and babies are NOT independent members of society, they are elements of their families.
Not saying that this is how it ought to be, saying how it is.
Children generally suffer the fate of their parents.
So simple: did members of Jim Jones's religion want to leave? Then they ought to have been free to
leave. Or police action was called for.
Did any of the parents in Waco want to leave? Was anyone stopped? No? Then no police action was
called for against the Church.
Koresh had a lot of sex? So? It was voluntary.
> Hopefully somewhere in all this the person will learn to 'think' and
> reason and not merely except the first excuse that comes before them
> as the 'truth'.
Ah, yes. You mean to think just like you do.
>
>
> Science weighed the soul? Who, where & when?
> This is a chapter from my second book on Huna:
POTHOLES ON THE PATH
To Walk in A Sacred Manner
© Kahuna Lani, 1998
Chapter 10/24
"Some Soul"
I'm going to make an exception to my normal stories of me and my
friend's experiences on the Sacred Path and reprint an article of a series
of medical experiments. I have heavily edited it to make it fit in here, in
doing this I have added nothing, nor have I shifted anything around. I
have cut out some inconclusive experiments done on dogs, and other
irrelevant material. Whenever I have eliminated material, I have used an
ellipses "..." to indicate it. Also whenever I have made comments, I
indicate it like this: <LANI: xxx>.
In order to place this article in context, and to understand its
importance, I think we should quickly go over the Hunian
COSMO-GENESIS.
Let's start with a few of the opening lines of the Huna Heiau's Kumulipo,
or Foundation Chant, which in one form or another is more than 5,000
years old:
Io, the parentless, the self-created
Dwelt for an eternity in the warm
Humid darkness of Po---the Void.
Then to end His inertness, He spoke:
'Let the Darkness become a Light-possessing Darkness.'
This was the creation of time, as well as the Created World. The
Kumulipo goes on to explain the absorption of Io into the Created World,
which is the sole source of all Life.
Now, what really happened?
This question goes back to our understanding of the Shadow
Matter—Aka. The Glyph for it in the Third Dynasty, which is the Parasol and
its shadow. Known to Egyptologists as the "Ka" soul.
OK. So what is Aka matter, or the body of Io?
To understand what happened when Io made the Created World, we
have to get a little into Planck's Constant. Planck's Constant deals with
the angular momentum of electrons. Ultimately this creates or implies the
actual size of atoms and molecules through the development of electron
shells.
It is the position of Huna that there are TWO Planck's Constants. If there
were, then we would have two different sized atoms. We could postulate
an atom which didn't have any "space" between its electrons and its
nucleus.
In the 1950's a Huna Physicist named, John Hilliard called these things:
"Metatrons".
Now, these metatrons, or the non-mundane atoms which make up the
body of Io, or Aka, Shadow Matter, Ectoplasm, etc. Would have a number
of predictable qualities. They would be "invisible" to all scientific
instruments, since millions of them would fit between the mundane atoms
of the scientific instruments.
But amongst other things, they would affect and be affected by
Gravity.
Such a material has been discovered. It has a mass ten times that of
the entire known mass of the entire Universe. It is discoverable by its
gravity, but otherwise does not effect scientific instruments.
It is called "Dark Matter", and it "closes" the Universe, which is important
to Huna Theology. But is too lengthy to discuss here. Suffice to say that
when the red shifted stars turn into blue shifted stars, the Created World
will be only halfway through its cycle, but the Universe will be shrinking
towards another singularity like the one that formed it.
During the Big Bang, about 10% of Io's body or Aka were popped like
popcorn into their new Planck's Constant, or bigger size. This produced
the mundane material of the Created World and its associated Light and
other energy.
The Created World is like a poem, and so let's go back to our
understanding of the "Periodic Table of Elements".
The discovery of this relationship between the materials of the Created
World provides an important insight into the process of the Created World.
As you will remember, the Periodic Table of Elements was discovered in
France, and is a list of all the natural or mundane elements arranged into
"octaves".
When so arranged, the metals all fall together in the lower right corner,
while all other elements are found in the upper left corner.
When Ben Franklin had the choice of whether an electric pole was
"positive" or "negative", he made his guess, which is still used on all
electronic schematics. He was wrong, but it was a fifty/fifty chance.
Likewise when the modern New Age Metaphysicians had to guess as to
relating the mundane world to the eternal world, they guessed that the
eternal world was of a "higher vibration". This left them with "something"
smaller than Hydrogen. This was wrong, but no foul to them.
As we approach the end of the list of heavier and heavier metals,
something strange happens---they all become "radioactive", that is, they
become Light possessing. The list ends with metals that give off so much
light that they cease to exist in a very short time. Thus the list of elements
ends in an impassable wall of Light.
A wall of Light separates the Created World from the Eternal World,
which contains only Io or GOD.
Now although the body of Io weighs ten times that of the entire
Created World, and His gravity "closes" the Universe, still His body is finite. If
this is so, then how can the Created World expand? Well, this leads us to
the Hawaiian word, "pili" which is a definition of the soul or Aka which
means that aka is "sticky". In other words the only way to close the
Created World is for it to expand then contract to crush all the mundane
atoms back into their Aka form, and to collect all the Light with it. The
anti-Big Bang. Aka then has to "froth".
Aka controls the entire Created World and all its Galaxies, etc. This
frothing has now been discovered by astronomers at Cambridge
university. And you can read about it in: "BUBBLES, VOIDS AND BUMPS IN
TIME", but especially in the video: "SO MANY GALAXIES...SO LITTLE TIME".
Available from Heliotrope Studios Ltd., 21 Erie St., Cambridge, Ma 02139
This frothing of Io's body and being which is now so visible in the sky, is a
part of its nature. It is the same process that is seen in Huna as the creation
and evolution of souls.
The whole reason for the making of the Created World is for Io (as us) to
experience it.
If that is so, then another thing would show, souls would have mass or in
a gravity field, have weight.
This would mean that every time you weighed yourself, a part of the
reported weight would be that of your soul. All the weight of your children
would also include the weight of their souls.
And THAT part, the soul, the part that is made from Dark Matter, would
be immortal.
If only there were some proof that the soul had weight...
+ + +
American Medicine April, 1907
Hypothesis Concerning Soul Substance Together
with Experimental Evidence of The Existence of Such
Substance
by Duncan MacDougall, M.D.
of Haverhill, Mass.
If personal continuity after the event of bodily death is a fact, if the
psychic functions continue to exist as a separate individually or
personality after the death of brain and body, then such personality can
only exist as a space occupying body, unless the relations between space
objective and space notions in our consciousness, established in our
consciousness by heredity and experience, are entirely wiped out at
death and a new set of relations between space and consciousness
suddenly established in the continuing personality. This would be an
unimaginable breach in the continuity of nature.
It is unthinkable that personality and consciousness continuing
personal identity should exist, and have being, and yet not occupy
space. It is impossible to represent in thought that which is not
space-occupying, as having personality; for that would be equivalent to
thinking that nothing had become or was something, that emptiness had
personality, that space itself was more than space, all of which are
contradictions and absurd.
Since therefore it is necessary to the continuance of conscious life and
personal identity after death, that they must have for a basis that which is
space-occupying, or substance, the question arises has this substance
weight, is it ponderable?
The essential thing is that there must be a substance as the basis of
continuing personal identity and consciousness, for without
space-occupying substance, personality or a continuing conscious ego
after bodily death is unthinkable.
...Because one of the very first attributes of personal identity is the
quality of separateness. Nothing is more borne in upon consciousness,
than that the ego is detached and separate from all things else -the
non-ego.
We are therefore driven back upon the assumption that the soul
substance so necessary to the conception of continuing personal identity,
after the death of this material body, must still be a form of gravitative
matter, or perhaps a middle form of substance neither gravitative matter
or ether, not capable of being weighed, and yet not identical with ether.
Since however the substance considered in our hypothesis is linked
organically with the body until death takes place, it appears to me more
reasonable to think that it must be some form of gravitative matter, and
therefore capable of being detected at death by weighing a human
being in the act of death.
My first subject was a man dying of tuberculosis. It seemed to me best
to select a patient dying with a disease that produces great exhaustion,
the death occurring with little or no muscular movement, because in such
a case the beam could be kept more perfectly at balance and any loss
occurring readily noted.
The patient was under observation for three hours and forty minutes
before death, lying on a bed arranged on a light framework built upon
very delicately balanced platform beam scales.
The patient's comfort was looked after in every way, although he was
practically moribund when placed upon the bed. He lost weight slowly at
the rate of one ounce per hour due to evaporation of moisture in
respiration and evaporation of sweat.
During all three hours and forty minutes I kept the beam end slightly
above balance near the upper limiting bar in order to make the test more
decisive if it should come.
At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired and suddenly
coincident with death the beam end dropped with an audible stroke
hitting against the lower limiting bar and remaining there with no
rebound. The loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce.
This loss of weight could not be due to evaporation of respiratory
moisture and sweat, because that had already been determined to go
on, in his case, at the rate of one sixtieth of an ounce per minute, whereas
this loss was sudden and large,
three-fourths of an ounce in a few seconds.
<LANI: here follows a listing of various waste products that might or
might not be excreted which I don't think we need to go into>
There remained but one more channel of loss to explore, the
expiration of all but the residual air in the lungs. Getting upon the bed
myself, my colleague put the beam at actual balance. Inspiration and
expiration of air as forcibly as possible by me had no effect upon the
beam. My colleague got upon the bed and I placed the beam at
balance. Forcible inspiration and expiration of air on his part had no
effect. In this case we certainly have an inexplicable loss of weight of
three-fourths of an ounce. Is it the soul substance? How other shall we
explain it?
My second patient was a man moribund from tuberculosis. He was on
the bed about four hours and fifteen minutes under observation before
death... coinciding with the last movement of the facial muscles, the
beam dropped. The weight lost was found one half ounce.
My scales were sensitive to two-tenths of an ounce. If placed at
balance one-tenth of an ounce would lift the beam up close to the upper
limiting bar, another one-tenth ounce would bring it up and keep it in
direct contact, then if the two-tenths were removed the beam would drop
to the lower bar and then slowly oscillate till balance was reached again.
My third case, a man dying of tuberculosis, showed a weight of half
ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a
few minutes later.
In the fourth case, a woman dying of diabetic coma, unfortunately
our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of
interference by people opposed to our work, and although at death the
beam sunk so that it required from three-eighths to one-half ounce to
bring it back to the point preceding death, yet I regard this test as of no
value.
My fifth case, a man dying of tuberculosis, showed a distinct drop in
the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be
accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but
peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later
removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen
minutes. It was impossible to account for the three-eighths of an ounce
drop, it was so sudden and distinct, the beam hitting the lower bar with as
great a noise as in the first case. Our scales in the case were very
sensitively balanced.
My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost
within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was
adjusting the beam...
My notes taken at the time of experiment show a loss of one and
one-half ounces but in addition it should have been said the experiment
was so hurried, jarring of the scales had not wholly ceased and the
apparent weight loss, one and one-half ounces, might have been due to
accidental shifting of the sliding weight on that beam. This could not have
been true of the other tests, no one of them was done hurriedly.
The net result of the experiments conducted on human beings, is that
a loss of substance occurs at death not accounted for by known channels
of loss. Is it the soul substance? It would seem to me to be so. According
to our hypothesis such a substance is necessary to the assumption of
continuing or persisting personality after bodily death, and here we have
experimental demonstration that a substance capable of being weighed
does leave the human body at death.
If this substance is a counterpart to the physical body, has the same
bulk, occupies the same dimensions in space, then it is a very much lighter
substance than the atmosphere surrounding our earth which weighs
about one and one-fourth ounces per cubic foot. This would be a fact of
great significance, as such a body would readily ascend in our
atmosphere. The absence of a weighable mass leaving the body at death
would of course be no argument against continuing personality, for a
space-occupying body or substance might exist not capable of being
weighed, such as the ether.
... the soul substance cannot be the ether as ether; but if the theory
that ether is the primary form of all substance is true, then the soul
substance must necessarily be a differentiated form of it.
If it is definitely proved that there is in the human being a loss of
substance at death not accounted for by known channels of loss...
I am aware that a large number of experiments would require to be
made before the matter can be proved beyond any possibility of error,
but if further and sufficient experimentation proves that there is a loss of
substance occurring at death and not accounted for by known channels
of loss, the establishment of such a truth cannot fail to be of the utmost
importance. <LANI: there were no more experiments, and can not now
ever be because of all the stuff that is plugged into people in the
Hospitals>.
One ounce of fact more or less will have more weight in
demonstrating the truth of the reality of continued existences with the
necessary basis of substance to rest upon, than all the hair-splitting
theories of theologians and metaphysicians combined.
If other experiments prove that there is a loss of weight occurring at
death, not accounted for by known channels of loss, we must either
admit the theory that it is the hypothetical soul substance, or some other
explanation of the phenomenon should be forthcoming. If proved true,
the materialistic conception will have been fully met, and proof of the
substantial basis for mind or spirit or soul continuing after the death of the
body, insisted upon as necessary by the materialists, will have been
furnished...
This fact alone of a space occupying body of measurable weight
disappearing at death, if verified, furnishes the substantial basis for
persisting personality or a conscious ego surviving the act of bodily death,
and in the element of certainty is worth more than the postulates of all the
creeds and all the metaphysical arguments combined.
In the year 1854 Rudolph Wagner, the physiologist, at the Gottingen
Congress of Physiologists, proposed a discussion of a "Special Soul
Substance." The challenge was accepted, but no discussion followed
and among the 500 voices present not one was raised in defense of a
spiritualistic philosophy. Have we found Wagner's soul substance?
+ + +
So there we have it. Science proves that we have a soul, and that, at
least under a field of gravity, it has weight.
If that were so, then there is something else we would expect to find:
mass.
And once we know what to look for, we find it in many places. Max
said to look at our bodily feelings when we use an elevator.
When the elevator starts its movement we can actually feel our soul
slipping away for a moment. We feel this is our na`au, or abdomen, the
seat of the Unihipili.
In an even more conclusive evidence is that of “concussion deaths”
soldiers encounter in war.
You’ve no doubt heard of “concussion grenades”, but you probably
don’t know a lot about them.
Any explosion is simply a fast moving wind. It can carry objects in that
wind (shrapnel), which can impact anything that isn’t moving so fast. But
the certain element of any explosion is that it a fast moving wind, whether
or not if carries anything with it.
It was during the Vietnamese War that I first heard of Concussion
Deaths. They first piqued my interest because no one knew why certain
people died from Grenade Explosions.
In other words, a Grenade goes off, and certain people are found
dead afterwards. But they have no wounds whatsoever, except for
perhaps broken eardrums.
Why do they die? Huna wouldn’t have the answer except for a course
Max Freedom Long took in Honolulu in the 1920’s.
The Ferson Effect
Baron Eugene Ferson was perhaps the greatest Mesmerist of his time.
Mesmerism has been in disfavor for a number of decades now, ever since
to was confused with Hypnosis, with which it has a frail connection (but
while related they are not nearly the same thing).
During his “demonstrations” in front of live audiences, he would
“charge” a small metal chair with Mesmeric Force (mana or Life Force or
L’elan Vital) and a succession of people would cross in front of a small
number of chairs, only one of which was “charged”.
When a person reached it, they would be drug into it, even though
they weighed more than an order of magnitude more than the chair.
This one-way, sort of magnetic effect, was named “The Ferson Effect”.
Max Freedom Long and a friend of his took Baron Ferson’s 26 week
long Course.
It was this Course that first taught Max in the ways of mana.
At the end of the course, Max and his friend got a little puppy. They
“charged” themselves and putting the puppy on the somewhat slippery
kitchen Linoleum floor, were able to pull it backwards by placing their
charged hands on the puppy’s rump and pulling slowly backwards. They
did this several times until the puppy grew tired of the game and reached
behind and nipped one of them!
Today, this training is still used somewhat in Huna training of a Kahuna.
The Haumana (student) places his charged hands on a normal person’s
shoulders from behind, and pulls backwards slowly.
When there is a proper difference in the levels of mana, the normal
person will be pulled backwards.
The Ferson Effect is what keeps us alive. It provides our souls, which
contains our mana, with the “magnetic” style attraction that keeps the
soul “glued” to our bodies, which otherwise are composed of a large
colony of single living cells.
This accounts for “concussion deaths”. The “wind” of the explosion
affects the person’s body, but has little effect on the person’s Dark Matter
soul. The body is quickly moved backwards, but the only thing that moves
the soul is its Ferson Effect or “magnetic” attraction. If the person’s body is
moved too quickly, the connection id broken and the person “dies”. In a
more mild sense, this also happens whilst on an elevator.
THE MAGIC CELL
So then what is “life”? What good does it so us to have an immortal
soul?
Eventually this leads from the physics of the Hunian Cosmology to its
Metaphysics. But first we had better examine a living person more closely.
But first, let’s examine what a living body actually is.
1. A living body is just a collection of cells and the intercellular fluid, the
same fluid that composes the Primordial Sea and Blood Plasma. It truth,
these cells are just little bags of chemicals or “mud”. But that is also true of
a corpse, so we need to dig further into the issue of what you are.
2. All living human bodies are alive and are composed “Systems”.
You’ve heard of these before, they include the Respiratory System, the
Reproduction System, the Nervous System, etc.
3. All Systems are composed of “organs”. An organ is a group of
different tissues all working together to produce a common end.
4. All your organs are composed of “tissues”. All tissues are simply
groups of the same kinds of cells. In a living person, all his tissues are
“alive”.
5. All your tissues are composed of living cells.
6. Thus your entire body, except for the intercellular fluid is composed of
living cells. But nothing inside of a cell is alive! All of you, and everyone
you know are totally composed of non-living chemicals, in little bags
called cells.
So what’s going on here?
This gives us a hint of what our soul does for us, and what it really is.
A couple of years ago, in my nearby city of Berkeley, a young lady was
brought in with a drug overdose. She died. No brain waves at all.
She was found to be pregnant and her parents wanted to raise the
child. So they plugged her corpse into their life sustaining machinery.
Now there is your soul, which we have seen leaves the body, and this is
called “death”, but each little cell also has a new soul, keeping it alive so
long as the environment allows that to happen. But for the purpose of this
discussion, we will ignore those tiny souls and their cells.
But her body then remained both dead and alive. Her fetus continued
to develop over the months until it could be taken from her corpse, and it
was allowed to really die and be buried.
But what really happened? What did her soul do for her?
Well, we can tell that she was dead, because she didn’t want to go
shopping anymore.
That is to say, she lost all “motivation”. So that is what our soul provides
for us, our only motivation. In other words, “Choice is Self”. Her soul went
on, but her body remained behind.
Now that we have some idea of what a soul does, we can go into the
Hunian Metaphysical Cosmology.
The Hunian Cosmological Metaphysics
+++
Now let's see how the Aesthetics of religion (the only aesthetics there is)
relates to "real life" situations.
A few years ago there was an airplane traveling either to or from Israel's
capital city, Tel Aviv.
It was hijacked by some Moslem terrorists and forced to land in
Uganda's Entebbe airport.
Now the State of Israel knows about the controversial aspect of its
citizenship, and so allows for dual citizenship. Therefore many Israelis have
two Passports, one from their home country and one from Israel.
The terrorists demanded from each person their Passport. The Jews
were separated out for "special treatment".
This real life situation calls for a choice between two alternatives, and
two different possibilities for choices. Yet which choice will you make?
There is your truth, and the truth of the others you know there, and your
Beauty or The Good or Arte there and for the others you know.
In other words, you can go with Science and Logic or with Religion and
go for Arte or Aesthetics.
The Truth, under any circumstance, is enforced by the "Hounds of Truth".
So if you lie, then there will be the worry of what will happen to you if the
Truth is eventually discovered. That is logical. So the "Scientific" answer is to
tell the terrorists that you're Jewish, and also tell about any others that you
might know there that are Jewish.
So that is the Scientific answer, that is the truth, but what is the Religious
answer? In other words, what does the Aesthetics of Arte or Beauty
suggest? It uses a completely different set of values, and truth has nothing
to do with it.
So let's turn to the person who uses the religious study of what mores
are; aesthetics. Here we find two answers.
The first one is for the young haumana, or student. Beauty does not
involve cooperation with your killers. So the answer is not to give them
your Israeli Passport, but your other one. As for the others, "Choice is Self",
therefore you will deny any knowledge of any other passenger's Faith
and orientation. The Hounds of Truth will be released, but that is a price
simply to be paid now.
The second answer is different from the others. It is for the Minister, Priest
or Kahuna, that is, the person committed to leadership and Service to
others. Here the Arte thing is to proudly and dramatically announce your
Israeli citizenship. In order to give comfort to and inspire others. But you will
deny that you know any other Jews there, even your spouse. Leaving
them to their own duty as they see it, after all, "Choice is Self", and you
want to support the Will of Io. And, of course, you will be prepared to fight
and kill the terrorists if an opportunity comes up. “The Hounds of Truth” will
be unleashed against you, but again, that is just the price you must
sometimes pay for self respect then Ethos and Mores collide.
It is not in service to truth that one identifies oneself as a Jew in that
case, it is the ultimate act of defiance. Truth has nothing to do with it.
This reminds me of a quote that Kahuna Keonaona gave me some time
ago, It is from the work of mythologist Edith Hamilton:
“The only sustaining support possible for the human spirit, the one pure
unsullied good men can hope to attain, is heroism, and heroism depends
on lost causes. The hero can prove what he is only by dying. The power of
good is shown not by triumphantly conquering evil, but by continuing to
resist evil while facing certain defeat... He says to them, in effect, You can
do nothing to me because I do not care what you do. They kill him, but
he dies undefeated.”
Science is about the longevity of life, but Religion is about the quality of
life. The ultimate end of a religious life is to be a hero or martyr. Things
don't always work out way, sometimes we die unexpectedly, sometimes
we live to old age before finding a good day to die as a hero, but it
remains the goal.
Again, I cannot recommend too strongly Doctore Robert Pirsig's book
on aesthetics, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".
But to finish this chapter, I’ve gone into the Physics of the Hunian
Cosmology, we need to proceed a little ways into the Hunian
Cosmological Metaphysics.
This is the metaphysical side of things, rather that the physical side of
the subject, which I have already discussed.
Io had a problem. He wasn’t wise, and He was bored and alone in His
Oneness. So in order to have some fun, and to gain wisdom from
experience, He made the Created world.
The First Impulse was to create the two foundation of the Created
World: Truth and Beauty. They are completely different and everything
that is comes from them in one form or another. In other words, they have
no natural or necessary relationship to each other.
Then, during this Big Bang was made time. The two Principals formed
what we might call the Arch of Time, and the two principals began to
move in time. As they moved, their true nature obtained.
Truth in action is The Law or Order. Beauty in action is The Good or
Quality.
Then, perhaps to make things more interesting, the two Corruptions of
the Fundamental Principals came into existence: The corruption of The
Law is Chaos or disorder (or from the physical, entropy). The corruption of
The Good or Quality is Evil.
We can see these corruptions a series of infinate progressions on a
plane. In other words:
LAY>------ ------<CHAOS
The Good------ ------Evil
Now the fact that the two Fundamental Principals have no necessary
relationship means that they can be compared together. Every though
and act and aspiration, every technique or philosophy or conversation
has, in various amount two of these principals. You can not have a lot of
Law and a lot of Chaos at the same time. What you can have are various
degrees or intensities of eight Law or Chaos.
You can not have both The Good and Evil at the same time. You can
just have varying degrees of one or the other.
So since the two Fundamental Principals interact, we can place them
together in a useful manner, thus:
T
H
E
G
O
O
D
\/
|
|
|
|
THE LAW------ ------CHAOS
|
|
|
|
/\
E
V
I
L
Now we can see that everything has four possibilities, either a
participant of Law and The Good, or The Good and Chaos, or Evil and
Orderly or Evil and Chaotic.
The people who created the game, “Dungeons and Dragons” also
noticed this series of relationships and call them, “alignments”.
This is because when we are born we are born at the center of the
circle. Anything can be our Path.
Then to the extent that we habitually follow a certain direction, we are
“aligned” in that direction.
We exist on a series of these disks. We are at the last one that makes for
protoplasmic development. Our next circle in on the plane of the
Aumakua, in what we call “The Realm of Light” which is dark, of course.
English recognizes the end product of these four areas, they are called,
Saintly (L-G), Beatific (C-G), Demonic (C-E), Diabolic.
Within each of these areas are many ways to get from the center to
the outer and final edge. Each of these ways are called “Paths”.
Each Path will favor one Fundamental Principal or the other. For
example, Huna is L-G, but when push comes to shove, it is founded on
Beauty and just is supported from time to time by Truth. Hence we are far
more interested in what the ancient Greeks called “Arte” and what we
could call leading The Good or High Quality life. When in those (few) times
when Ethics and Morality are in conflict with each other, a Hunian will
choose the Way of Beauty rather than the Way of Truth. To the extent that
these things have become habituated, when we are —perhaps only
once in our lives—confronted by what those people at Entebbe were
confronted with, then we will make the Moral rather than the Ethical
choice.
For “Ethics” is the systematic study of The Law or Order against Chaos,
whilst “Morality” is the study of The Good or Quality (this idea of quality is
called by the Ancient Greeks: Arte)
Every situation favors one Fundamental Principal or the other, while
containing elements of the other spectrum. To understand what this is is to
understand its “ano”.
This is exactly how the Created World works. Let’s look at another real
world example:
During the first millennium, the Roman Catholic Church was of which
“alignment”? It was aligned with the L-G spectrum. Therefore it was
interested in the creation of Law and Goodness.
What made this so?
Well, there was the goodness it taught. That if one accepts first the
rather odd idea that some souls can be “lost” then it is good that Jesus
Christ came along to save people.
And from the RC POV, Christ created two Laws that founded
Christianity:
1. The Office of Keys. Here in the scriptures, Christ established the
Papacy, in that he looked over to Peter and said something like,
Whatever Peter shall bind in Heaven shall be bound on Earth, and
whatever he loosens on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. So in other
words, the Pope and the Pope and his agents alone decide who is going
to Heaven.
2. The Hand of Power. Here Christ gives to each of his Disciples the Hand
of Power so that they may do miracles.
Now Luther attacked what to create the Reformation?
He attacked the Law of Christ but left its Goodness alone. SO he
denied the Office of Keys and the Hand of Power, but accepted the
need and possibility of Salvation.
A little later on, John Calvin did a little of the opposite, in saying that
salvation wasn’t possible at all. But that there were only two types of
people, The Elect who were predestined to Heaven, no matter what they
did, since that was already taken into account before the Universe came
into existence, and the reprobates who were condemned to everlasting
Hell.
Calvin created the Presbyterian Faith which in England was tagged as
the “Puritans” because of their hautiness.
They got together and produced the famous “Westminister
Confession”, this is a part of that:
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men
and angels are predestined into everlasting life, and others
foreordained to everlasting death...Those of mankind that are
predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was
laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret
counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ unto
everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any
foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of
them...and all to the praise of His glorious grace...The rest of
mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of
His will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth,
for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by,
and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of His glorious justice."
So then, Luther didn’t attack Christianity’s Good, but did attack its Law
and denied both the Office of Keys and the Hand of Power. Now what
effect would the success of the Reformation have? The Roman Catholic
Church would slowly have to change.
How can we observe this? Well, “if” our understanding is correct about
the ano of things, then at first the RC Church is L-G, it shares walls with
both Beatific-Good, and Lawful-Evil, therefore it would be in support of
L-G or even to a lessor extent L-E, and here at this time in the Catholic
Church (pre-Reformation) we see The Church in alignment with the
Princes.
But as it slowly changes, what does it change to? It changes into a C-G
organization.
In those times where the ano isn’t necessarily clear, we can look to the
opposites. In other words, if the Church is L-G then its total opposite is the
Demonic, or C-E.
The Demonic relates to individuals rather than organizations. Therefore
we would expect to find The Church not only supporting the Princes, but
seeking to restrain individual evil, or to engage in the practice of
Exorcisms.
As their vision of reality changes to C-G, their natural enemy also
changes. So we would expect to see a diminishing of Exorcisms and
unbridled loyalty to whatever government they find themselves in, and
instead find that now the enemy is the Diabolic, or institutionalized Evil.
And this is in fact the case.
Here are some of the Hunian Mazeweay proverbs/admonitions. There
would be more, if I could think of any more.
1. "You can not sneak up on death, safely." By that it is meant that no
matter how boldly or how safely you try to live your life, you will die. So
why not make it count? Be a warrior, Io calls upon us to live bold lives, i.e.,
a person who deliberately chooses the "Fear Choice" every time it is
presented to him by Io. For as the Psychologist who created Humanistic
Psychology, Dr. Abraham Maslow said, "In all ethical situations, the fear
choice is the growth choice." In trying to apply this doctrine to our lives
there will at first be many times when we fail, for our timorousness, or
cowardice, or our anxiety or fear, perhaps other reasons, we become
warriors be degrees, not always at first. But it always remains our intention.
2. "If we could remember what our life in the Dreamworld was like, we'd
all commit suicide today to get back there." So in other words, do not fear
death, it is your final friend. Whether under torture, or confinement or
intractable pain, nothing is so bad that Death can not find you, and
comfort you, take away all the pain, restore you from your crippled state,
and take you home to God. We do not need to seek out Death in our
lives, it will come soon enough, and there is much need for Service here.
And this from the Christian Theologian, C. S, Lewis, “The Screwtape
Letters”:
“But Hatred is best combined with Fear. Cowardice, alone of all the
vices, is purely painful—horrible to anticipate, horrible to feel, horrible to
remember; Hatred has its pleasures. It is therefore often the compensation
by which a frightened man reimburses himself for the miseries of Fear. The
more he fears, the more he will hate. And Hatred is also a great anodyne
for shame. To make a deep wound in his charity, you should therefore first
defeat his courage.
“Now this is a ticklish business. We have made men proud of most vices,
but not of cowardice. Whenever we have almost succeeded in doing so,
the Enemy permits a war or an earthquake or some other calamity, and at
once courage becomes so obviously lovely and important even in human
eyes that all our work is undone, and there is still at least one vice of which
they feel genuine shame. The danger of inducing cowardice in our
patients, therefore, is that we produce real self-knowledge and
self-loathing, with consequent repentance and humility. And in fact, in the
last war, thousands of humans, by discovering their own cowardice
discovered the whole moral world for the first time. In peace we can make
many of them ignore good and evil entirely; in danger, the issue is forced
upon them in a guise to which even we cannot blind them. There is here a
cruel dilemma before us. If we promoted justice and charity among men
we should be playing directly into the Enemy's hands; but if we guide them
to the opposite behavior, this sooner or later produces ( or He permits it to
produce ) a war or a revolution, and the much indistinguishable
cowardice or courage awakens thousands of men from moral stupor.
“This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy's motives for creating a
dangerous world—a world in which moral issues really come to the point.
He sees as well as you do that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but
the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of
highest reality. A chastity or honesty or mercy which yields to danger will be
chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful till it
became risky.”
Because of the predominance of our world–spanning culture is based
on “Science” (the search for Truth), and not “Religion” (the search for
Quality), we live, somewhat unhappy and as Aid, “Most men live lives of
quiet desperation.” and stilted lives. Thus we see that we normally live, at
the present time, in an Ethical world. Here the quest is for Law and Order.
You can tell we live in an Ethical World by just looking at any of your Utility
Bills. In an Ethical World, the monthly cost would be equally distributed by
the number of recipients, but in a Moral World, the rates would be less or
even free for those considered to be important to the mental or physical
health of the Society. In other words, in a Moral World, the society
attempts to protect its own gracious survival.
But from time to time, the Moral World overtakes the Ethical. This
changing of worlds is usually, at least in potential, either violent and/or
bloody. And it changes all causes and effects, at least for those who are
aware of the change. Both worlds are always available, even if one
predominates. There are many times when choices based on one or the
other ano is possible. Of course, most of the time the choices based on
Morality or Ethics are the same.
I remember going to a “haunted House” put on by a strange religious
group. Only six people were allowed in at any time, the rest watched old
horror movies under a big tent.
Inside, we were outnumbered by the “staff”. There were no adults to
be seen, and it became very clear that we were not safe there. (We
probably were, but didn’t seem that way.) For example we were looking
at a hunchback who was chewing on a leg of raw beef. He then tried to
force us to eat from it too by shoving it in our faces.
I remember going down a pitch dark hallway. There was a young
couple of strangers to me in front. In the darkness the walls were closing in
the further we went. Suddenly my head hit the ceiling as it was also
coming down.
The guy in front of me reached back and grabbed my hand and
guided me down the pitch dark hall. In the next room he dropped my
hand and continued on without even looking back at me.
Yet, this is against all our cultural attitudes. He wasn’t gay, since he was
in front, he decided to try to guard me to a degree. For me, I wish we had
talked. I would consider him to be on some Path that had developed his
sense of Service. So strong that he took the chance that I would not
misunderstand his gesture, and reject him, or even take offense and start
a fight with him.
Kahuna Keonaona and I were putting on a Seminar of Huna in
Switzerland, and I was discussing the identification with Io, and also the
submerging of the Ethical World with the subsequent arising of the Moral
world, when one of the young ladies there said she had a insight to share.
She had been in a violent earthquake, and as I said, she saw the Moral
World arise over the Ethical World. In the aftermath she said that she saw
“normal” people suddenly become heroes, and show a shining quality of
their souls that had not been apparent before.
She saw young men enter uninvited into others homes to see if there
was anyone to save, even at the risk of their own lives.
She saw people helping people that in “normal” times they would
have passed each other in the street without even noticing the other.
Tenets of Religious Creeds are usually presented in the absolute positive
sense. This is a matter of clarity and to assist a person to understand his
Path. But it must be recognized that these or any other tenets must be
inculcated. That is, they do not become “second nature” just because a
person reads or hears them once, but by a constant effort to apply them
over a period of time. Your habitual attitudes well normally only be
changed slowly.
3. “Comfort is the Enemy of Growth”. In other words, Io does us the
kindness of attaching fear to any set of choices in our lives. The greater
the fear, the more important we accept the challenge. In its pure
context, fear is attractive, by this I do not mean that it recommends itself
to us automatically, but that it is attractive. That is, it attracts our attention.
Perhaps the willingness to be uncomfortable is one definition of
leadership. To deliberately chose the Fear Choice is to be a warrior. It is to
accept the discomfort and potential pain that this kind of choice makes.
Io has gifted us with “Comfort Zones”. Ultimately, to live a life properly is
to constantly ride on the razor edge of fear. Pain is draining. So Io has
made for us little gardens of joy and beauty for us to rest in, to recover our
gumption. Then it is expected that we reenter our lives with boldness.
But many of us do not. Many of us make the mistake of thinking that our
comfort is the main purpose of our life. Io tries to discourage us with the
most powerful and motivating emotion we will ever know—boredom.
You see, comfort is not a fundamental principal of the Created World.
And as such, it is ephemeral. It is the signal of accommodating from one
state to another. When the accommodation is complete, then comfort
ceases.
You see this whilst taking a bath. At first if feels wonderful. Then the
water cools down, and you decide to leave the bath. But as soon as your
hands enter the water you discover that the water is really still hot. Why
should this be? Why should you not feel the water anymore, yet it remains
hot? This is because you have “accommodated” yourself to the bath. The
same is true for all comfort zones in our lives.
So therefore I say that Io calls upon us to live bold lives. That is how the
Created World is made up.
4. “Self-Esteem comes from Service to something outside of yourself.” I
had a guy come to me for religious counseling. He told me that he didn’t
have any self–esteem, and that this was a problem in his life. He wanted
me to give him a “New Age” technique to give him that self–esteem he
needed.
I didn’t know of any such technique, being “New Thought” and not
“New Age” and all. So I asked him what he had done lately to give him
something to be proud of. He said that he couldn’t remember actually
doing anything. But then he got angry with me, and yelled, “I am here
with a serious problem. All I get is this stupid talk!” Or something along
those lines. Then he stomped out.
But a week or so later he was back. He was beaming. He said he
wanted to thank me.
It had been raining hard in the LA area, and the town of Malibu was
slowly drifting out to sea. He had volunteered to make sandbags to help
stop the damage to the homes there. His entire weekend, 18 hours a day,
was spent in filling sand bags.
His depression was over, and he wanted to let me know how much my
advice to him had benefited hi.
You see, while not a Hunian, his religion, from my point of view, had led
him into making an identification with Io. As he had done that, he had the
normal results. He began to remember himself as Io or God, and began
to take responsibility for this world. In doing that he began to be
“self-sourcing”. And in doing that he had ceased, for the moment, to be
a Guest here, and became for a moment, a Host.
“Affiliation over Acquisition” This means that when the world of
acquisition conflicts with the world of affiliation, affiliation always comes
first. For example, if you are about to take your Finals at the University, and
your Aunt calls and wants to talk to you about a dream she just had, and
she wants you to come over the three hundred miles to see her. And this
will cause you to miss your finals, and thus a year of your effort, then you
go to see your aunt.
From the Hunian standpoint, your relatives and offspring and close
friends are, or may have been you friends and lovers for many
generations of your lives, and will be again.
So, although we are born without specific knowledge of our past lives
(otherwise it would be very difficult to lead the current one.) This maintains
your “support network” from lifetime to the next. A very important process
which impinges both on your lifetimes and those associated with you.
We live through a matrix in time, which we call “love lines”. This means
that we tend to be born time and again in the same family, the same
nation, the same culture and the same gender and race. Many times we
know or at least can feel that we come from our mother’s line or our
father’s line.
Max Freedom Long, found and quoted in one of his books a good
description of this:
But love will have been enough;
all those impulses of love return
to the love that made them.
Even memory is not necessary for Love.
There is a land of the living
and a land of the dead
and the bridge is love,
the only survival,
the only meaning.
The Bridge Of San Luis Rey
by
Thornton Wilder
Kahuna Fred Kimball did much research along these lines. He found
that “love lines” were held amongst all people’s save two. American
blacks and Hindus. All the American blacks he talk to through
Clairesthesia wanted to be reborn as whites. But I think that this was
caused by the amount of prejudice they lived under here.
You know, its funny what the Ethical World and Science/Capitalism
bring. It’s a mixed bag, isn’t. One the good side there is indoor plumbing,
VCRs and elevat9or music. But one the bad side there are other things.
The instant acquisition of poverty, where there was none before. Diseases
that are unknown to them. The destruction of the Sacred in their lives.
There is terrible poverty on the Indian Reservations. But this always
confuses me, since they have more than they had as Plains wanderers.
“Poverty” seems to come through invidious comparison, to an extent.
Pressing on, Hindu religion teaches instant transmigration of souls. And
so, there isn’t much by way of a matrix in time, or a family cohesion.
Indeed, every true man at the age of forty, leaves his home, puts on a
jock strap and goes around the countryside begging for food for the rest
of his life. Pretty cold from the Hunian standpoint. “Affiliation over
acquisition.”
Before the beginning was Io. Alone and inert in Po—the Void.
Then He decided to end his inertness, to have some fun and to gain
wisdom the overcoming of challenges, i.e., overcoming fear and pain.
In order to do this, He founded the Created World on two principals,
and two principals alone: Truth and Beauty. Except for the both being
ultimate fundamentals of the Created World, they have no natural
relationship to each other.
We can consider then as arches, together they created the Arch of
Time: TRUTH<>BEAUTY
With the advent of time, the fundamental principals of the Created
World would be somewhat changed, action became possible.
Truth in action is The Law, or Order. Beauty in action becomes The
Good (as Nietsche defined it) or Quality.
With time, corruption could happen. The corruption of Law is Chaos or
disorder (at the physical level it is called Entropy). The corruption of The
Good or Quality is Evil.
The ultimate aim of a warrior is to polish his or her own soul. But this just
isn’t very effective until other strategies and tactics are met.
The first of these is called: WALE.
The Lorrin Andrews Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language, first printed in
1865, defines wale thusly:
“WA-LE, adv. A state of being or existing without qualification; used
mostly in an adverbial sense; only; aloft; gratuitous &c.: as, e noho wale,
to sit only, i. e., to sit idly; e hana wale, to work only, i. e., to work without
reward, gratuitously; e olelo wale, to speak without effect; e hele wale,
to go as one is, i. e., to go naked. As wale has no corresponding term in
English, it is difficult to define, the idea must be gained by the
connection.”
So the practice of wale is what might be called a “balanced
mentality”. In other words, a warrior can not afford the luxury of seeing
things as they wish they might be, but strives to first see the situation they
are in exactly the way it actually is. Without any emotional coloring of any
desire or fear they might have at all.
Once wale is achieved, then it is sometimes, as in the Entebbe story, to
search out the ano of the situation from the initial perspective alone of
being in wale.
The Andrews Dictionary defines ano as:
A-No, s. Likeness; resemblance; image of a thing.
2. The meaning of a word or phrase.
3. The moral quality of an action, as good or evil, or the moral state of
the heart.
4. The character of a person, as to his life and manners; the
explanation of a thing obscure.
So the first action of a warrior in a perilous situation is to enter into a
state of wale, or in other words, to try to understand what is actually going
on, not what he expects or wants it to be. Then from that place, to
examine the situation for its ano, or in other words, the metaphysical
motivations of the decisions that he is confronted with, and then to give
up thinking and act, with as much force and commitment as possible, but
without will— Just act.
Never second guess yourself. It reminds me of the story in
“Psycho-Cybernetics”, where in Los Vegas people playing card games,
and pray over the cards they have received before looking on them! No
way, no good trying to pray at that point, their commitment is already
made and the cards are already thrown.
The time to pray is before the cards are acquired. After the dealing of
the cards in the game you have chosen to play, there is only thoughtless
action properly after that. Anything else is either wasted effort, or a
self–betrayal of some kind.
There is the story of the Japanese Sensai who eventually founded a
school of new sword fighting.
In medieval feudal Japan, the custom appertained that you could go
up to any martial arts school and challenge the Sensai to a dual.
If the Sensai accepted, a fight would ensue, but if the Sensai denied it,
then he was expected to feed the traveler and put him up for the night.
An old man was traveling through Japan, and he had become weak
from hunger. Seeing the local Dojo in a village he was passing through.
He decided to challenge the Sensai. He knew that the Sensai would see
that he was an old man, take pity on him, and feed him a meal.
But when he challenged the Sensai, the Sensai first was going to feed
him, but then he thought, ‘This has to be a trap. This can not really be an
old man who challenges me, he must be some sword master.’ So he
accepted the challenge.
This terrified the old man, but he was committed now, so he took the
sword offered to him, and tried to fight the Sensai. He knew that his trials
would soon be over. But he was wrong. The fight went on and on with no
resolution.
You see, the Sensai kept on thinking to himself, ‘This can’t be his real
level of mastery. He must be waiting for an opening, whereupon he will kill
me.’ So he only made defensive moves.
Finally in exhaustion, the old man started to cry, and confessed his plan
to get a free meal.
The Sensai became enlightened and finally realized that he had been
fighting his own mind.
He fed the old man, and founded the school of no-thought. Once in a
fight, one must rely on one’s senses and training, and not interfere with
one’s mind. Just fight without thought. Between fighting the old man, and
his own mind, the old man was winning. Indeed, the Sensai had been
fighting his own best thinking self.
And so it is for any warrior. He enters a state of wale. Then searches for
the situation’s ano. Then formulates a plan. Then proceeds without
thinking any more about it.
Recommended Reading
To those wishing to further explore some of the issues discussed in this
chapter , I highly recommend the following three books:
Leonard, George, “Mastery: The Keys to Success and Long-Term
Fulfillment”
Richard Strozzi Heckler, George Leonard, “In Search of the Warrior Spirit:
Teaching Awareness Disciplines to the Green Berets”
John Shango, “Personal Mastery: And the Training of the Magus Within”
Forrest Morgan, “Living the Martial Way: A manual for the way a modern
warrior should think”
+ + +
> >> The baby follows Lo's will? How exactly? When a baby can neither
> >> reason or make a choice whether it wants to follow or not?
> >
> >All of Io follow Io's will. The immortal beings (all life) which come here to "dream" life into
> >otherwise inert matter follow Io's Will too. Gravity. Respiration. Citric Acid Cycle. Burning
> >carbohydrates, etc.
>
> What you have attempted to state above -respiration etc- are autonomic
> responses -ie breathing etc- that does not prove that there is a will
> of lo. Likewise reflex actions -the suckling of the breast etc- are
> just that reflex actions.
There is no such thing as "just reflex actions", these are all the Will of Io.
But again you fail to understand the basis of this discussion in this religious NG. "that does not
prove that there is a will of lo." No "proof" of Io is necessary, although it exists, it is
unessential. Io, as all religions, can only be accepted on faith and faith alone.
I am attempting to explain the dynamics of Huna theology here. Not trying to convince you of
anything. Not trying to convince you.
> ROTFL are you implying that a baby consciously chooses to follow the
> law of gravity :-D Odd since dead babies are also subject to the law
> of gravity.
The Will of Io is inescapable. What does choice have to do with it?
> I can do the same and say the entire universe is governed by a turd
> that I expelled last week.
Fine, and if I were interested in that, I'd do just what you are doing with me: engaging in
conversation.
>
>
> >The Will of Io is inescapable although it can be resisted for short periods.
>
> This is your statement, not a fact.
Nope. It is a Doctrine.
> Is it that you don't know yourself, or is it that you have no proof
> that the will lo even exists?
There is no "proof" in religion. "Proofs" are an element of science.
>How you can be on mine?
> By logic & proof.
>
> Peyote.
Sorry. I have none, I am a Priest. Kahunas do exorcisms, Roman Catholics, New Agers do exorcisms,
etc.
They are all effective.
Atheists can not do them.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Yes. For me, and me alone. Each person owns his own life. Each person
>may chose how he will die.
-related to cults in general-
In principle I agree with this. Now we come to the part where we will
disagree, what about children and babies who do not have that choice?
How do they decide? They don't do they?
>Or do you think YOU have the right to stop, by Police Force, the Heaven's
>Gate Cult in San Diego from suicide?
-related to HG only-
Lani if he lied about having cancer -which obviously the people had to
take on faith as being true- what makes you think he was truthful on
his UFO la la land?
Do you honestly think he was to be trusted in faith? I don't.
Now as to your other question about the right to suicide, that is
indeed a thorny one. Generally I believe a person has the right to do
with their life as they see fit -including ending it if they so
desire-.
People who are terminally ill and in pain I believe it should be their
choice.
I hold some reservation towards manic depressives etc who want to end
it but that is a difficult one to answer.
However what I do stand against is children & babies having their life
taken from them.
I also stand against cults & their leaders who are so unbalanced
within themselves -and in the case of the HG cult a liar to boot- that
they have to take other people into their fantasy faith and deception.
Now for the problem, what to do about it. That is hard.
First it is wrong to assume that the Govt & police are always in the
right, and have our best interests at heart. That simply is not true.
Secondly does the Govt have the right to interfere with religious
faith and growth? No it shouldn't, because if they start on one group
where then do they draw the line? Today it may be X suicide cult
tomorrow something else they don't like -or policy changes etc- and so
on.
Yet we come back to the same problem where does one draw the line?
There is no answer to that, furthermore there is no answer to who has
the right to decide, but someone does ultimately have to decide in the
end.
Where children & babies are about to be killed on account of a 'just
trust me in faith' cult leader scam, action should be taken to protect
them, adults on the other hand should have the right to end their life
one way or the other -even if I disagree with the waste of life on
account of a nut-.
Steps however should be taken through education to warn people about
these types of nuts and how they use the 'trust me' or 'faith only'
gambit to avoid proving their case.
Furthermore people should be well informed on the characteristics of
these cult leaders whom set themselves up as special to the exclusion
of all other opinion and views and independent thought and enquiry.
Likewise as jcr said -I think he said it- that deception must be added
into the equation, which is an important point, I would like to add
that public education or awareness should also include the standard
excuses cults use to avoid evidence and some of their recruiting
methods.
Hopefully somewhere in all this the person will learn to 'think' and
reason and not merely except the first excuse that comes before them
as the 'truth'.
>> Interesting, stating facts is losing rationality? Since when?
>
>YOU limited the conversation to the Heaven's Gate Cult. No one there was under 18 years old. I
>don't think you're stating facts. But if you think an 18 year old is a baby, then that is being
>irrational.
>
>> >YOU set up the discussion about "Heaven's Gate" NOT the
>> >killing of babies. No babies died there. Period.
-See below-
>> Wrong I have set no discussion up solely on HG, look back in the
>> thread to verify it Lani. This was one group of a few which were
>> brought up and even more were covered under the general subject of
>> 'believe or faith only cults & personalities'.
>
>Wrong dude. Let me quote you what you asked and what I answered:
>
>"Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 11:49:59 -0800, Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let me ask you a question.
>> >>
>> >> Do you think those people that took their own life to follow a comet
>> >> into UFO la la land had doubt? I don't think so."
Look Lani I also said -in the same section-
Jim Jones was another lunatic. Do you think you could reason with his
followers in the early days? Not a chance.
The discussion was not limited to the HG cult only. Now you say that
you answered *that question only*, fine as I said in the other post I
am willing to accept I misunderstood you, however I will also state
that my entire discussion covered more than this cult alone which if
you are honest you also can not deny.
>> In-fact the very word I used 'cults' is in the plural.
>
>You do not use the term cults or cult at all in the question you asked me, and which I answered.
Again let me state that was not the *only question* I asked in that
post was it? I should know since I wrote it LOL.
Now if you had it in your mind that the HG question was the only one
you were answering well fair enough. I don't read minds.
>> This is another justification on your behalf based on the assumption
>> that there is even a life after death.
>
>I have made no assumption that we live a continuous life. It is a Huna Doctrine. I am a Kahuna
>or Priest of the Huna religion. I uphold that Doctrine on Faith. But I have also posted here
>when science discovered the soul, and measured its weight, and published the experiments in a
>peer review journal.
Science weighed the soul? Who, where & when?
>> The baby follows Lo's will? How exactly? When a baby can neither
>> reason or make a choice whether it wants to follow or not?
>
>All of Io follow Io's will. The immortal beings (all life) which come here to "dream" life into
>otherwise inert matter follow Io's Will too. Gravity. Respiration. Citric Acid Cycle. Burning
>carbohydrates, etc.
What you have attempted to state above -respiration etc- are autonomic
responses -ie breathing etc- that does not prove that there is a will
of lo. Likewise reflex actions -the suckling of the breast etc- are
just that reflex actions.
Regarding gravity there is no evidence that it is lo's will, that is
an addition that people have taken from their own belief -or doctrine-
to the physical laws of rotation.
ROTFL are you implying that a baby consciously chooses to follow the
law of gravity :-D Odd since dead babies are also subject to the law
of gravity.
I can do the same and say the entire universe is governed by a turd
that I expelled last week. What proof do I have for this? Well I said
it so it must be true. I even have further proof, the earth revolves
around the sun -there you go that is proof- and so on.
Now back to my original question, how does a baby make a choice to
follow lo's will, how does it communicate that it wants to die with
the suicide cult that its parents belong to? Does it use telepathy? Is
Go gah an affirmation that means .... 'yes kill me'?
>The Will of Io is inescapable although it can be resisted for short periods.
This is your statement, not a fact.
>> You justify these actions of lunacy on the assumption -which you
>> assure us is true, without proof naturally- that it is Io's will.
>
>I make NO assumptions here. I have NEVER assured you of its truth. It doesn't matter to me or Io
>what you believe. you are Io caught up in the Created World's drama just as we are all.
Is it that you don't know yourself, or is it that you have no proof
that the will lo even exists?
>Whatever has happened, has happened justly. No matter what you bring up. Everything is counted
>at the moment of the NOW.
So the Nazi's were justified, right I see. What did the Jews do to
deserve that? Also do you have proof of what the Jews did to deserve
that?
>It is only during the NOW or in the future that we can make changes, and sometimes better the
>world.
How can the world be made a better place when you hang onto the
justification & excuse of suffering? How can it be a better world when
a myth is the central aspect of your life?
>We can take the sad plight of the Jews in WW II. Just one element. They tried to come over here
>in boats to escape the NAZIs, the President of the USA denied them the right to land.
True.
>When they died at the hands of the NAZIs, did not those who turned them away from safety have
>some involvement in their fate?
Yes they did.
>Did they not themselves, who could have seen it coming but
>decided to wait too long. Decided not to resist Hitler before he fully secured his position of
>power also share in the responsibility?
No.
Being unsure or not able to believe the depths of another persons
lunacy is not wrong, and surely it does not make it right nor does it
justify what took place. -related to the Jews-
Regarding the lands who were not on the German side, yes some blame is
due if they knew what was happening or going to happen but delayed in
doing something about it.
Either way it still does not lessen the atrocity of what was done.
lo's will indeed.
>That no one assassinated Hitler?
Hold on a minute, why should he be assassinated? He was the leader of
a cult -ie the Nazi's- in a land under his rule. Do you think
religious and/or cult leaders should be assassinated?
>At the moment of the NOW, all actions and decisions were "justified" or taken into account. And
>the bubbles of Io released at the hands of the other bubbles of Io, and the drama continues on
>to today.
Nope. That again is your theory not fact. Suffering and the
continuation of abuse is not right and certainly never justified.
>And the Kahunas and a few others stake their lives to defend yours. In your country it is also
>the Clever Men of the Koori.
It may well be, since I don't know any Koori's or Kahunas who is to
say?
>And in doing this, I have been forced off the road. I have had many death attempts.
Don't stress about death threats, the people who make them are not
worth your time. I disagree completely with you regarding faith,
belief etc etc however with that aside there is no cause for people to
resort to the stupidity of death threats and the like.
>I have done Exorcisms and Healings. And still it is not enough to hold
>back The Dark which we are slowly slipping into.
I would contend this is so because it simply does not work. If we add
to this the justification of atrocities etc one should not expect
anything better to develop.
If the mind is shackled to superstition and 'just believe' teachings
how do you really expect humanity to progress?
>I will continue to hold back The Dark. but if we can not do it. THen, because of my
>understanding of Io, I will not despair. I will understand that this part of the Created World
>is simply, once again, slipping into another dark drama from which we will eventually emerge.
>Because of Io, I will know that for every gloaming, there is a new dawn to come.
-No comment since it appears to be a belief of statement-
>Our drives are not so different. Our love of pono (righteousness) is likewise similar.
Yes it appears similar LOL. Strange that :-D
>I suppose that you prefer this ritual battle to enlighten you on how I can
>be on your side?
No. The one thing I am not about -and have never been- is to have
someone change sides.
What I do hope for is a deeper honest look into what one believes
-this also is applicable to me BTW- why they believe it and a
presentation of proof and verification of the said believes.
As I have said before, 'faith' need not be evil, superstitious or
wrong, reason & logic can be quite compatible with faith.
What I do stand against however is blind faith that is more often than
not used as an excuse to avoid evidence or justify harmful actions and
the perpetuation of those actions in the name of X deity, system or
person.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
<ke...@jacksonmi.com> wrote:
>It's i-o, dude, not L-o. Since it's a deity, it's capitalized: Io
>
>FYi 8~3 )
>
>Kevin
Oops :-D
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>
>
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>> Can you prove it?
>
>OK. How does one "prove" a Doctrine held by faith alone?
You can't that is why I class it as a theory, assumption, ideology etc
etc.
>> You helped to organize a nation wide movement? What is its name and
>> what is this symbol that you suggested -and I assume they now use-?
>
>The Militia.
>
>The symbol is:
>
>===V===
>
>For "victory" over ...
>
>I took it from the Sci-fi series a few years ago.
>
>Linda Thompson even had them made up for wear on Militia uniforms.
>
>I recently saw an article she did she is STILL using the symbol as her signature!!!
>
>But it has been several years since I've talked to her, and I doubt if she even remembers
>who came up with the understanding that the scattered militia elements needed a common
>symbol to bind then together, and came up with the symbol.
>
>I am not, and never will, be a famous person. But that doesn't mean I haven't done a
>thing or two on this tour of the Created World.
Okay.
>> Now to the next point, you state with confidence that you want to stop
>> the Federal Govt from burning down another church full of innocent
>> kids, well why should you even bother, after all is it not the will of
>> Lo that they get burned?
>
>That is too clumsy an idea. It is within Io's will that we need the Breath of Life, and
>that wood burns.
As I mentioned in the other post, this is only an addition that you
have tacked on to common principles. There is no evidence that it is
the will of lo.
Following this anyone can say that X is the cause, maintainer, prime
principle behind all things.
>But the Created World was made so that Io (us) could hemolele or polish or purify our
>souls.
Your belief again not facts. This 'truth' you propose is subject to
which myth you want to believe in. Other people who also believe in
-whatever deity they hold to- would see it differently.
Do people believe the world is being held up by elephants today or by
Atlas? I dare say no one does anymore. Likewise for the flat earth etc
etc. -Well there are still a few flat earthers around LOL-
We know that science demolished most of those 'beliefs' -and many
religions had to adapt once more- but in the domain of blind faith who
is to say they are wrong and you are right? How do you discern the
'truth' from 'error'?
It comes down to your word -or your systems authority- over some other
'true believers' 'word' or 'system'.
>To that end, Io calls upon us to live bold lives. The Created World is designed to
>develop the six sacred virtues: koa (courage), aloha (compassion), lokahi (unity,
>oneness), malama (nurturance), pono (righteousness), ho`okipa (hospitality). Together
>these form the basis for the next evolutionary step away from protoplasmic life.
Good principles but no indication of inspiration, revelation or
special 'truth'.
What you have said above can be said by anyone minus the religious
connotations. Nothing in the above is really astounding, new or proof
of the validity of the additions that have been tacked onto common
human principles of observation.
>If someone who has developed these virtues comes and takes effective
>actions in the NOW,
True
But then you tack on this:
>then the little souls of the One Soul will not have to suffer and "die", only to be
>reborn again.
Which really means nothing.
>But there were no warriors to defend them. Or if they aren't effective enough. Then at
>the moment of the NOW all factors are taken into consideration, and the drama moves on.
Yes as superstition is pushed further and further back.
However people suffering as a result of 'faith only' cults is anything
but a mere drama, as I have said before it is real life. Misery
perpetuated by a fallacy that continues to excuse itself and hide
behind the word faith.
>Io calls upon us to live bold lives. To become warriors. The cost is great if we shirk
>from that, but there is no ultimate and permanent damage.
Common sense, compassion & rationality calls upon us to do good. Even
if that good includes squashing harmful myths and god/men in the
process.
>> Why should you care who does the killing? It is the will of Lo, there
>> is another life after death so it is really OK and the killing that
>> happened was an act of faith by the US Govt.
>
>No. The entire Created World was made for a very important purpose. Each lifetime we
>spend here is important. But when you speak of people I can no longer save because they
>are already dead. Then it is good to know that the damage is only really shallow and
>temporary.
That still does not justify the cause in believing an idiot -based on
the trust me only statement- who led them down that path in the first
place.
Now if these types of 'leaders' had help in the first place -instead
of further fostering their delusions- where would the tragedy -in this
case at least- be? It wouldn't be, it is as simple as that.
A single persons death on account of a lunatic that fosters a delusion
about himself is hardly a shallow topic.
>> >> Do you seek to justify it on the 'belief' that it may or may not be
>> >> better in the next life?
>> >
>> >We are all immortal dreamworld creatures who come here from time to time to dream
>> >into life for a little bit. To suffer and be frustrated with its concomitant growth
>> >of wisdom, and to sport and play here too.
>>
>>
>> Who are you then to say what happened at Waco was wrong?
>
>Each person is responsible for the growth and polishing of his own soul. I am one of
>those, you are too. You get to judge.
I judge that it is about time superstition be put aside, and any claim
to the paranormal be backed up with evidence, including the claim of
god/men and their powers, miracle workers etc.
Then people can get down to the real work -instead of facing excuses,
delay tactics etc- of sorting out the BS from the facts.
>But we see things an a far different manner. To me,
>that flesh is frail comes as no surprise. To see that children should not be gassed then
>burnt to death is also something I accept the possibility of. That it calls for the
>creation of the Militia, I am proud of. In europe and in Australia they gave up their
>only means from defending themselves from their government.
>
>But to me, I notice, in the main, that there were not enough warriors there to save the
>children from the claws of the Federal government.
How about there were also not enough rational people to save the
children from the claws of nuts like Koresh and Jones?
>But even that is limited. For I only have one "vote". I only have the
>responsibility of the development of my soul, my courage and lack
>of it.
True we are primarily responsible for ourselves. Yet that in itself
carries over to larger responsibilities, meeting the source of what
has pulled humanity downwards for so long as history & current events
clearly illustrates.
>My only possible decision it to decide that I will not tolerate it to happen again if I
>perceive the danger. In Waco I did not until it was too late.
Better still deal with the delusional frauds at the top, that way when
they are properly exposed others will -hopefully- take note of their
fairly common mode of operation.
>> >> >They are all safe, and in the arms of their Aumakuas.
>> >>
>> >> Again says who?
>> >
>> >Everyone in this NG responds from the POV of their Faith.
>>
>> Everyone? I don't.
>
>You have no choice, it is the Will of Io.
Of course I have choice, I either do or I don't, I decide hence there
is the element of choice.
I see no evidence for this so-called will of lo do you? The only thing
I have to go on is your words, nothing more.
>Or perhaps I am wrong, who do you speak for
>then, if not for yourself, from your POV.
Speaking for oneself does not equate with the will of a mythical being
called lo. That is an attachment you have once again added.
>> >As such, and since Io alone suffers in His creation. You have only yourself to
>> >blame.
>>
>> I do not accept this. Blame should be put where blame is due. If I
>> hurt someone **I** have caused it not the person who has been hurt.
>
>So you would deny any responsibility of the elements of one's life to the person actually
>living it? We are all victims then, and have no choices or responsibilities over our
>lives at all. All responsibility rests only on the attacker?
A serial killer, kills it is his responsibility not the responsibility
of the victim.
Simple -in most cases anyway-.
The person can either:
a/ do it
b/ not do it
c/ sit on the fence unsure
How is a serial killer that is stopped denying the -intended or
otherwise- victims responsibility?
>> You may wish to justify it on account of your beliefs, but do not
>> expect normal people who do care for others to swallow your rubbish.
>
>Um, YOU sought Me out. I would never have searched you out. You cannot make me an
>Atheist.
How did I search you out? By answering a thread? By communication?
And what is this new assumption that I am an atheist? Could you show
me where I have stated that I am an atheist?
>> Why it is the will of Lo? Haven't they brought it on themselves?
>> Aren't they better off because of it?
>
>First, they ARE Io, there is only One.
Another assumption -or doctrine if you will-
>Secondly, no the kids did not bring it on themselves.
They must have since it is the will of lo. They are supposed to be lo
also aren't they? Does this being -lo- know the future? Is the future
and all subsequent happenings lo's will?
>It was meant to intimidate the populace, but it backfired.
lo's will backfired? I am curious is this being all powerful or is it
one of the weaker gods in the pantheon?
I assume if lo can tell the future it would have foreseen its own
failure?
>Thirdly, in the drama, you are focused on the wrong people.
I focus on those who set themselves up as 'gods' or are said to be
endowed with special powers trying to lead gullible people who do not
stop to ask for evidence.
The results being quite self evident.
>Hundreds of thousands of citizens quietly bought guns and determined
>that that kind of behavior would not be tolerated in our government.
Which behaviour? Those of 'faith only' cults or those of the Govt?
>So throughout our nation, courage and the will to resist Evil sprang up. It is a harsh
>thing for you to say, but yes they are better for it.
I don't accept that. Harsh or otherwise.
In the case of Waco the govt was clearly wrong, I mean what the hell
were they thinking, they should have known delusional people like
Koresh when backed into a corner become even more kooky than their
normal bouts of lunacy.
All they did in my opinion was further Koresh's already delusional
state of mind into thinking that the apocalypse -he kept raving about-
was at hand.
>> Again why prevent it? It is good isn't it, or are you now admitting it
>> is not so good after all?
>
>What? The killing of the kids at Waco was pure unadulterated Evil. Like an allergic
>reaction, it pushed back The Dark for a time by the inspiration it gave to the souls of
>the Militia as it formed them.
Well I say that the setting up of 'trust me, or just have faith in me'
people/cults are purely stupid -not necessarily evil, some can be
sincere-.
Now don't you think the killing of kids -by either the Govt or cults-
is equally evil? I see no distinction, I also see no justification for
it.
>> Like I said theory. Can you prove it? Nope? Okay back to the word
>> theory then I guess.
>
>Wrong. All scientific theories remain theories, and can never really be finally proven.
LOL that is why they are called theories until proven. So if your
system of belief can not be proven it must be a theory right?
As to your statement about them not being ever really proven is not
accurate.
Gravity - proven.
Earth is not flat - proven.
Etc etc.
On the other hand from religion we have:
lo - not proven.
A cure for AIDS - not proven.
Demons -not proven and slowly dying out with each new discovery-
A cure for a person born blind -not proven-
A limb fully growing back -not proven-
In fact almost everything from the paranormal side avoids testing,
proof and examination. About the best anyone hears is rumours
-unverified of course- and delay tactics to avoid the reality that
nothing has happened in the first place.
>A Doctrine is never ever "proven", it isn't Science. It is found
>to be useful and accepted on faith. Or it is not. There may be
>reasons to support the Doctrine, but at its
>core, a Doctrine stands on faith, and faith alone.
Then it is a theory. You can't state it as fact can you? You can't
prove it? So like I said before a theory.
And it is that same fall back position 'faith alone' which is the root
of much of the stupidity we see around us.
If two people follow their doctrines -on faith alone- and they
contradict each other, or call the other camp demonic then where is
the truth in either of their statements?
Who is right? They are both going on faith alone.
>> But isn't it the will of Lo
>
>> (I'm not certain if you are being ignorant or insulting, if insulting then I will find
>> no need to communicate with you further, if in ignorance then the name is" IO, and not
>> Lo)?
Yeah someone pointed that out.
>> Isn't it an experience which she will
>> grow by? Why should you feel compassion for her after all she must
>> have brought it on herself.
>
>Two separate questions: Yes, she stands the chance of being more careful in the future.
>To be more awake more alert.
Nope. That is about as stupid as saying women should be locked inside
the house to lessen the possibility of rape. How far does a woman have
to go to be more careful hmm?
When do you finally reach the conclusion of putting the blame where
blame is due?
It is not about her being more careful it is about the rapist not
raping.
>Io betrayed Io, how can one not have compassion for her betrayal and suffering?
See where a myth can lead you?
Again I state plainly that it is nothing to do with the theory of lo,
pink unicorns, santa claus or whatever.
It is simply due to a man raping a woman.
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>> Yet we come back to the same problem where does one draw the line?
>
>Huna Doctrine: Io calls upon us all to be nice to each other. If a group isn't nice to each other, I
>agree with you: Kill them all.
That may be a problem when one tries to define what nice actually is
LOL.
>SO: Children and babies are NOT independent members of society, they are elements of their families.
>Not saying that this is how it ought to be, saying how it is.
>
>Children generally suffer the fate of their parents.
The point is they don't have to, and they shouldn't have to.
>So simple: did members of Jim Jones's religion want to leave? Then they ought to have been free to
>leave. Or police action was called for.
Yes, though we all know what happened when they actually did receive a
visit and some people did make it known that they wanted to leave.
>Did any of the parents in Waco want to leave?
>Was anyone stopped? No? Then no police action was
>called for against the Church.
Does this mean that they are beyond the law? Why if he was so good did
he just not come out and meet the police?
No I think it was more of a case that he went more kooky than he
usually was -these types often have problems with any authority or
reality but their own- .
The Govt was stupid in not realizing what type of kook they were
dealing with, and they had to pick an apocalyptic kook at that.
>Koresh had a lot of sex? So? It was voluntary.
Sure it was, he was the messiah after all, his word is truth remember,
doubt or independent thought is not encouraged let alone standing up
for what you believe is wrong in an isolated group.
Ex Waco people say otherwise about this 'messiah'.
>> Hopefully somewhere in all this the person will learn to 'think' and
>> reason and not merely except the first excuse that comes before them
>> as the 'truth'.
>
>Ah, yes. You mean to think just like you do.
No I mean 'think and reason and not merely except the first excuse
that comes before them as the 'truth'.'
I'll' just make a few comments on the myth below before getting to the
'evidence' part -which will be covered in a separate post-.
>Let's start with a few of the opening lines of the Huna Heiau's Kumulipo,
>or Foundation Chant, which in one form or another is more than 5,000
>years old:
What are your earliest written records of this creation view that you
have preserved today? How far back do the written documents really go?
>Io, the parentless, the self-created
How did lo create itself? From what did it come into being? If nothing
was there before how did it come into being in the first place?
Suddenly it just was?
How did it form thought and a creative process from non existence?
>Dwelt for an eternity in the warm
>Humid darkness of Po---the Void.
Is this poetic or factual? If it is supposed to be factual how could
he have dwelt for an eternity in the humid darkness of the void?
Eternity is not up yet. So why is creation here then?
I never knew the darkness of the void -I assume you mean space- was
'humid'.
Where did the humidity come from if there was only a void and I assume
no light -aka heat etc- had not yet come into being?
>Then to end His inertness, He spoke:
>'Let the Darkness become a Light-possessing Darkness.'
Did lo create this light from itself? What light was it? Or is this a
veiled reference to the Big bang?
>This was the creation of time, as well as the Created World.
Then how could lo have existed previously for an eternity then? That
is a concept of time. If he dwelt for an eternity in this humid
darkness time must have existed in some form.
-HUGE snip-
The huge portion that was snipped will be answered by myself and a few
others -they would be more qualified to answer what you said below-
from a proper scientific basis.
>> >> The baby follows Lo's will? How exactly? When a baby can neither
>> >> reason or make a choice whether it wants to follow or not?
>> >
>> >All of Io follow Io's will. The immortal beings (all life) which come here to "dream" life into
>> >otherwise inert matter follow Io's Will too. Gravity. Respiration. Citric Acid Cycle. Burning
>> >carbohydrates, etc.
>>
>> What you have attempted to state above -respiration etc- are autonomic
>> responses -ie breathing etc- that does not prove that there is a will
>> of lo. Likewise reflex actions -the suckling of the breast etc- are
>> just that reflex actions.
>
>There is no such thing as "just reflex actions", these are all the Will of Io.
You say this evidence says otherwise.
I realize you have to say this because if you don't the facts &
evidence turns your theory of 'everything following Io's Will' upside
down.
>But again you fail to understand the basis of this discussion in this religious NG. "that does not
>prove that there is a will of lo." No "proof" of Io is necessary, although it exists, it is
>unessential. Io, as all religions, can only be accepted on faith and faith alone.
See you have 'proved' my point LOL when you fall back to this type of
defense anyone can say anything -and do anything- they want to. Now it
just has to be true because ....... X says so -based on faith only of
course-.
>I am attempting to explain the dynamics of Huna theology here. Not trying to convince you of
>anything. Not trying to convince you.
Well the dynamics themselves appear to be falling to bits since so far
what I have seen is:
1/ A deity -or being- called lo that wants people to be nice, but
isn't nice always itself.
2/ A deity that tacks theories onto science, while not really showing
us anything new or astounding.
3/ A deity that claims most -or all of what is said regarding itself-
is not provable, and hence must be accepted on X's say so.
4/ A deity that is involved in rape on both ends.
5/ A deity that is involved with cults and other forms of abuses.
6/ A deity that makes mistakes which apparently causes suffering.
Uhmm I fail to see the dynamics in any of what you have said so far
regarding lo. To me it looks like an attempt at blending different
concepts into one being.
>> ROTFL are you implying that a baby consciously chooses to follow the
>> law of gravity :-D Odd since dead babies are also subject to the law
>> of gravity.
>
>The Will of Io is inescapable. What does choice have to do with it?
Ahh good I was hoping you would say something like this.
So do we have choice? If we do then who or what has given us those
options of choice? What exactly is the scope of our 'free' choice,
that is if we have any?
>> I can do the same and say the entire universe is governed by a turd
>> that I expelled last week.
>
>Fine, and if I were interested in that, I'd do just what you are doing with me: engaging in
>conversation.
So is it any less valid than your theory? You have to accept it Lani
on faith.
>> >The Will of Io is inescapable although it can be resisted for short periods.
>>
>> This is your statement, not a fact.
>
>Nope. It is a Doctrine.
Based on a theory as I have said before.
>> Is it that you don't know yourself, or is it that you have no proof
>> that the will lo even exists?
>
>There is no "proof" in religion. "Proofs" are an element of science.
So is this the ultimate fall back position? 'I believe what I believe
despite any evidence or proof to the contrary'?
No wonder the world has gone through so much suffering.
>>How you can be on mine?
>
>> By logic & proof.
>>
>> Peyote.
>
>Sorry. I have none, I am a Priest. Kahunas do exorcisms, Roman Catholics, New Agers do exorcisms,
>etc.
Then you have based your entire life on an assumption?
>They are all effective.
Do you still believe epileptics are demon possessed? No? Oops not
quite as effective as you would have us believe then is it?
>Atheists can not do them.
Because there is no need to do them :-D
Or maybe demons avoid atheists LOL because they know they are hopeless
causes ha ha.
Peyote.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> >That is too clumsy an idea. It is within Io's will that we need the Breath of Life, and
> >that wood burns.
>
> As I mentioned in the other post, this is only an addition that you
> have tacked on to common principles. There is no evidence that it is
> the will of lo.
>
> Following this anyone can say that X is the cause, maintainer, prime
> principle behind all things.
Anyone can say that Io is the cause, maintainer, primeprinciple behind all things, and be
correct. There is only One.
They are all proof of the Will of Io.
> >But the Created World was made so that Io (us) could hemolele or polish or purify our
> >souls.
>
> Your belief again not facts. This 'truth' you propose is subject to
> which myth you want to believe in. Other people who also believe in
> -whatever deity they hold to- would see it differently.
I propose NO "TRUTH"! Where do you get that idea? I NEVER said such a thing! Ever!
> Do people believe the world is being held up by elephants today or by
> Atlas?
If so, then the only question is: Do they, from their POV believe that they are living a
better or higher quality life than would otherwise be possible? Any other question is, simply,
and not to be rude, none of your business.
> It comes down to your word -or your systems authority- over some other
> 'true believers' 'word' or 'system'.
No. There is no truth attached to Religions. You're confusing it with Science again. The tool
for the discovery of truth in Science is "logic", likewise the tool for the discovery of Arte
in Religion is esthetics.
> Good principles but no indication of inspiration, revelation or
> special 'truth'.
Truth has nothing to do with it. All morality, all concept of honor comes from religious
teachings alone. There is no other source for it. Science can tell one how to do something,
but not if he SHOULD do it.
> What you have said above can be said by anyone minus the religious
> connotations. Nothing in the above is really astounding, new or proof
> of the validity of the additions that have been tacked onto common
> human principles of observation.
I am sharing with you the dynamics of the Hunian theology. That is what I am doing here. I am
not trying to use your "Science" to "prove" anything.
> However people suffering as a result of 'faith only' cults is anything
> but a mere drama, as I have said before it is real life. Misery
> perpetuated by a fallacy that continues to excuse itself and hide
> behind the word faith.
There is no such thing as "mere drama". The kids at Waco were not killed by "faith only"
people. They were murdered by Atheistic soldiers from Fort Hood, Texas.
> How about there were also not enough rational people to save the
> children from the claws of nuts like Koresh and Jones?
The agents of the American Federal government killed the kids in Waco. The Jim Jones affair is
darker and more complex, but was triggered by the arrival and investigation by a member of the
US Congress.
> True we are primarily responsible for ourselves. Yet that in itself
> carries over to larger responsibilities, meeting the source of what
> has pulled humanity downwards for so long as history & current events
> clearly illustrates.
The world has been pulled by down the Atheists who created both "international scientific
socialism". i.e., Communism, and "national scientific socialism", i.e., Nazism and Fascism,
etc.
Atomic weapons and Nerve Gas are the offspring of Science, not Religion.
> Of course I have choice, I either do or I don't, I decide hence there
> is the element of choice.
Ah then, you can chose to levitate, turn your innards into Butterscotch pudding, accidentally
leave your hand behind as you arise?
If you, since you are Io, make a decision, it is Io who makes that decision. If you take any
action, it is Io who acts.
> How is a serial killer that is stopped denying the -intended or
> otherwise- victims responsibility?
By denying the victim any choice in the matter, you victimize them again.
> They are supposed to be lo
> also aren't they? Does this being -lo- know the future? Is the future
> and all subsequent happenings lo's will?
The future isn't created yet. Io allows for and guards Free Will. Therefore God himself does
not know the outcome of things. It is a mystery to Io. They is probably what makes the Created
World and all its drama so much fun.
And besides, if the future COULD be known, then no more vast quantities of wisdom would be
being generated to allow for the growth of wisdom in us and therefore Io.
> >It was meant to intimidate the populace, but it backfired.
>
> lo's will backfired? I am curious is this being all powerful or is it
> one of the weaker gods in the pantheon?
Io's Will cannot backfire. But the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Io is
almighty. This means there there is no other energy or force or might in the Created World
other than Io. That's what "almighty" means. If there were any other might, then He would not
be almighty. Therefore all the might/force we see around us, and use ourselves is the
might/force/energy of Io alone. "ALMIGHTY" means all might. Not "most" might.
All lesser emanating manifestations of Io, use Io's might/energy/force too.
You are in the position of a fish who denies the reality of water, and demands of another fish
that he prove it to him.
You might chose to see the religious doctrine of Io to be similar to the scientific theory of
the "Unified Field".
> In the case of Waco the govt was clearly wrong, I mean what the hell
> were they thinking, they should have known delusional people like
> Koresh when backed into a corner become even more kooky than their
> normal bouts of lunacy.
>
> All they did in my opinion was further Koresh's already delusional
> state of mind into thinking that the apocalypse -he kept raving about-
> was at hand.
Um, No. The Federal government gassed the kids over and over again for six hours. They set
the fires. When the Firemen came to put out the flames the FBI blocked them for over two hours
until there was none left to try to save.
Then the FBI used tanks and bulldozers from Fort Hood (US Army) to destroy the evidence site.
They got them through an illegal and fraudulent appeal to a specific exemption to the Posse
Comitatus Act, which forbids elements of the US Army to attack and kill little kids in a
Church, unless they have drugs.
> Well I say that the setting up of 'trust me, or just have faith in me'
> people/cults are purely stupid -not necessarily evil, some can be
> sincere-.
There are no religions based on 'trust me, or just have faith in me', the leaders might think
so, but each person and the children he/she owns has a choice in the matter.
> Now don't you think the killing of kids -by either the Govt or cults-
> is equally evil? I see no distinction,
Yup.
> I also see no justification for it.
Yes, I know you don't.
> So if your system of belief can not be proven it must be a theory right?
No. First of all it is not a system of belief. it is the One True Path. Secondly it is NOT a
Science, which calls its posits "theories". it is a Religion, which calls its posits
"Doctrines".
> In fact almost everything from the paranormal [you mean religious side?] side avoids
> testing,
> proof and examination.
Quite true. These are the methods of Science and NOT EVER Religions. That's one reason we call
them religions and not sciences.
> Then it is a theory. You can't state it as fact can you? You can't
> prove it? So like I said before a theory.
That's what you said before. And you were wrong before and you're wrong now.
The purpose of Religion is to allow a person to live a higher quality life (from their own
POV) then would otherwise be possible. As such it is the search for Arte (Beauty) rather than
Truth.
Oh it may happen to have some truth in it, but the presence of absence of truth makes no
difference at all to its Arte.
> If two people follow their doctrines -on faith alone- and they
> contradict each other, or call the other camp demonic then where is
> the truth in either of their statements?
There is none. but there was none before.
The only question is: From their personal POVs, is their life of a higher quality? If so, then
everything else will work itself out in the end. We are all immortal.
Lani
Aloha Peyote sits on Creams Face,
You know, your usage of English is so alien to me, that I frequently have difficulty understanding you.
Since this is true from my POV, I can only assume that it is true for you too.
You may, if you so chose, decide to begin to encompass the Hunian concept of "wale", the warrior's POV.
In this, I am not certain you know what I mean by "justification".
When you use your Word Processor, and you click on "justify text", what does that mean and do?
"Should, oughts coulds", does justification care about correct spelling? No? Does it care about proper
grammar? No? Does it even care if the missive answers the purpose for which it was created? No?
Then what good is it? It observes with dispassion what is really real as to the number of characters per
line, then adjusts the spaces so that both ends of each line of text is even and therefore correct.
What does it mean therefore to "justify" your checkbook?
"What ifs, oughts, etc.", what f one of your checks was stolen and $40.00 robbed from your account? Will
you justify the $40 into your account? Or will you leave it in because it is "just".
To "justify" means to account for everything.
It is "wale", to see things as they actually are. NOT as they "might have been, if only..." etc.
The entire suffering in the Created World is justified by the wisdom gained. That is its only purpose.
There is only One life, and that is called by us, "IO".
Nothing suffers in the entire Universe, save Io. If the heat is too high here, then take responsibility
for the heat, and help cool it off.
"Justification" seems, IMHO, to be confused in your mind with the concept of rationalization or perhaps
sophistry.
Lani
> Aloha Peyote sits on Creams Face,
>
Well I just had a pipe and meditated on my last post to you.
I want our communication to be as clear as possible.
There are two areas of looking at reality, that of Science, called Physics; and that of Religion, called
Meta-physics. Or what lies beyond or behind Physics. While some analogs DO exist, mostly they have no direct
connections.
For example, "Evil" is a purely religious term. It has an analog in Physics (Science), but they aren't
called the same thing.
When translated from the Eternal World into the Created World in Physics, "Evil" is called "Entropy".
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you are using the common or loose definition for "justification",
"justify" etc. Whereas I am using the more tight definition, as I usually do.
So when you see me use the terms "justification" or "justify", etc., you can think of the synonym,
""accounted for", and NEVER "rationalized" or casuistry.
Likewise, you can think of Io interpenetrating both the Eternal World (with its separate space-time
continuum), and His (Our) Crated World.
Religiously, I use the Hunian term, "Will of Io", but this exists in the Created Word with its MEST (Matter
Energy Space Time) cosmos, but here it is called by Science, "Natural Law".
We can take Planck's Constant for instance. This has to do with the angular momentum of electrons, hence,
the size of atoms and their molecules.
Science notices it and describes it. But what is it made of? What holds/molds/makes it so? The Will of Io.
Without that will, there is no Natural Law, and there is no Created World裕he Universe.
Or, what do you think Natural Law is made of, or if nothing, then there is no Natural Law, and can you
account for the Universe then?
Kevin Stewart
metaphysics within the field of philosophy
Physics has an entirely diferent etymology and deals with matter energy,
etc. So does chemistry, biology,etc, (yet no one says metageologically
speaking).
Similar sounding words roots, etc doesn't mean a relationship exists.
Kevin
.
Lani wrote in message <3831E952...@earthlink.net>...
>We can take Planck's Constant for instance. This has to do with the angular
momentum of electrons, hence,
>the size of atoms and their molecules.
>
>Science notices it and describes it. But what is it made of? What
holds/molds/makes it so? The Will of Io.
>Without that will, there is no Natural Law, and there is no Created
World裕he Universe.
>
>Or, what do you think Natural Law is made of, or if nothing, then there is
no Natural Law, and can you
>account for the Universe then?
>
>
Lani
Kevin Stewart wrote:
> Metaphysics deals with what is beyond the physical; religion is a branch of
> metaphysics within the field of philosophy
>
> Physics has an entirely diferent etymology and deals with matter energy,
> etc. So does chemistry, biology,etc, (yet no one says metageologically
> speaking).
>
> Similar sounding words roots, etc doesn't mean a relationship exists.
>
> Kevin
Perhaps we have read and accepted different histories.
They were both named by the Greek, Aristotle.
Aristotle invented "Science" and Physics.
Plato invented "something" which concerns the gods, or rather, the patterns
behind reality or physics. His buddy and competitor Aristotle then named it
Meta-Physics, since it deals with the patterns behind Physics, and which give an
invisible foundation to the Cosmos.
AFAIK, this predates the classification of "Philosophy", but Philosophy is also
a Greek concept.
Regardless of the etymology of the concepts. It explains how I use the terms.
Although I believe that I am correct in the matter. And also, from a certain POV
(not mine) what you say is also true.
But while it is a fact that there is no common use of the term,
"metageologically", it falls within the Scientific name for Io's Will—Natural
Law. It is perfectly possible and correct to say, "What are the Natural Laws
involved in Geology?"
Then one has to ask: what composes Natural Law? What are its components? What is
the history of natural Law? What created it? Is it possible to even have the
Cosmos without it? Can I buy a pound of Natural Law?
Whatever Natural Law may be composed of, we call that, the Will of Io. Or have
it your way, where can I obtain a bucket of Natural Law, devoid of the MEST
Universe? IOW, A bit of Natural Law all by itself.
All Natural Law is mana or the Grace of God. The Will of Io.
John C. Randolph
Lani wrote:
>
> > Aloha Peyote sits on Creams Face,
> >
>
> Well I just had a pipe and meditated on my last post to you.
Just wondering: If you have so much psychic power, why can't you cure
your nicotine addiction?
-jcr
liberator
Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3831BC1D...@earthlink.net...
<I propose NO "TRUTH"! Where do you get that idea? I NEVER said such a
thing! Ever!>
For those of you who are new to this group, Lani has a history of rejecting
his own comments. Stick around long enough and you'll see this to be true.
<There is no truth attached to Religions. You're confusing it with Science
again. The tool for the discovery of truth in Science is "logic", likewise
the tool for the discovery of Arte in Religion is esthetics.>
Once again...he demonstrates the false dichotomy of science v religion as if
they were disjoint. [shakes head]
<Truth has nothing to do with it. All morality, all concept of honor comes
from religious teachings alone. There is no other source for it. Science can
tell one how to do something, but not if he SHOULD do it.>
Really? So all the research on burns wouldn't convince someone not to hold
their hand above a flame?
<I am sharing with you the dynamics of the Hunian theology. That is what I
am doing here. I am not trying to use your "Science" to "prove" anything.>
No one owns science. It isn't mine, yours, or his. It is a process that
someone follows to discover truth.
<The world has been pulled by down the Atheists who created both
"international scientific socialism". i.e., Communism, and "national
scientific socialism", i.e., Nazism and Fascism, etc.>
Ahh... Nazis were not atheists. Study history.
<Atomic weapons and Nerve Gas are the offspring of Science, not Religion.>
The wars that inspire these products are based on geo-politics and stem from
religious history. Deny the connection between science and religion all you
like but it's all connected together. The dichotomy that Lani insists exist
is an error.
<There are no religions based on 'trust me, or just have faith in me', the
leaders might think so, but each person and the children he/she owns has a
choice in the matter.>
This is in error. All the faiths that I know base their axioms deeply in
non-questioning.
--
The Liberator
E-Mail: ne...@liberator.net
Web Site: http://www.liberator.net/
Need a reliable and inexpensive Internet provider?
Visit CNET: http://webisplist.internetlist.com/
Lani
John C. Randolph wrote:
I haven't been successful with my addiction to breathing , or my addiction
to eating nor my addiction to sleep every once in a while. Then there is
my addition to going to the bathroom. And my addiction to hugging my
girlfriend...
Oh, they aren't addictions?
Neither is the enjoyment of sacred smoke.
Oh, yeah. I never said I was a Psychic. I'm not. Never claimed to be. I am
a Kahuna.
So let's get this straight: "I" am a Libertarian and a Kahuna. YOU are a
Communist and otherwise, pretty useless.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>
> >"Justification" seems, IMHO, to be confused in your mind with the concept of rationalization or perhaps
> >sophistry.
>
> Justus - just / Facere - make. -Justify.-
>
> Peyote.
Then why is it used to "balance" accounts? Why is it used with fonts in Word Processing?
Yes. to you it means sophistry.
To me it means to take all things into account dispassionately. To see things as they really are, and not as
we would want to see them.
<SHURG>
Tom
wrote:
> All the faiths that I know base their axioms deeply in
>non-questioning.
Now you know one that bases all axioms on questioning. Mine. Tom
John C. Randolph
Lani wrote:
>
> John C. Randolph wrote:
>
> > Lani wrote:
> > >
> > > > Aloha Peyote sits on Creams Face,
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well I just had a pipe and meditated on my last post to you.
> >
> > Just wondering: If you have so much psychic power, why can't you cure
> > your nicotine addiction?
> >
> > -jcr
>
> I haven't been successful with my addiction to breathing , or my addiction
> to eating nor my addiction to sleep every once in a while. Then there is
> my addition to going to the bathroom. And my addiction to hugging my
> girlfriend...
>
> Oh, they aren't addictions?
It would appear that you don't know what an addiction is.
> Neither is the enjoyment of sacred smoke.
Oh, that's funny: The tobbacco companies have finally owned up to the
fact that smoking is highly addictive, but you haven't. What a weakling.
> Oh, yeah. I never said I was a Psychic. I'm not. Never claimed to be. I am
> a Kahuna.
Then let me re-phrase: If you have so much "kahuna" power, why can't
you cure your nicotine addiction?
> So let's get this straight: "I" am a Libertarian and a Kahuna. YOU are a
> Communist and otherwise, pretty useless.
If you think I'm a communist, then you've never seen me tear into the
proponents of communism over on talk.politics.libertarian. Of course,
of you were just name-calling, then two can play at that game, you
carnival-sideshow swindler.
-jcr
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Aloha Peyote sits on Creams Face,
Hi Lani.
>You know, your usage of English is so alien to me, that I frequently have difficulty understanding you.
>Since this is true from my POV, I can only assume that it is true for you too.
I seem to read your posts ok. I don't know maybe it is the way I
write? Anyone else have trouble with my posts?
>You may, if you so chose, decide to begin to encompass the Hunian concept of "wale", the warrior's POV.
What does that entail?
>In this, I am not certain you know what I mean by "justification".
>
>When you use your Word Processor, and you click on "justify text", what does that mean and do?
Align the text evenly between the margin and/or page points.
>"Should, oughts coulds", does justification care about correct spelling? No?
>Does it care about proper grammar? No?
I agree those things are generally not important -unless one is
writing a book.-
>Does it even care if the missive answers the purpose for which it was created? No?
That depends upon the purpose and subject along with topic of
discussion.
>Then what good is it? It observes with dispassion what is really real as to the number of characters per
>line, then adjusts the spaces so that both ends of each line of text is even and therefore correct.
This also depends upon the purpose once again. A 'justified' text is
not workable as an ordinary text file, so in that instance it is
neither warranted or possible.
>What does it mean therefore to "justify" your checkbook?
To keep it correct -literally-.
>"What ifs, oughts, etc.", what f one of your checks was stolen and $40.00 robbed from your account? Will
>you justify the $40 into your account? Or will you leave it in because it is "just".
And your point is?
>To "justify" means to account for everything.
Justify comes from two latin words:
Justus - just + Facere - make.
>It is "wale", to see things as they actually are. NOT as they "might have been, if only..." etc.
Correct that is why I disagree with those who claim to have
'spiritual' insights or 'extra knowledge' based again on so-called
spiritual factors.
>The entire suffering in the Created World is justified by the wisdom gained.
Nope, cultic suffering is not justified.
>That is its only purpose.
It is a purpose created by kooks who believe in their own kook farts
and then proceed to convince others that what they are saying is true
or correct.
>There is only One life, and that is called by us, "IO".
That is what you call it, I simply call it life.
>Nothing suffers in the entire Universe, save Io.
Look around it is people who are suffering, I don't see lo, I do
however see people.
It appears that you just tack lo onto almost everything.
>If the heat is too high here, then take responsibility
>for the heat, and help cool it off.
That is why I do 'justify' the abuses of cults, rapists etc
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>> As I mentioned in the other post, this is only an addition that you
>> have tacked on to common principles. There is no evidence that it is
>> the will of lo.
>>
>> Following this anyone can say that X is the cause, maintainer, prime
>> principle behind all things.
>
>Anyone can say that Io is the cause, maintainer, primeprinciple behind all things, and be
>correct. There is only One.
X in the statement I used above can represent anything one wants it
to. Santa Claus. Pink Unicorns, etc etc.
Following the same thread of thought one can claim that the entire
worlds woes are the result of one not drinking X brand of 'blessed
water'.
In fact the molecules of this particular water existed before the Big
Bang and are in essence a powerful sentient being -which we often call
God, SB lo, etc etc-
This Sentient Being is present in the water, now if everyone drank the
water all war, disease and famine would vanish from the world if they
do so in faith.
See it is easy to make up stories like that. You could then pretend
this 'special water' caused the Big bang, created itself, is a part of
every thing and so on. Yet it is entirely BS made up by me right now.
If I wanted to try and be clever, I could pick and choose a few
concepts from different philosophies, chuck in a bit of science, blend
it and hey presto I got myself a new religion.
>They are all proof of the Will of Io.
Since you don't have proof of lo do I then take it that there is no
will of lo?
>> Your belief again not facts. This 'truth' you propose is subject to
>> which myth you want to believe in. Other people who also believe in
>> -whatever deity they hold to- would see it differently.
>
>I propose NO "TRUTH"! Where do you get that idea? I NEVER said such a thing! Ever!
Uhh so you propose what? Theory -aka doctrine etc- Error, Guesswork?
>> Do people believe the world is being held up by elephants today or by
>> Atlas?
>
>If so, then the only question is: Do they, from their POV believe that they are living a
>better or higher quality life than would otherwise be possible? Any other question is, simply,
>and not to be rude, none of your business.
ROTFL you missed the point again :-D People no longer believe it
because it is **stupid**
As I previously said:
We know that science demolished most of those 'beliefs' -and many
religions had to adapt once more- but in the domain of blind faith who
is to say they are wrong and you are right? How do you discern the
'truth' from 'error'?
>> It comes down to your word -or your systems authority- over some other
>> 'true believers' 'word' or 'system'.
>
>No. There is no truth attached to Religions.
Not according to Christianity and Islam :-D The last time I checked
they were still classified as religions.
This is your myth Lani, others quite clearly believe & state they have
the truth.
So if there is no truth attached to Religions what is left?
Well doctrine which breaks down once again to nothing more than
assumptions hidden behind the context of ...... faith.
>You're confusing it with Science again.
Well it is nice to know that you view science as the search for truth
LOL :-D
>The tool for the discovery of truth in Science is "logic", likewise
>the tool for the discovery of Arte in Religion is esthetics.
If that is the case no wonder so many 'faiths' that hold to your view
-if many do- are in a mess.
Now I would like to explore this concept you brought up a little bit
further by asking these questions:
Do you or do you not 'try' to use logic when it suites you? I believe
you do use logic to discover religion -at least in the initial
stages-.
If you do not, how do you communicate with people -that involves a
form of logic-
How do you type or write books etc without logic? How do you explain
your position without logic?
You even 'attempted' to use science to bring some form of credibility
to your assumptions, isn't that applying logic too?
You see I understand that the 'non logic' position is indeed a fall
back position when one wants to avoid examining their position.
Don't you find it the least bit interesting how on the one hand you
attempt to use science to validate your concepts/ideas etc; yet when
we begin to go into it deeper then you hide behind the 'no logic'
position?
Is it that you only use science and/or logic when you think it suites
you?
>> Good principles but no indication of inspiration, revelation or
>> special 'truth'.
>
>Truth has nothing to do with it.
I can see how you appear to lack truth.
>All morality, all concept of honor comes from religious
>teachings alone. There is no other source for it.
Looks like I will have to clear up this misconception once again LOL.
Oh well at least for those who may not have heard this before it may
useful.
The identification of morality with religion alone has absolutely no
basis in fact.
The obvious first place to begin is what is meant by morality and by
whose system does one judge whether something is moral or not?
Well despite what Lani tried to state above in simplistic terms, he
has conveniently left out the fact that morality is neither a static
topic nor is even morality uniform between the religions themselves.
What may be moral in one religion does not guarantee that it is not
viewed as immoral in another.
Yet strangely enough these contradictions between faiths and religion
on what constitutes morality is overlooked, but what is also
overlooked is that most religions 'claim' divine authority for the
system of morality that they espouse, yet they still contradict each
other on key points.
However when one examines this topic with regards to atheists,
Agnostics and Humanists, one finds the same differences -based on
personal views & conclusions- between what is viewed as moral and what
is not all without any claim to divine inspiration or religion.
So where is the difference? The facts are there is no difference at
all in the application of what one considers to be moral and what one
denounces as immoral, one determines the basis of what is moral and
what is not based upon their own experiences, upbringing, views,
culture/country etc etc.
Some atheists and Humanists talk about 'rational morality' which in
essence, is a code of value required by humanity for its survival and
happiness. The term 'rational' is used by them, because such a code
must be based upon the facts of human value, and only reason can
determine what is and is not of value to man.
Rational meta-ethics however is based upon humanities need for
objective values, its need to determine those goals that are
conductive to its well-being.
To take a simple illustration, food is of value to one man, it is
instrumental in maintaining life; poison is not. If man is to survive,
he must value food and dis value poison. Humanities evaluations must
be based on, and agree with, those things that are actually of value
to him in reality.
Just as a ration being is committed to facts and the use of reason, so
a rational morality is based on the facts of human value and the role
of reason in humanities survival. Three aspects of humanities nature
constitutes the foundation of a rational meta-ethics:
1. The fact that humans are conceptual beings.
2. The fact that man is a volitional being.
3. The fact that man is a purposive being.
*** If anyone is actually interested in this I am quite happy to go
into it more since the above is only a brief overview. ***
You will find moral and immoral people in all aspects of life,
including those that adhere to a religion and those that do not.
What people should do Lani instead of making assumptions like you have
about morality, is look closely at the differences between the said
religions themselves and what is claimed as being 'acceptable'.
Many cults use the 'faith only gambit' for their own paranoia,
delusions, lust or whatever and of course it is justified because they
are after all the 'messiah', and alien, god/man. angle, guru etc etc.
They just can't be wrong can they?
On the one hand you overlook those contradictions, yet attempt to say:
'All morality, all concept of honor comes from religious teachings
alone ...'
Yet you can not see that morality has and does exist quite readily
outside of religion? I think you ought to examine this a bit closer
and/or state your case better.
>Science can tell one how to do something, but not if he SHOULD do it.
ROTFL are you serious?
Uhmm I hate to say this but the laws of most lands are secular and not
religious Lani. I guess also you have not heard of humanism,
humanistic atheists & humanistic Agnostics.
I guess you also have not heard of Rational Morality, personal choice,
or even gone to dinner in an atheists house where the daughter wants
to go out on a date and the mother says no LOL.
All done BTW without religion, suicide cults, appeals to a book, or
said faith.
>> What you have said above can be said by anyone minus the religious
>> connotations. Nothing in the above is really astounding, new or proof
>> of the validity of the additions that have been tacked onto common
>> human principles of observation.
>
>I am sharing with you the dynamics of the Hunian theology.
>That is what I am doing here. I am not trying to use your
>"Science" to "prove" anything.
I think most people can now see that Lani. It appears you 'attempt' to
use science when it suites you, but when it gets down to the real
details you quickly avoid science.
>> However people suffering as a result of 'faith only' cults is anything
>> but a mere drama, as I have said before it is real life. Misery
>> perpetuated by a fallacy that continues to excuse itself and hide
>> behind the word faith.
>
>There is no such thing as "mere drama". The kids at Waco were
>not killed by "faith only" people. They were murdered by Atheistic
>soldiers from Fort Hood, Texas.
'No Koresh with his kook farts, no Waco'.
Now another question for you, why did he not come out and meet the
police right in the beginning? Surely the 'messiah' was not scared or
paranoid? Or did he really have something to hide? Couldn't he face up
to being exposed? What was he afraid of?
Instead he became even more kooky.
Another point for you to consider, you make another assumption once
again that all the soldiers were atheistic? Why? Do you have proof of
that or is it another 'spiritual insight', or are you hoping to paint
the picture that all atheists are evil :-D
The Govt should have known what kooks are like, especially apocalyptic
ones that are in a corner or about to be exposed.
>> How about there were also not enough rational people to save the
>> children from the claws of nuts like Koresh and Jones?
>
>The agents of the American Federal government killed the kids in
>Waco.
Yes I agree, but lets go back further, no delusional Koresh the
so-called 'messiah' no Waco. Lets also not forget that Lani.
>The Jim Jones affair is darker and more complex, but was
>triggered by the arrival and investigation by a member of the
>US Congress.
I agree.
>> True we are primarily responsible for ourselves. Yet that in itself
>> carries over to larger responsibilities, meeting the source of what
>> has pulled humanity downwards for so long as history & current events
>> clearly illustrates.
>
>The world has been pulled by down the Atheists who created both
>"international scientific socialism". i.e., Communism, and "national
>scientific socialism", i.e., Nazism and Fascism, etc.
WOW do you make this up as you go along? Okay it looks like it is time
for another reality session.
Fact one: atheists belong to all classes of a social structure, you
have poor ones, middle class ones and rich ones.
Fact two: atheists belong to various political parties, socialist,
communist, democracy, liberal -whatever-.
Fact three: Read Mein Kampf to find out that your rendering of Hitler
being an atheist -if that is what you meant- is totally BS. He
actually used Christianity as his basis -or excuse I believe- for
carrying out his work.
Fact four: Many Nazi's today -or neo Nazi's- are in fact very
religious Christians LOL. Read their literature and prove it for
yourself Lani. -Note on this point I agree with fundamentalist
Christians & Orthodox Christians that neo Nazi's distort the Bible in
their favour-.
Fact five: Religion has pulled down people since the beginning of
time, we had the Inquisition, the Shia/Sunni conflicts, the massacre
of total tribes -by the command of God- etc etc.
And you were saying?
>Atomic weapons and Nerve Gas are the offspring of
>Science, not Religion.
Wrong again. The Hindu's claim that the Vedic literature talked about
nuclear weapons in pre-historic times :-D Well so some of them believe
anyway.
However on a more easily provable point, you have forgotten that this
science you are talking about was also worked on by religious people
LOL.
You also forgot -or conveniently left out- that science has given us
vaccinations etc etc.
Now when we once again look back at Religion, we find out that even
without nuclear technology they had massive wars and atrocities, where
was today's science then Lani?
On a speculative note, could you have imagined what would have
happened if nuclear weapons were available to those fanatics? I dare
say the world today would be quite different wouldn't you?
>> Of course I have choice, I either do or I don't, I decide hence there
>> is the element of choice.
>
>Ah then, you can chose to levitate, turn your innards into Butterscotch
>pudding, accidentally leave your hand behind as you arise?
Since levitation doesn't exist -except in mythology- obviously it will
not be done. However science allows us to levitate LOL, and I can even
prove it too ... hop in a plane and your levitating.
On the note of levitation -sorry you started me up on this eh eh-
check out how TM was exposed pretending to levitate LOL. It is a
blast.
Oh BTW I just turned my innards to butterscotch, you will have to take
this on faith though Lani ROTFL.
Now back to a more serious look at this. Yes there is choice. I can
answer your post or not, I chose to answer. I can read a book tonight
or not, as yet I haven't chosen.
See it is simple when you take away the smoke screens.
>If you, since you are Io, make a decision, it is Io who makes that
>decision. If you take any action, it is Io who acts.
See how you have once again attached the assumption/theory/doctrine
-whatever- of lo to make nonsense.
I act therefore I am doing. That is a fact. lo is not a fact and is
indeed merely an added appendage to daily life.
>> How is a serial killer that is stopped denying the -intended or
>> otherwise- victims responsibility?
>
>By denying the victim any choice in the matter, you victimize
>them again.
I thought there was no choice ROTFL???
Like I said before put blame where blame is due. All you are doing
once again is denying the reality of the situation by trying to attach
a myth to real life incidents.
>> They are supposed to be lo
>> also aren't they? Does this being -lo- know the future? Is the future
>> and all subsequent happenings lo's will?
>
>The future isn't created yet. Io allows for and guards Free Will. Therefore God himself does
>not know the outcome of things. It is a mystery to Io.
Ahh so lo is one of the ineffectual deities, right got you.
>They is probably what makes the Created
>World and all its drama so much fun.
Do you view suffering as fun? Hmm I wonder.
>And besides, if the future COULD be known, then no more vast quantities of wisdom would be
>being generated to allow for the growth of wisdom in us and therefore Io.
Obviously lo can not see the future, so I guess the point is mute.
>> >It was meant to intimidate the populace, but it backfired.
>>
>> lo's will backfired? I am curious is this being all powerful or is it
>> one of the weaker gods in the pantheon?
>
>Io's Will cannot backfire. But the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.
Yet you still said:
'It was meant to intimidate the populace, but it backfired.'
So was this lo's will backfiring or not?
>Io is almighty. This means there there is no other energy or force or might in the Created World
>other than Io. That's what "almighty" means. If there were any other might, then He would not
>be almighty. Therefore all the might/force we see around us, and use ourselves is the
>might/force/energy of Io alone. "ALMIGHTY" means all might. Not "most" might.
Ahh so is lo responsible for nerve gas, science and nuclear weapons?
lo doesn't seem almighty to me since he makes mistakes and ... well
-whatever- ... backfires.
I see you had to even define -in this case water down- what the word
almighty means, ie basically able to do anything.
>All lesser emanating manifestations of Io, use Io's might/energy/force too.
Such as?
>You are in the position of a fish who denies the reality of water, and demands of another fish
>that he prove it to him.
Nope I do not live in water. Try another analogy.
>You might chose to see the religious doctrine of Io to be similar to the scientific theory of
>the "Unified Field".
Why?
>> In the case of Waco the govt was clearly wrong, I mean what the hell
>> were they thinking, they should have known delusional people like
>> Koresh when backed into a corner become even more kooky than their
>> normal bouts of lunacy.
>>
>> All they did in my opinion was further Koresh's already delusional
>> state of mind into thinking that the apocalypse -he kept raving about-
>> was at hand.
>
>Um, No. The Federal government gassed the kids over and over again for six hours. They set
>the fires. When the Firemen came to put out the flames the FBI blocked them for over two hours
>until there was none left to try to save.
>
>Then the FBI used tanks and bulldozers from Fort Hood (US Army) to destroy the evidence site.
>They got them through an illegal and fraudulent appeal to a specific exemption to the Posse
>Comitatus Act, which forbids elements of the US Army to attack and kill little kids in a
>Church, unless they have drugs.
Again back to the question of Koresh. No Koresh no Waco.
You have also not addressed the issue of why did Koresh simply not go
out in the first place?
>> Well I say that the setting up of 'trust me, or just have faith in me'
>> people/cults are purely stupid -not necessarily evil, some can be
>> sincere-.
>
>There are no religions based on 'trust me, or just have faith in me', the leaders might think
>so, but each person and the children he/she owns has a choice in the matter.
Oh please wake up and look around. Don't tell me I have more
experience in this than you do? Looks like I will have to bring up a
nice list of examples and quotes for you Lani.
BTW did you say those nuts 'OWN' people & children?
Also back to choice again, do people have a choice or not? The above
now appears to indicate that choice is a part of our life :-D Well
what is it?
>> So if your system of belief can not be proven it must be a theory right?
>
>No. First of all it is not a system of belief. it is the One True Path.
How do you know it is the one true path? Surely not a 'faith only'
argument is about to come out again?
I thought Christians were the ones which had the one true path?
>Secondly it is NOT a Science, which calls its posits "theories".
>it is a Religion, which calls its posits "Doctrines".
Ahh but it is unproven doctrine, so I am well within my rights of
terminology to class it as a theory, or an assumption etc.
Lets look at the word theory shall we:
-Gk -- to view-
1. A speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done.
2. A systematic statement of principles involved.
3. A formulation of underlying principles of certain observed
phenomena which been verified to some degree.
4. The principles of art or science rather than its practice.
5. Popularity, a guess.
Hmm I also find this definition:
1. An organized body of ideas as to truth of something, usually
derived from the study of a number of facts relating to it, but
sometimes entirely a result of exercising the speculative imagination.
2. Knowledge of a science or art derived from such study and
speculation.
3. A general body of assumptions and principles, ie the theory of
democracy.
4. A group of mathematical theorems presenting a comprehensive and
systematic view of a subject.
5. A conjecture
etc etc.
See I can easily class your views as a theory from where I am sitting.
>> In fact almost everything from the paranormal [you mean religious side?] side avoids
>> testing, proof and examination.
>
>Quite true. These are the methods of Science and NOT EVER Religions.
>That's one reason we call them religions and not sciences.
Like what was explained above the word theory **is not** within the
sole domain of science, it can and is applied in other areas.
>> Then it is a theory. You can't state it as fact can you? You can't
>> prove it? So like I said before a theory.
>
>That's what you said before. And you were wrong before and you're wrong now.
Nope check it out for yourself and don't assume you have the correct
interpretation of the word theory, or how & where it should be
applied.
>The purpose of Religion is to allow a person to live a higher quality life (from their own
>POV) then would otherwise be possible. As such it is the search for Arte (Beauty) rather than
>Truth.
It is always possible to lead a higher and better quality of life,
some even do it without religion LOL ;-D
>Oh it may happen to have some truth in it, but the presence of absence of truth makes no
>difference at all to its Arte.
Yes people can never be sure of assumptions that are beyond proof. Is
that why lo does not have all truth? Yet how is it that you said just
before:
'.... it is the One True Path' Uhmm is that a true statement? Or a
false one?
>> If two people follow their doctrines -on faith alone- and they
>> contradict each other, or call the other camp demonic then where is
>> the truth in either of their statements?
>
>There is none. but there was none before.
Then what is the 'One True Path'? Hmm.
>The only question is: From their personal POVs, is their life of a higher quality? If so, then
>everything else will work itself out in the end.
See atheists, & agnostics can lead a better life than religious
people.
>We are all immortal.
Another assumption.
Peyote.
>-Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>> Aloha Peyote sits on Creams Face,
Hi Lani.
>Well I just had a pipe and meditated on my last post to you.
LOL and what type of pipe was it may I ask ;-D
>I want our communication to be as clear as possible.
Okay.
>There are two areas of looking at reality, that of Science, called Physics; and that of Religion, called
>Meta-physics. Or what lies beyond or behind Physics. While some analogs DO exist, mostly they have no direct
>connections.
That's hard because I do accept that faith need not be incompatible
with reason or logic.
What I stand against is 'blind faith' or 'unquestioning faith' ie
that's the way it is and that's how it is, -in other words stuff all
reason-.
>For example, "Evil" is a purely religious term. It has an analog in Physics
>(Science), but they aren't called the same thing.
>
>When translated from the Eternal World into the Created World in Physics,
>"Evil" is called "Entropy".
Some have said this.
>It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you are using the common or
>loose definition for "justification", "justify" etc. Whereas I am using the more
>tight definition, as I usually do.
No probs I'll drop it then.
>So when you see me use the terms "justification" or "justify", etc., you can
>think of the synonym, ""accounted for", and NEVER "rationalized" or casuistry.
Okay.
>Likewise, you can think of Io interpenetrating both the Eternal World (with
>its separate space-time continuum), and His (Our) Crated World.
>
>Religiously, I use the Hunian term, "Will of Io", but this exists in the Created
>Word with its MEST (Matter Energy Space Time) cosmos, but here it is called
>by Science, "Natural Law".
So do you mean the 'will of lo' pertains to natural law and not
actually a controlled force by conscious effort?
>We can take Planck's Constant for instance. This has to do with the angular
>momentum of electrons, hence, the size of atoms and their molecules.
Uhmm I have some data on what you presented before regarding Planck's
law from a physicist -John- who explained you got your data a bit
muddled.
Also Steve -another physicist whom I know- is working on an answer to
your earlier post where he claims you made 'wrong assumptions with
some of the basics of physics' -his words not mine-. I warn you though
Steve's post appears very complex and he goes into this quite in depth
from what I have seen so far.
The other gentleman -whom I don't know- Eric is also a physicist and
wrote an article which is brief but to the point -and well done imo-
if you like I can post his reply to your article too.
>Science notices it and describes it. But what is it made of?
>What holds/molds/makes it so? The Will of Io.
No will is required, by this it is maintained by interaction/movement
molecules etc.
You see I believe that is an addition to what is already there and
happening around us. For instance I could drop an apple and then
maintain that my letting go of the apple was the will of X deity, and
the force of gravity was also the will of X deity. In either case it
is still only what I have said and belies the reality that an apple
was consciously dropped by me in the grip of gravity.
Again if you like I can have qualified people answer your questions. I
know Steve has been through a similar debate in the past where someone
tried to say that all things were held together by the will of God etc
etc.
Likewise there may be some atheists who are interested in joining the
discussion regarding your take of atheism, ie on morality, etc etc.
>Without that will, there is no Natural Law, and there is no Created World
>The Universe.
Well as I have said previously that is an assumption not based in
facts, or perhaps it is better to say it is an addition to what is
already known.
>Or, what do you think Natural Law is made of,
Overall? I would say interaction of one substance and/or force with
another. I don't actually call it law since law often conjures up the
image of order to the exclusion of chaos, randomness & chance.
>or if nothing, then there is no Natural Law,
Well there is interaction, not quite an overall law though.
>and can you account for the Universe then?
Yes.
-Oh boy the next article is going to be long-
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>
>
>Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >"Justification" seems, IMHO, to be confused in your mind with the concept of rationalization or perhaps
>> >sophistry.
>>
>> Justus - just / Facere - make. -Justify.-
>>
>> Peyote.
>
> Then why is it used to "balance" accounts? Why is it used with fonts in Word Processing?
Because words are often transplanted from one language to another, and
with time their meaning can change.
>Yes. to you it means sophistry.
I take it as it says and in the context of the said sentence. Anything
beyond that is not knowable by me -since I don't read minds- until
defined by the person in question.
>To me it means to take all things into account dispassionately. To see things as they really are, and not as
>we would want to see them.
Then that would be an added interpretation, with a new definition &
context meaning; which is fine in itself as long as people don't get
muddled up & you define your definitions before hand.
><SHURG>
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Neither is the enjoyment of sacred smoke.
Damn I thought pipe = bong.
Oh well smoke on. :-D
Peyote.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> >We can take Planck's Constant for instance. This has to do with the angular
> >momentum of electrons, hence, the size of atoms and their molecules.
>
> Uhmm I have some data on what you presented before regarding Planck's
> law from a physicist -John- who explained you got your data a bit
> muddled.
>
> Also Steve -another physicist whom I know- is working on an answer to
> your earlier post where he claims you made 'wrong assumptions with
> some of the basics of physics' -his words not mine-. I warn you though
> Steve's post appears very complex and he goes into this quite in depth
> from what I have seen so far.
>
> The other gentleman -whom I don't know- Eric is also a physicist and
> wrote an article which is brief but to the point -and well done imo-
> if you like I can post his reply to your article too.
Again, it seems to me, and I could be wrong here, that you sometimes slide away from wanting to understand the
dynamics of Hunian theology into a debate or argument.
But I have no interest in that, except from another Kahuna. So you ask me something. I do the best I can to
explain the Hunian theological dynamics. You gain understanding of a religion you, perhaps, never heard of of
before.
As far as "Steve" and the other folks goes. I have no interest whatever in any position they take on the
theology. If they post their opinion, then I'll post mine, then they'll post texts and then I'll scan in texts
and post them, Then pretty soon all we have is a war of reference books.
My excitement for battle is such that in my mind even now I am thinking on what articles and books on Planck's
Constant and Dark Matter I would use.
But no.
That isn't the purpose of the ULC, and my being here.
You have been, in the main, polite, as have I, in the main.
You have asked interesting and penetrating questions concerning the dynamics of the Hunian theology.
I appreciate it.
But we seem to have drifted way off the mark here and now, and into the waters of debate, conversion, and
argument.
Rather than expressing your personal POV, you think you and Steve, et al, are in possession of the Truth. And
you're not. The Truth is too large and complex for anyone to utterly encompass, including me or Huna. Likewise
the Arte of Honor and Beauty are too large and complex for any religion to fully encompass.
So while I have enjoyed our conversation, you don't seem to be coming into a greater understanding of our POV. So
I think I'll just drop it here.
If in the future, if you have a desire to understand what the Hunian theological dynamic believes about this or
that, don't be afraid to ask. I'd be happy to attempt to convey our position to you.
>
>
> -Oh boy the next article is going to be long-
>
> Peyote.
--
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
Nope. Sorry. Captain Black Gold pipe tobacco.
Lani
Peyote sits on Creams Face wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:31:30 -0800, Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Religiously, I use the Hunian term, "Will of Io", but this exists in the Created
> >Word with its MEST (Matter Energy Space Time) cosmos, but here it is called
> >by Science, "Natural Law".
>
> So do you mean the 'will of lo' pertains to natural law and not
> actually a controlled force by conscious effort?
>
> >We can take Planck's Constant for instance. This has to do with the angular
> >momentum of electrons, hence, the size of atoms and their molecules.
>
> Uhmm I have some data on what you presented before regarding Planck's
> law from a physicist -John- who explained you got your data a bit
> muddled.
>
> Also Steve -another physicist whom I know- is working on an answer to
> your earlier post where he claims you made 'wrong assumptions with
> some of the basics of physics' -his words not mine-. I warn you though
> Steve's post appears very complex and he goes into this quite in depth
> from what I have seen so far.
>
> The other gentleman -whom I don't know- Eric is also a physicist and
> wrote an article which is brief but to the point -and well done imo-
> if you like I can post his reply to your article too.
>
> Peyote.
I know it is hard to understand theological concepts.
But you passed this by so quickly that I doubt that you really considered it.
You deleted from my post the questions I asked you, while retaining and answering the titles of the questions.
As a metaphor, the World is being upheld by a Titan, Io. The Created World is an artificial construct.
This is the crux of all religion in contradiction to Science.
Science stops at the atomic (or subatomic) level. It notices and observes and describes Natural Law, but it
doesn't have any means of testing it. Or rather, all means of testing anything are testing Natural Law.
What is Natural Law composed of?
How much does it weigh?
What is its weight?
Natural Law (the Will of Io in the MEST Universe) IS God. Or rather the will of God. IOW the Will of Io.
Science now says that the Created World is only 10% of the mass of the entire Universe. That everything you know.
That everything science can look at擁s only 10% of the whole.
That the body of Io, and His Eternal World, is 90% of the mass of the Universe.
Is called by the Scientists優ark Matter.
Dark Matter flows through instruments of almost any nature as if it didn't exist. It is observable through its
gravity effects. It froths, large and small (our souls). The gigantic "bubbles" of Io control the destiny of the
galaxies. All galaxies float on the membranes of these Dark Matter bubbles of Io. There are no stars inside the
bubbles.
The tiniest single celled animal is controlled by one of the tiny bubbles in the same way that the large bubbles
control the galaxies, and control the Fate of the Universe傭y "closing" it.
All religion is based on the fact that Io is deeper than Science can ever get to.
What is Natural Law? How much does it weigh? What compels the entire known Cosmos to obey Planck's Constant?
And don't rely for your answers on others. They don't know. Ask a scientist if the dinosaurs were cold blooded
reptiles or warm blooded mammals. You'll get two different answers, usually based on the age of who you ask.
Older scientists believe one theory, younger scientists believe another.
Ask a Physicist about the nature of Dark Matter or Natural Law, and you'll get at least two different answers.
Many physicists don't even know about the frothing of Dark Matter which controls the shape of the galaxies and
closes the Universe. Some have never heard of "Dark Matter", but have heard of "Missing Matter".
Science is as split as religion is. With as many different answers.
So then, don't avoid it, how much does it cost for you to get a bucket of Natural Law devoid of the MEST?
What is Natural Law composed of?
In the MEST Universe, what the Scientists call "Dark Matter" is what theologically Hunians call the Will of Io.
In the Metaphysical world, it is called Arte, or Beauty, or Quality.
So let me ask you, of what is "quality" composed of? Where can I get a bucket of it, devoid of MEST?
Does Quality exist? If so, then what composes it? Quality is composed of the Will of Io.
Now do you begin to see the essential difference between Ethics and Morality? Religion and Science?
liberator
Tom <altarS...@omnicast.net> wrote:
"liberator" <lib...@mcs.net> wrote:
> All the faiths that I know base their axioms deeply in
>non-questioning.
<Now you know one that bases all axioms on questioning. Mine.>
I guess that makes two...both of our faiths.
=)
Lani
One more example for you:
Take two artists as far apart from each other as followers of The Tao
are from, say, Orthodox Judaism.
So we have a fresco painter in Rome making a fresco of Zeus, and an
Eskimo, carving stylized Polar Bears out of Ivory in Siberia.
Now, which one is "True" and which one is "false"? The fresco of Zeus or
the stylized sculpture in Ivory?
Which is true, Orthodox Judaism or The Dow? Christianity or Huna?
Does each one serve their purpose for someone? If so, then that is all
that is required. "Truth" plays no part in it.
Does it make any truthful difference if Zeus has an existential
beingness?
Does it make any difference if there really are Polar Bears or not? No?
Then the "Truth" of the matter is no truth at all, and meaningless.
Likewise Religion. The Created World acts as if there really are
Aumakuas (and *I* say there are). Everything we can do to see if they
are real confirms it.
Therefore, if I can heal by my faith in them, if I can do exorcisms and
change the color of the sacred Kukui wood by blessing it. If I have
visitations from Aumakuas and the gods; if, under the protection of
Wahine-nui-ho`a-lani, and after my initiation by the Kahuna I Ke Umu Ki,
John Shango, off the coast of Africa next mid-april, I can walk on Fire
through supernatural protection and not be harmed. Then that is enough
for me to make my days full of the struggle to develop some tiny amount
of the six sacred virtues.
Joseph Campbell worked all his life with religions. But he never had a
single religious experience. That's because he believed that belief
systems existed. That belief on his part prevented him from the
necessary devotion to a single Path to get far enough into it to have
Confirming Mystical Experiences.
Likewise, we see the battles of life before us. Huna teaches us that Io
calls on us to live bold lives.
What is required of us is to, even we know the pain and sweat and blood
and bad smells, and frustration it involves, and that it is a drama
between immortals, nevertheless enter the field of battle cheerfully and
fully. As spiritual warriors. As true warriors.
To find a Path which fits us, and pursue it until the end of our days.
To accept it with faith, and faith alone. For that is the only way to
make yourself immune to the Iconoclasts—those who would use their wily
use of "Logic" and "Science" to strip you of your Faith and leave you
godless.
But to drop the Faith yourself if it doesn't fit you properly, let
others who it may fit take that Path, and find another. There are many…
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
> I know it is hard to understand theological concepts.
If they do not make sense or are against evidence then what is there
to understand?
>But you passed this by so quickly that I doubt that you really considered it.
I considered it, otherwise I wouldn't be here now.
>You deleted from my post the questions I asked you, while retaining and answering the titles of the questions.
What deletions? Where? I thought I answered your posts fully? Oh well
if I have missed something let me know and I'll gladly answer them for
you.
>As a metaphor, the World is being upheld by a Titan, Io.
Yes this is interesting, the 'metaphor' is often used when an older
myth has lost its sensibility and not even the most mundane person
alive could believe in it in the modern era.
>The Created World is an artificial construct.
So you say.
>This is the crux of all religion in contradiction to Science.
There is also the difference of fact vs fantasy.
>Science stops at the atomic (or subatomic) level. It notices and observes and describes Natural Law, but it
>doesn't have any means of testing it. Or rather, all means of testing anything are testing Natural Law.
And natural law according to your own mythology is? Oh it is what you
say it is without any proof naturally.
>What is Natural Law composed of?
>
>How much does it weigh?
>
>What is its weight?
You have weighed a law or theory? Well what is it then? What equipment
did you use? Provide your calculations and proof along with the method
you used to weigh this natural law.
That is about as absurd as saying you can weigh ones own imagination.
Now for the sake of imagination, here are a few things I would like
you to consider:
A pink unicorn manifested in my lounge last night, -you have to accept
this on faith- and it told me it is the maintainer of the universe,
now Lani I would like you to tell me:
1. What was the pink unicorn composed of?
2. How much does it weigh?
3. What is its weight?
Please provide exact answers Lani -with the proof of how you arrived
at those answers-.
>Natural Law (the Will of Io in the MEST Universe) IS God. Or rather the will of God. IOW the Will of Io.
That is your theory or assumption. I maintain that is what you have
attempted to tack onto what has been already discovered by science.
I gave you an example of how this can be easily done with that
'special water' explanation. The Pink Unicorn example is another way
of looking at it.
>Science now says that the Created World is only 10% of the mass of the entire Universe. That everything you know.
>That everything science can look at is only 10% of the whole.
Yet you can see the whole? If so based on what exactly Lani? How were
you able to do this? What instruments did you use? How did you verify
your conclusions?
Now if you haven't seen & verified the whole then your only presenting
your religious view.
Lets break this down even further, have you have based your theory on:
1. The existence of a lo in the first place?
2. Your own teachings/ideas/beliefs or imagination?
3. Attaching lo to what is already known?
4. Attaching lo to unknown quantities wherever they may be found?
I would dare say LOL that the above is even less than 10%.
>That the body of Io, and His Eternal World, is 90% of the mass of the Universe.
See you are adding lo to the unknown quantity again.
This furthers my other comment -made in previous posts- that with each
step the concept of X deity is pushed further and further back as new
discoveries are found.
No elephants -or atlas- is holding the world up, so now it is a
metaphor or silly idea.
The earth is not flat -or even the center of the universe- time to
reinterpret it as poetic etc etc.
Epilepsy is not caused by demons, so now the old idea is completely
dropped or the cause is pushed back one step further, ie now the demon
is secretly behind the physical cause.
And so on.
I call this the retreating X deity syndrome.
>Is called by the Scientists Dark Matter.
>
>Dark Matter flows through instruments of almost any nature as if it didn't exist. It is observable through its
>gravity effects. It froths, large and small (our souls). The gigantic "bubbles" of Io control the destiny of the
>galaxies. All galaxies float on the membranes of these Dark Matter bubbles of Io. There are no stars inside the
>bubbles.
>The tiniest single celled animal is controlled by one of the tiny bubbles in the same way that the large bubbles
>control the galaxies, and control the Fate of the Universe by "closing" it.
Your additions -guesses or added attachments- to what is already known
still total up to nothing Lani. This is on your say so.
>All religion is based on the fact that Io is deeper than Science can ever get to.
Well naturally LOL since X deity is always retreating, would you
expect anything less :-D
>What is Natural Law? How much does it weigh?
What is the weight of my pink unicorn?
>What compels the entire known Cosmos to obey Planck's Constant?
Who said that it does 'compel' -to make or force- the entire Cosmo's
to obey?
>And don't rely for your answers on others. They don't know.
Well of course. Since when has science ever said "we know every single
thing about everything"?
That is usually left to those who believe in X deity or the said
'faith only' movement.
>Ask a scientist if the dinosaurs were cold blooded
>reptiles or warm blooded mammals. You'll get two different answers, usually based on the age of who you ask.
>Older scientists believe one theory, younger scientists believe another.
So?
>Ask a Physicist about the nature of Dark Matter or Natural Law, and you'll get at least two different answers.
LOL more than two I dare say.
>Many physicists don't even know about the frothing of Dark Matter which controls the shape of the galaxies and
>closes the Universe. Some have never heard of "Dark Matter", but have heard of "Missing Matter".
Anyone can say the scientists don't know about ...... -fill in
whatever product of imagination one wants to in the blank space-.
Likewise anyone can pick up a text, search for a portion which is not
yet resolved and shout 'Hey science doesn't know that' LOL.
What you are forgetting is neither do you. You claim to, but you have
no proof.
Likewise this gives *anyone* the opportunity to fill in the blanks
with their own imagination or pet theories and claim it as 'true' or
the real answer.
Now because it is behind the excuse -or avoidance- of 'faith only' it
is swallowed as correct.
>Science is as split as religion is. With as many different answers.
Your climbing up the wrong tree here Lani. I have never stated science
is unified or in agreement on all things. Go back and read the thread
Pausaune & I were involved in.
What is important however is that science progresses forward, whilst
religion -supernatural, paranormal etc etc- recedes with each new
discovery.
What is also interesting to note is that with each new discovery -or
exposure of a fake miracle whatever- is that a new definition of terms
or excuses has to be invented.
>So then, don't avoid it, how much does it cost for you to get a bucket of Natural Law devoid of the MEST?
Okay here is my answer: $2.20 AUD at the local intergalactic odds &
ends store.
You see if the question in the first place is not sensible then
whatever answer is given is of equal worth.
What makes the difference is, was the answer based on a verifiable
fact? Was the question in the first place correct?
>What is Natural Law composed of?
What is my pink unicorn composed of?
>In the MEST Universe, what the Scientists call "Dark Matter" is what
>theologically Hunians call the Will of Io.
And this will of lo is? Is this will comprised of intelligence? Does
it direct and make decisions?
>In the Metaphysical world, it is called Arte, or Beauty, or Quality.
This is what you say once again, but based on what Lani? What
evidence? None? Then it is only your words, not a fact, not evidence,
nothing more.
That is the difference between myth and science. Myth can state
anything it wants to and has no need to prove it or even test it.
>So let me ask you, of what is "quality" composed of? Where can I get a
>bucket of it, devoid of MEST?
The quality of the Pink Unicorn equals the new constant of the sub
matter between the essence of Mu & Qwerty 'squared'. In fact it is the
underlying principle of all the existences & non existences, seen and
unseen.
See how silly these questions are?
>Does Quality exist? If so, then what composes it? Quality is composed of the Will of Io.
You set the question -by your own theory- then you attempt to answer
it by your own theory, uhhm doesn't that strike you as even a bit
ludicrous?
>Now do you begin to see the essential difference between Ethics and Morality?
Nope.
What I have seen however is a set of very silly questions with equally
silly answers all based on .... your belief that the questions were
valid, sensible and real in the first place.
>Religion and Science?
Yes Religion obviously can say anything it wants to and people accept
it to be true without any foundation whatsoever.
Peyote.
Peyote sits on Creams Face
wrote:
>Again, it seems to me, and I could be wrong here, that you sometimes
>slide away from wanting to understand the dynamics of Hunian theology
>into a debate or argument.
There appears to be not much to understand at all from what I have
gathered so far in these discussions.
>But I have no interest in that, except from another Kahuna.
I believe that is called reinforcing ones own faith.
>So you ask me something. I do the best I can to
>explain the Hunian theological dynamics. You gain understanding
>of a religion you, perhaps, never heard of of before.
You are right I have never heard of your religion before.
>As far as "Steve" and the other folks goes. I have no interest whatever in any position they take on the
>theology. If they post their opinion, then I'll post mine, then they'll post texts and then I'll scan in texts
>and post them, Then pretty soon all we have is a war of reference books.
>
>My excitement for battle is such that in my mind even now I am thinking on what articles and books on Planck's
>Constant and Dark Matter I would use.
See this relates to what I said in the last article. I previously
said:
------------------
Anyone can say the scientists don't know about ...... -fill in
whatever product of imagination one wants to in the blank space-.
Likewise anyone can pick up a text, search for a portion which is not
yet resolved and shout 'Hey science doesn't know that' LOL.
What you are forgetting is neither do you. You claim to, but you have
no proof.
Likewise this gives *anyone* the opportunity to fill in the blanks
with their own imagination or pet theories and claim it as 'true' or
the real answer.
Now because it is behind the excuse -or avoidance- of 'faith only' it
is swallowed as correct.
-------------------
I would like to add one new thought to this, a person can also try and
tie in their concept of religion or deity etc as behind the said law
or scientific observation/theory.
And still it amounts to nothing more than Lani said so. Do you
honestly think it is hard to not look for unanswered questions LOL and
fill in the blanks with whatever one wants to? I don't think its hard.
>But no.
Fair enough.
>That isn't the purpose of the ULC, and my being here.
Okay, either way it has been an interesting discussion.
>You have been, in the main, polite, as have I, in the main.
LOL well we tried huh? No complaints from my end.
>You have asked interesting and penetrating questions concerning the dynamics of the Hunian theology.
>
>I appreciate it.
Ditto for your questions on science etc.
>But we seem to have drifted way off the mark here and now, and into the waters of debate, conversion, and
>argument.
Well debate yes, conversion no, argument possibly at times.
>Rather than expressing your personal POV, you think you and Steve, et al, are in possession of the Truth. And
>you're not.
Then the same can be applied to you. 'You think you are in possession
of the truth but you're not.' In fact you said so yourself, that you
have not claimed 'truth'.
>The Truth is too large and complex for anyone to utterly encompass, including me or Huna. Likewise
>the Arte of Honor and Beauty are too large and complex for any religion to fully encompass.
Yes there is always the element of 'IF' or what is beyond what is
already known.
>So while I have enjoyed our conversation, you don't seem to be coming into a greater understanding of our POV. So
>I think I'll just drop it here.
Okay.
>If in the future, if you have a desire to understand what the Hunian theological dynamic believes about this or
>that, don't be afraid to ask. I'd be happy to attempt to convey our position to you.
No probs.
Take care this has been most interesting.
Peyote.
Lani
Lani wrote:
> Aloha Kevin,
>
OK, I've got there banners.
The first one has letters appliquéd on it, they read, "This is the only
truth."
The second banner has pained on it, "This is the only truth."
On the third one, someone has scrawled in with a marker pen, "This is the
only truth."
Which one is the Truth and which two are lies?
Or does Truth attach itself to any one of them? All of them? None of them?
Or is the Truth unnecessary to the existence of the banners?
Which one demonstrates the mastery on the technique of the maker? Does that
have anything to do with its message, anything at all? No.
Do they have a utilitarian purpose? If so, do they serve that purpose well?
If so then they have mana, Grace, or Arte.
Indeed, if a sense of urgency is implied, perhaps the one made with a marker
pen might convey that message even better than the others?
Nevermore
Peyote sits on Creams Face <pey...@oops.1997.went.by.com> wrote in message
news:383c804a...@news.primus.com.au...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:08:33 -0800, Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I know it is hard to understand theological concepts.
>
> If they do not make sense or are against evidence then what is there
> to understand?
>
If something does not make sense
Then there is something to understand about it which escapes your present
perspective.
What evidence are you talking about that goes against Lani's perspective?
>>But you passed this by so quickly that I doubt that you really considered
it.
>
> I considered it, otherwise I wouldn't be here now.
hmm...
>
> >You deleted from my post the questions I asked you, while retaining and
answering the titles of the questions.
>
> What deletions? Where? I thought I answered your posts fully? Oh well
> if I have missed something let me know and I'll gladly answer them for
> you.
>
=P
> >As a metaphor, the World is being upheld by a Titan, Io.
>
> Yes this is interesting, the 'metaphor' is often used when an older
> myth has lost its sensibility and not even the most mundane person
> alive could believe in it in the modern era.
>
> >The Created World is an artificial construct.
>
> So you say.
> >This is the crux of all religion in contradiction to Science.
>
> There is also the difference of fact vs fantasy.
there is less difference between fact and fantasy than most people think
what is fact one day... may be proved to have just been a fantasy a day
later
and what is fantasy... may be proved to be a fact a day later
a problem with facts and science is that they only believe in what they can
prove...
and any reasonable person can admit that science hasnt figured it all out
yet
To take the point of view of 'Until Something is proven to be True then it
Must be False', is to hold your hands up over your eyes and ears and make
noises to distract yourself from what is being described
>
> >Science stops at the atomic (or subatomic) level. It notices and observes
and describes Natural Law, but it
> >doesn't have any means of testing it. Or rather, all means of testing
anything are testing Natural Law.
>
> And natural law according to your own mythology is? Oh it is what you
> say it is without any proof naturally.
you sound pessimistic
>
> >What is Natural Law composed of?
> >
> >How much does it weigh?
> >
> >What is its weight?
>
> You have weighed a law or theory? Well what is it then? What equipment
> did you use? Provide your calculations and proof along with the method
> you used to weigh this natural law.
>
> That is about as absurd as saying you can weigh ones own imagination.
imagination is interesting
everything you see and hear your truely imagining
we 'live'<or how most live... through sight, sound, touch, ect> in the past
it takes 'time' for light to move from here to there
so when your seeing your computer screen you have to wait for that light to
travel from your computer screen to your eyes
once your eyes have taken in the light<a form of energy vibrating at a very
high frequency> they can give the brain a message as to what they have
picked up, then the brain can imagine a picture of what it should look like
to you... just a silly little dream of a computer screen, of a house, of a
world, of a life, ect
the same works with sound/touch/taste/smell/<all just different vibrations
of energy... everything is made up of energy>
our physical body only detects these things after being processed by the
mind
... continue with your dream...
> Now for the sake of imagination, here are a few things I would like
> you to consider:
>
> A pink unicorn manifested in my lounge last night, -you have to accept
> this on faith- and it told me it is the maintainer of the universe,
> now Lani I would like you to tell me:
>
> 1. What was the pink unicorn composed of?
> 2. How much does it weigh?
> 3. What is its weight?
>
> Please provide exact answers Lani -with the proof of how you arrived
> at those answers-.
>
im not really sure how this is relavant to Anything lani was talking
about... and im not sure what point your trying to make
would you like to explain your thinking on this one?
> >Natural Law (the Will of Io in the MEST Universe) IS God. Or rather the
will of God. IOW the Will of Io.
>
> That is your theory or assumption. I maintain that is what you have
> attempted to tack onto what has been already discovered by science.
a rose by any other name still smells as sweet
>
> I gave you an example of how this can be easily done with that
> 'special water' explanation. The Pink Unicorn example is another way
> of looking at it.
i responded to your special water explaination already
as for the pink unicorn i dont yet see what kind of point your trying to
make
>
> >Science now says that the Created World is only 10% of the mass of the
entire Universe. That everything you know.
> >That everything science can look at is only 10% of the whole.
>
> Yet you can see the whole? If so based on what exactly Lani? How were
> you able to do this? What instruments did you use? How did you verify
> your conclusions?
>
> Now if you haven't seen & verified the whole then your only presenting
> your religious view.
>
> Lets break this down even further, have you have based your theory on:
>
>
> 1. The existence of a lo in the first place?
> 2. Your own teachings/ideas/beliefs or imagination?
> 3. Attaching lo to what is already known?
> 4. Attaching lo to unknown quantities wherever they may be found?
>
> I would dare say LOL that the above is even less than 10%.
it is true that science can only account for 10% of the energy measured in
the universe
at least thats what scientists tell us
and they arnt talking about the earth vs. the rest of the universe
they are talking about space<not outer space...>
taken down to a subatomic level
theres still alot more going on below that than science has discovered yet
>
> >That the body of Io, and His Eternal World, is 90% of the mass of the
Universe.
>
> See you are adding lo to the unknown quantity again.
>
> This furthers my other comment -made in previous posts- that with each
> step the concept of X deity is pushed further and further back as new
> discoveries are found.
nothing is being pushed back by what he is proposing
if anythign it is being pushed upwards...
90% of the universe is the body of god... sounds like what spiritual people
have been trying to tell us for all time
>
> No elephants -or atlas- is holding the world up, so now it is a
> metaphor or silly idea.
a force is holding the world up<together> though<you call it gravity maybe>
how would you know wether gravity is a tool/piece of a super-entity
>
> The earth is not flat -or even the center of the universe- time to
> reinterpret it as poetic etc etc.
Common sense is what tells us the world is flat.
>
> Epilepsy is not caused by demons, so now the old idea is completely
> dropped or the cause is pushed back one step further, ie now the demon
> is secretly behind the physical cause.
>
if you cant perceive demons, and dont know what a demon is<other than what
the mindwashing major religions describe demons as> how could you be so sure
about this?
if god was a force that existed and worked within the tiny spaces between
the building blocks of all atoms
> And so on.
>
> I call this the retreating X deity syndrome.
how do you know which way is retreating? maybe your being led
>
> >Is called by the Scientists Dark Matter.
> >
> >Dark Matter flows through instruments of almost any nature as if it
didn't exist. It is observable through its
> >gravity effects. It froths, large and small (our souls). The gigantic
"bubbles" of Io control the destiny of the
> >galaxies. All galaxies float on the membranes of these Dark Matter
bubbles of Io. There are no stars inside the
> >bubbles.
> >The tiniest single celled animal is controlled by one of the tiny bubbles
in the same way that the large bubbles
> >control the galaxies, and control the Fate of the Universe by "closing"
it.
>
> Your additions -guesses or added attachments- to what is already known
> still total up to nothing Lani. This is on your say so.
your disagrements are totaling up to nothing as well
as are my comments
looks like we got alot of nothing going on
why does it matter if he calls it io or dark matter
hes right the dark matter exists as a large whole<a planet/galaxy> and it
exists in the tiniest of creatures<single celled life> so it Must have an
influence on both that our science hasnt figured out yet
>
> >All religion is based on the fact that Io is deeper than Science can ever
get to.
>
> Well naturally LOL since X deity is always retreating, would you
> expect anything less :-D
>
deitys may be retreating
but the truth in them is growing
god isnt some wrathful bearded person in the clouds
its a word for a unexplainable thing
something you can only feel and know by searching for it
you may say that because it is unexplainable, that is proof that it does not
exist
but can you Truely explain the smell of a rose without letting someone smell
it
or truely understand an emotion without feeling it, for that matter can you
truely understand emotions at all
but the smell of roses, and emotions do exist right?
or are you waiting for science to explain it before you believe such myths?
> >What is Natural Law? How much does it weigh?
>
> What is the weight of my pink unicorn?
>
im guessing it is weightless, or at least were not yet able to weigh the
power of the imagination
if imagination is even affected by gravity<ya need gravity to have a weight>
> >What compels the entire known Cosmos to obey Planck's Constant?
>
> Who said that it does 'compel' -to make or force- the entire Cosmo's
> to obey?
>
i dont know what planck's constant is... but i agree... i doubt the entire
cosmo's obeys any one thing in particular other than its own confusing whims
and chaotic games
especially if it is a human built idea
> >And don't rely for your answers on others. They don't know.
>
> Well of course. Since when has science ever said "we know every single
> thing about everything"?
>
no where thats why you cant put all your faith into it
> That is usually left to those who believe in X deity or the said
> 'faith only' movement.
>
> >Ask a scientist if the dinosaurs were cold blooded
> >reptiles or warm blooded mammals. You'll get two different answers,
usually based on the age of who you ask.
> >Older scientists believe one theory, younger scientists believe another.
>
> So?
>
> >Ask a Physicist about the nature of Dark Matter or Natural Law, and
you'll get at least two different answers.
>
> LOL more than two I dare say.
>
> >Many physicists don't even know about the frothing of Dark Matter which
controls the shape of the galaxies and
> >closes the Universe. Some have never heard of "Dark Matter", but have
heard of "Missing Matter".
>
> Anyone can say the scientists don't know about ...... -fill in
> whatever product of imagination one wants to in the blank space-.
>
> Likewise anyone can pick up a text, search for a portion which is not
> yet resolved and shout 'Hey science doesn't know that' LOL.
>
> What you are forgetting is neither do you. You claim to, but you have
> no proof.
>
proof can only go so far... what about the things we cant prove
are you just going to pretend they arnt there till we can prove them?
> Likewise this gives *anyone* the opportunity to fill in the blanks
> with their own imagination or pet theories and claim it as 'true' or
> the real answer.
>
that is the real answer
any One and every One should search themselves enough to have some inspiring
ideas about the nature of reality
> Now because it is behind the excuse -or avoidance- of 'faith only' it
> is swallowed as correct.
>
blind faith isnt generally good
> >Science is as split as religion is. With as many different answers.
>
> Your climbing up the wrong tree here Lani. I have never stated science
> is unified or in agreement on all things. Go back and read the thread
> Pausaune & I were involved in.
>
> What is important however is that science progresses forward, whilst
> religion -supernatural, paranormal etc etc- recedes with each new
> discovery.
>
Wheres your proof that the spiritual recedes with each new discovery?
Your points dont prove that in the slightest.
> What is also interesting to note is that with each new discovery -or
> exposure of a fake miracle whatever- is that a new definition of terms
> or excuses has to be invented.
>
of course.. when more is learned you should incorporate the new information
to make a better idea
though i doubt any discovery proves any real miracle to be fake
> >So then, don't avoid it, how much does it cost for you to get a bucket of
Natural Law devoid of the MEST?
>
> Okay here is my answer: $2.20 AUD at the local intergalactic odds &
> ends store.
>
hehe! now your in the spirit
> You see if the question in the first place is not sensible then
> whatever answer is given is of equal worth.
>
> What makes the difference is, was the answer based on a verifiable
> fact? Was the question in the first place correct?
theres no such thing as facts
can a question be correct
>
> >What is Natural Law composed of?
>
> What is my pink unicorn composed of?
>
> >In the MEST Universe, what the Scientists call "Dark Matter" is what
> >theologically Hunians call the Will of Io.
>
> And this will of lo is? Is this will comprised of intelligence? Does
> it direct and make decisions?
>
science hasnt yet made an exact definition of this dark matter/will of io
so it would be hard to explain to someone centered on science worship
good questions now your thinkin =)
contemplate those questions or ask others what they think and call the will
of io dark matter if it makes you feel more comfortable
> >In the Metaphysical world, it is called Arte, or Beauty, or Quality.
>
> This is what you say once again, but based on what Lani? What
> evidence? None? Then it is only your words, not a fact, not evidence,
> nothing more.
>
Based on his own opinion, im sure he has reasons but your condeming the idea
before youve even heard the reasons
why do you obscess so much on evidence when it has so many drawbacks
Im of the opinion that there is alot more left to be proven, than things
that have already<supposedly> been proven<though any proof is really just
someones opinion of a proof and may have hidden variables that they never
considered> sounds like science is retreating from my angle.
You have yet to give me evidence that you have a physical body.
> That is the difference between myth and science. Myth can state
> anything it wants to and has no need to prove it or even test it.
>
There truely is more variables than we can consider
How do you know whether the scientists are truely proving their theorys, or
just causing their theorys to appear true because their belief in them is so
strong<one must have a sense of 'faith' in an idea to go through all the
effort of scientifically testing something and Trying to cut out all the
variables, that faith might just be the power that causes those theorys to
hold true, it works for mystics... why wouldnt it work for scientists?>
> >So let me ask you, of what is "quality" composed of? Where can I get a
> >bucket of it, devoid of MEST?
>
> The quality of the Pink Unicorn equals the new constant of the sub
> matter between the essence of Mu & Qwerty 'squared'. In fact it is the
> underlying principle of all the existences & non existences, seen and
> unseen.
>
> See how silly these questions are?
i dont think your seeing his point
or at least not trying to see his point
your just responding to everything he says in a contrary way<i suppose i did
quite a bit of that myself to you... hug... i just feel there are flaws to
needing Proof for everything... since there isnt proof for everything...>
>
> >Does Quality exist? If so, then what composes it? Quality is composed of
the Will of Io.
>
> You set the question -by your own theory- then you attempt to answer
> it by your own theory, uhhm doesn't that strike you as even a bit
> ludicrous?
>
wouldnt it be more ludicrous to propose a question according to one theory
and answer it according to another?
i think you missed the point here again
though im not sure if your even looking for one... it seems doubtful
> >Now do you begin to see the essential difference between Ethics and
Morality?
>
> Nope.
>
> What I have seen however is a set of very silly questions with equally
> silly answers all based on .... your belief that the questions were
> valid, sensible and real in the first place.
>
> >Religion and Science?
>
> Yes Religion obviously can say anything it wants to and people accept
> it to be true without any foundation whatsoever.
>
> Peyote.
Peyote-
have you had any experiences with entheogens?<such as peyote>
just curious<wink>
never
p.s.- this message took alot more time and effort than i had intended...
though i dunno yet if i said anything that you'll be able to absorb
i just want to point out that science is not infallable... to put all
your faith into it is silly
love
John C. Randolph
Nevermore wrote:
>
> If something does not make sense
> Then there is something to understand about it which escapes your present
> perspective.
That's one possibility. The other possibility is that it's hogwsh.
-jcr
Lani
John C. Randolph wrote:
> Nevermore wrote:
> >
> > If something does not make sense
> > Then there is something to understand about it which escapes your present
> > perspective.
>
> That's one possibility. The other possibility is that it's hogwsh.
>
> -jcr
When asked to present one's POV, And one honestly presents his POV, than it can
never be hogwash. It is the true answer to the question, as seen from the other
person's POV.
In this case, Peyote asked be questions concerning how the Hunian dynamics of
its theology works.
I explained it as best I could.
To seek to understand the dynamics of something, is to understand its dynamics,
and not necessarily to accept it for one's Mazeway.
But Peyote doesn't make a very good Iconoclast, he displays too much humanity.
liberator
<When asked to present one's POV, And one honestly presents his POV, than it
can never be hogwash. It is the true answer to the question, as seen from
the other person's POV.>
It can be hogwash if the axioms on which you base your claim are unsound.
<But Peyote doesn't make a very good Iconoclast, he displays too much
humanity.>
Lani, your continued attempts to use misdirection and insults to sidestep
issues doesn't help us find the truth.
Nevermore
liberator wrote in message <819jq2$h14$1...@Nntp1.mcs.net>...
>Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
><When asked to present one's POV, And one honestly presents his POV, than
it
>can never be hogwash. It is the true answer to the question, as seen from
>the other person's POV.>
>
>It can be hogwash if the axioms on which you base your claim are unsound.
your very contrary
that makes it fun to argue with you... but very difficult to actually
communicate with you
>
><But Peyote doesn't make a very good Iconoclast, he displays too much
>humanity.>
>
>Lani, your continued attempts to use misdirection and insults to sidestep
>issues doesn't help us find the truth.
and your condemnation of others ideas and beliefs doesn't help us<or you>
find the truth<if there is a truth to be found>
liberator
Nevermore <bloody...@hotmail.com> wrote:
liberator wrote in message <819jq2$h14$1...@Nntp1.mcs.net>...
>Lani <kahun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
><When asked to present one's POV, And one honestly presents his POV, than
it
>can never be hogwash. It is the true answer to the question, as seen from
>the other person's POV.>
>
>It can be hogwash if the axioms on which you base your claim are unsound.
<your very contrary. that makes it fun to argue with you... but very
difficult to actually communicate with you>
Thanks snookums. Try responding to my comments. It helps in the process of
communication. It also helps if you know how to use correct English, like
using capitalization.
liberator wrote:
><But Peyote doesn't make a very good Iconoclast, he displays too much
>humanity.>
>
>Lani, your continued attempts to use misdirection and insults to sidestep
>issues doesn't help us find the truth.
<and your condemnation of others ideas and beliefs doesn't help us<or you>
find the truth<if there is a truth to be found>
Asking questions and insisting on evidence isn't an attack unless said
persons wish to hide under a cloak of darkness for their own purposes.